Re: [asa] Creation Care

I think you are finding a difference between us that doesn't exist. I
wouldn't use the word "devestating". Nevertheless, this is serious.
The global warming deniers would keep us from doing the necessary
planning to move people away from the coasts because the problem is
not real. For example, we could remove the subsidy for federal flood
insurance near the coast for properties over $250,000. This would give
a financial incentive for people to move away. Future airports need to
spend the extra money not to to be built in low-lying areas. In fact,
we really need to do things like this because in my opinion Kyoto is
fatally flawed. It was based on the success of SO2 cap and trade. But
there was a small number of large sources and those sources of SO2
would then have a financial interest in decreasing it with a cap and
trade. CO2 on the other hand has a large number of small sources and
sinks some of which are natural. In the end, it is probably moot
whether the CO2 was human caused or not because we will probably have
limited success in reducing it.

On 1/20/07, David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com> wrote:
> Or to put it more home. New York area:
> 1. Governor's Island underwater
> 2. Newark Airport underwater
>
> Ok, so let's say that this is so. Why is this sort of thing necessarily
> "devastating" for society as a whole? Remember, we're talking over a 100 or
> so year period here. This isn't going to happen suddenly, tomorrow, without
> warning. There was no "Newark Airport" 100 years ago. 100 years from now,
> even if there is no rise in sea level, we have no idea whether there will be
> a need for Newark Airport in any event. Perhaps in 100 years, there will be
> a new urban center in central New Jersey, with a space elevator composed of
> carbon nanotubes. Who knows? Maybe planning for that sort of contingency
> is on the whole better for society than spending whatever resources are
> needed to keep Newark Airport dry. I don't know whether that's the case or
> not, but I do think it's useful to put this kind of stark-sounding warning
> into context. The assumption seems to be that people can't adapt to
> environmental change and that any environmental change is bad. 10,000 years
> ago, the Newark Basin was covered by 800-meter thick glaciers. At earlier
> times, it was part of a coastal plain. Things change.
>
> On 1/20/07, Rich Blinne <rich.blinne@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 1/20/07, Bill Hamilton <williamehamiltonjr@yahoo.com > wrote:
> > >
> > > --- David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > *Re: "dramatic"
> > > > How about instead of "dramatic", I said "exceedingly anomalous
> compared to
> > > > natural variability"?*
> > > >
> > > > That sounds fair.
> > > >
> > > > *Of course this is a worst case scenario - but suppose sea level only
> rose a
> > > > small fraction of that - would a 10' rise in sea level have
> devastating
> > > > effects*?
> > > >
> > > There are some low lying island nations in the Pacific that would
> consider a 10
> > > ft rise devastating.
> >
> > Or to put it more home. New York area:
> >
> > 1. Governor's Island underwater
> > 2. Newark Airport underwater
> >
> > Washington DC
> >
> > 1. Base of Washington Monument underwater
> > 2. Base of Jefferson Monument underwater
> > 3. National Botanic Gardens underwater
> >
> > New Orleans
> >
> > 1. Louis Armstrong Airport underwater
> >
>
>
>
> --
> David W. Opderbeck
> Web: http://www.davidopderbeck.com
> Blog: http://www.davidopderbeck.com/throughaglass.html
> MySpace (Music): http://www.myspace.com/davidbecke

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Jan 20 16:38:56 2007