> The point is returning to those levels means abandoning Baltimore, Houston, much of Los Angeles and most of Miami and multi-trillion dollar projects to protect San Francisco, New York and Boston.
Here’s my problem with all this stuff. All the science says LA, NYC, etc. are going to be underwater. Not maybe, not in the worst case, no. All the reporting says this is pretty much a forgone conclusion, and has for many years.
So why have these cities not started working on erecting (say) 50ft tall “future-proof” sea walls? Even if they end up not being needed, it _seems_ like this is the type of climate change mitigation step that would be a prudent thing to do. Certainly more so than the whole lot of nothing currently being done. Surely LA and NYC politicians and voters, being so much more educated than all those dumb red state hicks would be in favor of that, wouldn’t they?
> why have these cities not started working on erecting (say) 50ft tall “future-proof” sea walls?
Because we don’t need to yet? Also, a sea wall doesn’t block, it deflects. Protecting Manhattan means deflecting those surges to e.g. Long Island and New Jersey. That’s a difficult conversation much easier had after a hurricane washes away some of the opposition (and/or generates urgency in the core).
> LA and NYC politicians and voters, being so much more educated than all those dumb red state hicks would be in favor of that, wouldn’t they?
Yes, but they’ll do what those states do with their own climate risks: wait for a catastrophic failure that ultimately costs more but unlocks federal funding and so costs less locally.
In short there's no actual will and people think short term.
A bit longer:
Good luck sourcing that from taxes. People vote, and those projects would A, fall to graft, B piss off many in your voter base both as a consequence of the graft and the general disagreement over their value.
The answer is you would see the people who greenlit the projects voted out and the projects would be scuttled.
People can say they know this is a problem but because its in the abstract most of your voter base just won't go for it and it's squarely in a "people don't actually vote in their best interest" type of problem.
It's a riot trying to get a few new MTA tunnels approved and needed repair and modernization for the NYC subways is always basically just out of the question.
So 50 ft sea walls? Yeah people would actually be under water and still doubting the need for them.
Here’s my problem with all this stuff. All the science says LA, NYC, etc. are going to be underwater. Not maybe, not in the worst case, no. All the reporting says this is pretty much a forgone conclusion, and has for many years.
So why have these cities not started working on erecting (say) 50ft tall “future-proof” sea walls? Even if they end up not being needed, it _seems_ like this is the type of climate change mitigation step that would be a prudent thing to do. Certainly more so than the whole lot of nothing currently being done. Surely LA and NYC politicians and voters, being so much more educated than all those dumb red state hicks would be in favor of that, wouldn’t they?