As Seas Rise, Maldives Seek To Buy a New Homeland 521
Peace Corps Online writes "The Maldives will begin to divert a portion of the country's billion-dollar annual tourist revenue to buy a new homeland as insurance against climate change. Rising sea levels threaten to turn the 300,000 islanders into environmental refugees as the chain of 1,200 island and coral atolls dotted 500 miles from the tip of India is likely to disappear under the waves if the current pace of climate change continues to raise sea levels. The UN forecasts that the seas are likely to rise by up to 59 cm by the year 2100. Most parts of the Maldives are just 150 cm above water so even a 'small rise' in sea levels would inundate large parts of the archipelago. 'We can do nothing to stop climate change on our own and so we have to buy land elsewhere. It's an insurance policy for the worst possible outcome,' says the Muslim country's first democratically elected president, Mohamed Nasheed, adding that he has already broached the subject with a number of countries and found them to be 'receptive.' India and Sri Lanka are targets because they have similar cultures and climates; Australia is worth looking at because of the immense amount of unoccupied land in that country. 'We do not want to leave the Maldives, but we also do not want to be climate refugees living in tents for decades.'"
Re:Makes me recall Bangladesh (Score:3, Informative)
Well, I'd argue that it takes some money to immigrate, especially these days - the vast majority of truly poor people in Bangladesh can't do this (which is why the Indian government is so angry about poor Bangladeshis sneaking into India).
There's actually an interesting class distinction here - many of Bangladeshis in England were poorer (and did things like manual labor, restaurants, etc.) while those that immigrated to the U.S. in the 60s and 70s where much better educated and middle class and entered those jobs in the U.S. (education, medicine, and engineering). WIth tighter immigration restrictions in both England (and that's a joke! The English took out the last Mughal king in Bangladesh!) and the U.S. I suspect the poorest in Bangladesh have no chance at getting out legitimately.
Incidentally, how long before a Londoner of Bangladeshi background is no longer Bangladeshi and is just a Londoner? Three generations? Four?
The impression that I get is that though Bangladesh and England have been tied together for such a long time, no matter how long a Bangladeshi's lived in England s/he's still Bangladeshi and not English.
Build another island (Score:2, Informative)
Re:The lowest point in the Netherlands (Score:5, Informative)
The article specifically says that building seawalls around the many islands is prohibitively expensive.
Re:Floodbanks? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:The lowest point in the Netherlands (Score:2, Informative)
Re:A simple question (Score:5, Informative)
A simple answer: between 1993 and 2000, the mean rate was 3.1mm/year [wikipedia.org], and it is increasing. These islands are like, 150 centimeters above sea level. Not much margin there.
Re:A myth. (Score:3, Informative)
Don't they know that the Democrats now have total control of the US government and will sign the Kyoto Protocol, thus lowering sea levels?
The USA has already signed [wikipedia.org] the protocol. It has to be ratified, though.
Re:Floodbanks? (Score:2, Informative)
It's actually.....Republic of Maldives.
http://www.presidencymaldives.gov.mv/pages/index.php [presidency...ves.gov.mv]
http://www.maldivesinfo.gov.mv/home/index.php [maldivesinfo.gov.mv]
Re:The lowest point in the Netherlands (Score:4, Informative)
Build dams and dykes and stay safe.
Ever tried building dams and dykes around 1190 small coral islands? Look at this picture of Malé, the capital: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Male-total.jpg [wikipedia.org] Is it still worth living there with a 10 meeter dam around your city?
Re:There is a reason... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:A simple question (Score:1, Informative)
Should the Greenland ice cap melt again, then they may rise up to another 7 meters. That is the maximum.
7 metres is not the maximum. It may be unlikely, but the Antarctic ice *could* melt eventually (since it has in the distant past).
Re:Floodbanks? (Score:3, Informative)
Wouldn't constructing floodbanks (dikes) be a must cheaper option? Here in Amsterdam we live 1.5 meter below sea level but I have no reason to worry...
The issue is really with the unique geography of the Maldives. The country is actually a chain of 1,000+ tiny islands - some of them barely large enough to actually be called an island. You'd have to import all the raw materials for those dikes, and you'd wind up with more wall than land in many places.
Re:Where were they 500 years ago? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Are they smoking crack? (Score:3, Informative)
That calculator is doing it wrong, and the web page was clearly written by someone who doesn't know what they're talking about.
Re:A myth. (Score:1, Informative)
The plans I have seen include an import tax on goods coming into the US from countries that are not reducing emissions. But that doesn't help the US with what's left of our export markets.
Re:waterworld...or canal world (Score:4, Informative)
Virg
Re:Um (Score:5, Informative)
It takes more than a state of mind, and you're dismissing their problems too easily.
1. The Netherlands took 1000 years or more to get where we are now. For the last 100 years, we've been continuously building major infrastructure to keep dry feet.
2. The Netherlands has money to burn (and has been in that fortunate situation for hundreds of years now). We spend on the order of the Maledives' entire GDP ($ 1.5 B) every year.
3. For a long time, land reclamation projects were extremely unambitious, no more than what a farmer and his personnel could achieve in the off-season. Each year the farmer would add another few hundred m of dikes and reclaim a patch of land. After 100 years of that, you've got quite a bit of land, but this only works if the area you're working is shallow marshes. The Maledives don't have that easy option. They would need to go for the expensive option (working directly against the ocean) immediately.
4. All of our (.nl) efforts were directed at shortening the coastline, which is easy enough if most of the area is land with low marshes in between. The Maledives would need to fortify 650 km of coastline in short order.
Re:A myth. (Score:4, Informative)
No it's real (probably), but it's not man-made.
You mean it's real, and it's probably man-made. There is still some discussion about that last part because climate and sea levels fluctuate naturally, but theory has predicted that rising CO2 levels will cause oceans to rise, and now that it's actually happening, that same theory is still the best explanation. There's also sun spots and stuff like that, but those explanations leave a gap. A gap that's nicely filled by the theory that rising CO2 levels cause global warming.
Re:A simple question (Score:3, Informative)
Numbers from the USGS. [usgs.gov]
If East Antarctica melts, we're looking at a 64.8m rise in sea level.
Re:A myth. (Score:5, Informative)
As a religious mindset wasn't really the root cause here, I'm not sure the conflict relates to GP's comment.
Eh, my only intent was to show the stupidity of the GP's comment that "only Christians are that dumb". I think you'll find your fair share of stupidity among all religions -- indeed, among all peoples.
Re:The lowest point in the Netherlands (Score:4, Informative)
I hate to break it to you but Mother Nature/Gaia will always win. You might get lucky and never see that day but all the Netherlands is doing is postponing the inevitable.
Don't worry. We've got lots of lifeboats in case our country sinks. Which has already been happening for quite some time now, by the way. Even when you're not comparing with the sea level, our land in sinking. The continental shelf is moving downward, the soil is drying out. Were sinking it at least three different ways at the same time. We're good at sinking.
Here's a recent example - New Orleans was almost destroyed _by a storm._ Building a city in a region that is dangerous is stupid. Sorry to be so blunt, but it is.
Not at all. It's quite often very profitable to build a city in a dangerous area. Slopes of volcanoes are very fertile, for example. The mouth of a river (like Netherland or New Orleans) is a great place for a port.
I don't know about New Orleans, but Netherland is rich enough to continue fighting for a few more centuries.
Ruh Roh (Score:5, Informative)
"Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (Gerlach, 1999, 1991). This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts. Emissions of CO2 by human activities, including fossil fuel burning, cement production, and gas flaring, amount to about 27 billion tonnes per year (30 billion tons) [ ( Marland, et al., 2006) - The reference gives the amount of released carbon (C), rather than CO2, through 2003.]. Human activities release more than 130 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes--the equivalent of more than 8,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea (Kilauea emits about 3.3 million tonnes/year)! (Gerlach et. al., 2002)"
http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/index.php
Global Warming Modding Guide (Score:2, Informative)
1) To get modded Insightful:
Say man is responsible for Global Warming
2) To get modded Flamebait, Troll, Offtopic:
Have a healthy skepticism of #1
Re:A myth. (Score:3, Informative)
That's actually not true.
Compare this [wikipedia.org] with this [usgs.gov], and you'll find that your Random Regurgitated Factoid is, in fact, bollocks.
Thanks for playing PAFOOYA (Pull A Fact Out Of Your Arse).
Blown out of proportion ? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:A myth. (Score:2, Informative)
1. Is global warming a true process?
ANSWER: YES. We are simply getting closer to the middle of interglacial period.
2. Is the humankind activity a main source of global warming?
ANSWER: NO. Global warming has started after last glacial period somewhere between 10,000 and 15,000 BP and most likely is caused by changes in Sun activity.
Re:Moving to India? Forget it (Score:2, Informative)
Let me guess... you dont live in India, do you? Let me inform you that its not just Muslims who have demanded a separate state, its simply leaders who want more power demand separate state and want oust every other person born out-of-the-state from the state.
You might want to google for Raj Thackeray. He is demanding that every person not born in Maharashtra should leave the state. And he has been quite successful at it too.
You might also want to look at Telugu Desam Party's claim for separate Telungana state.
The way I see it, its always the politicians making an issue out caste, race. It was Jinnah et all for pakistan.
Do you mind explaining me what the f--- did this all have to do with being a muslim?
Re:Ruh Roh (Score:1, Informative)
http://www.stop-global-warming.co.uk/ [stop-globa...ming.co.uk]
Re:Moving to India? Forget it (Score:4, Informative)
A plague on both your houses - and on the people who modded up this partisan bullshit. 1. There has been plenty of Hindu on Muslim violence since independence, and 2. not all Muslims are terrorist, for fuck's sake.
Re:A simple question (Score:1, Informative)
CO2 *DOUBLED* thanks to man over last hundred years.
If you are going to say, "I don't give a shit about global warmining and its consequences. And I certainly don't give a shit about doing anything about it", then just say it. Just say it, not state BULLSHIT in-spite of reality.
Scientists provide you with information about *reality* in this world. If you chose to ignore that, at least state it. Not sit on your high horse spewing worthless shit and insulting everyone that actually has a job trying to understand *reality*.
Wikipedia says what it says because that's what scientists agree to say. Scientists agree to say what they say based on their own observations and comparisons with others. So fuck off if you don't want to listen to what scientists say - what reality states.
And if you think that thousands and thousands of people that deal with modeling and understanding *climate* (no, not some "weatherman" on XYZ station) don't look at history to see how climate changed in the past, including sea levels, then you are truly, truly fucked in the head.
This has nothing to do with "alarmist crap". It is simple - accept *reality*. At least have the balls to accept it and say "I don't give a fuck" instead of being in this hopeless state of denial.
Greenhouses (Score:3, Informative)
The greenhouse effect works. It's the basis of ... er ... greenhouses. Glass is an "odorless colorless" substance that's transparent to visible light but blocks infrared. Light enters the greenhouse, hits something inside, the innards warm up, the warm objects try to re-radiate the energy as infrared, and the glass stops that IR getting out again.
Similarly with CO2. Transparent to visible light, not so transparent to infrared.
Think of the difference between a dry winter night with and without cloud cover. The temperature tends to drop faster on the cloudless nights, yes? So greenhouse gases are like "one-way" cloud cover, they don't stop the sunlight coming in, but help keep the heat in once it's here.
So the greenhouse effect itself is real. The questions are:
(a) Is our climate currently changing in a significant way?
(b) How much of this is due to greenhouse effects?
(c) How much of the greenhouse contribution is due to human activity? And
(d) What are the cost-benefit implications of doing nothing versus doing something?