PDA

View Full Version : Trump.... buys new Beach Front Condo... in...



Rot
06-01-2017, 02:10 PM
KANSAS!!! (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-40127326)

Muhahahahahaha:D

Global Warming?... What Global Warming!:keke:

xROTx

Takumaji
06-01-2017, 02:11 PM
Thankfully I have friends who live in the Austrian alps so I have my little safe space when the flood comes :D

SteveNK
06-01-2017, 03:20 PM
Fuck Trump for this. What a retarded joke.

Yodd
06-01-2017, 05:38 PM
I don't even know what to say about this.

Between this and his decision to cut the Environmental Protection Agency (who I work for) budget by 30%, it's pretty clear to me he doesn't have a firm grasp on anything relating to the environment. As long as businesses can keep making a buck, that is all he cares about.

American First! More like Profits first.

SteveNK
06-01-2017, 05:47 PM
If I didn't know how pointless it all was, I'd be rallying behind some 'boycott US goods' campaign or something, I'm that disgusted. But it all makes no difference so whatever.

Yodd
06-01-2017, 06:28 PM
That brings up an interesting question: besides some automobiles, is made in the USA even a thing in the U.K. or Europe?

SteveNK
06-01-2017, 06:32 PM
It isn't a huge thing now I think about it. Zippos, maglites, fast food (which isn't actually made in the US obviously) is about all I can think of. I assume most of our major US imports are industrial.

Yodd
06-01-2017, 07:13 PM
I totally wouldn't be surprised to see countries start banning imports from the US. Or attaching massive tariffs to them.

Trump just fucked our country, again.

mjmjr25
06-01-2017, 08:03 PM
There's a reason President Obama didn't bring this to the congress. I don't think most people have read, or perhaps, don't understand the accord.

This is not about global warming. At all. I think a lot people suspect it is.

The rub is that this accord has ZERO accountability, ZERO enforcement and ZERO infrastructure to verify individual country reports.

The only requirements of the accord are to: announce your individual country goals and present reports on your progress. The US, Canada, most of Europe and part of Asia would very likely set stringent regulations to meet our stated goals. This is something were very good at - regulation and red tape. This is something the up and coming fossil fuel giants are not good at.

If there were "errors" in reporting or falsifying information - there would be whistleblowers at every level along the way. Investigating and reporting - another thing we are very good at...and another thing others are not very good at.

Every significant big US company supported this deal - they will be the ones shaping the regulatory laws with lobbyists, they are the ones who already have staff and programs in place to deal with regulation, they are the ones who will have shaped the law for significant tax breaks, and they are the ones who will use the accord as an excuse to cut salary while not actually affecting their bottom line. In contrast, small businesses do not have any of those things and those are the folks this would absolutely crush.

This is not a denial that we can't do things to protect the environment, to improve the environment. This is a decision to be practical. A decision to put in a system of checks and balances with actual teeth. Do you believe India or China are prepared to enact changes that slow their economies, or do you think it's more likely they would fudge their numbers? Renegotiating the accord suggests President Trump believes the latter and I tend to agree with that line of thinking. The Euros are so quick to take the brave stance and get the kudos they've forgotten the past 50 years of history with the governments of China and Russia.

Global warming is real and we should as a country and as individuals make good and less convenient decisions with respect to the Earth, but this was a bad deal, and not just for America.

norton9478
06-01-2017, 09:08 PM
There's a reason President Obama didn't bring this to the congress. .

Yep... It is because he didn't have to.

The framework was already voted for by congress in 1992. And all items that did not comport were non-binding.

Evil Wasabi
06-01-2017, 09:15 PM
This is something the up and coming fossil fuel giants are not good at.

dude, there's something really backward about that sentence.

wyo
06-01-2017, 09:35 PM
Mike, your arguments are eloquent and sound reasonable but they're absolutely ridiculous.

Are you honestly suggesting every country should be independently monitored and inspected because the agreement is some nefarious conspiracy to game the system and disadvantage American small business? Your post sounds like an RNC press release. Who, exactly, is being crushed by this?

What's more important, "small business" or the future of mankind and the planet? The perfect is the enemy of the good. Every other signatory supports the agreement. Business supports the agreement. Religious institutions support the agreement. Scientists support the agreement. Citizens support the agreement. Only Trump and Trump apologists like you do not.

lachlan
06-02-2017, 07:24 AM
187 different nations agreeing on something... fuck that right? bunch of chumps.

ahcmetal
06-02-2017, 11:42 AM
Mike, your arguments are eloquent and sound reasonable but they're absolutely ridiculous.

Are you honestly suggesting every country should be independently monitored and inspected because the agreement is some nefarious conspiracy to game the system and disadvantage American small business? Your post sounds like an RNC press release. Who, exactly, is being crushed by this?

What's more important, "small business" or the future of mankind and the planet? The perfect is the enemy of the good. Every other signatory supports the agreement. Business supports the agreement. Religious institutions support the agreement. Scientists support the agreement. Citizens support the agreement. Only Trump and Trump apologists like you do not.

I think he's saying the joke with this is that there's no actual enforcement for any of the countries that signed on. I agree...there's no way i'd ever trust China to not lie through their teeth. Self reporting is a joke. If this is to be done right, there needs to be actual consequences for not performing, otherwise the US and a small handful of other countries will be left doing all the heavy lifting...

SteveNK
06-02-2017, 02:04 PM
I think he's saying the joke with this is that there's no actual enforcement for any of the countries that signed on. I agree...there's no way i'd ever trust China to not lie through their teeth. Self reporting is a joke. If this is to be done right, there needs to be actual consequences for not performing, otherwise the US and a small handful of other countries will be left doing all the heavy lifting...

And wyo's point was yeah, but what's the alternative, do fuck all? If America can say hand on heart that they are fulfilling their end of the bargain (on terms that they, the country themselves, offered forwards as what they would do) that's the best anyone can do.

Some will cheat, some will lie. Still have to try.

You're not going to get every country in the world to sign up to an agreement that includes threats.

ForeverSublime
06-02-2017, 03:11 PM
If countries determine their numbers then they could "lie" on their estimation, no?

This sounds like company earning estimates. Companies releases their estimates for the next year/quarter, but experts release their estimates for the company as well. Some companies have a history of always beating estimates because they purposefully set them low.

I'd be interested to see how the numbers are parsed out. There are 50 states in the USA. . . 50 countries in Europe. . . but more on point, the USA and Europe are roughly the same size in square miles. Would the USA's numbers be the same as the sum of Europe's? Or would the USA be much less because it's one country?

While not always true, the old saying, "The solution to pollution is dilution" would be relevant, no? Whatever outputs they're measuring would be affected by their geographic concentration? So, if you have a bunch of countries closer together that are all outputting at some level, that would be worse than if those countries were further apart? And if you have a single country that meets their numbers, that wouldn't actually be good if all the outputs were concentrated in a single city, right?

I know zilch about this stuff, really.

ahcmetal
06-02-2017, 04:38 PM
And wyo's point was yeah, but what's the alternative, do fuck all? If America can say hand on heart that they are fulfilling their end of the bargain (on terms that they, the country themselves, offered forwards as what they would do) that's the best anyone can do.

Some will cheat, some will lie. Still have to try.

You're not going to get every country in the world to sign up to an agreement that includes threats.

If this is *truly* an immediate global threat...and I mean truly...then we all have the exact same interest in solving the problem. And yes, any country that actively doesn't participate yet reaps the benefits of the rest of the world slowing their economies down for the greater good should absolutely be punished.

Seeing as how the Paris agreement...is voluntary and *self policed* by countries with histories of playing by their own rules...the whole thing is completely laughable. What's the point of the agreement? There's no accountability. That kind of suggests the problem isn't an imminent threat if the topic isn't even worth enforcing. The Paris Accord is treating the topic of global warming with zero respect, if it's not worth enforcing...it's pretty hard to take seriously.

SteveNK
06-02-2017, 05:14 PM
If this is *truly* an immediate global threat...and I mean truly...then we all have the exact same interest in solving the problem. And yes, any country that actively doesn't participate yet reaps the benefits of the rest of the world slowing their economies down for the greater good should absolutely be punished.

Seeing as how the Paris agreement...is voluntary and *self policed* by countries with histories of playing by their own rules...the whole thing is completely laughable. What's the point of the agreement? There's no accountability. That kind of suggests the problem isn't an imminent threat if the topic isn't even worth enforcing. The Paris Accord is treating the topic of global warming with zero respect, if it's not worth enforcing...it's pretty hard to take seriously.

*truly* an immediate global threat in who's eyes? Scientists? Politicians? Average Joe?

Who would you like to take it seriously and how? If Britain threatens to nuke France if it doesn't recycle pringles tubes would global warming become more believable?

What do you want to happen?

ahcmetal
06-02-2017, 06:30 PM
*truly* an immediate global threat in who's eyes? Scientists? Politicians? Average Joe?

Who would you like to take it seriously and how? If Britain threatens to nuke France if it doesn't recycle pringles tubes would global warming become more believable?

What do you want to happen?

Half the political spectrum is melting down today. If global warming is as big of a threat as some have been claiming it to be for the last few decades...then we all deserve everybody you listed to take this extremely seriously. Obama was nearly sainted after putting his name to that document, and that document means about as much as a middle school winter coat drive initiative. "Yeahhhh...there's a problem, people need coats, if you'd like to participate that's cool, if not...that's cool too, you won't get in trouble, it's voluntary anyways..."

It's absolutely insane that's the best they could do while crafting this document, especially given how big of a fuss they've been making about the topic for years now. This was the time world leaders had to take the issue head on and we got a volunteer sign up sheet. Here we are, number 1 and 2 in carbon emissions, the USA and China...and the rest of the world expects us to wager our jobs/industry/economic growth against...China's good word that they'll play fair. Along with every other country on that list??

LAUGHABLE.

Basically, if you're a person who truly believes we are the cause *and* we are the solution to global warming...don't bother being pissed at Trump, you should have been pissed off a year ago when the best you got was that hollow agreement.

SteveNK
06-02-2017, 07:17 PM
Half the political spectrum is melting down today. If global warming is as big of a threat as some have been claiming it to be for the last few decades...then we all deserve everybody you listed to take this extremely seriously.

I agree. I listed you, so.... do you?


Obama was nearly sainted after putting his name to that document, and that document means about as much as a middle school winter coat drive initiative. "Yeahhhh...there's a problem, people need coats, if you'd like to participate that's cool, if not...that's cool too, you won't get in trouble, it's voluntary anyways..."

Do you reckon winter coat drive initiatives generate any winter coats?


It's absolutely insane that's the best they could do while crafting this document, especially given how big of a fuss they've been making about the topic for years now. This was the time world leaders had to take the issue head on and we got a volunteer sign up sheet. Here we are, number 1 and 2 in carbon emissions, the USA and China...and the rest of the world expects us to wager our jobs/industry/economic growth against...China's good word that they'll play fair. Along with every other country on that list??

LAUGHABLE.

Are you using the good word of the West as some kind of moral high ground here? Are you for real?


Basically, if you're a person who truly believes we are the cause *and* we are the solution to global warming...don't bother being pissed at Trump, you should have been pissed off a year ago when the best you got was that hollow agreement.

The agreement is only as hollow as the number of winter coats it does or doesn't generate.

Notice of intention can be a powerful thing. Would you expect your missus to be fucking other men more when you were married, or when she'd just divorced you?

wyo
06-02-2017, 07:31 PM
Every negative argument in this thread is fucking ignorant and contrarian. When you have an agreement with over 100 countries agreeing, of course it's never going to be perfect, or even close to it. Let's hear some alternative ideas other than doing fuck all. Still waiting to hear what Murican small businesses will be ruined as well.

Fuzzytaco
06-02-2017, 09:17 PM
Every negative argument in this thread is fucking ignorant and contrarian. When you have an agreement with over 100 countries agreeing, of course it's never going to be perfect, or even close to it. Let's hear some alternative ideas other than doing fuck all. Still waiting to hear what Murican small businesses will be ruined as well.

But..but...all the coal miners. How will they afford their Oxys?

ahcmetal
06-02-2017, 09:42 PM
I agree. I listed you, so.... do you?

Do you reckon winter coat drive initiatives generate any winter coats?

Some, on a volunteer basis...point being its voluntary because it's not actually important enough to be mandatory...that was the comparison...

Are you using the good word of the West as some kind of moral high ground here? Are you for real?

The agreement is only as hollow as the number of winter coats it does or doesn't generate.

Notice of intention can be a powerful thing. Would you expect your missus to be fucking other men more when you were married, or when she'd just divorced you?

Currently I'm not terribly concerned with it.

Some, on a volunteer basis...point being its voluntary because it's not actually important enough to be mandatory...that was the comparison...

Morals...don't apply here, it's politics and business. It was a hustle from the start, China's not gonna play fair and shoot itself in the foot economically if they don't have to.

It's hollow because it's not a *binding* agreement. No penalty for failure.

If climate change is really as important as the media says it is, it really deserves more than *intentions* on paper.

SpamYouToDeath
06-02-2017, 10:10 PM
Morals...don't apply here, it's politics and business. It was a hustle from the start, China's not gonna play fair and shoot itself in the foot economically if they don't have to.

It's hollow because it's not a *binding* agreement. No penalty for failure.

If climate change is really as important as the media says it is, it really deserves more than *intentions* on paper.

First, I find this a tremendously cynical view. If other countries in fact fail to carry out their promises, then we can look at the consequences. Getting preemptively punitive doesn't help. You need to start with the assumption that you can and will work together.

On top of that, how do you expect to reach a binding, enforceable agreement if you can't even declare your intentions to address the problem together? You have to start somewhere - and we had started. There's only going to be more collaboration here in the future, as China and India continue to suffer the effects of pollution and gain the means to do something about it. But now, we've shot ourselves in the foot, declaring that we're not interested in solving the problem but would rather bicker about protectionism.

The real pain will happen when the rest of the world begins enforcing emissions rules in their trade deals, and the US is a decade or more behind in having the technology and accounting practices to comply.

(Time to start telling everyone I'm Canadian again. :keke: )

hyper
06-02-2017, 11:20 PM
give away billions and billions of dollars for literally nothing in return..

yea wow this type of shit only makes sense to mf's w no money

SpamYouToDeath
06-03-2017, 01:50 AM
give away billions and billions of dollars for literally nothing in return..

yea wow this type of shit only makes sense to mf's w no money

Spending money on a common interest is not giving it away, and there's far from nothing in return.

SteveNK
06-03-2017, 02:34 AM
Currently I'm not terribly concerned with it.

Some, on a volunteer basis...point being its voluntary because it's not actually important enough to be mandatory...that was the comparison...

Morals...don't apply here, it's politics and business. It was a hustle from the start, China's not gonna play fair and shoot itself in the foot economically if they don't have to.

It's hollow because it's not a *binding* agreement. No penalty for failure.

If climate change is really as important as the media says it is, it really deserves more than *intentions* on paper.

Got it. You don't think it's important until it is treated seriously by politicians who are elected based on guessing what you think is important.

Joseph Heller would be proud.

ahcmetal
06-03-2017, 11:53 AM
Got it. You don't think it's important until it is treated seriously by politicians who are elected based on guessing what you think is important.

Joseph Heller would be proud.

Nooooo not at all actually, in your above statement politicians are *guessing* at popularity for policy. Not facts. We need to do what's factually correct, not what's popular. We've all heard many times now that "The case is closed on global warming, it's man made and it's a fact." So...why didn't the paris accord treat it as the threat they've been telling us it is? Why didn't Obama even bother submitting it to congress for approval??

Your first posts in the thread were fuck Trump, I'm disgusted and boycott US goods. I would assume either you like being on the fuck Trump for anything bandwagon or you have real, legitimate global warming concerns and feel like the US pulling out does pose a very real threat. If it's the former, your entitled to your opinion...if it's the latter...I'm saying peoples anger at Trump is misplaced. They should be highly upset with the people that formed a document that won't fix the problem they're concerned about. The paris accord currently is a hustle for the US and any other developed nation that more or less plays by the rules.

It shouldn't be fuck Trump for leaving a poorly written agreement, is should be fuck those who crafted such a poorly designed plan from the start.

norton9478
06-03-2017, 01:54 PM
The biggest joke is that people think that Big Coal will come back.

SteveNK
06-03-2017, 02:24 PM
Nooooo not at all actually, in your above statement politicians are *guessing* at popularity for policy. Not facts. We need to do what's factually correct, not what's popular. We've all heard many times now that "The case is closed on global warming, it's man made and it's a fact." So...why didn't the paris accord treat it as the threat they've been telling us it is? Why didn't Obama even bother submitting it to congress for approval??

Your first posts in the thread were fuck Trump, I'm disgusted and boycott US goods. I would assume either you like being on the fuck Trump for anything bandwagon or you have real, legitimate global warming concerns and feel like the US pulling out does pose a very real threat. If it's the former, your entitled to your opinion...if it's the latter...I'm saying peoples anger at Trump is misplaced. They should be highly upset with the people that formed a document that won't fix the problem they're concerned about. The paris accord currently is a hustle for the US and any other developed nation that more or less plays by the rules.

It shouldn't be fuck Trump for leaving a poorly written agreement, is should be fuck those who crafted such a poorly designed plan from the start.

You've just said the same thing again in a different order. Your whole argument is a circular reference.

K_K
06-03-2017, 06:13 PM
The biggest joke is that people think that Big Coal will come back.

Do people think that? Like for real? Is there anyone that dumb? The coal industry is a hundred year old geriatric fuck. taking a cocktail of pills to stay alive. Remembering the good old days, and revered by some morons as some kind of hero. The coal industry is Kirk Douglas. Lot of people forget he raped Natalie wood. Kinda like how coal ruined life for millions of people who died on the job or died from the job. Coal and Kirk. A couple of blights in their respective industries.

norton9478
06-03-2017, 08:51 PM
Do people think that? Like for real? Is there anyone that dumb? .

Yes.

These people in coal county believe that the only reason why coal is sliding is because of environmental rules.
They don't understand that it just can't compete with natural gas. These are the same yuck yucks who were chanting "Drill Here, Drill Now".
Congratulations, you just chanted away your own industry.

lithy
06-03-2017, 09:04 PM
Ask California how that Hydrogen fleet is coming along since they jumped the gun and decided that the reason no one had fuel cell cars on the market was because there was no support infrastructure.

Ask the federal government how well they were able to make people buy ethanol and at what cost.

Ask Elon Musk where all of his Model 3 buyers will be when the subsidies run out.

If the agreement was non-binding then what the fuck is it worth anyway?

'Fixing' the planet is a proposition that will bankrupt major economic powers. It is nice to talk about it but until fossil fuels and oil specifically get to a point where alternatives are naturally competitive and not subsidized into competitiveness, then it is like a quadruple amputee climbing Everest. It will only get done on the backs of others.

lithy
06-03-2017, 09:43 PM
Citizens support the agreement. Only Trump and Trump apologists like you do not.

So "Trump apologists" aren't citizens? Or not true citizens at least, I guess.

wyo
06-03-2017, 09:56 PM
You've just said the same thing again in a different order. Your whole argument is a circular reference.

That's what passes for debate in America.


So "Trump apologists" aren't citizens? Or not true citizens at least, I guess.

That's clearly not what I said, unless your comprehension is limited to boolean logic.

SpamYouToDeath
06-03-2017, 11:41 PM
If the agreement was non-binding then what the fuck is it worth anyway?

'Fixing' the planet is a proposition that will bankrupt major economic powers. It is nice to talk about it but until fossil fuels and oil specifically get to a point where alternatives are naturally competitive and not subsidized into competitiveness, then it is like a quadruple amputee climbing Everest. It will only get done on the backs of others.

Well, you answered your own question - it's non-binding because it involves basic research into as-yet-unknown technologies that will improve the efficiency of renewable power sources. We can use statistics to estimate the impact of spending, and the resulting efficiency increases, but we can't guarantee it. No one wants to bankrupt themselves if the research doesn't turn out well.

That's not an excuse to give up without trying.

lithy
06-04-2017, 07:45 AM
Well, you answered your own question - it's non-binding because it involves basic research into as-yet-unknown technologies that will improve the efficiency of renewable power sources. We can use statistics to estimate the impact of spending, and the resulting efficiency increases, but we can't guarantee it. No one wants to bankrupt themselves if the research doesn't turn out well.

That's not an excuse to give up without trying.

It is a perfectly good reason for the government to give up without trying.

One of the things that people are consistently upset with the federal government about is corporate tax breaks and subsidies. This is what we are talking about doing, only because the tech is 'green' then I guess the feds picking winners and losers instead of a market need is all of the sudden perfectly ok. Anything is better than nothing they say. An inefficient tech boosted by federal money hinders real advances, and ultimately the tech will develop when there is a need.

This sort of stuff is ok for states and local governments to decide, but the feds will not be able to figure out a 50 state solution without a significant amount of unintended consequences. The federal government is enormously bloated as is, I would prefer to avoid having to stifle an entire economy in a vain attempt at 'solving' something that we don't actually know has a fix.

lithy
06-04-2017, 07:48 AM
That's clearly not what I said, unless your comprehension is limited to boolean logic.

Then help me understand the statement "Citizens support the agreement", if in fact not all citizens support the agreement. You are appealing to a majority. "Well everybody wants this so you should too.

SpamYouToDeath
06-04-2017, 01:49 PM
It is a perfectly good reason for the government to give up without trying.


I fundamentally disagree. Basic research is essential and does not receive appropriate effort in a market. You cannot give up incentivizing it. To do so would be catastrophic for science and engineering in general.

Evil Wasabi
06-04-2017, 02:16 PM
It is a perfectly good reason for the government to give up without trying.

One of the things that people are consistently upset with the federal government about is corporate tax breaks and subsidies. This is what we are talking about doing, only because the tech is 'green' then I guess the feds picking winners and losers instead of a market need is all of the sudden perfectly ok. Anything is better than nothing they say. An inefficient tech boosted by federal money hinders real advances, and ultimately the tech will develop when there is a need.

This sort of stuff is ok for states and local governments to decide, but the feds will not be able to figure out a 50 state solution without a significant amount of unintended consequences. The federal government is enormously bloated as is, I would prefer to avoid having to stifle an entire economy in a vain attempt at 'solving' something that we don't actually know has a fix.

Not sure how pulling out of the Paris accord will ameliorate the dissatisfaction with corporate tax breaks and subsidies. Seems more likely that it will allow people to escalate their anger at the government for letting corporations rape their environments and poison their kids. Think of all the people who developed cancer from waste dumping without proper regulatory standards. I mean, i get it. You're happy with the detachment from the modern world and soon the neo-geo.com firearm thread will become relevant again as we slide into anarchy, but the function of government should be to protect its people, and it is clear that Trump's cronies are not willing to uphold that responsibility.

norton9478
06-04-2017, 02:22 PM
Ask the federal government how well they were able to make people buy ethanol and at what cost.


I'm sorry, but MTBE is nasty shit. Not as nasty as lead but still nasty.

norton9478
06-04-2017, 02:24 PM
Ask California how that Hydrogen fleet is coming along since they jumped the gun and decided that the reason no one had fuel cell cars on the market was because there was no support infrastructure.

Ask the federal government how well they were able to make people buy ethanol and at what cost.

Ask Elon Musk where all of his Model 3 buyers will be when the subsidies run out.

If the agreement was non-binding then what the fuck is it worth anyway?

'Fixing' the planet is a proposition that will bankrupt major economic powers. It is nice to talk about it but until fossil fuels and oil specifically get to a point where alternatives are naturally competitive and not subsidized into competitiveness, then it is like a quadruple amputee climbing Everest. It will only get done on the backs of others.

How come we never hear about the hole in the Ozone Layer anymore?

norton9478
06-04-2017, 02:27 PM
I would prefer to avoid having to stifle an entire economy in a vain attempt at 'solving' something that we don't actually know has a fix.

What makes you think that it would stifle an economy?

Evil Wasabi
06-04-2017, 02:32 PM
How come we never hear about the hole in the Ozone Layer anymore?

How come the government didnt stop food makers from rebranding HFCS into "natural sweetener"?

Naika
06-05-2017, 03:45 PM
'Fixing' the planet is a proposition that will bankrupt major economic powers. It is nice to talk about it but until fossil fuels and oil specifically get to a point where alternatives are naturally competitive and not subsidized into competitiveness, then it is like a quadruple amputee climbing Everest. It will only get done on the backs of others.

45166

lithy
06-05-2017, 06:30 PM
45166

Good one, and who are you?

Evil Wasabi
06-05-2017, 09:33 PM
Good one, and who are you?

there was a time you seemed genuinely unhappy about having more than thousand posts.

lithy
06-05-2017, 09:51 PM
there was a time you seemed genuinely unhappy about having more than thousand posts.

Indeed. It was just there all the time, staring at me, mocking me, a constant reminder of a life wasted. Bring back member numbers.

There was a time when 10k posts was some unthinkable number only to be seen by Bobak or absorbing FeelGood.

Time makes fools of us all.

Poppy
06-06-2017, 02:29 AM
Time makes fools of us all.

Ft. Sanders makes fools of us all.

lithy
06-06-2017, 03:04 PM
Ft. Sanders makes fools of us all.

First time I was ever stupid drunk was in the fort. Trash can punch.

It has been 5 years since I stepped foot in Knoxville proper (West of Campbell's Station doesn't really count right?), but probably 10 years since I have been in the fort.

alec
06-16-2017, 02:31 PM
Everybody has been waiting for California to fall into the ocean but if you look at the models of projected sea level rise in the United States, it's Florida that'll be underwater. Shame really, but hey, it's what they voted for.

Evil Wasabi
06-16-2017, 02:40 PM
Miami Beach is one of the nation's cities most vulnerable to climate change — and its leaders are doing something about it. The city, a national leader in addressing climate, has begun to make improvements aimed at protecting residents from rising sea levels.

In South Florida, the rate of sea-level rise has tripled over the last decade, according to a new study from the University of Miami. The rising seas raise questions for many about whether the resort community has a future. Officials there say the answer is emphatically yes and they're moving ahead with plans for a resilient city.

The small city on a barrier island, just 7 miles long and 1 mile wide, is getting a makeover. Major thoroughfares are being rebuilt, new storm sewers and pumps are being installed. Miami Beach Mayor Philip Levine likes to show off work recently completed in the Sunset Harbor neighborhood on the western edge of the island, "the lowest area of our city," he says, "which of course was developed on muck."

Over the last decade, flooding during high tide in this and other neighborhoods along Miami Beach's western edge has become a regular occurrence. The University of Miami study confirms that the main reason for the increased flood events is sea-level rise. While some elected officials, including Florida's Republican Gov. Rick Scott, aren't ready to acknowledge the threat posed by climate change, here in Miami Beach, it was an issue that helped get Levine elected. "I think I did a campaign commercial in a kayak," he says.

Levine took office on a pledge to build a resilient Miami Beach, one that would recognize and adapt to climate change. He holds up Sunset Harbor neighborhood as a model. The patio outside a restaurant and cafe is a cozy spot that's now more than 3 feet below street level. The street was "literally rebuilt, raised and built higher," he says. "And of course major pumps were installed as well. So now you have certain buildings that are lying lower, but the streets are higher." This neighborhood, perennially wet during seasonal high tides, now is dry.

To combat flooding, Miami Beach has launched a $400 million project that's begun installing as many as 80 pump stations throughout the city. In addition, more roads on the island's low-lying western edge will be rebuilt higher.

City engineer Bruce Mowry is now focused on Miami Beach's next big project: the reconstruction of Indian Creek Drive, a road that saw severe flooding last year during a seasonal high tide. Former Vice President Al Gore took a tour and later talked about seeing fish swimming in the street there. The street runs alongside a lagoon.

"We had as much as a foot of water over the seawall," Mowry says.

To make sure that doesn't happen this year, he says Miami Beach will rebuild Indian Creek Drive higher and raise the height of the adjoining seawall.

"That seawall will end up being about 4 to 5 feet higher than it is now. Two blocks up here, we're planning on putting in a pump station right here and collecting all the water," he says. It's a $25 million project, and — perhaps surprisingly — after negotiations with the Scott administration, 80 percent of that cost is being picked up by the state of Florida.

Ben Kirtman, a climate modeling expert at the University of Miami, says it's encouraging the state finally signed on to the project, but it took a lot of negotiation. Kirtman is one of the Florida scientists who have worked to persuade Scott to acknowledge and begin planning for climate change — so far unsuccessfully. Kirtman thinks by working to build a resilient city, officials in Miami Beach are on the right track.

"I'm quite optimistic that there'll be a Miami Beach 50 years, 100 years from now. But we need to set aside sort of the political nonsense about the debate about whether climate change is happening and embrace our problem and start developing comprehensive strategies," he says.

At current rates of sea-level rise, Levine believes the work underway now will buy the city at least 50 years. By then, he hopes innovation may begin providing long-term solutions and make the city a model for the nation. While others see only a gloomy future for low-lying coastal cities, Levine is a picture of confident optimism.

"Look at little Miami Beach — what we're doing and the jobs that we're creating by rebuilding our roads and putting in pumps," he says. "Infrastructure, whether it's building new roads, bridges or public transportation or whether it's making your cities more resilient, is an incredible, positive job grower for our country. So we should grab this challenge and run with it."

Levine and Kirtman say building resilient cities is just the first step. The real challenge is to build the political will to address climate change and slow the rising sea levels before elevated structures, pumps and seawalls are no longer enough.


http://www.npr.org/2016/05/10/476071206/as-waters-rise-miami-beach-builds-higher-streets-and-political-willpower

alec
06-16-2017, 03:01 PM
Thanks for the NPR article. A similar barrier is planned around Treasure Island for the upcoming renovation. I think they're just waiting for the next big San Francisco earthquake to do the demolition work for them. Some say we should let the sea reclaim the island.