James Annan wrote:
> I think it's hard to see a direct benefit from that, apart from the few who
> find that their land becomes prime waterfront real estate. (No, I don't
> really suggest that as a sensible answer.) The generic extropian response
> (that challenges drive development) still stands, though. Before you (all)
> dismiss that too rapidly, bear in mind that this is one of the arguments that
> people use in support of mitigation - that some serious R&D in the area of
> low(no)-carbon energy and energy efficiency would bring great economic and
> technological advances, meaning the overall costs of such a strategy may be
> much lower than we think.
>
> If sea level rise is a problem, would sea level fall be good? More land, less
> need for coastal defence...or you going to claim that we are we optimally
> adapted to this year's sea level, even in areas which were settled and
> developed many years ago when sea levels were different?
>
> James
I see opportunities for sea level rise to create better harbour
locations and sea level fall to leave fewer good locations. However,
there being a better location does not mean that the benefits outweigh
the costs of moving a harbour to a different location. Also note that
if the rate of change is slow enough that the harbour would have to be
redeveloped anyway. So I suspect these effects are small compared to
the opportunity cost/value of the land. So a slowly falling sea level
is something that we would want.
What other changes might we want? It is the freak events that cause
most damage/cost. Therefore ***if I had the choice*** I would want a
changed distribution of events with shortened tails on the
distribution. It seems to me that there is suspicion that the change we
are getting could be extending the tails but the science isn't terribly
clear yet.
So I would want change that is:
1. Slow rate of change not fast.
2. Shortened tails on the distributions of events.
3. Rise in temperature (cold events kill more than heatwaves) (and slow
enough to adapt to).
4. Falling sea level.
I am sure this wish list could be extended. Clearly, it is all very
well wishing for such things but that doesn't help if such a choice
isn't on offer.
The question is whether we want more of the changes we are causing at a
faster rate or less changes at a slower rate with the attendant
consequences of trying to slow down the rate of change.
crandles
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated
venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of
global environmental change.
Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the
submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not
gratuitously rude.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
