Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't want to pay for coastal dikes for the rest of my life, but I didn't want to pay for Boston's Big Dig either, or rebuilding after Hurricanes Katrina ($200 billion?) and Sandy ($50 billion) either. The Big Dig's original federal financing was only $4.7 billion ($7 billion in current dollars), nothing compared to the cost of dikes and coastal defenses. Will Boston pay its own way? If so, it had better start saving now.
The difference is that dikes will be needed along the entire east coast and the Gulf of Mexico. To save New Orleans in particular will require Netherlands-like dikes. Generations of other Americans won't want to spend all of their resources bailing out states like FL, whose politicians like Marco Rubio have actively blocked efforts to deal with climate change. We've simply not been dealing with the cheap solutions, including higher gasoline taxes or Obama's sensible phased-in $10/barrel fee on oil to fund also neglected existing infrastructure.
As Canada doesn't play world policeman, and counts on the U.S. to defend North America as evidenced by the relatively paltry Canadian defense budget, I'll bet Toronto's and Canada's infrastructure also is in relatively sterling shape (just a guess). Infrastructure matters a lot, especially when money isn't spent to maintain it necessitating costly replacements.
The U.S. isn't the Netherlands where dikes are the national identity and prerequisite for existence.
ABC several years did a movie about NYC in 2100. It was frightening.
This probably was it, but I didn't remember the 2015 predictions.
Some are mocking this film, but just wait. $20 trillion debt, Fed monetizing debt, debt and unfunded federal liabilities > $100 trillion, Greenland and Antarctica barrier glacier melts accelerating.
Presidential debate after Presidential debate, especially among Republicans, and nobody talks about climate change, or infrastructure needs. Pitifully bad political and media elites in the U.S., which is why they are surprised by Trump and Sanders.
While I agree climate change should be a more pertinent issue to political discussions, if this thread is going to veer off onto that topic, I wouldn't single out Boston. In the kind of doomsday scenario you're describing, no city will be untouched; every one will be in survival mode, and we will not be talking about "bright futures" for any place, really.
If you believe the scientists and the onslaught of climate change, definitely not Boston and most likely Toronto.
The smart money already is positioning for this -- Donald Trump sold his coastal FL estate.
even a 5 foot rise in the sea level would only flood docks and piers in Boston, even the landfill is filled to about 15 feet above sea level, and the areas not landfill are much higher. We are talking about only 10% or so of the Cities land area, Boston is not New Orleans, its not Miami.
Essentially, sea level rise will reclaim Back Bay and South Bay.
While I agree climate change should be a more pertinent issue to political discussions, if this thread is going to veer off onto that topic, I wouldn't single out Boston. In the kind of doomsday scenario you're describing, no city will be untouched; every one will be in survival mode, and we will not be talking about "bright futures" for any place, really.
Climate change certainly is pertinent to the future of cities. Get real. NYC, Boston and other coastal cities are addressing the problem very seriously.
It's shocking how climate change deniers/minimizers attempt to silence any discussion of the impact of climate change by stating it's appropriately only a political issue. Huh? It's a massive economic issue. Insurance companies and any rational investor and business already are factoring the consequences of climate change into their business models.
If former NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg enters the Presidential race, and he reportedly is contemplating spending $1 billion of his fortune to finance a campaign, expect to hear much, much more about the consequences of climate change. When Bloomberg was NYC mayor, that city faced the threat as well as any city in the U.S.
even a 5 foot rise in the sea level would only flood docks and piers in Boston, even the landfill is filled to about 15 feet above sea level, and the areas not landfill are much higher. We are talking about only 10% or so of the Cities land area, Boston is not New Orleans, its not Miami.
Essentially, sea level rise will reclaim Back Bay and South Bay.
Will Boston/MA pay to raise its docks and piers?
Having 10 percent of the city at sea level isn't a concern? Who will pay for the inevitable infrastructure and other adjustments, the remaining 90 percent of the city? How many residents will leave to avoid shouldering any part of this cost?
Will dikes be built around Logan Airport? Who will pay for this?
What will be the cost of salvaging, if possible, the Big Dig as sea levels rise?
It looks like much more than 10 percent of Boston will only be 2.5 feet above sea level if the sea level rise is five feet. See figure three here, in this City of Boston report that notes the city is subsiding six inches per century (I believe due to plate tectonics).
Note that sea level rise by 2100 may be as much as 6.5 feet, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), which along with NASA likely analyzes the impacts of climate change more than any federal agency.
How much will flood insurance cost in much of Boston in 2100?
Whatever the consequences of rising sea levels, they will impact Toronto much less than Boston.
It galls me that some of the most affected states, such as South Carolina and Florida, elect politicians who mock the impact of climate change.
Relatively speaking, Boston doesn't deserve this.
However, I can tell you that many persons in other parts of the U.S. already are appalled by the ridiculous and IMO unfair amounts of aid given to coastal residents. Read the USA Today article about the Norfolk resident given $100,000 by the federal government to raise his house five feet; the amount was more than value of the house.
When, within the next decade, the federal government's fiscal insanity finally faces a reckoning, such largesse likely will come to an end.
Climate change certainly is pertinent to the future of cities. Get real. NYC, Boston and other coastal cities are addressing the problem very seriously.
It's shocking how climate change deniers/minimizers attempt to silence any discussion of the impact of climate change by stating it's appropriately only a political issue. Huh? It's a massive economic issue. Insurance companies and any rational investor and business already are factoring the consequences of climate change into their business models.
If former NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg enters the Presidential race, and he reportedly is contemplating spending $1 billion of his fortune to finance a campaign, expect to hear much, much more about the consequences of climate change. When Bloomberg was NYC mayor, that city faced the threat as well as any city in the U.S.
I suggest you go back and read what I wrote, or maybe I'll just restate a few of my exact quotes; "While I agree climate change should be a more pertinent issue to political discussions"..."no city will go untouched"...I'm not sure how that translated to your calling me a "climate change denier". If you actually want to get back to discussing, instead of name calling, where I disagree with you, is that you seem to be implying this is an issue that will negatively affect Boston or New York while leaving other cities (like Toronto?) untouched...when it reaches the point where any of these cities are being affected on the level you are describing, you can bet every city across the globe will be feeling the effects.
I suggest you go back and read what I wrote, or maybe I'll just restate a few of my exact quotes; "While I agree climate change should be a more pertinent issue to political discussions"..."no city will go untouched"...I'm not sure how that translated to your calling me a "climate change denier". If you actually want to get back to discussing, instead of name calling, where I disagree with you, is that you seem to be implying this is an issue that will negatively affect Boston or New York while leaving other cities (like Toronto?) untouched...when it reaches the point where any of these cities are being affected on the level you are describing, you can bet every city across the globe will be feeling the effects.
You said climate change is "more pertinent to political discussions." That's close to the typical line of climate change deniers who want to avoid discussion of the implications of climate change on specific communities or the severe economic implications of climate change, because their belief is that climate change is either a concoction of grant-seeking scientists or that the result of climate change will be minimal or even positive.
I did read what you wrote accurately.
You should read what I wrote carefully:
"It's shocking how climate change deniers/minimizers attempt to silence any discussion of the impact of climate change by stating it's appropriately only a political issue."
I never said specifically that you were a climate change denier. I left that open to inference, and you inferred it. If I had wanted to say that you were a climate change denier, I would have explicitly said so.
What I vehemently object to is your climate change denier-like inference that climate change isn't a proper subject for this thread. That's ridiculous IMO, and I said so.
Obviously, the world isn't untouched by climate change, so it's also obvious "no city will go untouched."
It's also clear to me that coastal cities, such as Boston, will be "touched" much, much more than inland cities at relatively high elevations such as Toronto, although some non-coastal cities may suffer other severe consequences such as water shortages, unlikely an issue in Toronto.
Are you suggesting that the consequences of climate change won't be much more severe on coastal Boston than on Toronto? Please explain why this is the case, or alternatively, what exactly is your point.
You said climate change is "more pertinent to political discussions." That's close to the typical line of climate change deniers who want to avoid discussion of the implications of climate change on specific communities or the severe economic implications of climate change, because their belief is that climate change is either a concoction of grant-seeking scientists or that the result of climate change will be minimal or even positive.
Actually, if you put the more complete quote in, I said "I agree that climate should be more pertinent" to our political discussions - as in, our politicians should be talking about it more than they are. Hardly the words of a climate change denier.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WRnative
Are you suggesting that the consequences of climate change won't be much more severe on coastal Boston than on Toronto? Please explain why this is the case, or alternatively, what exactly is your point.
My point is we don't really completely understand the many ways that climate change will affect us yet - it goes well beyond flooding - droughts, forest fires, ecological disasters, disease, war, etc. Sure, you can try and project that Toronto will do better, but nobody really knows. Frankly, the more worthwhile discussions are regarding what can we do to mitigate/stop climate change and its effects.
This thread has gone full retard. Plum Island (Mass) would be gone by now).
Climate change LOL. Boston, isn't going anywhere.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
