martybegan
Diamond Member
- Apr 5, 2010
- 82,575
- 33,962
- 2,300
They need to do an amendment if we want to do federal aid. Which, i am down for.Adapt or die.Let's (try to) have a discussion that avoids the standard partisan finger-pointing that always pollutes (no pun intended) this topic and instead focuses on the logistics & realities we'll deal with if the planet is actually warming.
So, for the purposes of this thread, let's stipulate to the following:
So my first question is this: What positives could come from this change? I'm wondering about areas of the planet that might un-freeze and allow for more crops, for example.
- The planet is warming, for whatever reason.
- Given the scope and momentum of the warming, it's going to continue warming, as we squabble, and we need to look at how that affects our lives
- We need to look ahead at how the changes can either be mitigated OR how to take advantage of them
Any constructive questions or ideas on how we could deal with this in a positive way?
.
It would be a question of migration. People would have to move to where the land becomes more arable from where the land becomes less arable.
As for rising sea levels, if they are truly occurring and at a level that can threaten some cities, then they will have to either build sea walls or again, re-locate the lower affected neighborhoods.
As can we see by Harvey, people in the Midwest will be bailing out those who chose to live by the ocean.
There is a concept of shared risk. I do think the Feds need to step in when disasters of this magnitude occur. However any relief bill should be about relief, not pork.
Why is an amendment needed?