It's a good read but... I don't see the whole point about "From a Dutch mind-set, climate change is not a hypothetical or a drag on the economy, " is a bit weird.<p>Climate doesn't matter here. 1/3rd of the country is already under sea level TODAY. The billions we spend on engineering and developing water defense structures have no relation to our believes about climate change. We are ALREADY beneath sea level!<p>Look at this <a href="https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/5a/75/f8/5a75f8224f90bd258dd44037a90db43f.gif" rel="nofollow">https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/5a/75/f8/5a75...</a> Gives you a perspective.<p>Hell, we even have our own little Trump, denying Climate change and blaming all our faults on Moroccans in stead of Mexicans. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geert_Wilders" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geert_Wilders</a><p>Some more reading for those interested: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_control_in_the_Netherlands" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_control_in_the_Netherlan...</a>
Whenever flood control in The Netherlands is discussed, it's worth looking at this detailed elevation map:<p><a href="http://www.floodmap.net/Elevation/CountryElevationMap/?ct=NL" rel="nofollow">http://www.floodmap.net/Elevation/CountryElevationMap/?ct=NL</a><p>The elevation profile of the entire country is one where the coast is much higher than sealevel, and then gradually slopes downwards to bits of the interior that are entirely landlocked, but are say 1 meter below sealevel. In other words we have pockets of land that are below sealevel, but they're surrounded by and protected by land that's not.<p>The facts on the ground are very different from claims being made by a sibling comment that "we are ALREADY beneath sea level!". This is why the NYT article is talking about "reservoirs for when the seas and rivers spill over" and "to let water in, where possible". Managing the water is largely about protecting these pockets that are below sealevel.
One thing I'm thinking about is about much is how money the Dutch (and their southern neighbors, the Belgians) are going to make once the rise in sea levels will have a direct impact on wealthy regions.<p>In the world top 5 of dredging firms 4 are either Dutch or Belgian firms. And once prime real estate, in for example Florida or the Hamptons, is in direct danger large amounts of money will change hands to reinforce the coastline. And those top 5 dredging firms have all the engineering expertise needed.<p>Moving extremely large amounts of rock & sand like <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palm_Jumeirah" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palm_Jumeirah</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Suez_Canal" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Suez_Canal</a> are just warmup exercises for the amount of work that needs to be done in the next 50 years.
The Netherlands has had to deal with flooding for many hundreds of years[1]; it's been a problem <i>long</i> before the industrial revolution that so many point to as a primary trigger of AGW, so acting like this is a matter of climate change is just politically-motivated BS, to be honest.<p>The thing we <i>should</i> learn from this is the fact that whether or not you subscribe to AGW, the solutions are found in technologies that protect us from the harsh effects of climate (however they may be caused) rather than naive attempts to proactively change the course of the climate itself.<p>Think about it: even the strongest proponents of AGW seem to agree that at this point, there's very little we can actually do in terms of suppressing or reversing the trends (people argue that any improvement or slowing is worthwhile, but that completely ignores economic principles like the law of diminishing [marginal] returns and opportunity cost).<p>The truth is, we have <i>fewer</i> climate-related deaths per year now than ever before. Why is that? It's not a result of cutting down carbon emissions, that's for sure. Instead, we are simply more adept at living safely in a variety of climate conditions thanks to technology and industrialization. Developing countries have seen the greatest improvements as a result of technology, but we all benefit.<p>Can we count on people to dramatically change their lifestyles in response to economically-inferior proposals based on politicized science? Absolutely not (how has that track record been globally?). What kinds of incentives <i>can</i> we rely on for changing people's behavior? Answer: clear economic interests[2]. If and when it makes economic sense to deal with climate-related challenges, the market will incentivize the most practical solutions via innovation. The Dutch have proven that point (and not just recently).<p>If you don't believe we need technology to keep us safe from the climate, I encourage you to pick a random spot on earth and try living there on your own without any form of modern technology or any of the products of industrialization. Your struggle - and increased risk of death - would have been the same (at least in scale) at any point in the earth's history.<p>[1] <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netherlands#Floods" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netherlands#Floods</a><p>[2] Referring to natural market-based incentives rather than artificial government-imposed incentives.
separate from the content, can we all take a moment to appreciate the NYT visuals? Definitely a pro to non-paper journalism is the ability to use complex graphics. Not saying this is their best work but its subtlety great.
bunch of nonsense. people dont cause climate change and they can certainly not stop it. This means, that you can either try to live under sea level like a stuborn fool, or relocate to a safer place once the danger increases too much. Building higher walls will just end up with higher and higher walls... just piling up shit on shit. a solution to a problem is something that makes it go away, not hide it behind a wall, wtf.<p>On another note, all this awsome dutch flood control, totally destroyed the environment here for a lot of bird types (migratory ones mostly) and a lot of other animals, so its destroying nature by combating it, like ignorant people have been doing for centuries now. lets combat nature, good fucking idea. >.> work with nature ffs, cause you are nature.<p>tl;dr:
1) a work around is not a solution
2) dont fight what you care about... take care of it and respect it!
Prevention costs far less than remediation. But the future business opportunities; can no longer sell you big cars, big homes, large tracts of land, but we can sell you clean air, clean water, and keeping the water out of your domicile. Here's your air filtration/water desal/water pumping bill, so go to your job.
Anyone know how much water is 1cm sea rise? Mars needs water and Musk is interested in footing the bill, even if a mass driver is probably more apt to the issue than rockets.