[wowzap]

Reducing carbon emissions sounds good until you consider that you could actually just save up some money, move somewhere away from the shore, and live out the rest of your life.

What incentives are the carbon-reducing crowds providing for the common man? Are they going to finally get it together and build affordable housing in our coastal cities? Are they going to let us park electric vehicles or do we have to ride the bike? Can we still use cash or does every business have to be cash free? Are they going to assure that my water is safe to drink or just ban plastic water bottles and let me die? Can we be responsible for our own safety or do we have to live in a police state?

There is there no semblance of choice on the opposing side. It's all or nothing "REDUCE WASTEFUL BEHAVIORS NOW" (but look the other way as we allow business to do whatever they like). Who would ever submit to that? I'd rather plan my contingency now than become a slave to whatever future the bureaucrats decide for us.

[kazen44]

you seem to vastly underestimate how impossible "moving somewhere away from the shore" would be for the majority of the world's population.

For instance, my country would be over 50% flooded with a 2 meter searise.

also, countries like bangladesh are truely screwed, and it has a population of 150 million people!

not to mention that climate change would make our global economy collapse and high yield argriculture impossible.

[hackeraccount]

Bangladesh's problem isn't that it's so close to sea level it's that it's poor. California's problem isn't that droughts make forest fires it's that they're aren't quite so rich that they can live in the middle of a tinderbox.

[imtringued]

An entire country being wiped out from sea level rise is a problem that is pretty specific to Bangladesh. It only takes 9m of sea level rise to flood more than 70% of Bangladesh.

[7952]

If you need to provide incentives for doing the right thing it suggests that you haven't won the argument yet about what the right thing is.