Slashdot Mirror
Facing Oblivion, Island Nation Makes Big Sacrifice
Damien1972 writes "Kiribati, a small nation consisting of 33 Pacific island atolls, is forecast to be among the first countries swamped by rising sea levels. Nevertheless, the country recently made an astounding commitment: it closed over 150,000 square miles of its territory to fishing, an activity that accounts for nearly half the government's tax revenue. What moved the tiny country to take this monumental action? President Anote Tong, says Kiribati is sending a message to the world: 'We need to make sacrifices to provide a future for our children and grandchildren.'"
Having RTFA, it looks like they are taking measures to protect the corals from fisherman with the hope that the gesture will generate awareness and sympathy (ie money) towards their plight. It also hints that by establishing a preserve, they hope to increase tourism to offset the financial loss.
Yeah, because trying to preserve fish stocks and marine habitats from today's massive overfishing is pointless. Clearly.
And since tourists are more likely to want to go to places not drowned, they're also quite nicely snagging interested elements in the tourist entry to back them. It's actually quite ingenious and although it's unlikely to succeed to the point of saving their nation, it might well be the point at which eco-tourism becomes a significant movement. Or perhaps not - that's the danger of futurology, the future is too damn uncertain to make accurate predictions on what will happen.
The most important aspect of this, though, is the incredible gamble of present-day unreliable income in the hopes of securing a future stable income. Politicians are not noted for being up on long-term thinking, when short-term goals offer them rewards right then and there. This is actually quite remarkable, regardless of what happens, and I am greatly impressed.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Welcome to the cycles of nature.
New land is being formed as well, and new islands, even with rising sea levels.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
Someone who cared about islanders would suggest they actually solve their problems (in the event those problems actually happen) by building some small seawalls or other simple structures to deal with a modest rise in sea levels.
WTF... did you even bother to read the article? He's doing this to protect marine diversity and fish stocks, you know, kinda like how the US has national parks. It has absolutely nothing, whatsoever, to do with dealing with rising sea levels.
Seriously, its times like this, when a blatantly uninformed post gets modded up to +4, that I wonder why the hell I even bother with this place anymore...
In fact I think population control, like China's 1 baby per family, will eventually become necessary... especially after oil becomes scarce and skyrockets to $1000/barrel (~$30/gallon of gasoline)..
1) Why not move the excess population off-Earth? We're already talking about space tourism as a reality... it's not that big of a step from tourism to colonization, especially 90 years from now.
2) Who says that gasoline will be a primary source of energy in 2100, let alone transportation? One would figure that by the time prices for gas rises to $10/gal (in 2010 dollars), the market itself would find a way to either create hyper-efficient engines, or folks will just replace their gas-powered cars with electric-powered ones.
The funny part is, "WE" will likely begin limiting our own population anyway. You may notice that the more prosperous a country becomes, the lower the birthrates. At least half of the countries in Europe have birthrates lower than self-replacement right now... China is already facing a looming population drop as it is - a one-child policy, an over-abundance of males, and an aging demographic. These three factors will pretty much chop the numbers down pretty harshly by 2100. Even India is showing a (albeit slowly) declining birthrate.
All in all, I suspect that world birthrates are going to come down anyway.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
Someone who cared about islanders would suggest they actually solve their problems (in the event those problems actually happen) by building some small seawalls or other simple structures to deal with a modest rise in sea levels. Whining and making ridiculous and destructive spectacles is useless and childish.
Limiting the areas the locals are allowed to fish to protect coral reefs is hardly a good example of government oppression. It's merely a publicity stunt to raise awareness of their plight which advertising their nation for international tourism.
Your saying that one of the poorest countries in the world would be able to exist below sea level on tiny flat islands without contaminating their fresh water supplies by building walls? Please provide more details about these magic walls and how high and thick you think they will need to be, what materials and how 100,000 fishermen could afford it?
It makes perfect sense if you understand that when they speak of "our children and grandchildren", they're speaking as residents of Earth, not of Kiribati. They're taking a step toward conservation of the planet's biosphere (to the limited but measurable extent that they are able), and setting an example for others to follow, to help preserve it for future generations of humans, not just future generations of I-Kiribati.
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
I don't understand why people automatically assume that scientists who spend DECADES studying a particular phenomenon are totally blind to the Captain Obvious answers and don't bother to check them out as part of their research. In your job, do you ignore the bleedingly obvious, to the point of gross incompetence? Why do you automatically assume the same of other people who know a HELL OF A LOT MORE about a subject than you do?
Yes, sea levels are rising, measured in many places with and without local tectonic activity. Yes, scientists have checked against such obvious things and have filtered any such "noise" from them out of their findings.
If you want to challenge the findings of scientific research, get your arse out of that chair and back into college, then get out there and DO the research to prove them wrong. Failing that, I'll take the word of people who know wtf they are talking about over some anonymous coward on the intarwebs.
-SS "Teach the ignorant, care for the dumb, and punish the stupid."
You're really suggesting shipping people off of Earth really being suggested is a valid alternative to curbing population growth? The amount of energy expended to develop either off-Earth colonies or terraform a planet would be astronomical, then count the energy expended just to leave earth orbit. I am all for off-Earth colonization in the spirit of science and exploration, but suggesting shipping billions of people off the Earth would be viable in the short or long-term is silly. Also it would suggest that we could let earth go to hell and just go use up some other planet.
Having RTFA, it looks like they are taking measures to protect the corals from fisherman with the hope that the gesture will generate awareness and sympathy (ie money) towards their plight. It also hints that by establishing a preserve, they hope to increase tourism to offset the financial loss.
They want to be the Palestinians of the Pacific? That makes more sense than anything else in the article, I suppose.
They just embarked on a gesture that will involve severe sacrifice on their part, and sent their leader to present a calm and mature message detailing their plight, in a way that is meant to arouse admiration and (one hopes) sympathy, instead of horror and revulsion. The Kiribatian approach is as un-Palestinian as a country could possibly be.
mongabay.com: Have Kiribati's reefs experienced coral bleaching?
President Anote Tong: I have certainly seen bleaching. Whether it is the product of climate change, I do not know.
A straightforward, honest answer from a politician?
Impressive!
Sounds like this man has a clue, and integrity. He's prepared to do what needs to be done, even if it's hard.
Sadly, that makes him a very dangerous man in the minds of "some countries".
Visit CryptoGnome in his home.
It's because science says one thing one day, and weeks later says the opposite. Also, scientists argue among themselves about what the conclusion should be.
Despite your hyperbole, the fact remains that science is never static. No one EVER gets it right on their first try. Many don't get it right on their 20th try. That's the WHOLE POINT of the scientific method and the research process. Science isn't about proving anything; proofs are exclusive only to mathematics and can be dubious even then. Instead, science is about DISproving things. Like in a crucible, irrelevancies, false observations, improper procedures, incorrect conclusions, etc are burned away, usually a bit at a time, to get a PURER product (note not a PURE product, simply a PURER product) that enhances our knowledge and understanding of the world. Ongoing falsification is at the core of the scientific method.
As such, sure, science says one thing one day, then some time later, IMPROVES upon that, either refining it via specificity, OR refutation, even. Unlike what most people understand about science, refutation is a GOOD thing -- it demonstrates that the scientific method is WORKING. No true scientist wants to cling to the wrong answers!
Sure, scientists argue about a lot of things; it is in their nature. However, just because they argue doesn't mean they ignore each others' established and (thus far) unfalsified research. Two scientists could argue vehemently all day long over the specificity of a nearly insignificant point in a pair of competing research studies which otherwise support each other. However, when you ask them about the general consensus of their respective research, they will fully admit to being in near total agreement.
Bottom line, journalism makes science look like a bunch of bumbling clowns because it can't summarize research correctly, and the scientists sometimes do a bad enough job themselves that they don't need help bungling the conclusion. I have this argument all the time with people who don't understand how the scientific method works, and the difference between internet news and peer-reviewed journals.
That's why I pretty much ignore what journalists and pundits say; I go STRAIGHT to the science/research itself. Hell, I still consider myself a skeptic of what scientists say about a lot of things, but if I don't have the knowledge/training and haven't done the research, I will give a scientist who does/has the benefit of a doubt until such time as I do have better information from a more reliable source, or from my own research into the subject.
As such, I (and others) would appreciate direct links to papers, rather than regurgitation of "talking points"-style articles in popular rags, which often cherry-pick and distort salient bits to suit the whims of the article author/editor/publisher. Hence:
Here is Dr. Ioannidis's paper referenced by your linked article.
Just like in the Thurner and Hanel paper recently published, I think that Dr. Ioannidis makes valid and important points in his observations. However, again, they are hypothetical in nature. He doesn't actually review or provide specific evidence for statistical analysis to support his contention that "Most Published Research Findings Are False". Again, that doesn't invalidate his contentions (at least directly), but it also does not indict any specific body of research in any meaningful way. In simpler words, you can't use that as a litmus to automatically disregard any particular research paper "just because Dr. Ioannidis said that 'Most Published Research Findings Are False', thus this paper's findings are false". That's being grossly disingenuous and not a little intellectually dishonest.
Finally, regarding gp post, you seem overly sensitive. I didn't read that as a "here's the obvious, maybe that explains it?" post. But maybe I give people more credit than they
-SS "Teach the ignorant, care for the dumb, and punish the stupid."