Slashdot Mirror


How To Lead a Nation That's About To Be Swallowed By the Sea

merbs writes: Anote Tong, the president of low-lying Kiribati, has spent nearly a decade trying to save his people from rising sea levels. There's a good chance he will not succeed. This is how he leads a nation that will likely not exist in 100 years. Motherboard reports: "Kiribati’s fate provides a rare glimpse of the future world under climate change. The tiny island nation is the canary in our global coal mine, and it will bear the brunt of climate change more intensely and much sooner than nearly anywhere else. 'We cannot keep doing what we are doing,' Tong said. 'Because we may be on the front line today, but other countries, other societies, other communities will be next.'"

36 of 289 comments (clear)

  1. gills behind the ears by turkeydance · · Score: 2

    hey, it worked in the movies.

  2. To higher ground? by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

    I hear some of these low-lying nations are spending what money they have to buy land in other countries... so they can pick up their people and move there. I guess they're also buying agreements to take on their citizens, but that'll be kind of hard to enforce, eh? Without a country or anything, that is.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    1. Re:To higher ground? by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Informative

      Why can't they just build levies around the island an canals.

      Because they are a tiny little nation, and they cannot muster the resources. The smaller the nation, the larger the ratio of coastline to area...

      Other countries build entire islands so it shouldn't be impossible.

      Very large countries build very small islands. Their whole nation is a very small island. Actually, it's way worse than that; their nation is a collection of small islands. They would have to build a whole lot of walls, and they don't have a whole lot of mass to build them with.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:To higher ground? by davester666 · · Score: 2

      because that would:

      a) cost way more than the GDP of the country.(only $170 million).
      b) simultaneously kill their GDP, as it largely depends on people coming to their island for the beaches. who wants to sit at the top of a wall to get their sun?

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    3. Re:To higher ground? by bazorg · · Score: 2

      Indeed. In wealthy regions or those that (theoretically) are living in long periods of peace, it is challenging but "interesting" to think Where do we put a few million Dutch? in Germany? In a New-New-Zealand bought from Sweden or Spain?

      In poorer regions, it will be a nightmare. Bangladesh is growing fast beyond the current 160M. Even before climate change driven disasters, they already suffer a lot from flooding. Imagine a large % of those 160M+ people need relocating. Terrible stuff - they should be talking to neighbours already to negotiate ways forward

    4. Re:To higher ground? by Alwin+Henseler · · Score: 2

      Why should they foot the bill for such a project (assuming it's even doable), when it's other nations that are causing the problem? That's especially true if the costs may exceed this tiny nation's income.

      Now one can argue about how much of this problem is man-made, and how much is natural causes. And you can argue about how costs should be divided between nations that contribute(d) to the problem. But even then, some part of the problem is man-made, which means the *fair* thing to do would be to pay compensation for that part of the damage.

      Of course: fat chance that'll happen. Especially as long as unbridled capitalism, global megacorps, and politicians in their pocket seems to be the norm. So I'd expect to see business as usual: damage is done by group of people in place A, consequences are suffered by group of people in place B - through no fault of their own (see: externalities).

    5. Re:To higher ground? by Sique · · Score: 3, Interesting
      I know that there is always the example of the Netherlands coming up with all the levies and dykes.

      I've been to the Netherlands, and I've cycled along the dykes and levies. And they could be built because the coast of the Netherlands is a large intertidal zone which falls dry and gets flooded again during the tide. Even some miles away from the coastal line, the sea is no deeper than ten feet during the flood, and the islands at the dutch coast can be reached by car during the low tide. And it's not a single dyke, it's a whole system of levies and water locks and pumps, reaching several miles into the land.

      Kiribati has barely any intertidal zone, and only one larger island (Kirimati). Every other island has less than 10 square miles. There is simply no space at the coast to even built something similar to the dutch coastal protection. With the exception of the vulcan island of Banaba, all other islands have less than five feed elevation above the sea level. There not even enough building material on the islands to construct any levies.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    6. Re:To higher ground? by vikingpower · · Score: 4, Informative

      Not only that. The Dutch system of coastal protection got built over centuries, and much of it in the 20th century, when the country, i.e. the state, finally came into some money. Even then, to build the system out to its current, world-class level, the state had to borrow enormous amounts of money, the last of which was only recently paid back. And this was a prosperous, fully industrialized country. Until the dawn of the 20th century BTW, and even during it, there were regular and major floods, with sometimes 1000s of casulties, in spite of the coastal protection already in place. The last of these floods took place after World War II. Disclaimer: I am Dutch.

      --
      Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
    7. Re:To higher ground? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why does the world owe a Kiribati resident a problem-free life on a tropical island? Why does the Kiribati's problem with sea level take precedence over the Russian who wants to heat his home in the winter? Or the guy in India or Africa who wants running water and air conditioning in the summer? Or the Chinese woman who wants to buy fresh fruits and vegetables that need to be transported to her town?

      Why not just be honest and say "Why does the Kiribati's problem take precedence over the American who wants a bigger SUV to tow his boat down his vacation home on the man-made lake so he can fish for trophies?"

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    8. Re:To higher ground? by Kohath · · Score: 2

      Why not just be honest and say "Why does the Kiribati's problem take precedence over the American who wants a bigger SUV to tow his boat down his vacation home on the man-made lake so he can fish for trophies?"

      Actually, GHG emissions from the US are trending down while other countries' emissions are trending up sharply. So your weird, angry finger-pointing is out of date.

      But even if it weren't, try answering your own question. Why does the Kiribati resident matter more the the American? Why do thousands of Kiribati matter more than millions of Americans?

    9. Re:To higher ground? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why does the Kiribati resident matter more the the American?

      Why does a Kiribati life matter more than an American's trophy fishing?

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    10. Re:To higher ground? by Alwin+Henseler · · Score: 2

      Actually, GHG emissions from the US are trending down while other countries' emissions are trending up sharply. So your weird, angry finger-pointing is out of date.

      Not by a long shot... Per capita the US is still one of the biggest polluters when it comes to greenhouse gasses (if not the biggest). Taking that graph you linked, China emits just under 2x the amount of CO2 the US does. But does so with >4 times the number of people. Likewise India emits less than half what the US does, with ~4x bigger population. And while the EU is certainly a big emitter, it emits less than the US while having >1.5x bigger population.

      That's of course with 2011 figures according to that graph.

    11. Re:To higher ground? by rtb61 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Sneaky, very very sneaky. US are tending (wonderful wishy washy word that) down from a peak well and truly above what other countries are barely starting to catch up to and not to forget the US outsources a lot of it's pollution to other countries, the US gets the products and they get shit wages, very bad working conditions and uncontrolled pollution but of course that is their governments fault. This ignoring the US standard invade and conquer if you refuse to sell your resources for funny money and provide working in poverty labour.

      So semi floating cities in tsunami and tropical cyclone zone, well, I suppose that will work for as long as it works right up until the first major tsunami or tropical cyclone and the millions or mourners point it out as a really bad idea.

      The only sound thing they can do is establish a treaty with another country to accept those people as citizens and establish a trust for them, based around trading off access to the fishing and mining resources, via that country to commercial players.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    12. Re:To higher ground? by towermac · · Score: 2

      Because it is dishonest to put words in his mouth. He asked you why you'd deny billions of brown people running water and air conditioning and all the things we already have.

      I'd like to hear the answer to that myself.

    13. Re:To higher ground? by unimacs · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Trends don't tell the complete story. I'm guessing you know that.

      Imagine I weighed 700 pounds and last year I consumed an average of 5,000 calories a day. This year I cut that back to 4,800. The trend is down. My neighbor weighs 180 pounds and last year he consumed 2,700 calories a day. This year he consumed 2,800.

      Yes, I'm heading in the right direction while my neighbor is not, but it's easy to see that I've got a much more serious problem than he does. The trend matters but what also matters is whether change is happening quick enough.

      To answer your question, I think the US has made some strides but has a long way to go. In 40 or 50 years we are likely to still be be producing dangerous amounts of CO2. So, yes we will still be to blame, as will China and any number of other countries. Perhaps that won't be true.

      I agree that taking responsibility is more effective than blame. As far as productive things to do go, a number of years ago I left my job and started working for an organization that does energy efficiency research.

      What have you done?

    14. Re:To higher ground? by unimacs · · Score: 2

      Forgot to answer you other question. From an ethical standpoint I believe I should do the right thing. The fact that someone else may not act ethically doesn't change that.

    15. Re:To higher ground? by budgenator · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The Island are Atolls, they are made of coral sand, so the harsh reality is the coral reef is the levies. When the coral reefs are healthy, the Parrotfish grind up the coral into coral sand which is then washed up on the atoll. This with wind and wave erosion results in an auto-regulation, the atoll stays a few meters above sea level as the sea level raises and lowers. When the Atolls population increases pollution and over fishing pushes the reefs into an unhealthy state and the replenishment of eroded sand decreases and the atoll shrinks. Humans as dig water wells and as fresh water is used the ground subsides.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    16. Re:To higher ground? by Gadget_Guy · · Score: 2

      I thought that was the whole point of this story. Kiribati residents are owed a lifestyle regardless of the tradeoffs everyone else in the world would have to make for their lifestyle to be maintained. It leads to the still-unanswered question "why does one group matter more than another?".

      If that is the way that you want to play it, perhaps you can answer the question yourself. Why does your lifestyle matter more than the entire world? After all, it is not just one single nation that is affected by climate change. If your nation is causing the globe to heat more than anyone else except one other country and yet you have only 4% of the world's population, why should you matter more than everyone else? Do you think that is fair? Do you think that you should be able to do anything you want no matter how much it hurts others?

      I bet you are the kind of person who also screams about how unfair it is if there is a suggestion of raising taxes to pay for infrastructure that would benefit the entire country (or in the case of fixing global warming - benefit the world). All of a sudden, the minor inconvenience of losing a bit of money would seem terribly unjust to you. You have to admit, complaining about higher taxes seems rather petty compared to being forcibly relocated to another country as has already started happening in some of these small Pacific countries.

      Or maybe it doesn't seem petty to you. If you really are as selfish and arrogant as you appear then perhaps you wouldn't notice the hypocrisy. I bet your attitude would change if your neighbors decided to burn down your house to improve their views. It would fit your philosophy of screwing the few to make life better for the many.

      So my answer to your question of "why does one group matter more than another?" is this. The world wouldn't care if the people Kiribati lived or died, but the world would be a better place if you didn't exist. If you are adversely affecting the world, then you matter less than another group who is simply minding their own business and not destroying the environment. If you have no compassion for the suffering you cause to others, then you are a net drain on society. You don't matter at all.

      There. That was simple, wasn't it.

    17. Re:To higher ground? by KGIII · · Score: 2

      Probably by using an ocean-going dredging machine that shoots the material up onto the beach and then use that. At least for the time being. Or we'll just move 'em. It's not like we're gonna just let 'em drown or anything. It's pretty much a given that someone will take them in and someone will fund it. Hell, I might even help a little now that I'm aware of this particular problem. I'll look into it in the morning before we head off to the museum again. Who knows?

      Anyhow, per your tire burning comment above. Err... Are you saying that I should stop that? 'Cause, man, smelly soot and ruined clothing and coughing fits are what I live for!!! Seriously, even way back in my youth, I never understood why some idiot would throw a tire on a fire. I've seen it done but, frankly, why??? It's not even that spectacular.

      I also went out "cow tipping" as a youth. As near as I can tell, you can't really tip a cow over very easily. The tire burning and cow tipping are about as interesting as snipe hunting. I don't see the attraction.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  3. I fail to see the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Throughout the history of the Earth, its crust has constantly been recycled. Areas once above the ground and above the sea have descended downward and have been replaced with new land. This will continue to occur. Just as Kiribati and the Maldives are descending into the sea, other islands are being born by volcanoes. The Himalayas were once under water, including the peaks of mountains like Everest, at the bottom of the Tethys Ocean. Sea levels have risen and dropped by over 100 meters in the past. There's evidence that sea level was about 120 meters lower in the last ice age. All of these things have occurred many times in the Earth's past, sometimes rapidly like at the end of the last ice age. I fail to see why things that have occurred naturally throughout the entirety of the Earth's history are a problem. Who cares if Kiribati goes under water? There's plenty of land being created elsewhere on Earth.

  4. Cue the World's Smallest Violin by TheRealHocusLocus · · Score: 5, Informative

    Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level: Christmas Island I
    Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level: Christmas Island II

    Spot the clear blub blub trend, Try hard. ~1mm rise per year. Maybe.
    Meanwhile a typhoon could arrive next year with a 8 foot storm surge that swamps the atolls completely.

    DISCLAIMER: Grew up in the Caribbean, nailed doors shut from the inside and held on tight for Hugo and Marilyn. People died. '~1mm/yr climate refugees' on a coral atoll really sound like whiny scammers to me. In terms of threat level it's like that movie, Frogs.

    --
    <blink>down the rabbit hole</blink>
    1. Re:Cue the World's Smallest Violin by rally2xs · · Score: 2

      Century? 300 Years? Freeman Dyson, the most brilliant physicist on the planet, has said not to worry about it, because in 50 - 60 years or so we're going to have the energy from renewable sources problem licked, we will dig nothing out of the ground for our energy, and put no CO2 into the atmosphere. At that point, CO2 concentrations will start down, and our problems of too-cold winters will just be beginning (He didn't say the part about the too-cold winters, that's just my speculation. )

      The point is that 1) There's not a damn thing we can do about this right now, because we don't have the tech to leave the carbon in the ground and that's what we need to do, and 2) we have centuries to fix this, and will probably do so in 50 - 60 years.

      So, not to worry, and especially don't go creating millions of new people in poverty by raising fossil fuel costs when people still need cheap energy to live, heat their homes, air condition, and move around in cars. Making all that more expensive just plunges the barely-hanging-on off the edge of the cliff, into poverty. What's more dangerous than smoking? Living in poverty, which will take up to 10 years off your life. Smoking is only likely to take 7 years off your life. So, lets get people out of poverty, promote prosperity, and solve this problem with all due haste, but not so quick that it hurts people.

  5. Re:Not the first time by unimacs · · Score: 2

    I doubt anyone believes than anything can be reversed in time to help that particular country.

    There's plenty of proof that human actions can dramatically alter our environment. Just look at the Aral sea for example.

    Personally I believe we should be acting on the best scientific information we have. It's not perfect and we are learning more all the time, but institutions like NASA have sent probes to then ends of the solar system, have landed a rover on Mars, and returned people from space. I trust them more when it comes to understanding our atmosphere and what can have long term impacts on the climate than I do the Koch brothers.

  6. Declare War on the Sea! by wisnoskij · · Score: 4, Funny

    I guess Caligula had it right, he was just 2000 years ahead of his time.

    --
    Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
  7. Re:Not the first time by chipschap · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I believe we should be acting on the best scientific information we have.

    I couldn't agree more. We should act on scientific information, not the politics of wealth and not the politics of guilt. And the science should itself remain independent and untainted by politics (otherwise it isn't really science).

    I am willing to accept whatever unbiased science tells me. If I don't like that answer, too bad for me. It is what it is.

  8. Billions of people vs. thousands by Kohath · · Score: 2

    We just had this topic a few days ago. Are these stories supposed to convince us that billions of people around the world should give up on affordable energy for the convenience of thousands living on Pacific atolls? Does India owe it to Kiribati to keep the Indian people artificially poor for another half century until non-carbon energy is cheap enough?

    If not, then what's the point? "Kiribati leaders feel sad about what they think will happen in 50 years"? Lots of people who tell themselves sad stories (whether true, false, or unknown) about the future feel sad about it.

  9. Sea-level threat? by jdagius · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Sure, when you live on an island barely six feet above sea level, passing hurricanes have threatened (and have succeeded in the past) to wipe these islands clean. But the threat of sea level changes, which have been slowly rising since the last Ice Age, is moot because, in recent times, most of these Pacific atolls have grown in size, due to increasing biomass of growing coral.
    http://news.nationalgeographic...

    Cutting emissions, IMHO, will have no observable effect on these islands. But I can't blame the natives, though, for trying to get the rich nations of the world to give them free transport to higher and safer havens.

  10. Climate Change by hackus · · Score: 2

    First of all:

    1) Climate Change is a natural response to the Earth's ability to support life.To thwart the Earths ability to prevent or adapt either through increasing the surface area of the oceans as compared to land, or through geoengineering projects more than likely will destroy the biosphere.

    Contrary to what these scientists will tell you, shining a heat lamp on a beaker filled with CO2, although a useful experiment, is not exactly the same as a 4 billion year old Biosphere, created through wholly unknown means and unknown processes.

    So predicting a outcome through any purposeful change would be highly reckless and it is beyond our ability now, and more than likely a thousand years from now.

    Yes, the earth really is that complicated I am afraid than that beaker of CO2.

    So what can we do in the mean time?

    2) One thing we CAN do is divorce ourselves gradually over time from the environment. We would do that by building structures in orbit in the future, but right now, we have all the tools to do something far more practical: Create and build archologies on the surface or underwater.

    Since human beings are sort of picky about their environments anyway, to provide our own air, recycling and power systems to grow food in a closed loop from outside the environment is something which our current engineering systems can solve.

    No need to experiment with the environment outside, and much more useful than carbon taxes which do absolutely nothing but make problems worse by removing the financial benefits of climate change for building real solutions like the above.

    A great way to test this out would be to build an archology on the island and move everyone into it. Depending on what the culture produces or decides, they could allow the archology to float or stay fixed.

    It would represent a really valuable experiment to see what the details we would need to solve to make that happen.

    It would also produce and refine the timelines on some technology we desperately need like Thorium reactor technology and Hydroponic farming on large scales.

    And of course most of the industrial automation of the systems would be a HUGE project to make a distro of LINUX to handle. :-)

    Call it Archology LINUX. All the software you need to run a archology! :-)

    --
    Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.
  11. heartfelt by PopeRatzo · · Score: 3, Funny

    My thoughts and prayers go out to the Kiribati, because that's all they're gonna get and I ain't fucking giving up my giant SUV. No way.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
    1. Re:heartfelt by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Funny

      People need to wake up to the fact that atmospheric CO2 levels have no effect whatsoever on the temperature and that in fact the reverse is true.

      Can someone please translate this sentence into English for me? What is the "reverse" of "no effect whatsoever"?

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
  12. Re:Not the first time by Bartles · · Score: 4, Informative

    There's a vacant house across the street form me in Wisconsin.

  13. If the island will be unihabitable in 100 years by tompaulco · · Score: 2

    If the island will be uninhabitable in 100 years, when the global water level, if trends continue, will be 1 foot higher, then that pretty much means it is uninhabitable now. Get out now while you still can.

    --
    If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
  14. Re:How to Extort Money from Rich Nations by WaffleMonster · · Score: 2

    Make up a bullshit Global Warming disaster and tell them it's all their fault.

    I believe humans are changing the climate. I also believe global warming is being leveraged as a political excuse for much more localized man-made problems. Every year at the UN we hear the same tired sob stories from heads of states blaming the obvious gross mismanagement of their own lands on "climate change".

    I'm all for crunching complex models in gigantic computers as long as outputs include error bars and make useful predictions. I just wish people would find a way to disconnect science from the political questions about what if anything to do about it. There are plenty of people on both sides spewing bullshit for political advantage.

  15. Already been Done by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 2

    Actually this was (sort of) what has already happened, not with rising sea levels but with volcanic eruption which made the island of Montserrat largely uninhabitable in 1995. As a British Overseas territory it became the UK's problem to evacuate and house the inhabitants. However Kiribati became fully independent from the UK in 1979 so they are unlikely to be able to make it someone else's problem quite so easily.

  16. Re: How to Extort Money from Rich Nations by thesupraman · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It's worse than that. Actual measurements show the islands are growing not shrinking.
    It's all just an attempt to extort money based on lies.
    However the bleeding hearts just never bother to do any actual research.. They just want to feel self important by 'supporting the cause'.

  17. Re: How to Extort Money from Rich Nations by budgenator · · Score: 2

    That's actually true - but still a bold-faced lie by omission:

    "Et tu, Brute?"

    Records and research show that sea level has been steadily rising at a rate of 0.04 to 0.1 inches per year since 1900.

    This rate may be increasing. Since 1992, new methods of satellite altimetry (the measurement of elevation or altitude) indicate a rate of rise of 0.12 inches per year. Is sea level rising?

    A sealevel rise of 1 to 3 millimetres per year isn't going to inundate anything for millennia.

    --
    Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds