Originally Posted by cdcox
This is my point. Once you get past the denial stage, and ignore the most extreme proposals, reasonable people can talk about moderate steps that could be taken to address the situation. But we can't do that because we can't move past the denial stage.
Number 7 doesn't really require that much projecting of cost/benefits. For example, a seawall to protect NYC is projected at $20B. Sandy cost NYC $19B in lost economic activity and 43 lives. If you get another Sandy type storm in the next 10 years, it is pretty clear evidence that the cost benefit favors building the seawall.
But you don't spend billions, on a projection of something that might happen. In other words, if Sandy had not yet occurred, and someone were advocating a seawall for NYC based on predicted potential storms that would crash the city, I'd say let's wait and see.
But the planning for these types of hardened infrastructure takes time, and often times multiple iterations, so we should begin that planning process now.
Do we build a seawall for every major city on the coast or just NYC? Shouldn't the people of NYC or the state of New York be interested in building a seawall if the cost benefit case is so strong? Or is it possible that there are other, higher priority uses for that $20b?
I don't think denial is the only obstacle here. It might not even be the biggest. It makes sense to consider ideas like the NYC seawall, but there are opportunity costs involved too.
"[The democrat party] has become a left wing party, that's anti-American, and thatís racist." - David Horowitz