With the difficulties beginning to be seen in the pulling back approach (as the linked article below indicates from Bloomberg via Digg) maybe we should be looking for alternatives from a much wider perspective.
The first proposition, of course, is that this can be done, on the scale that it will eventually have to be done on, on a cost, and money basis. If you believe that you are once again whistling through a kind of dark I don't even want to try to start imagining.
Then there is this notion that the only alternative is to simply find land somewhere inland. But that doesn't have to be the case. Not if we were to come up with innovative new ways to either float large habitat areas, or (if Roman concrete can be duplicated) we can just keep making the stilts bigger round, stronger, and taller).
My bias, of course, is to go with the floating approach because that would fit in so nicely with doing a lot of other things at sea with massed accumulations of support structure (as in producing liquid hydrogen at sea with Yen Tornado Turbines, or supporting the world's first, underwater, suspended tunnel, to act as a mass driver launch system into near earth orbit).
In any case, though, this article about the difficulties of relocating people due to rising sea levels must serve as a wake up call. And make no mistake. This little jewel of a problem will be biting us in the ass, and sooner than you might think.
As before, just another of those clocks that are ticking down.
As This Town Slips Into Sea, a $48 Million Rescue Runs Into Obstacles
No comments:
Post a Comment