I wonder if we should stop building cities in the desert. Even the ancients were smart enough to abandon the Sahara when anthropogenic climate change caused it to change from lush woodlands to desert some 5,000 years ago.
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
I wonder if we should stop building cities in the desert. Even the ancients were smart enough to abandon the Sahara when anthropogenic climate change caused it to change from lush woodlands to desert some 5,000 years ago.[/quote]
Once the water runs out, you will see a massive influx of people migrating North.
Then shit will get real, not enough resources.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
I wonder if we should stop building cities in the desert. Even the ancients were smart enough to abandon the Sahara when anthropogenic climate change caused it to change from lush woodlands to desert some 5,000 years ago.[/quote]
Once the water runs out, you will see a massive influx of people migrating North.
Then shit will get real, not enough resources.[/quote]
I agree. But I don’t think it will happen suddenly hence no Chicken Little worries ala Bert’s Nightmare.
[/quote]
Agreed
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
I’ve always wondered why so many conservatives tend to look askance at anything having to do with conserving the environment. That goes double for conservatives who are also religious and look askance at anything having to do with conserving what is basically God’s greatest gift to mankind.[/quote]
Because somehow they believe their Rand/Friedman economic liberalism makes them a “conservative.” He lives in the moment. He has no connection to ancestor or descendents. If he was barred from being able to leave the spigot outside to empty itself into his grass for hours on end, while there’s a severe local drought…Well, then he’s a slave.
An actual Conservative feels connected to both ancestors AND descendents. He is an individual in a community made up of those past, present, and future. He actually feels an obligation not to pass on an uglier, emptied out, world.
Edit: It’s much like threatening to go to war here, there, and where ever to preserve “Democracy and Liberty.” And that being equated with “conservatism.” Who the heck pulled that little trick? Making “democracy” and “liberalism” crusades of conservatism? Conservatism is small, local, and highly suspicious of brute-forcing an alien culture right on top of a traditional local culture.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
I wonder if we should stop building cities in the desert. Even the ancients were smart enough to abandon the Sahara when anthropogenic climate change caused it to change from lush woodlands to desert some 5,000 years ago.[/quote]
Once the water runs out, you will see a massive influx of people migrating North.
Then shit will get real, not enough resources.[/quote]
I agree. But I don’t think it will happen suddenly hence no Chicken Little worries ala Bert’s Nightmare.
Whether it happens slowly or not, we will suffer if we are not prepared for it. The fact that it DOES happen slowly actually makes it that much important that we are vigilant. Otherwise, it just creeps up on us and by the time the monster has reared its ugly head, it’s already hovering over us.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
Of course getting people to sign off on massive underground water pipes would be rather difficult as well…I would assume that there would be enough deserted coastline to make the nukes and plants viable.[/quote]
Eminent domain precludes this particular worry.
Also the pipelines would not necessarily have to be underground, at least not the entire length.[/quote]
You’re right, but then you leave the entire water supply vulnerable to sabotage. Sure, you could guard the shit out of it with troops, but how many troops would it take to adequately guard miles and miles of pipe? And how many of those troops might be needed elsewhere due to mass migration or escalating revolts or something along those lines?
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
Of course getting people to sign off on massive underground water pipes would be rather difficult as well…I would assume that there would be enough deserted coastline to make the nukes and plants viable.[/quote]
Eminent domain precludes this particular worry.
Also the pipelines would not necessarily have to be underground, at least not the entire length.[/quote]
You’re right, but then you leave the entire water supply vulnerable to sabotage. Sure, you could guard the shit out of it with troops, but how many troops would it take to adequately guard miles and miles of pipe? And how many of those troops might be needed elsewhere due to mass migration or escalating revolts or something along those lines?
[/quote]
Okey dokey. [/quote]
Thats actually a pretty big thing on oil lines in northern Africa. People will just shoot them until they either spring a leak (and they can collect it) or explode(and they get blowed up).
Just be advised, that Cap and Trade funds may not be spent the way advertised, or even thought of.
Take a look what politicians really do money generated from fighting Global Warming.
Just last week the Wall Street Journal revealed Senate President Darrell Steinberg?s proposal for a “long-term investment strategy” to divvy up the revenues from California’s cap and trade program, which requires businesses that emit more than 25,000 carbon metric tons annually to purchase permits for the privilege. About 90% of the permits are being given away for free while the rest will be auctioned off. Thus far the auctioned portions have generated $1.5 billion.
Last year Governor Jerry Brown last year ?borrowed? nearly all of the auction proceeds for general-fund expenses. But the train doesn?t stop there. According to Journal, Mr. Steinberg now plans to raise Mr. Brown by spending future cash flows on his personal favorites: 40% for “sustainable communities” (i.e., affordable housing in urban areas); 30% for mass transit; 20% for high-speed rail; and 10% for roads and bike paths.
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
Of course getting people to sign off on massive underground water pipes would be rather difficult as well…I would assume that there would be enough deserted coastline to make the nukes and plants viable.[/quote]
Eminent domain precludes this particular worry.
Also the pipelines would not necessarily have to be underground, at least not the entire length.[/quote]
You’re right, but then you leave the entire water supply vulnerable to sabotage. Sure, you could guard the shit out of it with troops, but how many troops would it take to adequately guard miles and miles of pipe? And how many of those troops might be needed elsewhere due to mass migration or escalating revolts or something along those lines?
[/quote]
Okey dokey. [/quote]
Thats actually a pretty big thing on oil lines in northern Africa. People will just shoot them until they either spring a leak (and they can collect it) or explode(and they get blowed up).
[/quote]
That’s exactly what I was thinking of. At the mouth of the Nigerian delta, they get about as much oil coming through the waters there every year as what was spilled in the Gulf by BP. Pretty much all of it is from sabotage.
If it gets to the point where we have to build pipelines full of water, I don’t think it will be as bad as it is in Nigeria, but I can’t imagine that threats to the pipeline would develop over time, if not very quickly. Also, as important as oil is to an industrialized nation, water is still a more important resource. So even a small amount of sabotage could have a very large impact.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Okay, so now water pipelines from northern Canada to Southern California are out of the question because folks in Nigeria shoot at the their oil pipelines?
Well, alrighty then.[/quote]
Not out of the question at all. We’re just kicking around ideas for a world post-environmental apocalypse. Now we just have to test a section of x110 thick wall pipe with a fifty cal. You’re up for that, aren’t you?
A best case scenario would probably involve both pipelines and desalination systems to minimize the energy required to either lift water across a mountain range or run lines parallel through it, thus keeping the breadbasket irrigated with the piped in water and the coastline having the desalination systems.
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
I wonder if we should stop building cities in the desert. Even the ancients were smart enough to abandon the Sahara when anthropogenic climate change caused it to change from lush woodlands to desert some 5,000 years ago.[/quote]
One thing they / we could do was raise the price of water. Right now we get treated water at about $.01 a gal
go to google earth , zero in on 85260 and check out all those swimming pools
I will prepare for anthropomorphic global warming the same way I will prepare for the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, and Santa Claus.