undefined | Better HN

0 pointsAnimalMuppet4y ago0 comments

> Especially since there are likely useful public works projects that could be done to mitigate damage from climate change anyway.

If you did public works to protect against this, then they would help you against climate change. But if you did public works to protect against climate change, they would not protect against this, because this is maybe 3 times worse. (Nobody that I have ever heard is talking about an 80 foot sea level rise from climate change.)

0 comments

ethbr04y ago

There are some dual-purpose systems.

E.g. ensuring New Orleans' pumps are in working condition, and a levee system is built to survive overtopping without collapsing.

The difference between a crisis and a catastrophe is how quickly mitigation kicks in after an event.

omgwtfbyobbq4y ago

The cost of protecting against this would be very high. The marginal cost of additions to blunt the effects of a tsunami in addition to protecting against climate change might not be that much.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse