And you wouldn't choose a more inland house considering the cost? It makes no sense.
It depends on how much he thinks sea levels will rise. What's he actually said on the matter? Judging by what the scientific consensus is, we'll see a rise of about 3m by 2100. So I'm guessing Obama bargained that it's a safe bet his house won't get wet if scientists are right and the sea level only rises by 10 feet over 81 years.
Besides, by that time he'll be dead and so will his kids.
If that's all the sea will rise, the politicians have been lying to make it a crisis.
Have they, though? I mean, rising sea levels is just one problem out of a whole big bunch of problems caused by global climate change. Also, a 3m change actually causes a whole lot of problems for major cities and people who live closer to the water than the Obamas do.
No, I wouldn't say it's a drastic problem for 3 meters over 90 years. We can't stop it even if we tried. The politicians have claimed disaster within a couple decades to pass bills that would cripple the economy within months.
Well claims that it would cripple our economy are largely hyperbolic, and they usually come from the same folks who sold us on trickle down economics. It's pretty clear by now they have no idea what they're talking about when it comes to economics. Besides, like I said, rising sea levels is only one problem out of many. They could never rise and we'd still be in a world of trouble (literally and metaphorically). So basing an argument against global climate change based on sea levels is just ignorant.
If you kill the energy sector without a sufficient replacement, you will cripple the economy. I don't see how that's a topic of debate. Wind, solar, etc is not efficient enough. Unless we go full nuclear. We need to wait until the technology advances and let's the change be organic.
Again, that's hyperbole. Nobody's trying to kill the energy sector. Even if they were, it'd be pointless to whine about saving the sector if we cause the environment to change to the point at which we can't live in it any more, while we wait for the market to bring about "organic" change.
Well, I can see we will just have to agree to disagree.
Well, no. This isn't an agree to disagree issue. The validity of global climate change does not hinge solely on rising sea levels. Period. End of story. If you think otherwise, you're demonstrably incorrect. Scientifically, at any rate.
I'd agree if it weren't coming with a 15 million price tag...
Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions
The only opinion from girls was selected the Most Helpful Opinion, but you can still contribute by sharing an opinion!