Repealing Deception: The Landing and Public Engagement

[Tacachale]

Cost $50 billion to whom?  Of course things cost more now and that has nothing to do with global warming, or climate change, or a coming ice age.  It has to do with inflation, increased cost of compliance, and labor expenses.  If we could rebuild something to the code that existed at the time of original construction it would cost a lot less.

$50 billion across the board, in the U.S. $267 billion between Harvey, Irma, and Maria, again in the U.S. alone.

According to the people who actually study this, hurricanes are getting more intense due to the increasing ocean heat. That's besides the other problems we're facing due to increasing temperatures and sea level rise.

[DrQue]

Hurricanes are much larger these days. It does not take a direct hit to experience substantial rainfall, wind, and storm surges. Combine those factors with higher water levels due to dredging and seal level rise and... you should get the picture.

Even if we're not underwater, the likelihood of more frequent flooding is increasing and should be incorporated in our decision making.

[Kerry]

Well, we obviously are just going to have to disagree and believe each other is wrong.  However, if you are serious about rebuilding downtown Jacksonville and creating an environment of walkable urbanism you aren't going to do it on the back of global warming, climate change, and environmentalism.  You are going to do on it on economics, social benefits, smaller government, and debt-reduction.

[Tacachale]

Well, we obviously are just going to have to disagree and believe each other is wrong.  However, if you are serious about rebuilding downtown Jacksonville and creating an environment of walkable urbanism you aren't going to do it on the back of global warming, climate change, and environmentalism.  You are going to do on it on economics, social benefits, smaller government, and debt-reduction.

And no resiliency? Good plan.

[DrQue]

Kerry - They're not mutually exclusive.

[Snaketoz]

Cost $50 billion to whom?  Of course things cost more now and that has nothing to do with global warming, or climate change, or a coming ice age.  It has to do with inflation, increased cost of compliance, and labor expenses.  If we could rebuild something to the code that existed at the time of original construction it would cost a lot less.

Of course it has to do with inflation.  And, that is what has to be paid to rebuild these days.  Try calling a contractor and tell him you want your flooded out house rebuilt at 1850 prices.  Back then they didn't have much that we have today.  When rebuilding after a storm in the 19th century, they didn't have to replace HVAC, insulation, electronics, sophisticated plumbing, electric, or even personal property unknown at that time.
I have a feeling that those who deny that the earth is warming do so because of political and religious reasons.  I tend to believe Nobel prize winning scientists over college dropout entertainers like Limbaugh or Hannity.  Your points are much like those of the geo centrists of old.  Don't believe science, believe those with a theory that can be "proven" by biblical passages.  I prefer to believe those who have studied our climates and if anything err on the side of caution.  Science has done more good for mankind than beliefs of the uneducated ever has.  It hasn't been long since people believed that invisible organisms were a folly, that the universe revolved around the earth, the earth is flat, and that we should burn people for being witches.  Thankfully, people learned there were germs, the sun is the center of the universe, not flat, and that scientists usually know more than entertainers.  It's all what you WANT to believe.

[Kerry]

If this is the group pushing reurbanization in Jax no wonder it is stuck in reverse.

[Tacachale]

If this is the group pushing reurbanization in Jax no wonder it is stuck in reverse.

LOL, we're farther behind on climate resiliency than we are on urban development.

[Kerry]

If this is the group pushing reurbanization in Jax no wonder it is stuck in reverse.

LOL, we're farther behind on climate resiliency than we are on urban development.

So let's say your primary fear in life is global warming.  On what basis would you oppose a new subdivision in Clay County?

[Tacachale]

If this is the group pushing reurbanization in Jax no wonder it is stuck in reverse.

LOL, we're farther behind on climate resiliency than we are on urban development.

So let's say your primary fear in life is global warming.  On what basis would you oppose a new subdivision in Clay County?

I don't know what you're getting at. Without context I have no clue how or if I'd oppose such a subdivision, or if climate change would be a factor in the decision.

[Kerry]

If this is the group pushing reurbanization in Jax no wonder it is stuck in reverse.

LOL, we're farther behind on climate resiliency than we are on urban development.

So let's say your primary fear in life is global warming.  On what basis would you oppose a new subdivision in Clay County?

I don't know what you're getting at. Without context I have no clue how or if I'd oppose such a subdivision, or if climate change would be a factor in the decision.

It is pretty easy.  You agree that a new subdivision in Clay County leads to global warming right?  So would you use global warming as the reason for opposition?  Of course, I am just assuming you would oppose a new subdivision.  You may not.

[Tacachale]

If this is the group pushing reurbanization in Jax no wonder it is stuck in reverse.

LOL, we're farther behind on climate resiliency than we are on urban development.

So let's say your primary fear in life is global warming.  On what basis would you oppose a new subdivision in Clay County?

I don't know what you're getting at. Without context I have no clue how or if I'd oppose such a subdivision, or if climate change would be a factor in the decision.

It is pretty easy.  You agree that a new subdivision in Clay County leads to global warming right?  So would you use global warming as the reason for opposition?  Of course, I am just assuming you would oppose a new subdivision.  You may not.

Well, I probably wouldn't worry about opposing one development. It's the pattern that needs to change and axing one development isn't likely to do that. I'd focus more on advocating better design for suburbs; one reason would be to make them less autocentric to reduce emissions, but there are many other reasons to advocate for it as well. It doesn't have to be an either-or proposition.

[DrQue]

Don't be short selling seal rise.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/cape-cod-looks-for-ways-to-keep-sharks-away-11556789423?mod=searchresults&page=1&pos=1