FacebookTwitterRedditEmail

Pickin’ and Choosin’ the Winners and Losers of Climate Change

Photograph Source: NASA Scientific Visualization Studio – Public Domain

The official government pickin’and choosin’ of the winners and losers of climate change already has begun.

If you’re still in the tribe that thinks climate change is maybe not a thing, or a thing that might happen a hundred years from now, perhaps you might like to consider this: everyone else is already moving beyond that debate and starting to pick and choose who’s gonna be saved and who’s not, who’s gonna be a winner and who’s gonna be a loser. If you want to have anything to say about which of those two camps you get slotted into, maybe it’s time to reconsider your position.

The New York Times reported (June 19) that two federal government agencies are now developing rules for giving out billions of dollars in grants to help cities and states defend themselves from the destructive effects of climate change.

Since we live in nonsense times, of course this is happening while the Republican President and his minions are denying that climate change is even happening, and the leadership of the Democratic Party is refusing to allow its leading presidential candidates to engage in public debate about it so it won’t become a major issue in the 2020 campaign. Tra lala lala lala

And now the bad news. The experts say that there won’t possibly be enough money to defend all the places that need defending. That’s where the pickin’ and choosin’ comes in.

The NYT reports that one environmental advocacy group estimates that it’s going to take at least $42 billion to build sea walls to protect only those threatened coastal cities with more than 25,000 residents against a typical annual storm by 2040. Protecting all coastal communities (less than 25,000 pop.) would cost north of $400 billion. And that’s just for the sea walls to try to hold back the storm surge. That doesn’t include the cost of shoring up water and sewage systems and other vital infrastructure. Can you spell trillions? And I haven’t said anything about relocation and re-settlement costs yet.

The experts already are saying it just won’t make sense to spend the money to protect everyplace that needs it. That’s where the rule-making comes in. The rules are the criteria for deciding who gets the money and who doesn’t. Some communities will survive and many will be abandoned.

HUD (Housing and Urban Development) is working on the rules for $16 billion worth of grants, and FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) is working on its own rules for an as yet unspecified amount of grants.

In the end, will they decide to spend money mostly on the sites where it will most reduce the cost of future damages? In other words, spend most of the money where most of the money is already concentrated, benefitting disproportionately the already wealthy. What factors other than the price tag will they consider, if any?

It’s entirely possible that the money we spend at these early stages of this crisis gets spent on the basis of short term considerations, like avoiding high cost damages for the typical storm of 2040, when maybe the ocean will be one to two feet higher than it is today. And maybe that happens because it’s more politically feasible to get done at this stage of lingering denial. Maybe we’re not ready to give up on Miami yet, even if we know it’s going under eventually, or that even if we “save” it, the only way to get there will be on a jet-ski.

What happens when your multi-billion dollar sea wall that holds back the ocean in 2040 is overwhelmed 20 years later when the ocean is another three feet higher? Then your initial investment would have been wasted money, ultimately. Doesn’t this situation cry out for a bigger and better plan? Like maybe we plan for the worst-case scenario, or the one we know is most likely to occur – not 2040 levels but 2100 levels, when the oceans may be up anywhere from 6 to 60 feet. Maybe the best plan is to move everyone at the outset to those places where life will be sustainable for the long term.

The point is that these decisions are beginning to be made now, and this should be THE issue of the 2020 campaign, and every one after that.

The NYT has done its job of bringing these ongoing developments to our attention. But what their reporting did not emphasize strongly enough is that this is not a problem that we should be addressing piece meal at this late date in the history of humanity. We don’t need various agencies independently adopting different sets of rules with different priorities. We need a serious and far reaching plan that governs all of our activities intended to re-make our society. Anything else will result in the wasting of precious resources that will only become more scarce over time.

It’s like the NYT and most of the rest of us are still dancing around the urgency of the moment. It’s still a form of denial. We talk about it but we don’t really take it seriously yet. It’s like saying, it’s OK, we can take this approach now because we still have time and we can correct our mistakes later. But maybe we’re already at the point where we will not be able to recover from more major blunders. Maybe we’re already so far behind the eight ball in dealing with this crisis that we’re going to have to do just about everything right to have any chance of keeping a reasonable facsimile of our civilization around.

The NYT reports this just like any other story, like it’s just another isolated event in time, with no connection to the bigger ongoing train wreck we are living through. This is where the media is still failing. This is where our public discourse is still failing, with our two main political parties both pretending that this is not the major issue of our time. Anybody still pushing that idea is either thinking they can still hustle out some kind of edge in the short term, or maybe they’re just plain blinded by denial and habituated ways of doing things that worked last century but don’t anymore, and they haven’t gotten the memo yet.

Time to get wise people. The decisions about your future are being made now. Don’t let them hold an election and pretend that this is not the biggest issue of our time. The pickin’ and choosin’ of the winners and losers has begun. Which do you want to be?

More articles by:

Jeff Sher is a journalist specializing in the health care industry. He lives in San Francisco.

bernie-the-sandernistas-cover-344x550
July 16, 2019
Conn Hallinan
The World Needs a Water Treaty
Kenneth Surin
Britain Grovels: the Betrayal of the British Ambassador
Christopher Ketcham
This Land Was Your Land
Gary Leupp
What Right Has Britain to Seize an Iranian Tanker Off Spain?
Evaggelos Vallianatos
Democratic Virtues in Electing a President
Thomas Knapp
Free Speech Just isn’t That Complicated
Binoy Kampmark
The Resigning Ambassador
Howard Lisnoff
Everybody Must Get Stoned
Nicky Reid
Nukes For Peace?
Matt Johnson
The United States of Overreaction
Cesar Chelala
Children’s Trafficking and Exploitation is a Persistent, Dreary Phenomenon
Martin Billheimer
Sylvan Shock Theater
July 15, 2019
David Altheide
The Fear Party
Roger Harris
UN High Commissioner on Human Rights Bachelet’s Gift to the US: Justifying Regime Change in Venezuela
John Feffer
Pyongyang on the Potomac
Vincent Kelley
Jeffrey Epstein and the Collapse of Europe
Robert Fisk
Trump’s Hissy-Fit Over Darroch Will Blow a Chill Wind Across Britain’s Embassies in the Middle East
Binoy Kampmark
Juggling with the Authoritarians: Donald Trump’s Diplomatic Fake Book
Dean Baker
The June Jobs Report and the State of the Economy
Michael Hudson – Bonnie Faulkner
De-Dollarizing the American Financial Empire
Kathy Kelly
Remnants of War
B. Nimri Aziz
The Power of Our Human Voice: From Marconi to Woods Hole
Elliot Sperber
Christianity Demands a Corpse 
Weekend Edition
July 12, 2019
Friday - Sunday
Paul Street
Skull of Death: Mass Media, Inauthentic Opposition, and Eco-Existential Reality in a Pre-Fascist Age of Appeasement
T.J. Coles
“Strategic Extremism”: How Republicans and Establishment Democrats Use Identity Politics to Divide and Rule
Rob Urie
Toward an Eco-Socialist Revolution
Gregory Elich
How Real is the Trump Administration’s New Flexibility with North Korea?
Jason Hirthler
The Journalists Do The Shouting
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Pâté Politics in the Time of Trump and Pelosi
Andrew Levine
The Electoral Circus as the End of Its Initial Phase Looms
David Swanson
Earth Over the Brink
Ron Jacobs
Presidential Papers
Robert Hunziker
The Flawed Food Dependency
Dave Lindorff
Defeating the Trump Administration’s Racist, Republican-Rescuing Census Corruption
Martha Rosenberg
Pathologizing Kids, Pharma Style
Kathleen Wallace
Too Horrible to Understand, Too Horrible to Ignore
Ralph Nader
An Unsurpassable Sterling Record of Stamina!
Paul Tritschler
Restricted View: the British Legacy of Eugenics
John Feffer
Trump’s Bluster Diplomacy
Thomas Knapp
Did Jeffrey Epstein “Belong to Intelligence?”
Nicholas Buccola
Colin Kaepernick, Ted Cruz, Frederick Douglass and the Meaning of Patriotism
P. Sainath
It’s Raining Sand in Rayalaseema
Charles Davis
Donald Trump’s Fake Isolationism
Michael Lukas
Delisting Wolves and the Impending Wolf Slaughter
Evaggelos Vallianatos
Shaking Off Capitalism for Ecological Civilization
FacebookTwitterRedditEmail