Good idea, qanda. What have you done to plan for it?

The government's idea of planning for climate change is the pink batts debacle. What makes you think their planning is going to be better than yours or mine?

Qanda, you've got to stop troubling your little mind with all this high tech stuff. It's obviously beyond you, [& a few othere on here].

There is nothing for you to worry about anyway. Ruddy will bung a Great Big Tax on something or other, & the problem will be solved. So there you are, as easy as sticking pink bats in your roof mate.

And so we have been left with the what ifs of labors left overs!

quanda: "1)I hear your shouting, thinkabit - sorry to have offended. .... 2)If we don't start to plan in a timely way (although I obviously agree that Man can adapt - when is the question, btw) then waiting till later maybe, just may be, too late."

1)Well I shouldn't really have been so loud.
2)Glad to hear that you agree that mankind can deal with any sea-rise (whether it happens or not). As regarding planing, in reality not a lot needs to be done- society's will naturally look after it quite nicely without major hassle.
For example, let's consider the loss of buildings near the shoreline assuming the 2m/100years sea-rise actually occurs: Well firstly observe that very few buildings built 100 years ago in Australia are still standing today-- most old buildings have been replaced by newer ones simply because the old buildings fell into decay/disrepair/disuse. Now assuming that there is 2m rise/100 years, this means that over the next few decades there would be a detectable rise of a few 10's of centimeters. People would obviously see this rise and hence when the older buildings built near the sea that need replacing at that time will be replaced not at the same position but father back away for the encroaching sea. Over the whole 100 years, almost all the original buildings that were below the 2m mark will have been gradually replaced. Very few will need to be demolished specifically because of the sea rises rather because they grew old and needed demolishing anyways. This will naturally happen, we don't need to have grand planning/enquiries/reports/political grandstanding, etc. about this.

Peter Hume

Actually, I’m involved in helping individuals, businesses and government “plan for it”. You just can’t pick up a 10000 acre farm and move it, relocate a ski-resort, develop regional areas without adequate infrastructure, etc. On a personal level, I am probably doing more than most – but I accept that many don’t care.

>> The government's idea of planning for climate change is the pink batts debacle. <<

No Peter, it’s much more than that – your quip is a ‘strawman’ argument.

>> What makes you think their planning is going to be better than yours or mine? <<

Peter, you might think that relevant, I don't.

_____

Hasbeen

Good post mate

thinkabit

>> As regarding planing, in reality not a lot needs to be done- society's will naturally look after it quite nicely without major hassle. <<

Some societies will be better able to adapt than others.

Your hypothetical: I just can't imagine picking up Circular Quay and all its surrounds and moving it up George St a kilometre or two. Not to mention the infrastucture that services it (train, electricity, sewer pipes, water pipes, etc) - but I take your point.

My point is (and I think it went over Peter's head) - there is a difference between what we can do personally, and what governments should do on behalf of the society they represent.

For example, adaptation in terms of energy supply, water supply, food supply, transport, health services, etc. These things require proper planning - something that should be bi-partisan in the national interest.

I don't see that with the current crop of politicians (in Oz anyway) albeit one lot seems to be trying harder than the other lot, combined. This does not bode well (imo) if in fact climate change turns out to be as dire as projected - and I for one don't think a 2m rise in sea levels is likely (80 cm is bad enough) - changing rainfall patterns/regions and temperature trends concern me more, btw. Unfortunately, we won't know until we get there.

So, it would be prudent (if not worthwhile) for the government (and opposition) of whatever persuasion, to plan now for the longer term - that is all.