It takes some really special brains to work out that Sea Level rise is different in different locations !

Individual,

Yes, all along our southern coasts, the land is slowly rising (hence the cliffs of the Bight), while it is sinking along the north - because the Australian Plate is rising in the south and slipping under the Pacific Plate on which Indonesia and PNG sit.

Very crudely, that should mean that actual sea-level rise is half as much as it seems to have been along the north coast. Very crudely. Is that the case ?

And perhaps you could join the dots between sea-level rise, tectonic activity and a flat tax ;)

Joe

One need look no further than China to gain a reasonable prediction of what future the planet and humanity are facing - and in the not too distant future at that. (2050, 2100? You are kidding - try 2035-40.)

China has embarked on expansionism, outside of its own land boundaries, in areas seen to be of future economic and productive potential. (Note, not in Bangladesh, for example, who's future is underwater).

China, 1.3 billion population, and many of them used to hard yakka, masses of technology at the cutting edge - and masses of nerds very capable of taking full advantage of the potentials, and of spying on invention, production, investment and political activities in the West. And, China obviously has scientific capability well in advance of anything in the West, massive military capability and armed services, and a population which has no alternative but to comply with any demands - with probably a large majority of the populace who wouldn't even think of objecting or saying no to any demand on them.

So, the writing is already 'on the wall'. China is moving, so everyone else had better look out. Stealth, but with the potential of takeover if that fails.

China can see it, the planet may only be saved for future generations (of Chinese) if China takes control. Control which may send a great many Westerners into virtual slavery or being worked to death (and not for any Union-demanded salaries), and with an appropriate 'deployment' of finite resources, and dealing with 'climate change' by reducing excessive demand (caused by heretofore wasteful Westerners).

China can see it. Resources are 'finite' - and you'd better believe it.
Move over, or get run over. There is no debate, no uncertainty.

Oh, and for the disbelievers, climate change (and warming) does not only promote vegetation growth, but also causes droughts, floods, and tempests - which can easily far outweigh sporadic 'green flushes'.

loudmouth2,
Joining the dots between the dead brain cells of people who believe Sea level is higher in one place & lower in another would offer countless hours of entertainment.
Like this bureaucrat who told a public meeting that if our harbour gets dredged the channel would not be deeper as the sea level would go down also. And, yes you guessed right, an educated person told the meeting exactly that !.

When population grows, a price is always exacted.

That price can be in food, but it can also be in lifestyle.
Malthus only saw the former possibility.

Loss of lifestyle ultimately implies regimentation and loss of freedom.
Loss of freedom implies loss of purpose.
Yes, we can keep that many more human bodies alive and mouths well-fed, but for what?

We have paid dearly for the agricultural revolution and the formation of coercive states which followed, slavery included.
We have paid so dearly for the industrial revolution, no need to expand as history-books are full of the terrible descriptions.
Now we are paying even more for the information revolution, which disconnects us from the simplicity of nature and human-to-human contact.
And yes, otherwise we would not be able to place food on our tables, for the so many of us.

If the world was to be fair, then initially everyone would have their equal share in its resources, then it would be up to each and every one to decide among how many offspring, be them one, few or many, they wish to divide their share.

Those who are unable or unwilling to control their genitals, who are slaves to the procreative demands of their genes, should pay with the poverty of their offspring - not with the forced change of lifestyle imposed over the responsible individuals who did hold back sewing their seeds (or ova) indiscriminately like there is no tomorrow.

Those who rather follow the natural procreative dictates of their genes and are willing to pay for it with their lifestyle, are called "Progressive".
Those who rather restrain their procreative urges and conserve their seeds so that they can maintain their lifestyle, are called "Conservative".

Yes, we can keep that many more human bodies alive and mouths well-fed, but for what?
Yuyutsu,
Spot-on,
runner, are you reading this ? It seems some people would rather see babies suffer a miserable existence than terminate pregnancies in the name of ideology ! All live is sacred they say so, according to them that includes miserable , devoid of quality & hope lives !
The human body has not yet fully evolved to the stage where procreation can be planned & controlled. In the animal world excess numbers equate into loss of life but for human kind this is only acceptable at the prospect of monetary or other gain i
Yes, we certainly are in the hands of some incredibly bizarre thinkers who knowingly prolong suffering although much of it could be eliminated by more humane thinking !