Meet the first American climate refugees

Human beings can build homes and cities in stupid places. Engineers think that they can control nature by building dikes and levees, filling in swamps and such but that usually just fucks something up. Prairie wetlands used to absorb a lot of snow melt and control flooding but filling them in for farmland created conditions for worse flooding. I'll bet New Orleans was built on a delta to be close to the ocean and suffered periodic flooding so levees were constructed to prevent that. Fact is those houses are close to sea level. Should not be there. US government should have only paid to help relocate those affected neighborhoods to higher ground. Floods will happen again. Engineers cannot control nature.

Human beings can build homes and cities in stupid places. Engineers think that they can control nature by building dikes and levees, filling in swamps and such but that usually just fucks something up. Prairie wetlands used to absorb a lot of snow melt and control flooding but filling them in for farmland created conditions for worse flooding. I'll bet New Orleans was built on a delta to be close to the ocean and suffered periodic flooding so levees were constructed to prevent that. Fact is those houses are close to sea level. Should not be there. US government should have only paid to help relocate those affected neighborhoods to higher ground. Floods will happen again. Engineers cannot control nature.

3 million Dutchmen and women live below sea level and 50% of the country is less than 1 m above the sea (20% of the country is below sea level). The country's wealth comes from its location (and its industrious inhabitants) … their prosperity and even existence is dependent on where they have "chosen" to live. Moving is not an option for these people. Check out the Maeslant Storm Surge Barrier that pivots on the biggest hinges ever engineered to close and protect the port of Rotterdam.

People shouldn't live in seismically unstable places either - note to everyone who lives on the West Coast of the Americas (that's both north and south).

I love all the hypocrites from the lower mainland bitching about these guys building on a flood plain, maybe you should take a look at a map. I'd be willing to bet that the cost to move a couple of prefabs is significantly lower than the many km's of dykes that the government built for you :lol:

Oh, those Dutch and their crazy language!!

Kn.

I love all the hypocrites from the lower mainland bitching about these guys building on a flood plain, maybe you should take a look at a map. I'd be willing to bet that the cost to move a couple of prefabs is significantly lower than the many km's of dykes that the government built for you :lol:

Dikes are cheap, Fillsites make money, dikes don't work hard no mo.

And dikes are probably the cheapest part of the flood control program for the fraser river.

The fraser titan is a little more pricey, looooooooool.

And so forth. And dikes were inplace for farming before many of the suburban neighbor hoods were developed.

bunch of fucking racists and all-around asses up in this biatch

What, too hard to build your pre fab home on a hill a kilometer away? Life's tough. I hear teepee's are easier to move:rolleyes:

They use gas, they use electricity, stfu with the ancestors shit because they ain't around. Same old aboriginal argument day in day out.

Oh sorry, the worlds changing, adapt or gtfo pls.

My "ancestors" moved out of poland to canada years ago to avoid nazi germany, can I be relocated on the tax payers budget too please? Yeaaaa…. bye.

Poland? You don't say…

Oh, those Dutch and their crazy language!!

Kn.

They also have great women's field hockey teams …

They also have great women's field hockey teams …

We talking about dykes or the dutch here?

I love all the hypocrites from the lower mainland bitching about these guys building on a flood plain, maybe you should take a look at a map. I'd be willing to bet that the cost to move a couple of prefabs is significantly lower than the many km's of dykes that the government built for you :lol:

It is only hypocritical if those same people also believe Canadian government should have to pony up close to a trillion dollars to move Richmond if/when it succumbs to the ocean.

People choose to live in dumb locations all the time but this one was particularly dumb since the banks were eroding when they got there. Having said that I still think they should get help in relocating. The people of Garabaldi got something if I recall. Why not fund relocating all of the at risk communities and make it a jobs program while they are at it.

It is only hypocritical if those same people also believe Canadian government should have to pony up close to a trillion dollars to move Richmond if/when it succumbs to the ocean.

People choose to live in dumb locations all the time but this one was particularly dumb since the banks were eroding when they got there. Having said that I still think they should get help in relocating. The people of Garabaldi got something if I recall. Why not fund relocating all of the at risk communities and make it a jobs program while they are at it.

What about the Garibaldi lake barrier bursting (in say, an earthquake) and sending a wall of water down the valley …. hmmmmmm? We should relocate Squamish.

I think the worst is idiots living in the desert having lawns and shit.

What about the Garibaldi lake barrier bursting (in say, an earthquake) and sending a wall of water down the valley …. hmmmmmm? We should relocate Squamish.

They did relocate Black Tusk Village already. The buildings is Squamish on the flood plain have to be constructed IIRC 5 metres above sea level. I couldn't tell you if that is sufficient for when the barrier comes down and releases Garibaldi Lake.

Pretty much anywhere people live there will be challenges from natural occurrences be it hurricane tornado earthquake or foods etc. We know more today about natural hazards and how to avoid them. It makes more sense to build away from a flood prone area than to build there and place dikes along the river. New Orleans was constructed a long time ago. To me it made more sense to abandon the land and rebuild elsewhere.

Building in an earthquake zone means constructing things that will withstand and earthquake and not collapse. When the big one hits here lots of structure will go down, many will still be standing but will need to be demolished. Fewer still will be OK. Buildings don't last forever so they ought not to be constructed as if they will.

What about the Garibaldi lake barrier bursting (in say, an earthquake) and sending a wall of water down the valley …. hmmmmmm? We should relocate Squamish.

No, and that is my point. They moved the people out of Garibaldi because of the Barrier, but it was small at the time. While I don't agree with the people that say "screw the people in this village, they chose a stupid spot to live", I don't think that it makes them racist or hypocrites, they just have a lower threshold of how much money they are willing to spend on moving people away from dangerous locations. For me this is a small village facing certain destruction so the government should relocate them. The fact that they are natives or that they may not have much to do with climate change has nothing to do with it. But you can make the same argument for Squamish. Certainly the barrier poses far greater chance of killing people, but the threat is less imminent and the cost of moving the town far greater. I just hope me and family are not home when is breaks.