Quote:
Originally Posted by Traum
I wouldn't look at it that way. Take Lytton, for example. If I were Hulk Horgan (or maybe even Turdeau), I'd look at the one-time cost of relocating / buying out every single resident in the village versus the rebuilding + recurring cost of rescuing them when climate disaster hits the fan over the next X-number of years. Even if the World were successful in meeting the 1.5°C target from the Paris Agreement -- and that's a BIG IF -- we know climate diasters are still going to get worse before it stablizes or gets better. So that pretty much means the people of Lytton are going to need rescuing and rebuilding at least a few times.
When basic infrastructure is destroyed to the level that we've seen (at Lytton), I would be very surprised if the one-time relocation cost isn't cheaper than the recurring rebuilding cost.
Turning to Princeton, News 1130 is saying that 2022 is the 6th (consecutive) year where the Princeton community got hit by one thing or another -- mostly wildfires and flooding. At what point do you want to say "enough is enough"?
Building back better is one thing. Tossing $$$ down a recurring and bottomless pit is quite another when you know shxt is just going to hit the fan again and again.
|
oh i agree, at this point 100% its cheaper to move everyone from Lytton
but this is our land! we did some irrelevant shit here 400 years ago!! so you MUST rebuild our homes in this fucking gulch that is basically under the lense of a magnifying glass with 48 degree temps! lol
your average, rational, person should want to move out of that hell hole.. but it would be a PR nightmare to even suggest it