Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

As Seas Rise, Maldives Seek To Buy a New Homeland

kdawson posted more than 5 years ago | from the gladly-pay-you-tuesday dept.

Earth 521

Peace Corps Online writes "The Maldives will begin to divert a portion of the country's billion-dollar annual tourist revenue to buy a new homeland as insurance against climate change. Rising sea levels threaten to turn the 300,000 islanders into environmental refugees as the chain of 1,200 island and coral atolls dotted 500 miles from the tip of India is likely to disappear under the waves if the current pace of climate change continues to raise sea levels. The UN forecasts that the seas are likely to rise by up to 59 cm by the year 2100. Most parts of the Maldives are just 150 cm above water so even a 'small rise' in sea levels would inundate large parts of the archipelago. 'We can do nothing to stop climate change on our own and so we have to buy land elsewhere. It's an insurance policy for the worst possible outcome,' says the Muslim country's first democratically elected president, Mohamed Nasheed, adding that he has already broached the subject with a number of countries and found them to be 'receptive.' India and Sri Lanka are targets because they have similar cultures and climates; Australia is worth looking at because of the immense amount of unoccupied land in that country. 'We do not want to leave the Maldives, but we also do not want to be climate refugees living in tents for decades.'"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

A myth. (2, Insightful)

Daryen (1138567) | more than 5 years ago | (#25732335)

They have nothing to worry about, Global Warming is just a myth!

...Right?

If the summary is correct, and they are only 150 centimeters above water... than this isn't a very good place to build regardless of global warming or not. Your average over-sized wave could swamp the entire island.

Re:A myth. (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25732439)

only 150 centimeters

Obviously the islamists are helping their librul friends with their global warming scam by scraping the top off the island so that they can claim it is disappearing!

Re:A myth. (0, Flamebait)

bugeaterr (836984) | more than 5 years ago | (#25732491)

...Right?

Right!
Rising ocean levels *proves* that *man* causes rising ocean levels.
Your logic is inescapable.
So why are Maldivians packing their bags?
Don't they know that the Democrats now have total control of the US government
and will sign the Kyoto Protocol, thus lowering sea levels?

Re:A myth. (-1, Flamebait)

fatphil (181876) | more than 5 years ago | (#25732569)

I like your logic. I however, have some even better logic.

They're a Muslim country. So why don't they simply request that their omnipotent god stops the sea level rising? If the god refuses that simple request and they drown, then it's because their god wanted them to die. Who are we westerners to step in the way of the wants of their god?

Re:A myth. (0, Flamebait)

theaveng (1243528) | more than 5 years ago | (#25732655)

Only Christians (specifically fundamentalists) are that dumb. Muslims and Jews take matters into their own hands and fix their own problems.

>>>Global Warming is just a myth!

No it's real (probably), but it's not man-made. The previous two warming events (3000 BC) and (300-1200 AD) were not caused by man, and it's unlikely this one is either. It's just a natural cycle... same as the glaciers retreating north 10,000 years ago, or the dinosaurs living without ANY ice (not even the poles) 200 million years ago. Warming happens.

Re:A myth. (5, Insightful)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 5 years ago | (#25732815)

Muslims and Jews take matters into their own hands and fix their own problems.

Which explains why Israel has been at peace with her neighbors since her inception and the Middle East is one of the nicest places on Earth to call home......

Re:A myth. (3, Informative)

Andr T. (1006215) | more than 5 years ago | (#25732669)

Don't they know that the Democrats now have total control of the US government and will sign the Kyoto Protocol, thus lowering sea levels?

The USA has already signed [wikipedia.org] the protocol. It has to be ratified, though.

Re:A myth. (4, Interesting)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 5 years ago | (#25732925)

The USA has already signed [wikipedia.org] the protocol. It has to be ratified, though.

I'm a Democrat and think of myself as an environmentalist and even I'm skeptical about the value of the Kyoto Protocol. What's the point in the Western countries tanking our economies to bring down emissions if China is bringing dozens of new coal power plants online and adding millions of new vehicles to the road?

I would like to see progress made on green technology (which will translate into more jobs and economic recovery) so that we can bring emissions down and sell that technology to the rest of the World -- but why all of this focus on Kyoto when the protocol itself is inherently unfair to developed countries?

Re:A myth. (4, Insightful)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 5 years ago | (#25732953)

I'm a Democrat and think of myself as an environmentalist and even I'm skeptical about the value of the Kyoto Protocol. What's the point in the Western countries tanking our economies to bring down emissions if China is bringing dozens of new coal power plants online and adding millions of new vehicles to the road?

A true environmentalist SHOULD be skeptical about a body of law explicitly allowing developing nations to pollute. This is an incredibly stupid thing to do, because there is not in fact any real benefit to it. The simple truth is that it is more cost-effective to be "green" over any kind of reasonable time scale.

but but (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25732341)

this environmental stuff is all bullsh*t... i mean, comes on, who actually believes in global warming or rising sea levels? It's all liberal lies and propaganda so they can raise taxes. There are just too many ultra-rich lieberals who have gained their wealth directly from tax. Taxes are the devil.

Australia? (5, Insightful)

MikeRT (947531) | more than 5 years ago | (#25732343)

Correct me if I am wrong here, but isn't most of that "unoccupied territory," "unoccupied" because it's a very harsh environment, basically desert, that isn't really suitable for settling?

Re:Australia? (5, Funny)

DDLKermit007 (911046) | more than 5 years ago | (#25732503)

A little more suitable I think than home underwater...

barely (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25732605)

Australia has not the fresh water to support its current population let alone a greater one on a sustainable basis. Anybody believing otherwise has some learnin' to do.

Re:barely (2, Interesting)

TheoGB (786170) | more than 5 years ago | (#25732761)

The problem is that Australia doesn't recycle water. The reason they don't is because they have a peculiar habit of asking the population to vote on things and people are very hard to convince of this sort of thing.

Here in the UK we've survived for generations on recycled water but Queenslanders would rather go parched than drink 'shit'.

I wonder how the Mauritanians would respond (2, Insightful)

MikeRT (947531) | more than 5 years ago | (#25732787)

Seeing as how their country is being turned into a desert [wordpress.com] . I'm not sure which is worse, personally. Having your homeland washed out to sea, or being told that you have to make do with land that would require probably tens of billions of dollars (that you don't have, and probably will never have) to start turning into semi-usable living space.

Re:Australia? (1)

liquidMONKEY (749280) | more than 5 years ago | (#25732535)

The middle of Australia is mostly desert, yes. That's why most of the population is scattered along the east and west coasts.

Re:Australia? (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25732929)

Actually you're wrong. Yes the very center of Australia is harsh unpopulated desert. However there are also large stretches of the north coast of Australia which remain uninhabited. These areas are tropical, have large monsoons and could sustain a fairly large population. In fact it's been proposed for a while now that in North Western Australia there be more settlement of people/industry. (I'm an Aussie by the way.) I don't know how receptive the general population will be to a new settement in the north. Especially with heavily islamic Indonesia next door which does house terrorism. I'm sure the Maldivean people are friendly and all but I don't know what the general Australian population will think of it all. On the other hand it does look like the Maldives are pretty relaxed about morality considering it is a massive tourism destination, but I guess we'll have to wait and see.

Refreshing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25732345)

It's nice to finally see a leader who actually, oh, what's the word I'm looking for - LEADS!

Australia's unoccupied land (1)

Amenacier (1386995) | more than 5 years ago | (#25732347)

Yes, we have immense amounts of unoccupied land, but with no water in sight. There's no way that putting them out in the middle of the desert regions would be helping them out - they'd be from one extreme to another!

Re:Australia's unoccupied land (3, Insightful)

perlchild (582235) | more than 5 years ago | (#25732557)

Just for the convenience of keeping borders "manageable", I doubt any place they occupy can be elsewhere but on a seashore. Who'd want to lock themselves in a country, only to have them embargo you over a trade dispute? I mean, being land-locked is bad enough, but being bad locked inside a country that's bigger than you, whose standing army outnumbers you and who doesn't like you anymore?

On the other hand, maybe New Zealand will offer a better deal.

Re:Australia's unoccupied land (1)

theaveng (1243528) | more than 5 years ago | (#25732725)

Maybe they could move to Alaska. Lots of water there. Most of it is currently frozen but if the global warming experts are correct, Alaska will soon be a pleasant place to live. Like Seattle or Vancouver.

Of if they prefer the east coast, Newfoundland/Labrador should be a nice area in 2100. Like Maine but with lots of open land.

Also:

If the Maldives president was serious, he would start encouraging his people to leave NOW - one family at a time. That way the task of moving 0.3 million people will be manageable rather than near-impossible.

Re:Australia's unoccupied land (2, Funny)

Hitman_Frost (798840) | more than 5 years ago | (#25732865)

Perhaps we could get to work on developing some kind of 'stillsuit' technology?

But Australia has no borders (5, Interesting)

Zouden (232738) | more than 5 years ago | (#25732349)

Australia is worth looking at because of the immense amount of unoccupied land in that country.

Yes, but Australia, the country, is entirely contiguous with the continent. I can't imagine us (now or in the future) being very receptive to the idea of another country buying their way onto the continent and having to set up borders etc.

Besides, who'd want to move from a tropical archipelago to - let's face it - a desert? Sri Lanka is a much more likely candidate.

Re:But Australia has no borders (1)

jez9999 (618189) | more than 5 years ago | (#25732561)

Yes, but Australia, the country, is entirely contiguous with the continent.

Ehhhhhh? What continent is New Zealand in, then?

Re:But Australia has no borders (4, Interesting)

Dak RIT (556128) | more than 5 years ago | (#25732649)

Zealandia [wikipedia.org] .

Re:But Australia has no borders (1)

jez9999 (618189) | more than 5 years ago | (#25732943)

I'm aware of Zealandia, but it's not traditionally considered a world continent.

Re:But Australia has no borders (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25732661)

Oceania. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oceania

Re:But Australia has no borders (2, Interesting)

TheoGB (786170) | more than 5 years ago | (#25732785)

The north coast of Australia is tropical and largely unoccupied. Of course, it's also full of salt-water crocodiles!

Re:But Australia has no borders (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25732927)

Yeah - I'm sure the Govt. would love them to displace the locals on the Northern part, (Tamils).

ok come ot canada loads a room for people (1)

CHRONOSS2008 (1226498) | more than 5 years ago | (#25732361)

especially for those that have cash to buy a house already...

yay mountains (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25732363)

I've never been happier to be separated from the sea by two mountain ranges. Non-ocean view be damned, at least I'm not gonna flood!

Re:yay mountains (2, Funny)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 5 years ago | (#25732559)

Hey, I live in Florida, you insensitive clod!

Re:yay mountains (1)

Creepy Crawler (680178) | more than 5 years ago | (#25732683)

Enjoy the water.

Creepy Crawler in Indiana.

A simple question (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25732369)

How much have the sea levels actually risen?

Re:A simple question (5, Informative)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 5 years ago | (#25732625)

A simple answer: between 1993 and 2000, the mean rate was 3.1mm/year [wikipedia.org] , and it is increasing. These islands are like, 150 centimeters above sea level. Not much margin there.

Re:A simple question (5, Insightful)

finarfinjge (612748) | more than 5 years ago | (#25732711)

Your question is simple, but the answer is not. Sea levels have risen 120 meters during this interglacial warming period. Should the Greenland ice cap melt again, then they may rise up to another 7 meters. That is the maximum. The fact that these islands exist above current sea levels is proof that the sea levels have been higher than they are now. These islands are basically relic coral reefs and hence formed under water.

Cheers

JE

Re:A simple question (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25732829)

Should the Greenland ice cap melt again, then they may rise up to another 7 meters. That is the maximum.

7 metres is not the maximum. It may be unlikely, but the Antarctic ice *could* melt eventually (since it has in the distant past).

Makes me recall Bangladesh (4, Interesting)

dancingmad (128588) | more than 5 years ago | (#25732375)

Nasheed's quote at the end of the summary really made me recall Bangladesh, where my parents are from. It's another country that is under major threat from climate change. I've often wondered what Bangladeshi people would do when the flood waters finally get bad enough to make the country uninhabitable, through no fault of their own (most of the people there are remarkably poor). I once read a touching BBC article where a village farmer complained that he was losing his country so Westerners could drive in their cars.

I always thought most Bangladeshis not killed by cataclysmic flooding would escape into neighboring countries, especially West Bengal in India, but the Maldives seems to have a "good" (at least practical) idea. Sadly the Bangladeshi government is too inefficient, corrupt, and schizophrenic to manage something as well thought out, costly, and long term as that.

I fully expect to have to explain to my kids that Bangladesh was where their grandparents were from but that it no long exists (above the ocean, anyway).

Re:Makes me recall Bangladesh (1, Troll)

jez9999 (618189) | more than 5 years ago | (#25732483)

I'm guessing they'll migrate to other countries, something many of them seem to have no problem with. A lot of Londoners are Balgladeshi.

Re:Makes me recall Bangladesh (2, Informative)

dancingmad (128588) | more than 5 years ago | (#25732543)

Well, I'd argue that it takes some money to immigrate, especially these days - the vast majority of truly poor people in Bangladesh can't do this (which is why the Indian government is so angry about poor Bangladeshis sneaking into India).

There's actually an interesting class distinction here - many of Bangladeshis in England were poorer (and did things like manual labor, restaurants, etc.) while those that immigrated to the U.S. in the 60s and 70s where much better educated and middle class and entered those jobs in the U.S. (education, medicine, and engineering). WIth tighter immigration restrictions in both England (and that's a joke! The English took out the last Mughal king in Bangladesh!) and the U.S. I suspect the poorest in Bangladesh have no chance at getting out legitimately.

Incidentally, how long before a Londoner of Bangladeshi background is no longer Bangladeshi and is just a Londoner? Three generations? Four?
The impression that I get is that though Bangladesh and England have been tied together for such a long time, no matter how long a Bangladeshi's lived in England s/he's still Bangladeshi and not English.

Re:Makes me recall Bangladesh (2, Interesting)

Olix (812847) | more than 5 years ago | (#25732691)

I couldn't point at someone and say "he is Bangladeshi", so I don't know if there are communities of Bangladeshi immigrants in London who are so tightly nit that they refuse to intergate, but for Indians and other peoples from that region of the world, they tend to become "Londeners" by the second generation.

The UK is not the country it was 150 years ago. London today is a very multicultural place.

Re:Makes me recall Bangladesh (3, Interesting)

jez9999 (618189) | more than 5 years ago | (#25732881)

The UK is not the country it was 150 years ago. London today is a very multicultural place.

That, in my experience, tends to remove people's sense of UK identity and tie them more strongly to that of their homeland. I worked with a Bangladeshi as my boss for a year in London, who was clearly second-generation or later. He still referred to Bangladesh as 'my home'.

Re:Makes me recall Bangladesh (1)

TheoGB (786170) | more than 5 years ago | (#25732885)

how long before a Londoner of Bangladeshi background is no longer Bangladeshi and is just a Londoner?

A Londoner is one who lives in London so the answer to your question is as soon as they take up residence in London.

Re:Makes me recall Bangladesh (1)

TheoGB (786170) | more than 5 years ago | (#25732853)

A lot of Londoners are Balgladeshi.

2.3% of Londoners are Bangladeshi (I presume in fact this is 'of Bangladeshi origin') which is definitely not 'a lot'.

Re:Makes me recall Bangladesh (1)

stiller (451878) | more than 5 years ago | (#25732651)

Sadly the Bangladeshi government is too inefficient, corrupt, and schizophrenic to manage something as well thought out, costly, and long term as that.

Yes, that is too bad. Or they might have been able to build something like this. [wikipedia.org]

Re:Makes me recall Bangladesh (1)

dancingmad (128588) | more than 5 years ago | (#25732695)

One would hope - but the government's poor and there is no political will to do anything. Bangladesh is no Maldives.

Good advertising! (5, Funny)

Shin-LaC (1333529) | more than 5 years ago | (#25732385)

As tourism takes a hit from the economic crisis, this is a great piece of advertising. "Visit the beautiful Maldives while you still can!"

How interesting (4, Interesting)

bigattichouse (527527) | more than 5 years ago | (#25732395)

I just emailed my senator yesterday because I was concerned about the mention that environmental refugees (which there have already been several groups) are not recognized by the international community, and was hoping to at least get the idea mentioned before the senate.

I hope he reads it, or a staffer does - seeing as he just got a promotion and might be a little busy.
--
Keep One Eye Open on Craiglist.com - Search hundreds of communities from one place with one click [bigattichouse.com]

Re:How interesting (2, Insightful)

DataBroker (964208) | more than 5 years ago | (#25732465)

The most likely way that they can raise awareness is by suing a large country. If they were to sue the US government for providing an environment which encourages companies to pollute in, they could then collect for damages in the form of a replacement parcel, or enough money to buy a replacement parcel. Granted they would likely lose their country due to eminent domain, but they would gain awareness and money in the meanwhile.

Ps - I'm not trolling by saying the Gvt is encouraging it, that's just how I would phrase the lawsuit.

Re:How interesting (0)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 5 years ago | (#25732525)

they could then collect for damages in the form of a replacement parcel, or enough money to buy a replacement parcel.

      Nah, they would be declared a terrorist nation, invaded, and all its citizens would be shipped off to Guantanamo. This would be a lot cheaper...

Re:How interesting (1)

ILongForDarkness (1134931) | more than 5 years ago | (#25732677)

Good luck. It is a hard thing I think. Partially because there are a lot of natural disaster prone areas in the world. I can just imagine a large storm hitting say Cuba and everyone trying to leave for Miami as "refugees". I don't think it would go over too well.

I think the problem is defining what is an environmental refugee and when do you send them back. Clearly if your country is underwater now isn't the time to send you back. But what if your island gets hit with a category 4 hurricane 3 times a year? When does it become "safe enough". Tuff questions but I agree the international community needs to be thinking about the problem.

No global warming (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25732403)

That's no global warming! it's Nibiru!

Generic Rhetoric Comment (5, Interesting)

retech (1228598) | more than 5 years ago | (#25732419)

I'd try to post some offbeat humorous comment, but I don't see a damn thing funny about this.

I helped a photographer assemble footage for a piece he's doing about this. He's gone there and stayed with Mohamed Nasheed for a few years running. The place is small enough that everyone more or less knows everyone. From what I saw they are incredibly pragmatic and dignified about this. They don't want a handout but would like to bring the world's attention to it. There are dozens of similar smaller nations that will not have the luxury of money to perchance buy their way out of this. I suspect, when this reaches critical mass, money won't be much of factor anyway. I hope the entire world will be able to be as calm and dignified and take a cue from the way they're currently dealing with it.

Re:Generic Rhetoric Comment (1)

dancingmad (128588) | more than 5 years ago | (#25732737)

I mentioned this in a comment about Bangladesh on this story - and I agree, fundamentally, this is a dignified way to try and deal with this problem - but is it unreasonable for a country to be "undignified" if "don't have the luxury of money" to buy their way out of this problem? If you agree that global warming is man made, then is it unreasonable to think that the people suffering the most consequences (like the Maldives or Bangladesh) or some of the people least responsible?

There is a reason... (4, Funny)

duanemc (758821) | more than 5 years ago | (#25732431)

"Australia is worth looking at because of the immense amount of unoccupied land in that country. "

There are very good reasons why we have an immense amount of unoccupied land in Australia...

Picture Fallout 3, minus the radiation and ruins. And water. And trees. And people. Feel free to leave in the giant bugs and mutants though...

Re:There is a reason... (4, Funny)

dancingmad (128588) | more than 5 years ago | (#25732455)

Feel free to leave in the giant bugs and mutants though...
Hey, if you're going to talk about John Howard at least mention him by name!

I leave it to the reader to guess whether he's a giant bug or a mutant. Or both. ;-)

Re:There is a reason... (1)

Andr T. (1006215) | more than 5 years ago | (#25732539)

My image of Australia will always be connected to Mad Max and Crocodile Dundee. In fact, I think it'd be fun to watch both together.

One possible script could be a redneck fighting to survive in a world without oil or something. That would be awesome.

Re:There is a reason... (2, Funny)

east coast (590680) | more than 5 years ago | (#25732809)

You mean the Mad Max series wasn't a documentary of life in Australia? Damn. I guess it's time to cancel that trip.

Re:There is a reason... (2, Informative)

geckipede (1261408) | more than 5 years ago | (#25732825)

You can leave the radiation in the picture. Australia is the most active Uranium mining country in the world, and early British nuclear weaponry was tested there.

nowhere left to hide from corepirate nazi legacy.. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25732449)

which consists of death, debt & disruption for all. not to mention the dangerously pathetic manufactured 'weather'.

greed, fear & ego (in any order) are unprecedented evile's primary weapons. those, along with deception & coercion, helps most of us remain (unwittingly?) dependent on its' life0cidal hired goons' agenda. most of yOUR dwindling resources are being squandered on the 'wars', & continuation of the billionerrors stock markup FraUD/pyramid schemes. nobody ever mentions the real long term costs of those debacles in both life & any notion of prosperity for us, or our children. not to mention the abuse of the consciences of those of us who still have one. see you on the other side of it. the lights are coming up all over now. the fairytail is winding down now. let your conscience be yOUR guide. you can be more helpful than you might have imagined. we now have some choices. meanwhile; don't forget to get a little more oxygen on yOUR brain, & look up in the sky from time to time, starting early in the day. there's lots going on up there.

we note that yahoo deletes some of its' (relevant) stories sooner than others. maybe they're short of disk space, or something?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081106/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/meltdown_who_pays;_ylt=A2KIR3MR9hJJ3YkAGhms0NUE
http://news.google.com/?ncl=1216734813&hl=en&topic=n
http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science/09/23/what.matters.thirst/index.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/31/opinion/31mon1.html?em&ex=1199336400&en=c4b5414371631707&ei=5087%0A
(deleted)http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080918/ap_on_re_us/tent_cities;_ylt=A0wNcyS6yNJIZBoBSxKs0NUE
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/29/world/29amnesty.html?hp
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/02/nasa.global.warming.ap/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/weather/06/05/severe.weather.ap/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/weather/06/02/honore.preparedness/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science/09/28/what.matters.meltdown/index.html#cnnSTCText
http://www.cnn.com/2008/SHOWBIZ/books/10/07/atwood.debt/index.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/01/opinion/01dowd.html?em&ex=1212638400&en=744b7cebc86723e5&ei=5087%0A
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/05/senate.iraq/index.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/17/washington/17contractor.html?hp
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/03/world/middleeast/03kurdistan.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
(deleted, still in google cache)http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080708/cheney_climate.html
http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080805/pl_politico/12308;_ylt=A0wNcxTPdJhILAYAVQms0NUE
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20081107/ts_alt_afp/environmentclimatewarmingatlantic_081107145344
(deleted)http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080903/ts_nm/environment_arctic_dc;_ylt=A0wNcwhhcb5It3EBoy2s0NUE
(talk about cowardlly race fixing/bad theater/fiction?) http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/19/news/economy/sec_short_selling/index.htm?cnn=yes
http://us.lrd.yahoo.com/_ylt=ApTbxRfLnscxaGGuCocWlwq7YWsA/SIG=11qicue6l/**http%3A//biz.yahoo.com/ap/081006/meltdown_kashkari.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/04/opinion/04sat1.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
(the teaching of hate as a way of 'life' synonymous with failed dictatorships) http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081004/ap_on_re_us/newspapers_islam_dvd;_ylt=A0wNcwWdfudITHkACAus0NUE
(some yoga & yogurt makes killing/getting killed less stressful) http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081007/ap_on_re_us/warrior_mind;_ylt=A0wNcw9iXutIPkMBwzGs0NUE
(the old bait & switch...your share of the resulting 'product' is a fairytail nightmare?)
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081011/ap_on_bi_ge/where_s_the_money;_ylt=A0wNcwJGwvFIZAQAE6ms0NUE

  it's time to get real now. A LOT of energy/resource has been squandered in attempts to keep US in the dark. in the end (give or take a few 1000 years), the creators will prevail (world without end, etc...), as it has always been. the process of gaining yOUR release from the current hostage situation may not be what you might think it is. butt of course, many of US don't know, or care what a precarious/fatal situation we're still in.

http://www.carnicom.com/ (yikes almighty)
http://weatherwars.info/
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=weather+manipulation&btnG=Search
http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl=en&q=video+cloud+spraying

'The current rate of extinction is around 10 to 100 times the usual background level, and has been elevated above the background level since the Pleistocene. The current extinction rate is more rapid than in any other extinction event in earth history, and 50% of species could be extinct by the end of this century. While the role of humans is unclear in the longer-term extinction pattern, it is clear that factors such as deforestation, habitat destruction, hunting, the introduction of non-native species, pollution and climate change have reduced biodiversity profoundly.' (wiki)

"I think the bottom line is, what kind of a world do you want to leave for your children," Andrew Smith, a professor in the Arizona State University School of Life Sciences, said in a telephone interview. "How impoverished we would be if we lost 25 percent of the world's mammals," said Smith, one of more than 100 co-authors of the report. "Within our lifetime hundreds of species could be lost as a result of our own actions, a frightening sign of what is happening to the ecosystems where they live," added Julia Marton-Lefevre, IUCN director general. "We must now set clear targets for the future to reverse this trend to ensure that our enduring legacy is not to wipe out many of our closest relatives."

"The wealth of the universe is for me. Every thing is explicable and practical for me .... I am defeated all the time; yet to victory I am born." --emerson

consult with/trust in yOUR creators. providing more than enough of everything for everyone (without any distracting/spiritdead personal gain motives), whilst badtolling unprecedented evile, using an unlimited supply of newclear power, since/until forever. see you there?

"If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land."--chronicles

The new (0, Offtopic)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 5 years ago | (#25732493)

Slashdot, where old stories from CNN come to die.

Srilanka or Kerala would their main options (4, Interesting)

iammani (1392285) | more than 5 years ago | (#25732495)

I know a guy who visits maldives often (mainly to go scuba diving). Their language is very similar to singalese (lang spoken in srilanka) and their food is a combination of Srilankan and Kerala (a state in India) food. I would tend to think they would look at buying land at these places rather than Australia

The lowest point in the Netherlands (4, Insightful)

Daimanta (1140543) | more than 5 years ago | (#25732497)

Is 7 meters(ca. 21 feet) below sealevel and we are not leaving. Running is a bad solution. Fight the water because it will fight you. Feet getting wet? Build dams and dykes and stay safe. That idea is probably 10 times cheaper and more efficient than the whole "move everyboy out and buy a new homeland plan".

Re:The lowest point in the Netherlands (5, Informative)

Jaysyn (203771) | more than 5 years ago | (#25732593)

The article specifically says that building seawalls around the many islands is prohibitively expensive.

Re:The lowest point in the Netherlands (3, Funny)

pandrijeczko (588093) | more than 5 years ago | (#25732603)

Methinks there's a big group of Dutch architects & builders trying to get themselves on an all-expenses paid "fact finding mission" to the Maldives here...

Re:The lowest point in the Netherlands (2, Informative)

thered2001 (1257950) | more than 5 years ago | (#25732619)

It's a little harder to build dams around hundreds of islands. In the Netherlands, you pretty much had only one direction to worry about.

Re:The lowest point in the Netherlands (1)

JTsyo (1338447) | more than 5 years ago | (#25732685)

It'll be much tougher to build dykes and damns on an archipelago. I guess an option would be to build them out in the ocean so you can keep the beaches.

Re:The lowest point in the Netherlands (4, Informative)

Krupuk (978265) | more than 5 years ago | (#25732693)

Build dams and dykes and stay safe.

Ever tried building dams and dykes around 1190 small coral islands? Look at this picture of Malé, the capital: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Male-total.jpg [wikipedia.org] Is it still worth living there with a 10 meeter dam around your city?

Re:The lowest point in the Netherlands (1)

Daimanta (1140543) | more than 5 years ago | (#25732765)

They should consider connecting the islands together where it is fysically possible. If they do that they will kill 2 birds with one stone that way. They're able to stay safe and are able to get extra land.

Second point unrelated to this reply; Look at this picture, the island was never safe to start with. One big wave and the island's gone.

Re:The lowest point in the Netherlands (1)

orkysoft (93727) | more than 5 years ago | (#25732709)

(1) Lots of islands means lots of shores (2) have you been paying attention to the large public projects undertaken by the government lately?

Um (2, Funny)

copponex (13876) | more than 5 years ago | (#25732759)

If Denmark was a series of extremely tiny islands, you'd have a point. But it's not, so you don't.

Re:Um (3, Interesting)

Daimanta (1140543) | more than 5 years ago | (#25732833)

Old chart of the Netherlands(not the same as Denmark, go read a map):

http://ivan.ahk.nl/kaarten/lagelandenromeins.jpg [ivan.ahk.nl]

Modern chart of the Netherlands:

http://ivan.ahk.nl/kaarten/netherlands.jpg [ivan.ahk.nl]

Massive areas were flooded in the Middle Ages in the Netherlands. Instead of hiding on high ground we beat the water and founded a nation that is mostly below sea level. It takes a certain state of mind to do this. Once you start surrendering to the water, you lose. And you will keep on running from any danger that comes in your path.

Re:The lowest point in the Netherlands (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25732779)

You are kidding, right? What is the total length of the coastline in the Netherlands? Now what is the total length of the coastline of the 1200 islands of the Maldives? You can build levies/dykes in the Netherlands. You can't compeltely wall-off hundreds of islands. It's a fantastically different problem.

Re:The lowest point in the Netherlands (2, Funny)

Woy (606550) | more than 5 years ago | (#25732947)

What is the total length of the coastline in the Netherlands?

Wait i know this one... Infinite!

Re:The lowest point in the Netherlands (2)

DrXym (126579) | more than 5 years ago | (#25732843)

I think the difference is that the Netherlands has dry land on one size and the sea isn't especially deep either in reclaimed areas. It's feasible to ring fence off sea / river channels because you can dredge up sand from one place and deposit it in another to form a barrier. Once done you can flush the sea water out and you have land. I doubt this is the case in the Maldives. I don't know the sea around the islands but it would not surprise me if the depth becomes precipitous very rapidly. There would be nothing to dredge and no way to deposit it either before it washed away.

Short of a volcano erupting nearby or having 100 large ships sailing back and forth from India with gravel I doubt there is any way to extend or raise the island. Who knows - perhaps they could turn themselves into a modern Venice, living on stilts or pioneer a technique to construct super massive floating land extensions or similar, but I'm not sure I would be very comfortable to living there.

Apparently... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25732511)

... I can't actually go there unless I have a buttload of money.

Which makes me care significantly less. Kudos to them for planning ahead, but... meh.

Floodbanks? (0, Redundant)

tomtomtom777 (1148633) | more than 5 years ago | (#25732513)

Wouldn't constructing floodbanks (dikes) be a must cheaper option? Here in Amsterdam we live 1.5 meter below sea level but I have no reason to worry...

Re:Floodbanks? (2, Interesting)

FatAlb3rt (533682) | more than 5 years ago | (#25732531)

Or how about buying a shitload of dirt?

Re:Floodbanks? (1)

uberdilligaff (988232) | more than 5 years ago | (#25732719)

That would be a metric shitload, of course....

Re:Floodbanks? (1)

fx242 (1222592) | more than 5 years ago | (#25732757)

Maybe they could buy desert portions from Australia and move them to the atols to compensate the land eroded by the sea...?

Re:Floodbanks? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25732883)

I think a shit-ton would be a more adequate amount.

Re:Floodbanks? (1)

Andr T. (1006215) | more than 5 years ago | (#25732575)

Here in Amsterdam we live 1.5 meter below sea level but I have no reason to worry

Good choice for some famous last words!

Re:Floodbanks? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25732579)

You are aware that the Maldives are more properly known as the Maldive Islands, right?

Re:Floodbanks? (1)

berend botje (1401731) | more than 5 years ago | (#25732583)

Yeah, but whatever you do and however much you try to raise your land, at the end of the day you are still in that junkie-infested hellhole. best regards, a fellow cheesehead from rotterdam! :-)

Re:Floodbanks? (2, Informative)

PointyShinyBurning (1174001) | more than 5 years ago | (#25732615)

Perhaps because the Maldives is a chain of over 1,000 low atolls rather than a contiguous land mass with a continent on one side of it?

Re:Floodbanks? (1)

Squapper (787068) | more than 5 years ago | (#25732667)

In Dubai, they're building som really large artificial islands. How expensive would it be to raise the occupied parts of the maldieves by a meter anyway?

Re:Floodbanks? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25732717)

The maldives are 1,200 coral atolls. That's a lot of coastline to build dikes around.

Build another island (1, Informative)

DrXym (126579) | more than 5 years ago | (#25732581)

Sounds preposterous, but the UAE has already built several artificial islands of a size that could easily house the population of the Maldives. If the UAE can then surely the Maldives can too. The major issue of course is that any new island would have to be raised to anticipate sea level changes otherwise it would be as flat and vulnerable as the old one. I don't know the details of any plan to purchase land but it seems doubtful to me that it would ensure a place to live if the Maldives sunk under the waves. I doubt any country would want 300,000 additional people dumped on their doorstep short of a major humanitarian relief effort. And the Maldives isn't in that situation yet.

Re:Build another island (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25732863)

Would this be practical? Don't forget that the reclaimed land in the UAE likely comes from nearby excess earth. The Maldives, being a set of islands, doesn't have any spare mountains nearby so will likely need to import all the raw materials to build additional islands.

While on the topic, the same probably goes for the kind of sea defenses you'd need to combat such a rise in sea levels.

Re:Build another island (1)

YrWrstNtmr (564987) | more than 5 years ago | (#25732981)

I doubt any country would want 300,000 additional people dumped on their doorstep short of a major humanitarian relief effort.

The US gets more than that from Mexico every year.

Obama is president so (5, Funny)

bugeaterr (836984) | more than 5 years ago | (#25732623)

Not only will he lower sea levels in the long run,
but in the short term, he can teach them to walk on water. ;)

Re:Obama is president so (0, Troll)

Andr T. (1006215) | more than 5 years ago | (#25732733)

Yeah, and Obama will sure use the WMD that Bush found on Iraq to threat the countries that don't agree with the Kyoto protocol.

Re:Obama is president so (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25732855)

Nah, he will just ask his daddy to open the sea so they can stay dry and safe.
Well, that until Sarah Palin comes to crucify him...

Problem solved (1)

dvh.tosomja (1235032) | more than 5 years ago | (#25732687)

1. Go to australian desert
2. Digg additional 150cm of mud/rocks/sand/whatever
3. ???
4. Profit

Sea level around the Maldives is not raising! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25732801)

Sea level around the Maldives has not been raising for the last 40 years!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dIbTJ6mhCqk

I looked at the climate science of the IPCC. It is a collection of computer model garbage. The predictions are constantly wrong!

Where were they 500 years ago? (-1, Offtopic)

olddoc (152678) | more than 5 years ago | (#25732831)

During the Medieval climate optimum when the world was several degrees warmer, were the islands underwater?
Surely there would be archeological evidence that the islands only surfaced during the cooling of the past millenium.
Why will this climate cycle be different?

Buy a surplus aircraft carrier (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25732851)

drift around the Pacific.

Let the world's other refugees tie up their boats alongside.

What with religion-related tags? (1)

mapkinase (958129) | more than 5 years ago | (#25732903)

Somebody care to explain? I did not read the links..

A Trade (1)

dummondwhu (225225) | more than 5 years ago | (#25732951)

How about this: I'll give them New Jersey (yes, I have the authority) and I'll take my chances with the sea level. When can we hammer out the deal?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?