Possibly a housing mortgage collapse rivaling 2008.
From the New York Times:
coasts
The real estate industry, particularly along the vulnerable coastlines, is slowly awakening to the need to factor in the risks of catastrophic damage from climate change, including that wrought by rising seas and storm-driven flooding.
But many economists say that this reckoning needs to happen much faster and that home buyers urgently need to be better informed. Some analysts say the economic impact of a collapse in the waterfront property market could surpass that of the bursting dot-com and real estate bubbles of 2000 and 2008.
The fallout would be felt by property owners, developers, real estate lenders and the financial institutions that bundle and resell mortgages. …
In April, Sean Becketti, the chief economist for Freddie Mac, the government-backed mortgage giant, issued a dire prediction. It is only a matter of time, he wrote, before sea level rise and storm surges become so unbearable along the coast that people will leave, ditching their mortgages and potentially triggering another housing meltdown — except this time, it would be unlikely that these housing prices would ever recover. …
Much of the uncertainty surrounding climate change focuses on the pace of the rise in sea levels. But some argue that this misses the point because property values will probably go under water long before the properties themselves do. …
coast-2
In the past year, home sales have increased 2.6 percent nationally, but have dropped about 7.6 percent in high-risk flood zones in Miami-Dade County, according to housing data. Many coastal cities are taking steps toward mitigation, digging runoff tunnels, elevating roads and building detention ponds.

James Murley, Miami-Dade’s chief resilience officer, said it was important to avoid spooking the market since real estate investment produces much of the revenue that pays for these upgrades. This balancing act is especially important in Florida because the state and localities rely heavily on property and sales taxes for funding such projects. …

coast-3It is not just property owners, buyers and sellers who are struggling to estimate the potential financial impact of climate change on the real estate market. These risks compound as individual mortgages get bundled and sold as securities. In his April report, Mr. Becketti, the Freddie Mac economist, emphasized how difficult it was to predict whether the bubble in coastal real estate would slowly deflate slowly or suddenly pop.

“Will the value of the house decline gradually as the expected life of the house becomes shorter?” he wrote. “Or, alternatively, will the value of the house — and all the houses around it — plunge the first time a lender refuses to make a mortgage on a nearby house or an insurer refuses to issue a homeowner’s policy?” …

To make matters worse, the National Flood Insurance Program is more than $20 billion in debt. After several major coastal storms, Congress tried to fix the program, passing a law in 2012 requiring that insurance premiums be recalculated to accurately reflect risk. Coastal homeowners rebelled, arguing that the legislation made insurance unaffordable, and in 2014 Congress repealed parts of the law. …

“Coastal mortgages are growing into as big a bubble as the housing market of 2007,” said Philip Stoddard, the mayor of South Miami. But this time, he said, there will not be a rebound because the waters will not recede and properties will eventually lose all of their value.

Politicians are more focused on keeping developers calm and reassuring people that technological solutions will save the day, he said, which plays into an expectation, especially among the wealthiest homeowners, that the government will bail them out if property values crash.

Comments

  1. Even when there are reasonable solutions, current value trumps future risk. Take West Vancouver where it is entirely feasible to raise the grades of low lying properties by 1 to 2 metres to effectively form dikes. Even with government mandated flood plain provisions, existing residents with recently sunk costs in expensive construction fight hard to prevent neighbours from building up their grades. I’ve been in one of these fights on behalf of a client. The reason? The unattractive retaining walls that would end up down the property line separating the new higher lots from the old lower ones. The rationale? “By the time I lose money to rising tides I’ll be gone, but if I let walls get built beside me I’ll lose money now.”

    1. I have lived on Nanaimo’s waterfront since 2001. For over 10 of those years I have sailed the Salish Sea from Tober Inlet to Findlayson Arm and all points between.
      I enjoy the view of huge passenger ships, freighters and recreational vessels from my window 24/7. Algae-ed marker buoys make clear the extent of daily tidal changes.
      In all that time I can detect no discernable tidal differential other than natural cycles . . . http://www.climatedepot.com/2016/11/24/antarctic-sea-ice-has-not-shrunk-in-100-years/ . . . this article corroberates my amateur observation.
      I have mentioned this on PT before. Accordingly I am much disturbed by PT’s persistent prmotion of this AGW shybolith for which there is no credible evidence: indeed, the evidence is quite contrary.
      My confidence in PT is wearing thin. What other nonsense is PT promoting and to what credible purpose?

      1. Where else would the melted sea ice and glaciers go? The last IPCC reports and more recent research are readily available online.

      2. Let me see if I get this. Thousands of climate scientists from around the world from all different ethnic, cultural and religious backgrounds are all wrong because Roger hasn’t witnessed ocean rise without instrumentation over a 15 year period. Is that about right?
        Nowhere in the above linked article does is say that climate change isn’t happening or that sea levels are not rising. We do know that Arctic ice has been shrinking and glaciers are melting, the planet is getting warmer and the ocean is acidifying.
        We also know that much of northern North America is still slowly rising since the wight of many kilometers thick ice has receded and that has reduced the amount that we see sea level rise locally.
        Unfortunately there is only one way that some old people are going to stop denying. It’ll be just about exactly the same time they stop doing anything at all.

        1. Let me see if I get this. Thousands of climate scientists . . . ” No you do not get it right RV because the thousands is a hoax. Fortunately the recent US election has exposed to perfidious manipulation of the MSM: if you’re smart you wont believe a word it dangle in your face ever again!

        2. Please Roger. The MSM has been solidly in the deny AGW camp until about 5 years ago when there could no longer be any credibility in that stance.

        3. And I suppose you really believe that almost all the governments of the world agreed to a plan to reduce GHGs because they are all stupid. They all got duped by the mainstream media, but Mr. Kemble is smart enough to see through it all.

      3. More warming = more ability of the air to absorb moisture = more humid weather = more clouds = more cooling = more rain = more ice in the winter.
        A self healing cycle.
        Nasa research confirms it: ice sheet is GROWING: http://www.express.co.uk/news/nature/617144/Antarctica-not-shrinking-growing-ice-caps-melting
        Others still debate it: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/11/151103-antarctic-ice-growing-shrinking-glaciers-climate-change/
        What’s a lay person like Roger or me to believe ?
        Water levels are higher 10 mm in 100 years .. maybe ??
        But hey, let’s hike taxes anyway to grow government. Sunny ways.
        or cloudy ways ??

        1. Increased water vapour in the air increases global warming, Thomas. But I’m sure lay persons such as yourself fought Galileo every chance too. Nothing changes with increased knowledge it seems. Change takes a generation or two because that is how long it takes stubborn people to die.

        2. The Kyoto Protocol mandating reductions of greenhouse gases by industrialized nations went into force in 2005, and Kyoto reduction targets have been partially met. Negotiations are continuing for a post-Kyoto climate regime including all countries, and a U.S.-China deal on climate policy was announced in 2014. Effective climate change policy in the future will require involvement of the U.S. as well as China, India, and other developing nations. Much more ambitious reduction targets will be needed to avoid the costs associated with long-term climate change.
          http://www.ase.tufts.edu/gdae/education_materials/modules/The_Economics_of_Global_Climate_Change.pdf
          That’s a clip from only one report of thousands analyzing the cost-benefits of climate change.

        3. @Thomas: Ice can increase in a warming world and you’re not being the least bit clever by pointing out what’s going on in the Antarctic. You seem to lack some cognitive skills so I’ll make it easy for you with a simple example.
          Pre-industrial temperatures in a given place hover around minus 10. Post industrial temperatures hover around minus 5 but there is increased humidity and therefore increased precipitation. Viola! Increased ice in a specific region in a warming world.
          When you don’t know what you’re talking about you should always post in the form of a question.

      4. I have a choice, to believe the Daily Mail, the Express UK, the National Post and other papers notably sprinkled with paid climate deniers, some of whom were sued by the scientists they misrepresented and lost, or the scientists who have done the research and have had that research tested time and again by their peers?
        Here’s an antidote for the sea-rise-ain’t-happening anti-evidence delusion:
        http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice.htm
        Note the number of links, especially to the one from the NASA scientist who warned that the deniers will no doubt misuse his work. Sure enough, look at the above comments. The Antarctic will disappear from the denier’s roster of talking points when the western ice sheet disintegrates after the sea ice holding it in place breaks up. That’s already started.
        And what about the horrendous loss of ice from Greenland?
        And what about the well-documented effects on the jet stream the loss of Arctic sea ice and a warming Arctic ocean is having?
        And the fact 2016 is the warmest year on record after the warmest decade on record, including the geological record?
        I think Nanaimo will have more to worry about with forest fires and summer drought punctuated by more severe winter storms than sea level rise … at least for the next 50 years when the tide will most definitely turn in accordance with glacial time, not human time.

        1. And what about the horrendous loss of ice from Greenland?” Well wot about it Alex? Earth started out as a ball of fire and, evidently, it will end as a chunk of ice. In the meantime we enjoy a brief sojourn of compatibility, so make the most of it. Yet we must suffer whining fools who go off worrying about, for instance, the inevitable inundation of the new St Paul’s hospital, (as PT reported some weeks ago), behind the Main Street railway station.
          Aw come off it Al! The earth, the heavens, you, me, we, they, everything, are changing all the time and oh dear oh dear one day we are all going to (me a lot sooner than you) die boo hoo . . .

        2. @Kemble. So let’s not concern ourselves with with nuclear war or driving on the right side of the road then. We’re all going to die anyway so just do whatever you want with no regard to others.

        3. No, but science clearly doesn’t do it for you either. You prefer your own little way of seeing the world – and you’re lucky because you will be gone before the worst hits. Too bad about future generations. They should be okay with the willful blindness of their predecessors. That must be part of your worldview too.

        4. There are many conspiracies and whacko theories out there. My favourite is a twin Earth in a parallel universe with interchangeable doppelganger humans. There might even be a Web site run by a charlatan who “proves” it’s all true, and backs it up with a bought and paid for PhD who parses the science of physics into tiny bits that are, on their own, meaningless.
          That helps explain my own life experience better than the more nebulous climate change, like why I need two espressos by nine o’clock one day and only one the next.
          Believe what you will. But don’t expect the rest of us who have only average reading skills to take it seriously without planting our tongues firmly into our cheeks.

      5. Roger “Algae-ed marker buoys make clear the extent of daily tidal changes.”
        Given that buoys float, and thus move up and down with the daily tides, observing the algae line on them is unlikely to provide you with any information on sea level changes, even if this approach did provide a measurement resolution and global coverage comparable to satellites, which it obviously doesn’t.

        1. bu·oy
          ˈbo͞oē,boi/
          noun
          plural noun: buoys
          1.
          an anchored float serving as a navigation mark, to show reefs or other hazards, or for mooring.
          synonyms: float, marker; More

      6. A client of mine is the long-serving captain of one of the two Coast Guard ships that ply the waters north of the arctic circle, the Sir Wilfrid Laurier. These are his words: “when I first sailed into the high arctic it was hard to find open water. Now it’s hard to find ice.”

      7. The latest scientific research (really, it’s just plain observation) comes from the U of Ohio that studied the Antarctic’s Pine Island ice sheet and found stark evidence over the past three years that it is breaking apart from the inside out. They believe they are melting from the bottom up from warmer water flowing under them. The latest large rift in the sheet occurred 32 km inland. That is significant. When this and other large ice sheets give way, there will be nothing to hold the grounded glaciers behind them back from marching into the sea.
        Glaciers, such as Pine Island, keep inland ice from entering the ocean. But this new mechanism of melting could hasten further calving allowing significant water to flow into the oceans, rising sea levels by as much as three metres. The researchers believe that this could occur within the next 100 years, displacing 150 million people around the world.
        “It’s generally accepted that it’s no longer a question of whether the West Antarctic Ice Sheet will melt, it’s a question of when,” the study’s lead researcher, Ian Howat, associate professor of earth sciences at Ohio State said in a statement. “This kind of rifting behavior provides another mechanism for rapid retreat of these glaciers, adding to the probability that we may see significant collapse of West Antarctica in our lifetimes.”

        http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016GL071360/full
        Evidence like this does tend to take the edge of the contrarian buzz. In fact, it makes them look silly when they supply their own version of “science” to deny the existence of human-caused climate change with links to the work of proven charlatans and fossil-fueled shills.

        1. I finally get it Roger. You’re having all of us on. Good one! I was pretty convinced you believed this stuff.

  2. Well I can’t wait to pick up one of those estates for a buck, put it on a barge, tie it to a dock and list it on Air B&B for $1500 dollars a week.

  3. I just wish those who disagree with scientists about this would also take the same stance when it comes to say medical procedures. I could find a few quack docs who would go against the overwhelming scientific community, but I bet you don’t believe them now do you. Why is that?

        1. Wow! The lengths some will go to maintain their tiny view of the world. There are so many straw men and so much misinformation it is difficult to know where to begin. Obviously you’d have want to remain on a flat earth and would have found lots of evidence to dispute Galileo.

        2. Anthony Watts has been discredited so many times by the actual science and by researchers digging for fossil fuel payments to the denial community. They easily found it.
          Parallel universe indeed.

  4. It’s funny that this Climate Scam (TM) has lasted so long. Some of the sheeple have really become scared. Great PR, The scaremongers have won over quite a tribe of disciples.
    Thomas and Roger have things in perspective though. Always essential whenever some people are panicking to have calm and pragmatic leaders.
    The Economist, which some freaked out lefties like to sometimes quote, tell us that the planet is becoming greener with the increased heat. This means more moisture in the air, more water in the soil, more water in vegetation. Etc.
    A feast in the air
    IN 1972, on their way to the Moon, the crew of Apollo 17 snapped what would become one of the most famous photographs ever taken. The “Blue Marble” shows Earth as it looks from space: a blue sphere overlaid by large brown swatches of land, with wisps of white cloud floating above.
    But times change, and modern pictures of Earth look different. A wash of greenery is spreading over the globe, from central Africa to Europe and South East Asia. One measurement found that between 1982 and 2009 about 18m square kilometres of new vegetation had sprouted on Earth’s surface, an area roughly twice the size of the United States.
    The growth in greenery is a consequence of climate change. As the planet heats up, places that were once too chilly for most plants to grow have become steadily more hospitable. That extra vegetation, in turn, exerts its own effects on the climate. According to a team led by Trevor Keenan of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, in California, who have just published their findings in Nature Communications, the plant growth caused by climate change may also be helping to slow it—at least for now.
    In 2014 humans pumped about 35.7bn tonnes of carbon dioxide into the air. That figure has been climbing sharply since the middle of the 20th century, when only about 6bn tonnes a year were emitted. As a consequence, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has been rising too, from about 311 parts per million (ppm) in 1950 to just over 400 in 2015. Yet the rate at which it is rising seems to have slowed since the turn of the century. According to Dr Keenan, between 1959 and 1989 the rate at which CO2 levels were growing rose from 0.75ppm per year to 1.86. Since 2002, though, it has barely budged. In other words, although humans are pumping out more CO2 than ever, less of it than you might expect is lingering in the air.
    Filling the atmosphere with CO2 is a bit like filling a bath without a plug: the level will rise only if more water is coming out of the taps than is escaping down the drain. Climate scientists call the processes which remove CO2 from the air “sinks”. The oceans are one such sink. Photosynthesis by plants is another: carbon dioxide is converted, with the help of water and light energy from the sun, into sugars, which are used to make more plant matter, locking the carbon away in wood and leaves. Towards the end of the 20th century around 50% of the CO2 emitted by humans each year was removed from the atmosphere this way. Now that number seems closer to 60%. Earth’s carbon sinks seem to have become more effective, but the precise details are still unclear.
    Using a mix of ground and atmospheric observations, satellite measurements and computer modelling, Dr Keenan and his colleagues have concluded that faster-growing land plants are the chief reason. That makes sense: as CO2 concentrations rise, photosynthesis speeds up. Studies conducted in greenhouses have found that plants can photosynthesise up to 40% faster when concentrations of CO2 are between 475 and 600ppm.
    For delegates at the latest round of UN climate talks, in Marrakech, that sounds like good news. But more vigorous photosynthesis is only slowing climate change. The effect is too small to reverse it. And it will not last, says Dr Keenan. Besides, there is more to growing plants than carbon dioxide. Take water: in a changing climate, wet bits of the world will probably become wetter while drier parts become drier. Extreme events—droughts and deluges—will intensify. Rainfall patterns may change, which could make some places less friendly to plants that now thrive there. And although plants benefit in the short term from extra CO2, they suffer when temperatures get too high.
    There will be more complicated effects, too. Much of the greening has occurred in cold spots (see map). Yet while ice and snow reflect sunlight, vegetation soaks it up, so more greenery in the north will eventually lead to yet more warming. That, in turn, could release large quantities of methane—a potent but short-lived greenhouse gas—from thawing tundra. Elsewhere, higher temperatures could kill tropical forests. According to one estimate, for every degree of warming, tropical forests may release greenhouse gases equivalent to five years’ worth of human emissions.
    Indeed, some researchers think the effects of global greening may already be fizzling out. Every few years a climatic phenomenon called El Niño sees the tropical Pacific Ocean warm substantially, which tends to raise temperatures around the world. The most recent Niño, in 2015-16, was a whopper. Corinne Le Quéré, a climate researcher at the University of East Anglia in Britain says that means the world’s plants may have, therefore, become a less potent carbon sink than they were in the period studied by Dr Keenan’s team. Global greening, then, offers only a little breathing space. Kicking the fossil-fuel habit remains the only option.
    This article appeared in the Science and technology section of the print edition under the headline Days of the triffids
    inShare
    This is science and some posters, like Leigh, prefer the truth of bloggers.

    1. Not funny, nor surprising at all. Scams are eventually exposed. And they are never are a coordinated conspiracy among respected scientists from most countries, enthinic, cultural and religious backgrounds.
      Reality keeps getting more obvious. That’s exactly why more and more people are finally getting it (even Trump of all people!) and almost all global governments are willing to make sacrifices to deal with the problem.
      The above article actually explains why your reasoning is flawed but you probably didn’t get that far. It explains why nature will increasingly work against us if we don’t get GHGs under control.
      I can’t fathom how this article supports Thomas and Kemble. Quite the opposite.

      1. “I can’t fathom how this article supports Thomas and Kemble. Quite the opposite.”
        Eric hopes people will read the first 3-4 paragraphs of his wall of text, scan the rest, and then come to an erroneous conclusion based on that. Anyone who reads to the bottom can tell it’s an article that repudiates his (Eric’s) position. Indeed, one could reach no other conclusion.
        “Kicking the fossil-fuel habit remains the only option.”

    2. See what I mean about parsing?
      Why don’t you take it up with a real climate scientist, Eric?

    3. Eric: “This is science and some posters, like Leigh, prefer the truth of bloggers.”
      Funny. You were given a link to nasa.gov for a page of scientific evidence, and you ignored it, choosing instead to attack the character of a NASA web developer who ran a separate blog. You are the one focusing on blogs over science. Any time you want to get back to the science, you have the link to the official NASA site. I won’t hold my breath.

  5. The NASA link is a collection of new clips agggregated by someone that two years ago was a student and, according to her bio her LinkedIn profile, succeeded in “video production” then graduated and got a job editing a NASA blog. If you seriously think it is scientific evidence then I guess you must also believe in Father Christmas.
    The article I presented is written by a scientist for a scientific publication.
    http://eesa.lbl.gov/profiles/trevor-keenan/
    And, quite properly for speculative estimating, it is full of possibles and conjecture. The future is only and just about always conjecture.
    This arguing that the science is settled is not going to work. People that push this are no different that science fiction religionists.
    As I’ve previously said, if you have waterfront property that you are convinced is soon to be underwater and you feel that you should quickly divest yourself of it, then please let me know. Agents are standing by and will give you a fair and reasonable price that you will be happy with.

    1. Eric: “The NASA link is a collection of news clips”
      No, actually it isn’t. Just in case you forgot, here is the link again.
      http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
      The last word in the official nasa site address above is evidence. Keep it in mind.
      http://climate.nasa.gov/blog/
      This one is a blog hosted by NASA. It wasn’t the link provided. Note the last word in the site address, it is how you can tell.
      Now, can we get back to the evidence?
      Because you are interested in sea level rise, suggest you expand that item. Click on Vital Signs, the graph. New page.
      Now we see the actual data, and the change. We can also download the data, for our own analysis. Want more background? Click on the publications tab. All of the studies are linked and referenced.
      You can go on about video editing and LinkedIn profiles, and Father Christmas all you want. But if you don’t actually read the science, and work to understand it, it probably isn’t helping to quote magazine articles that you think support your position. Especially when they refute it. See posts above.
      Why look at the evidence? Well, as Neil deGrasse Tyson said, a skeptic questions claims, and then embraces the evidence. A denier questions claims, and then rejects the evidence. Decide which one you want to be. If you are working from beliefs that aren’t based on the evidence, then that sounds like you are one of the “religionists” that you reference above.

      1. As I said, and as you say, all the links refer to articles or studies, which are all guesses and conjecture assembled by new webbies on a contract for NASA.
        It is exactly the same as a newsletter describing tasty dishes and linking to receipies from disparate chefs and the writer being thought of as a chef themselves. They are not. And neither are your editors scientists.
        All their evidence is circumstantial -at best.
        The earth is warming, we can see that. The Fraser Valley was once covered in ice but it’s not anyone’s fault and there need not be any panic about it.
        Some people used to worry about Russia and Sputnik and bombs being dropped from space. Kids in school learned how to take cover under their desks. Now it’s Global Warming to scare you. Yawn.

        1. And all those leaders from all those countries, encouraged by all their experts reading all the science and committing all their countries to difficult change are all just plain stupid dupes.
          Eric knows best. (All Bow!)

  6. Those who are too lazy to think for themselves seek to enlighten the rest of us with a constant stream of links from places they know not where. In the words of Putin “they are useful idiots’. “Useful” to the spreading of hoaxes, conspiracy theories, nonsensical ideas and half-truths with the intention of taking our attention away from the one thing that matters most; thinking for ourselves.

    1. Wasn’t it this very arrogance, this “holier than though”, this “we know best as we are educated” attitude, i.e. to look down at the “white trash” .. those “deplorables” .. those “racists” .. that cost Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party the US election 2 weeks ago ?

      1. That’s one way to look at it. More likely it just shows how deep the role of the useful idiot is now embedded in US (and our) culture. The Koch brothers et all didn’t get nothing for decades of expensive propaganda.

        1. Yet the Koch brothers did NOT support Trump !
          Look, everyone knows man influences its environment. Everyone also knows it was a lot warmer 10s of thousands of years ago before Al Gore, David Suzuki etc drove around in fancy cars and flew all over the place, i.e before the invention of so called fossil fuels. We also know the CO2 levels have risen. We also know other factors influence weather and temperatures. Some argue it is all man’s fault, many argue it is mainly man’s fault, and some argue that is is not really man’s fault. Among the many folks that acknowledge that man does play a role (folks like me) many just say “So what?”. Many want a clean planet, clean air and clean water, many others merely an improved life style (mostly poorer folks in the so called Third or Developing World that need more and more energy) and many more (like me) just don’t believe all the hype and actually welcome warmer weather and its many benefits like lower heating bills, less death by freezing, longer growing seasons, lusher forests and more ice free ports.
          For example, rather than spending billions on shutting down clean coal plants in Alberta, why not subsidize replacement of dirty diesel buses in Edmonton or Calgary ? I can only shake my head at the amount of exhaust diesel buses or high end 8 cylinder vehicles pump in the air. Let’s focus our efforts there, i.e. clean air in cities as opposed some distant already pretty clean coal plant in the middle of nowhere. This is more eloquently elaborated on by folks like Bjorn Lomberg in books like “Cool it” see here http://www.lomborg.com/cool-it or here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cool_It:_The_Skeptical_Environmentalis'27s_Guide_to_Global_Warming i.e. the
          balancing of HUMAN NEEDS and environmental needs given limited $s !
          That debate is missing: if I spend $1B on X what am I not spending it on, and is spending it an A, B, C, Y or Z better ?

        2. As I was noting “the useful idiot” unwittingly and thoughtlessly spreads half-truths and lies rather than thinking for himself, rather than engaging in analysis and research. The example at hand; Lomborg who has been widely discredited by rationale men of good judgement.

        3. “Rational men” that is, not; see this link clickers who know not where they are or where they are going.

        4. Lomborg is not a climate scientist or economist and has published little or no peer-reviewed research on environmental or climate policy. His extensive and extensively documented[2],[3] errors and misrepresentations, which are aimed at a lay audience, “follow a general pattern”[2] of minimizing the need to cut carbon emissions.
          From Source Watch

      2. Yes Thomas, it was the coastal bubbles of sanctimonious evangelical climate flat-earth hordes and their NYT and CNN brethren that couldn’t smell the coffee percolating all over what are known as the fly-over states. Those states That one looks down on when flying from NY to Chicago, SFO and LA.
        Looking down on, became an accurate métaphore for the mass of populism constantly growing, no matter what, while it just seemed to stay in the media’s blind spot. Brexit was very similar. The self appointed elites were blinded and blindsided by their own myopia.
        The churches of social engineering driven by the liberal and developed world self conscious middle class that have developed a guilt complex for the achievements of their societies and academic driven liberalism are taking a big whacking.
        It seems that some of them refuse now to accept their own democracy. These sore losers both in the UK and the USA are calling for a recount or are begging for a second chance. It is embarrassing.

        1. Let’s assume that Republicans would have campaigned more in OR, WA, CA or NY where a democrat win was 60%+ and many folks didn’t bother to vote due to their antiquated electoral college system invented when the horse was the main long distance transportation system, before TV, radio, internet, railways, cars or jet travel ..

        2. Eric, would you make the same claim if Clinton won the electoral college election with negative 2 million votes?
          I think we all know you’d leap to Trump’s defence claiming the vote was rigged.
          You clearly don’t know when to stop before embarrassing yourself further by countering factual evidence.

        3. If you remember, the 1996 election in British Columbia was won by the NDP and Glen Clark became Premier. The NDP won the most seats in the Legislature. But, in fact the Liberal Party won the more of the popular vote.
          Same as the US.
          I don’t recall my leaping to anyone’s defence or being outraged or throwing a tantrum.
          There are many games we play in life and there are rules. You can’t play poker or football and complain about the rules if you lose. The whole outrage shows pathetic immaturity.

        4. Alex, you like jumping – to conclusions. Where, anywhere, have I written a word in support of either US candidate? I’ll save you the trouble; the answer is nowhere.
          It’s all in your head.

        5. My parsing detector twinged on your knock-Clinton narrative, ergo the default to Trump. One would think you’d give them equal critical treatment if you didn’t favour one over the other.
          Getting away from deflecting to the minutia and back to first principles, we all know the well-defined flaws of our outdated winner-takes-all voting system. The US complicates it with two additional elements: The primitive electoral college that filters all votes; and the devolvement of federal power to individual states with respect to the control over the electoral process. Gerrymandering and conflicting system standards are rampant.

        6. I hope you learned something. Just because someone has critical things to say about oranges doesn’t automatically mean they like apples.
          Another thing; you do realise that Canadian provinces have more powers than US states? The US states may have certain powers over their electoral process, Canadian provinces do too. For example; the Charlottetown Referendum in Québec was not exactly the same as that in the rest of Canada because Québec has different referendum law. They were two referenda that were held at the same time; one federal the other provincial. British Columbia, Alberta and Québec all have varying laws that require a referendum for the approval by the province of any constitutional amendment.
          As you may too know, this weekend, “Democratic Institutions Minister Maryam Monsef told CTV’s Question Period: “We’re committed to this initiative, but we’re not going to move forward unless we have the broad support of the people of this country for whom we’re making this change.”
          Translation: We didn’t get the support we needed for the system we prefer — the preferential ballot — and now we’re looking for the exit.”
          So you can probably say goodbye to any electoral reform in Canada for quite a few years yet.

  7. We can’t expect much from Eric who last week claimed that truth is a concept, this week we can’t expect much from his concept of democracy either. The fact of the matter is that in the USA “Democracy” includes the right to request a recount, surprisingly the recounts in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania are being called for by the Green candidate who has no hope of winning in any state. This is a matter known as “the pursuit of truth”.

    1. Absolute truth is based on what ? The law ? Which law ? The bible ? Other ancient wisdom ?
      Truth is very much a concept and highly dependent on culture and belief.
      If I believe that human needs and environmental needs need to be balanced, and you believe that the environment has absolute priority, then we both speak the truth, for example.

        1. I know a fisherman that catches really big fish. He shows how big they are by widening his hands. He promises it’s true. A word to those seeking the truth; it is always subject to revisions and E&OE.
          Before you get too excited and send money to Jill Stein you should read Daniel Politi’s article in the on-line celebrated liberal magazine Slate:
          http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/11/25/the_seven_main_reasons_democrats_shouldn_t_contribute_to_jill_stein_s_recount.html
          It’s a lousy bet.

    1. Yes… lets all move to Nanaimo. Shopping malls, parking lots and… hmmm did I mention shopping malls?

      1. Look before you leap RV. Thinq before you speak. North of Millstone, Nan shopping: I never go there.
        I live downtown. South of downtown is vertually undeveloped: there’s plenty of room for good development!
        Thanqu, we have enough
        Recreational vehicles!

        1. I’ve been to Nanaimo. North, south west waterfront. I honestly can’t imagine living there and posting on an urban planning blog that Vancouver is a failure.

  8. He who controls cyber space controls the environment.
    The cold war between east and west has morphed into a cyber war, a struggle to control the outcome of elections in the USA. In this battle “the useful idiot” is deployed as a means to debunk the truth. Currently Donald J. Trump is the most visible idiot spreading false facts, trafficking in hoaxes and conspiracy theories of all sorts. As is often said; In war, truth is always the first casualty. I would to add to this that the environment is the second casualty as can readily be seen where ever wars rage on.
    We must always pursue the truth if we want to save our lives. It is as simple as that.

    1. To repeat my above commentary you chose to ignore: Absolute truth is based on what ? The law ? Which law ? The bible ? Other ancient wisdom ?
      Truth is very much a concept and highly dependent on culture and belief.
      If I believe that human needs and environmental needs need to be balanced, and you believe that the environment has absolute priority, then we both speak the truth, for example.

      1. The old “absolute truth” con is pulled out when you’ve run out of rational argument.
        The human condition will degrade in a degraded environment. You can’t “balance” human needs and the environment. If you degrade either one you lose.
        Many have not learned this basic truth because you can get away with it for a while. The rich move to greener pastures or export their filth and delude themselves that those others are better off. But even the rich are now running out of greener pastures.

        1. Gee, the whole world is getting richer in case you have not noticed AND the environment far cleaner.
          The trick is to do BOTH are we are exactly doing that today: a healthier AND wealthier world is upon us my friend.
          Here is the biggest inconvenient truth: Most nations live beyond their means and have excessive debt. The main reason for that is excessive spending as far too many civil servants are by and large overpaid when taking into account salaries, benefits, hours worked (both life time and per week), vacations, pensions and very low risk of layoffs (with a few exceptions) – and as such governments need to collect more (CO2) taxes due to global “warming”. Yet, the degree of man’s influence on global “warming” and the benefits or negative consequences of it are unclear and/or grossly exaggerated, mainly due to the fact that it is now its own (government subsidized ) industry !

        2. Agreed, the world is getting richer. It remains to be seen if it is benefiting the poor much or just making the rich filthier so.
          You could say the environment is getting cleaner too, if your definition of cleaner is “less of that nature with all of its animals and dirt.”

        3. RV; you do know that The World Bank ( a cooperative, made up of 189 member countries) says “There has been marked progress on reducing poverty over the past decades. The world attained the first Millennium Development Goal target—to cut the 1990 poverty rate in half by 2015—five years ahead of schedule, in 2010. ”
          I hope you are reassured.

        4. Awesome Eric. And you do know that the World Bank is also working on climate change and not deluding itself that it’s some hoax or that thousands of scientists have got it all wrong.
          Or are you going to tell us that the WB only gets some things right?

        5. Yes, RV, awesome. I guess you’ve seen the new clean River Seine in Paris and the salmon returning to the Thames in London and the International Accord to Clean Up the Rhine, where billions have been spent to bring back water people can now swim in. And, as your friends at the World Bank show us, other cities around the world are also being cleaned up:

          There’s a big difference between Climate Change and Global Ecopalypse and pollution. The World Bank is primarily involved in pollution reduction.

        6. Anyone that doesn’t recognize that there are some serious bucks to made with this climate warming/whatever thingy is an ostrich.
          There’s a massive millennial cohort that love this stuff and there is serious money being made. It comes from everywhere, public funds are an easy mark. Voters all over are willing to cough up for a plethora of this green stuff. just take a look at Metro Vancouver, there are hundreds, maybe thousands, of new garbage trucks picking up scraps of food, scraps of glass, scraps of paper and scarps of garbage and flooding the roads and alleys of every town 24/7, all paid for by the public. Some of this new stuff goes to Richmond where it’s stinking the air as it’s being turned into gas and compost that is being sold back to the punters. The money goes around, there’s a built-in profit because it’s government and so no competition. Everyone in the scrap business loves this stuff. Al Gore and the private venture capitalists aren’t into this stuff to gamble. It’s a sure bet when it’s government.
          Does anyone think that the World Bank is asleep at the switch and is missing out on investing in and leveraging this bonanza? Lending money and taking the spread is what they do.

    2. Here is the truth:
      A) Trump won the election far and square.
      B) The degree of man’s influence on global “warming” and the benefits or negative consequences of it are unclear and/or grossly exaggerated, mainly due to the fact that it is now its own (government subsidized ) industry
      C) $1B spent on a global warming initiative competes with the same $1B that could be used for other purposes such as education of girls, clean water initiatives, garbage reduction, pollution reduction, domestic violence reduction, …
      D) Bill and Hillary Clinton are lucky they are not in jail yet due to selling of access to politicians for cash via the Clinton Foundation. More on that here by former NY state attorney Rudy Giuliani http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/08/10/rudy-giuliani-hillary-clinton-should-be-prosecuted-corrupt-clinton-foundation
      E) Media biased and many stories such as D) under-reported or completely avoided by fake news outlets such as CNN, MSNBC, ABCNews, Washington Post or NY Times
      F) Print media influence less since politicians, reporters, bloggers or opinionated commentators can now speak directly to a constituency / voters via FaceBook, Blogs or Twitter, and as such fake real news, half truth or utter garbage circulates the globe within seconds
      G) TV media now a business regardless of value as they have to fill TV channels 24×7 with something and as such blow minor things, such as a fist fight between two big guys at a Trump gathering, out of proportion into “repeated violence at Trump event”
      H) Less than 55% of eligible adults voted in the US
      I) Many civil servants by and large overpaid when taking into account salaries, benefits, hours worked (both life time and per week), vacations, pensions and very low risk of layoffs (with a few exceptions) – also see B) need to collect more CO2 taxes due to global “warming”
      Happy to debate it here or elsewhere.

      1. A: If you say so.
        B: Ridiculous. How can you say it is unclear and exaggerated at the same time? If it isn’t clear to you, fine. But if it isn’t clear, you don’t know if it is exaggerated. Suggest you study until it becomes clear, and stop asserting your so called ‘truths’ in the mean time.
        C-I: tl;dr, primarily because of your (B)

        1. See above commentary: Absolute truth is based on what ? The law ? Which law ? The bible ? Other ancient wisdom ? Common sense ? 97% of scientists ? 50%+1 of scientists ?
          Truth is very much a concept and highly dependent on culture and belief.
          So if many/most/all of these points are truth to me but not truth to you, then how can it be true absolutely ?
          I am fine if you say “Look, global warming is man made and natural, but to me man is the main culprit” .. then that is fine as you can then argue that you are willing to pay a higher price on gasoline or outright ban it as some extremists argue already.
          Ditto with H: if barely half of eligible voters vote then what does a win of any candidate really mean ? Does it not mean for the other 40-50% that didn’t vote that they don’t really care one way or another ? Isn’t that the truth ?
          Further, if you disagree with my version of B you assert that therefore all other truths I list are also untrue in your opinion ?

        2. “..if you disagree with my version of B you assert that therefore all other truths I list are also untrue”
          No. Your lack of critical thinking about (B) meant that you had insufficient credibility at that point to make it worth the investment of time to read the rest of your points in the post, given that you labelled the entire list “truth”.

        3. “I am fine if you say “Look, global warming is man made and natural, but to me man is the main culprit” .. then that is fine as you can then argue that you are willing to pay a higher price on gasoline or outright ban it as some extremists argue already.”
          There lies your problem. You appear to think that scientific facts (truths in your phrasing) can be dismissed if one doesn’t like the consequences of mitigating the effects of them. That it is some sort of popularity contest, and we will just see which way the people are going to vote. In this model, turning down a carbon tax makes the inconvenient truth of climate change something that doesn’t need to be dealt with because climate change doesn’t exist.
          This is absurd.
          Science works on evidence. The scientific consensus is a measure of how solid the science is, not of whether some fact is true or not. If you want to overturn the scientific consensus, all you need is a new theory for why the global climate is changing, and a way of testing that theory, and to make sure that all the supporting lines of evidence (C02, ocean warming, solar effects, etc, etc) actually support your new theory better than they do the current one. That’s all.
          Perhaps what you are trying to say is that you could accept all of the scientific evidence, but you just don’t like the consequences. Fine, argue that position. Not that the planet isn’t warming, but rather that it would be in your interest to leave it to future generations to deal with, that it just isn’t your problem. That is honest. Immoral to many, but at least honest.

        4. “Insufficient credibility” is another way to say “absolute evidence-free truth,” which is to say it is not absolute or the truth.
          Supplying evidence to back one’s assertions is paramount. In this case, it is genuine scientific evidence by genuine climate scientists that says climate change is happening. So far, not one climate scientist has been cited from the “AGW is drivel” camp in these comments. That’s because they cannot produce one, at least not one with an ounce of credibility. In fact, the individuals cited so far with “evidence” that “disproves” climate science (Watts, Lomborg, et al) is like sending in SPCA officials to conduct brain surgery.

      2. Thomas; the brainwashed don’t want to and probably can’t understand. Some of them are too young to remember the dirty rivers and how they’ve been now cleaned up. The acid rain and how the air has been cleaned up too. The old dirty exhaust systems and how they too have been greatly improved. It just doesn’t serve the mentality of many in the west who, collectively, live in a bubble of angst and cannot realise that they are more healthy and are living longer and richer than ever before in human history.
        As Margaret Went astutely pointed out in the weekend Globe and Mail:
        “The year 2016 will go down as a watershed in history. It will be remembered as the year when the postwar dreams of liberal internationalists were shattered, and populist nationalism staged a roaring comeback.
        The global elites are in shock. They were sure the arc of history would bend the other way, as Barack Obama promised. They thought that ugly nationalism would decline as the forces of progress and modernity, of international treaties and institutions, grew ever stronger. As Ross Douthat pointed out in The New York Times, they thought we were destined to evolve into the kind of world John Lennon imagined in Imagine – no countries, no religion, nothing to kill or die for, all the people living life in peace.
        Then came Brexit. Then Trump. Across Europe, borders have hardened again as countries insist on asserting their sovereignty to check the flow of unwanted newcomers. The common people have rejected their leaders with a thunderous roar. We don’t care what you think is good for us, they said. We want our country back.
        In this context, the Trump triumph is not so baffling. He rode the wave, but he didn’t create it. He articulated the feelings of millions of Americans who believed their leaders, of both parties, had miserably failed to put America’s interests first.
        The notion that nation-states will ultimately fade away is nothing new, as political scholar Ghia Nodia points out. Marx thought it was inevitable. So did the neo-liberals of the 1990s, and the people who invented the United Nations and the European Union. They were certain that the globalization of trade and human-rights norms would dampen the forces of nationalism.
        But it didn’t turn out that way. “Globalization is not necessarily good for advanced capitalist countries because it hits some people hard,” Mr. Nodia says. “That explains Le Pen, Brexit, Trump.”
        I wonder if anyone around this west coast bubble noticed the massive success this weekend of the Conservative candidate in France. The EU bureaucrats are seriously at risk of being shown the door.
        Nodia here:

        1. And now this, in socialist France: a right of center, fairly conservative president next year (not not Le Pen) but Francoise Fillon, the next French president !
          He is proposing dramatic economic reforms that include slashing 500,000 public jobs, ending the 35-hour week, raising the retirement age and scrapping the wealth tax. Mr Fillon believes in redemption through pain, the idea that you need to suffer in order to be saved. He believes the country has lived too luxuriously for too long. “So now it needs to make sacrifices. It’s like a purge.” In speech after speech in recent weeks, Mr Fillon has spoken in cataclysmic terms of France’s “broken” social model, and the need for drastic cuts in state spending.
          WOW ! A French Trump ?
          Justin Trudeau ought to listen to him, not Senor Castro !
          http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-38108758

        2. “…the brainwashed don’t want to and probably can’t understand. Some of them are too young to remember the dirty rivers and how they’ve been now cleaned up. The acid rain and how the air has been cleaned up too. The old dirty exhaust systems and how they too have been greatly improved”
          You are actually arguing for addressing climate change issues. We did impact the ozone. We did impact smog and air pollution. We did impact lead poisoning, and all sorts of global issues. There is a long list of successes.
          Similarly we can address climate change. We just have to decided to do so. It isn’t the end of the world, except apparently to those whose world view is threatened by cooperative efforts. Not sure why you are picking on liberals, when what we are actually pushing for is conservation. You know, like in the word conservative?

        3. Interesting to see you calling yourself and your devout followers, conservatives. I sympathize and can understand that the liberal monicker is wearing thin. Yes, we have addressed pollution that has affected the climate, in as much as acid rain falls when it rains, etc.
          Now that everyone is in agreement we can clearly state that:
          The air is cleaner than it was just a few years ago.
          The waters are cleaner than they have been for over a hundred years.
          We are all living longer, everywhere in the capitalist free world.
          Millions have recently been lifted from poverty and faster than thought possible.
          All this has happened during massive recent economic growth which includes more cars, buses, more aircraft, more shipping and more factory production.
          Therefore, let it be resolved that economic and industrial activity and expansion is not detrimental to the planet or to the lives of people.
          QED

        4. I didn’t call myself a conservative, I wondered why you called everyone you disagreed with a liberal. There is a difference.
          Your “proof” left out the impacts of climate change. You can hardly reach a conclusion that claims no detrimental effects when you ignore significant items like climate change. It is a logical fallacy.
          But since you like proofs, let’s resolve that since we have collectively impacted pollution levels to some extent, that we can similarly impact climate change.

        5. Don’t be coy Jeff, I won’t tell.
          ” we are actually pushing for is conservation. You know, like in the word conservative?”
          It happens to most thinkers – eventually.

        6. What I see in your above comments Eric and Thomas is an intellectual smokescreen comprised of diversionary issues and topics thrown into the air to hide the diminishing arguments against climate change science and observation. These arguments now have one primary feature: evaporated credibility.
          I suppose one must keep up appearances of legitimacy if not the real thing to prop up the contrarian facade.

  9. I was very interested to see that the “word of the year” was announced. In many ways it apropos to the discussions being held on this highly controversial subject.
    The word is post-truth and is defined as follows:
    “relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief.”
    To quote the New York Times-“To say that the term captured the zeitgeist of 2016 is a lexigraphical understatement. The word, the dictionary’s editors explained, had “gone from being a peripheral term to being a mainstay in political commentary.””
    To read the entire article see: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/28/opinion/fake-news-and-the-internet-shell-game.html
    Is the article a post-truth?

  10. He who controls cyber space controls the environment.
    The cold war between east and west has morphed into a cyber war, a struggle to control the outcome of elections in the USA. In this battle “the useful idiot” is deployed as a means to debunk the truth. Currently Donald J. Trump is the most visible idiot spreading false facts, trafficking in hoaxes and conspiracy theories of all sorts. As is often said; In war, truth is always the first casualty. I would add to this that the environment is the second casualty as can readily be seen where ever wars rage on.
    We must always pursue the truth if we want to save our lives. It is as simple as that.

      1. It’s the land based ice that is an issue. The middle of Greenland is actually depressed below sea level due to the weight of the ice on top of it. The ice cap however rises to several km above sea level, that’s the kind of melting that causes sea level change. Antarctica is a similar issue.
        Thanks for trying though Roger. I think you should let the scientists and engineers work out the science on this one. Last I checked, they don’t give architects and real estate hucksters a whole lot of education on modelling thermodynamics. Heck, as an engineer we generally leave that to the PhDs.

        1. Yes Roger, we all know you’re hoping to be gone from this planet before you’ll admit you’re wrong. It seems no amount of evidence, logic or common sense can stand up to your beliefs.

        2. So, here’s an easy calc. The ice cap on Greenland is 2.5km thick on average roughly, and covers 1.71M Sq. Km. Thats 4.25M cubic km of water. Divide by the entire surface area of the oceans (360M sq. km.) and that’s 11m of water level rise.
          Greenland melts, the coasts are predominantly underwater.
          Antarctica is bigger.

      2. Roger, the fact that to find an article that supports your evidence-free position, you had to go back four years, and give us a link to an article by a contract writer for OilPrice.com, a fossil fuel industry news site, says a lot.

    1. Castro lover meets tax revenue reality show.
      Approving a widening of two EXISTING pipelines a no-brainer & common sense.
      But then, common sense is not so common.

Comments are closed.