Home Climate Change The True Question Is, Are The Marshall Islands Worth Saving?

The True Question Is, Are The Marshall Islands Worth Saving?

Author

Comments

This is a losing argument:

The climate crisis will sweep away my country if the world doesn’t keep its promises
Now is a time for courage. It will take sacrifices from everyone for us all to survive, the president of the Marshall Islands writes

Just for the avoidance of doubt let’s stipulate that climate change really is going to sink the islands. Sure, there are causes to doubt it. Pacific sea levels don’t seem to have changed much. Coral atolls do in fact grow, the height of the coral tends to be regulated by the sea level. But leave all that aside. We’ll take the statement of the being washed away by car fumes as being correct.

The thing we need to know is what sacrifices?

Say it costs a dollar, $1, to change our ways so that the Marshall Islands survive. Well, yes, OK, why the hell not? Say it costs $1 each? Well, that $7 billion dollars. Or $1 each a year? $7 billion a year and run that for a century and we’re talking about $700 billion. Even when we’re talking about entire countries that’s real money.

But we’re not talking about that at all. The latest estimate of dealing with climate change is 1% of GDP for the next two hand finger counts of decades. Call it $60 trillion at net present values.

The Marshall Islands are 70 of square miles of largely uninhabited coral atolls. With 30,000 people or so. And to save this we should spend $60 trillion?

We’ve done rather similar calculations in our own Dear England. And decided that large chunks of East Anglia can be left to become salt marsh, even sink below the waves, rather than bother to build sea walls. Well, except for that one surrounding the Benn family estate. Sea walls being very, very, much cheaper than $60 trillion and to save rather more than 70 square miles and the living space of 30,000 people.

The rational response to the Marshall Islands sinking below the waves is to send a few ships to pick up the now swimming former residents and stick them on land a little higher than the former average 7 foot above sea level.

The population being talked about is roughly the same of that of Frome. Would we spend $60 trillion to save Frome? No, not destroy it for there the answer is a resounding yes, but save it? No, we wouldn’t.

So, Mr. President, when do you want us to send the boats?

SUPPORT US WITH A SUBSCRIPTION?

5 COMMENTS

  1. The Marshall Islands appear to be a territory that the UK has never invaded, so as far as I’m concerned, I have no guilt about their disappearance! Not that I have for many other places, by the way.

  2. If I lived in the Marshall Islands, I’m sure I’d agree with the President. Since I live in Oz, I naturally agree with you Tim.

    But since I’m a complete climate sceptic, I don’t think anything will happen so I don’t have to worry about it. This attitude works with all the usual Greenie junk.

    Of course there are some things we really do need to worry about. Just wait till I get out my tinfoil hat and then I’ll tell you all about them.

  3. From my memory of geography lessons – and a quick refersher in Wikipedia – as the sea level rises relative to the land of an atol, new land is created so maintaining the relative land/sea heights.

  4. The last aerial survey of islands, which occurred in 1998 I think, showed that the Marshall Islands, along with all others in receipt of UN compensation were increasing in size. That is compared with the measurement 5 years earlier. That is what coral islands do.

  5. But, but, but, when the UN* and climate ‘experts’ tell us that “if global warming is not reversed within the next 11 years climate change will be beyond human control” and “these islands will be submerged in 30 years time”** you have to trust them don’t you?

    *Noel Brown, UN 1989.
    **Hussein Shihab, Maldives Govt. Environmental Affairs Director 1988

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

expunct

in British English
expunct (ɪkˈspʌŋkt)
VERB (transitive)
1. to delete or erase; blot out; obliterate
2. to wipe out or destroy

Support Us

Recent posts

Aren’t We Glad We Didn’t Join The Euro?

It's possible to argue that this following is projecting a little too much onto just the monetary system of the remnant European Union. It's...

If Only The Media Understood The Economics Of The Media

Of course a newspaper will be all in favour of the antitrust dunning of Google. They see the search company as a competitor and...

The BBC Isn’t Grasping This Economics Stuff

True, the World Economic Forum isn't grasping this economics stuff either but that's no excuse. The BBC's remit is to explain to us proles...

This Just In From An Economics Professor

It's all terrible that we measure the economy by what is actually produced, consumed, in the economy. We must, of course, start to measure...

What’s Wrong With Modern Monetary Theory?

Richard Murphy, he of the three professorial positions, asks us what is wrong with his exposition of Modern Monetary Theory. First, in a country...

Recent comments