Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Radford Neal's avatar

"The amount of land lost equals the length of coastline times the amount by which it shifts in."

Not necessarily, if you are computing the amount it shifts just from current elevations. Quite a bit of coastal land is in the form of river deltas, which are quite flat, and would appear to be lost by this criterion. But since silt from the river is deposited in the delta region, land that would apparently be lost may just come back (or never really go away) from this silt deposition.

Expand full comment
Jonathan Palfrey's avatar

OK, thanks. I misunderstood: I thought you were saying that no effects of increased wealth had been taken into account. If only the negative effects have been taken into account and you're trying to rebalance things, fair enough. Any change to the status quo is likely to have positive and negative aspects to it, except in extreme cases.

A change that wiped out humanity, for example, would have no positive aspect for humans that I can think of, although it might be viewed quite positively by some surviving terrestrial creatures, or by visitors from other solar systems.

Expand full comment
23 more comments...

No posts