Comments by "Valorie Napoletana" (@valorienapoletana4063) on "PBS Terra" channel.

The people living there didn't build them. And the same climate shifts impacting those homes already impact you.
14
@jasonbouvette1077 it's literally the most desired property. The problem now is they built a home that needed to be afforded over many lifetimes and the structure won't last or be insurable in under a third of one mortgage.
9
Oh… assume the ground won’t become seismic and volcanic and too arid to support life or structures do you?
5
@ Most of the world has a part of their town or their whole town at such risk... I think the OPs comment to be cruel and misunderstanding of what's really created these homes and what's occurring to them and many others.
5
If you'd prefer: 1,233,480,000 cubic meters A million acre feet or 1.23348 billion cubic meters doesn't really do much except explain that this is an enormous amount of water. And the goal in a documentary is to provide scientific data in a format that allows people to better understand it. Anyone properly studying such easily does these calculations. But when releasing such publicly the information tends to be better received if a comparative scale is used.
4
@WobbigongSoundSystem would be really hard to accomplish… we’re theoretically doing it already… we just don’t put gardens on the tops of buildings. Any “unlimited energy” still has to conform to thermodynamics. And our efficiency just isn’t there except for solar… which has a mining problem. And that’s the major issue to your argument. The mining to accomplish what you’re proposing alone for anything more than one city (if that) would heat us past breaking point. And again… the instability is going to be a LOT worse than people understand. The rate at which permafrost is melting will collapse buildings, mountains, forests and the much of the world in many ways… we’re talking about 4000 feet of permanently frozen rock and water anywhere near the whole arctic and Antarctic. And we’re currently studying how it collapses when it thaws and it’s not pretty. It’s MUCH LESS about individual or community doomsday prepping and MUCH more about making the collapse gradual and survivable instead of rapid and apocalyptic.
2
@TheodoreBrosevelt I think you misunderstand what I'm saying. Your home is or will soon be just as much of a risk in coming decades. Just as your home was desirable. Should we have built in many places we have? Probably not but that was the market. Regulators and Business Interests let it run rampant and it's literally harmed us all multiple times and many times over. So much so in fact that a much larger part of the world than people appreciate at current is at risk in much this way. Suppose we can mock and judge the people who built and bought here. I just don't find it useful.
2
@ I think you mean anywhere then? There's literally these risks everywhere? And they're being exacerbated so much that YOUR home now has a much higher chance of being in this kind of situation than you might assume.
1
@RosscoAW We have been. Scientists aren't politicians. We don't try to convince anyone of anything but what we have in data from study and experiment. That data is the filtered to people through their leaders and media sources and those filters have failed to explain what we should do given what we're seeing. It's not that scientists aren't sounding the alarm. It's that no one wants to discuss a world that doesn't uphold the religion of individual car ownership... no one wants to discuss the climate migration we're already seeing happen... no one wants to talk about shutting down plastic manufacturers and oil companies completely. We have an impasse born of politics and ego. Not of any scientific failure.
1