Idea

[Lemonaide]

I'm watching the Making of Dubai for the third time and I just thought it would be great to build more Dubai-like structures as barrier islands around areas like Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, and areas near Indonesia?

Anyone have any thoughts on that? It would be a gigantic undertaking, but, it could save the planet.

[the maple epee]

Giant palm tree-shaped Islands offshore of places like Florida, Mississippi and Louisiana are going to save the planet?



...Am I missing something here?

[sionnach]

Your country is already massively in debt and you want to go building 1000 miles of islands? You have absolutely no grasp of the enormity of such a project nor do you even know if it would be effective.

I would feel so much safer though knowing that the building of artificial islands in Florida had saved me here in Ireland.

[Capt. Slo-mo]

Unless they blocked or diverted the Gulf Stream and turned Ireland into Iceland. That might have unpleasant ramifications.

[the maple epee]

The beer would freeze and the Irish would become docile...

[sionnach]

The beer would freeze and the Irish would become docile...

Typical glass half empty thinking, our beer would always be refreshing chilled. The Cap'n makes does make an excellent point though, don't mess with our Gulf Stream, it keeps Ireland green. Attempt any interference and you'd incur the wrath of the Irish Military... *tries to keep a straight face*

[Grimaldi]

I don't think finances are really preventing us from doing it...sure, the US is in debt, but so are most nations, and in the big scheme of things, this type of project would be a drop in the bucket.

I think the more important question is why? Aside from the meaningless "save the planet" line, a project like this would be a huge financial risk. Dubai doesn't have to worry about annual hurricanes, for example...

[Lemonaide]

Your country is already massively in debt and you want to go building 1000 miles of islands? You have absolutely no grasp of the enormity of such a project nor do you even know if it would be effective.

I would feel so much safer though knowing that the building of artificial islands in Florida had saved me here in Ireland.

Massive debt - begone! Sorry if this sounds rotten in Ireland, but we've had alot of storm damage here in the USA. The Palm Islands off the coast of Dubai, though they are hugh behemoths just waiting for a strong breeze to waift through, I like the idea of protecting our coastlines, not with resorts but with barrier islands much the way Grande Isle protects the Gulf Coast in LA. I have a pretty good grasp of the project, and while it ran into difficulties here and there, they worked everything out and they ready to rock and roll.

[OROD]

I don't think finances are really preventing us from doing it...sure, the US is in debt, but so are most nations, and in the big scheme of things, this type of project would be a drop in the bucket.

I love the "lets just borrow more" attitude.

.

[Grimaldi]

I love the "lets just borrow more" attitude.

.

Don't get me wrong, I'm totally against meaningless government spending. I was responding more to Sionnach's post about the US being massively in debt. Sure, the debt sounds like a lot when put in terms of dollars, but when compared to GDP it's not out of whack for a financially stable nation. If building a chain of islands in the Gulf was a good idea, finances wouldn't be an issue that would stop the US from moving forward on it.

However, it isn't a good idea, either from a private business angle (where profit would be the motivator) or from a federal perspective (where, I suppose, money saved by preventing storm damage would be the goal?).

[Grimaldi]

Massive debt - begone! Sorry if this sounds rotten in Ireland, but we've had alot of storm damage here in the USA.

Is most of the damage caused by flooding/waves, or by extreme winds? The only real severe example of flooding damage is New Orleans, and that's because the city is below sea level and run by incompetant politicians (at all levels) that put funds towards popular projects instead of preparing for a disaster, and the city ended up paying for it. I don't think an incredible expensive series of islands would prevent wind damage, which I think causes the majority of damage in most areas.

[fencerchica]

I think the federal-level defunding of the Army Corps of Engineers, such that they were forced to settle for issuing strongly worded warnings about the levees instead of conducting the repairs everyone knew were needed, was a factor in the Katrina disaster as well...

[OROD]

Sure, the debt sounds like a lot when put in terms of dollars, but when compared to GDP it's not out of whack for a financially stable nation.

I've heard this argument before for why the debt isnt so bad, but I have to disagree. I think ANY debt is a bad idea unless there's an actual unavoidable need for it in a certain period due to war, or natural disasters, or something like that. In the normal year-to-year operation of government there should be no debt whatsoever. Common, it's not rocket science... the same rules that apply to personal finance also apply to the national one. And, I think we can all agree that anyone who goes year after year spending more than they make is a fool who will soon end up bankrupt.

.

[Grimaldi]

I've heard this argument before for why the debt isnt so bad, but I have to disagree. I think ANY debt is a bad idea unless there's an actual unavoidable need for it in a certain period due to war, or natural disasters, or something like that. In the normal year-to-year operation of government there should be no debt whatsoever. Common, it's not rocket science... the same rules that apply to personal finance also apply to the national one. And, I think we can all agree that anyone who goes year after year spending more than they make is a fool who will soon end up bankrupt.

Again, while I agree with your sentiments and would certainly like to see the US balance its budget, it's not going to happen.

And it's not like debt is a big deal. You example of personal finances is an excellent one. Sure, if a person is losing money every year, that is a potential issue, but small business owners, and many familes, do live from year to year with net losses. Heck, most Americans are massively in debt: home mortgage, car loans, school loans, etc. People live in debt, in one form or another, usually until retirement, which is often delayed to finish paying off a home mortgage.

So, um...back on topic, we could afford the islands if we wanted them, but (thankfully) we don't.

[Lemonaide]

Well, I understand that it could have widespread ramifications world-wide, but I hate to see the coast pounded every year, it's been eroding the coast line. The question, or problem is, how can we make nature 'our friend' without creating disturbances in other areas? Wouldn't it be great to be able to scoop up some of the lava flow from the many volcanoes erupting worldwide and use it for creating a base of barrier-reef-islands out there?

We've created a space station, and no-one has any idea of what the long-term ramifications are of that. It could be a huge error...[and crying over spilt milk at some point won't help]. The same arguement could be used for the invention of the car! But in looking at the Palm Island Project, all of the kinks were worked on using computer simulations - but even then they had problems, but then they solved them. The whole project is situated just west of a fault line, so who knows.

[Grimaldi]

Lemonaide...your posts always interest me. The big government programs to solve unusual issues, and subsequent hand-wringing over unintended consequences, is so different from my line of thought that it's always refreshing to read. This topic is the perfect example.

Well, I understand that it could have widespread ramifications world-wide, but I hate to see the coast pounded every year, it's been eroding the coast line.

Depending on how these islands were constructed, the world-wide effects should be pretty minimal. Assuming a series of islands instead of a giant land-bridge between Florida and Texas, at worst you screw up some currents in the Carribean, causing regional issues. The best part here, though, is that out of all the concerns about the coast being pounded every year (death, property loss, economic impact), you pick coastal erosion?

The question, or problem is, how can we make nature 'our friend' without creating disturbances in other areas?

Super, super advanced science is our only safe bet here, unfortunately...that or regressing to a much more primitive culture with a much smaller population. While Earth as a whole is robust and will survive whatever we throw at it, any environmental changes in one area will affect others. This could, potentially, become quite a sticking point in the near future, I think. If western nations and international organizations continue to treat CO2 driven global warming as a global threat, and nations like China and India continue to exponentially increase their CO2 output....

We've created a space station, and no-one has any idea of what the long-term ramifications are of that. It could be a huge error...[and crying over spilt milk at some point won't help]. The same argument could be used for the invention of the car!

While you're correct that no one has any idea what potential consequences the space station poses, I think it's a pretty safe assumption that it's nil. Unless there's some kind of rare, space-only borne lifeform someone brings back to earth, there's not much risk. In fact, there's no way to accurately predict all the consequences of any action. As for the automobile...sure, you can talk about all the negatives like deaths, pollution, etc. but there's no way you can claim it's been a net loss for humanity.

But in looking at the Palm Island Project, all of the kinks were worked on using computer simulations - but even then they had problems, but then they solved them.

As above. Computer models fail because they operate on how we understand things to operate, not as they actually operate. Global climate change models have consistently been off, despite years of testing and modification, because our understanding of global weather factors is somehow limited (and/or incorrect). In the end, you take your best shot at an accurate prediction, weigh the potential costs and benefits, and then make a decision whether or not to execute.

I'm more curious about various possibilities to somehow seed forming hurricanes to disrupt and dissipate them. Seems like a more technically feasible solution at this point, although it would still be a massive undertaking. There would, of course, be environmental consequences to reducing or eliminating the number of hurricanes in the Caribbean, but those are insignificant to me compared to the net savings in lives and economic matters.

[Lemonaide]

Computer models didn't fail for Dubai's Palm Islands. And I don't care about spending a few billion dollars to save Florida, Louisiana and Texas. We spend about a billion dollars a day on Mars which has a less than 50% success rate. Check it out.

[Phaeton]

Again, while I agree with your sentiments and would certainly like to see the US balance its budget, it's not going to happen.

And it's not like debt is a big deal. You example of personal finances is an excellent one. Sure, if a person is losing money every year, that is a potential issue, but small business owners, and many familes, do live from year to year with net losses. Heck, most Americans are massively in debt: home mortgage, car loans, school loans, etc. People live in debt, in one form or another, usually until retirement, which is often delayed to finish paying off a home mortgage.

Because distended-corpse-like credit is a good idea. The over expansion of credit in the United States, at least at my understanding, seems to be the cause of the most the economic problems, or the at least the recent ones, in the history of the United States. It's not like being in debt has not been a major issue for the country. We started a conflict over it pretty well with Shays' rebellion in the mid 1780's.

Look at the current crisis. People spent far more than they should have buying homes, took out mortgages that they shouldn't have been allowed to have, and have managed to consistently fail to pay. The debt changes hands again and again as it is sold.

One day someone is going to come along and demand their money back. All of a sudden if you've taken out a loan on you're house and you can't pay it back.

Say goodbye to your house or other assets.

When people start demanding money debt ceases being so much fun.

The second that happens and people can't pay things go wrong.

There's nothing wrong with being in debt until your creditor comes to collect it.

The invention of credit was a wonderful thing. It'd be even more wonderful if Americans were less gung-ho about going into debt and cyclically screwing over the economy through mass idiocy.

If people could learn to sustainably buy, the economy may have less growth, but it would be far more stable. Then again, if people focus on doing more things for sustainability and stability, such as breed race horses to mature a bit faster and not trip and break limbs making a media frenzy or protect the environment so we don't all have to pay for lost resources later, a lot of problems could be avoided.

This is, of course, the opinion of a non-economist.

[Grimaldi]

Computer models didn't fail for Dubai's Palm Islands. And I don't care about spending a few billion dollars to save Florida, Louisiana and Texas. We spend about a billion dollars a day on Mars which has a less than 50% success rate. Check it out.

Considering the Dubai project cost over $12 billion dollars for under 50 kilometers of island, I think the cost of your project will be a little more than "a few billion dollars". True, some of the cost in Dubai was for the buildings and such on the island, but trying to build an island is a rather expensive process.

Because distended-corpse-like credit is a good idea. The over expansion of credit in the United States, at least at my understanding, seems to be the cause of the most the economic problems, or the at least the recent ones, in the history of the United States. It's not like being in debt has not been a major issue for the country. We started a conflict over it pretty well with Shays' rebellion in the mid 1780's.

I don't think anyone would disagree that being out of debt is better than being in debt. However, to function in today's society, it makes sense for most people to go into debt. As for major economic problems, aside from the stock market crash that caused the Great Depression, I don't see any serious situations where debt has had severe economic ramifications.

Let's just say things have changed a bit since Shay's rebellion. I mean, we had the Whiskey rebellion a decade later, but no one's going to argue that federal taxes on alcohol are a national crisis because of it.

Look at the current crisis. People spent far more than they should have buying homes, took out mortgages that they shouldn't have been allowed to have, and have managed to consistently fail to pay.

This is the kind of quote that really terrifies me. Who are you to judge what is "too much" to spend on a home? Who gets to decide what type of loan I shouldn't be allowed to have? I bought my first house in July 2006, using a subprime loan. I wouldn't have qualified otherwise. There were no surprises, the mortgage lender didn't try to trick me, and my payments shot up with interest rates. I spent less, worked more, and dealt with it. Just because some people are morons and can't make intelligent decisions doesn't mean options should be taken from everybody. The number foreclosures is up, sure, but it's not the huge crisis everyone talks about. 5 years from now, none of this will have mattered, and the economy will be moving along as if it never happened.

One day someone is going to come along and demand their money back. All of a sudden if you've taken out a loan on you're house and you can't pay it back.

What, are you dealing with loan sharks or something? As long as you make your regular payments, your lender isn't going to suddenly appear on your doorstep demanding payment. Lenders make money off the interest you pay on the loan, so it's in their best interest to let the payment carry on as long as possible. The last thing a lender wants is someone foreclosing on a home (or defaulting on a car loan, whatever). Then you've got all the legal crap to reclaim the property, you have to spend money to clean it up for sale....it's a huge loss.

The invention of credit was a wonderful thing. It'd be even more wonderful if Americans were less gung-ho about going into debt and cyclically screwing over the economy through mass idiocy.

Uh...the US economy is the most robust and dependable in the world. Sure, the regular business cycle goes through peaks and valleys, but consumer use of credit isn't the major driving factor.

If people could learn to sustainably buy, the economy may have less growth, but it would be far more stable.

Yes, go for the successful Western European model. I can only dream of the benefits of 10% unemployment, reduced GDP and lower net worth/income per capita (France).

Then again, if people focus on doing more things for sustainability and stability, such as breed race horses to mature a bit faster and not trip and break limbs making a media frenzy or protect the environment so we don't all have to pay for lost resources later, a lot of problems could be avoided.

Wow...that's a heck of a change in gears. I'm not going to bother with the horse one, but what resources are we failing to protect that will be an issue in the future?

This is, of course, the opinion of a non-economist.

That's pretty obvious.

Damn, I feel almost as curmudgeonly as Inq with this whole post

[Lemonaide]

Whatever. It's just out there as an idea. I still think it's better than the Mars thing. Okay, gotta go.