Home | About | Donate

UN World Heritage Sites Imperiled by Climate Change, New Report Warns


#1

UN World Heritage Sites Imperiled by Climate Change, New Report Warns

Nadia Prupis, staff writer

From the city of Venice to the Statue of Liberty, dozens of natural and cultural World Heritage sites in 29 countries are under direct threat from climate change, warns a shocking new report from UNESCO, the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), and the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS).


#2

You get the sense that Trump will remove protections for endangered species and open up National Parks and Preserves to development!

He denies climate change and will take a page from Australia about rolling back environmental legislation.

Trump is a vain greedy jerk who will take advantage of the office to ruin much of the work people have striven for to protect the environment. Autocratic personalities act unilaterally. Beware of Trump sitting on a throne and not responding to the will of the people!


#4

Frankly, who the hell cares. What about living beings...


#5

The Statue of Liberty may get washed away. Terrible.

Who gives a toss about Bangladesh?


#6

The Sundarbans mangroves are a famous tiger reserve in Bengladesh which are in extreme danger of sea level rise.


#7

Heck George ...Wall St may get washed away and I mean literally. There was 15 feet of water in the Wall St area of Manhattan during Sandy.


#8

If these sites were private property held by corporations, heaven and earth would be moved to protect them. So to answer your question, no one in power gives a toss about Bangladesh (which also explains its pre-climate catastrophe condition).

And as Wereflea pointed out, Wall Street is also endangered. It's only a matter of time before the City of New York will be torn up to install dikes in order to preserve this World Domination Site, while Heritage Sites the world over crumble, flood, and disappear.


#9

My point was that whether it is Bengladesh or anywhere else, there is no escape. I understand George's concern because Bengladesh hasn't the money to erect such flood protections. In the documentary that I saw, the people who live amid the mangrove area are watching their villages wash away right now. I just thought to show that it is all connected, a forest preserve or a mangrove swamp, an ancient temple site or disappearing languages, the old world is fast being overwhelmed by the anthropocene. Neither the impoverished fishermen along the coast of Bengladesh nor the oligarchate's bankers and execs along the coast of Manhattan Island can remain as they were nor preserve things the way they used to be. The Tigers will go and the fishermen villages will go as well, just as will the Wall St firms and banks.

We underestimate the extent of our reach as a species.

We overestimate our capability to mitigate it as well while we delay getting started on trying.

No it is not the end of the world...

It'll just feel like it is with all the misery that we will have created by the time we finally do start getting serious.

Whatever happens to the coasts of Bengladesh will happen at the same time to Florida and Denmark too


#10

I agree with you. Before all that happens, we'll see the billionaire class attempt to save themselves from it. They are so arrogant, so stratified, that they believe their money will save them.


#11

I know and that bugs people a lot to think some rich guy will move to some north woods paradise and ...oh wait...I just remembered...they have already moved to paradise. They have you know. They already have their mansions in really great places but so what? I never think about the fact that I don't own a mansion. I just don't think about it. I know people own them and when the stuff hits the fan, I am too old to last that long anyway, so I don't care.

However the young whether rich or poor will both be in the same boat in the Anthropocene. The rich cannot survive alone on a deserted island. They need farmers to grow food and supermarkets to sell it and transportation to get it to and fro and a way to make money and ... AND... AND...AND ...there is no place to go that can escape.

The rich aren't expecting to escape because they can afford to move elsewhere! They are climate change deniers and believe their own rhetoric and propaganda about climate change. That is why things are so critical. The inertia that is being created where carbon will remain in the atmosphere for a century and more, the reefs and even the oceans dying, the sixth extinction, the spread of diseases etc... All that will remain to plague an overpopulated and now severely diminished world's ability to sustain its viability. Eventually it will finally occur to them that their money won't save them in the massive economic depression that will accompany the Anthropocene.

So what if you once had billions in real estate if it is underwater? So what if you owned hundreds of millions in stock if the companies went bankrupt as the world's economy collapsed?

The guy ahead of you on the emergency food kitchen line was once a billionaire but now he is just as hungry and thirsty and hot... as you are ...in the Anthropocene.


#12

The world will see mass migrations that willbe fought off using assorted weaponry as "refugee-fatigue" sets in. I have heard that India is already building barriers to prevent Bangladeshis migrating to higher ground in India. And as for the Chinese? 20 million alone in Shanghai will get wet feet! Half the world's populatuion lives in Asia and a considerbale number of those depend on fertile plains and cities that will flood as the major Asian rivers back up. The USA has plenty of room, and and most USAians have the guns to make it available!


#13

I don't see the point of this kind of statement. Moreover I am not even sure what you are trying to say. It appears to be just a 'hate everything American' rant but it doesn't even make sense on that level. Are you actually suggesting that people owning guns would do what?

In any case all comments about British cooking and the like we're done solely for the sake of humor and were in no way to be taken serious whatsoever! I had assumed that had been mutually understood but in light of your statement I now feel that I should make this disclaimer as I perhaps had been mistaken in thinking that our exchanges were all in jest for both of us. They were always 'only kidding' at least on my part anyway. My sincerest apologies and regrets.

Would the same thinking apply to Canadians or Australians too? Russians? I suppose it wasn't really thinking as far as that goes but one thing seems obvious is that, humorous it was not.

Sorry to have joked around with you, it was enjoyable and well, we can't have that sort of thing because ranting online is so very important isn't it. My mistake.