A Remote Pacific Nation, Threatened by Rising Seas(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
A Remote Pacific Nation, Threatened by Rising Seas
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/03/world/asia/climate-change-kiribati.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fscience&action=click&contentCollection=science®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=sectionfront
9 comments
I am a Pacific islander in the US. While I mostly am "American" in my personality and values, the rest of my family lives on an island not too far from Kiribati. The thing is for any group of people, it's hard to really think with a full heart (that is, will full sympathy) for people outside our eye reach. Moreover, it doesn't help that these are tiny populations. The article says these are thousands of people. The people in my island, Palau number around 16,000. It is problematic, however, that climate change will be effected by nations who will not see direct consequences, at least not early on, so the hope that out of their own self interest or otherwise act to stem the change unlikely.
“We are Christians,” she said. “So we don’t believe that God could have given us this world and then take it away.”
Scientists: We're here to warn you about the flood. Locals: No thanks, god will provide. International aid workers: We're here to save you from the flood. Locals: No thanks, god will provide. Rescue workers: Quick, get in, it's your last chance! Locals: No thanks, god will provide. Drowning Locals: God! why have you forsaken us? God: I tried to save you three times. What more do you want?
Scientists: We're here to warn you about the flood. Locals: No thanks, god will provide. International aid workers: We're here to save you from the flood. Locals: No thanks, god will provide. Rescue workers: Quick, get in, it's your last chance! Locals: No thanks, god will provide. Drowning Locals: God! why have you forsaken us? God: I tried to save you three times. What more do you want?
Interesting times ahead. The purchase of the tract in Fiji is an ordinary land deal and does not imply a transfer of sovereignty. If the population of the Republic of Kiribati eventually relocates to this tract, what will be their legal status in Fiji? Citizens of Fiji, or refugees?
If the islands of Kiribati are underwater, other governments may come to challenge their claim to vast amounts of the Pacific [1]
[1] Maritime boundaries and claims: https://imgur.com/KbGj1mC
If the islands of Kiribati are underwater, other governments may come to challenge their claim to vast amounts of the Pacific [1]
[1] Maritime boundaries and claims: https://imgur.com/KbGj1mC
My solution would be for the US to purchase Kiribati and relocate the citizens to the Texas coast.
The EEZ would then be turned into a conversation zone. The USN would use it as an MOA to keep out the tuna fleets.
Once Kiribati is under water, those EEZs would turn into international waters. It has been a few years, but IIRC there isn't much impingement of other nations' EEZs on that of Kiribati.
The EEZ would then be turned into a conversation zone. The USN would use it as an MOA to keep out the tuna fleets.
Once Kiribati is under water, those EEZs would turn into international waters. It has been a few years, but IIRC there isn't much impingement of other nations' EEZs on that of Kiribati.
Here's the google maps link: https://www.google.dk/maps?q=Kiribati&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=X&ved...
Nearby is Jarvis Island, with the sorry story of Squire Flockton that I was drawn to for some reason: http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=470596...
Nearby is Jarvis Island, with the sorry story of Squire Flockton that I was drawn to for some reason: http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=470596...
Cool thing about the Kiribati language, the 'ti' makes an 's' sound. So if someone is named "Sam", in Kiribati you would spell his name "Tiam."
unless written kiribati was natively developed to use the english alphabet, it seems like someone just did a really crap job of romanizing their language.
Not necessarily. Maybe this is less than optimal for loanwords, but why have consonants in your alphabet that you never use? Might also have grammatical meaning (e.g. t staying t in every form of a word)
For example, in Russian pronunciation, you might definitely confuse 'ti' for 'si'. If Russian wouldn't have the real 's' consonant (or 'ц'), it would make sense to transliterate 's' as 'ti'.
For example, in Russian pronunciation, you might definitely confuse 'ti' for 'si'. If Russian wouldn't have the real 's' consonant (or 'ц'), it would make sense to transliterate 's' as 'ti'.
I don't understand. If the people of kiribati (pronounced KEE-ree-bas) have an S sound, then it makes sense to romanize their language so that words endings with an S sound end with an S letter... If they have a "ti" sound as well, then by all means keep the T and the I, or even glyph them together...
But english is (more or less) a phonetic language. If you're romanizing a foreign language, and it doesn't come out more or less phonetic, then.... try again. It doesn't cost anything to keep an "s" in the prospective alphabet.
But english is (more or less) a phonetic language. If you're romanizing a foreign language, and it doesn't come out more or less phonetic, then.... try again. It doesn't cost anything to keep an "s" in the prospective alphabet.
I agree with you mostly but ... shrug.
If we went with that then the Q in Chinese wouldn't be pronounced 'ch' (or something very close to that)
A not entirely irrelevant fact about "Kiribati" is that is the same word as Gilberts -- as in Gilberts Islands.
A not entirely irrelevant fact about "Kiribati" is that is the same word as Gilberts -- as in Gilberts Islands.
It does cost you to have letters in the alphabet that you don't use (as in, you have minimal pairs with that letter). You don't understand how to pronounce it and it becomes confusing. For example, Italian doesn't use k, j, y, x, w except in loanwords.
And 'z' sound in Italian means two different consonants; in English it also means two different consonants, both also different from both Italian ones. Both are "phonetic".
And 'z' sound in Italian means two different consonants; in English it also means two different consonants, both also different from both Italian ones. Both are "phonetic".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilbertese_language#Phonology
the "s sound" (IPA [s]) is essentially an allophone of their "t sound" (IPA [t]) before 'i'. Since they don't perceive them to be distinct phonemes, there's no need for a separate letter.
the "s sound" (IPA [s]) is essentially an allophone of their "t sound" (IPA [t]) before 'i'. Since they don't perceive them to be distinct phonemes, there's no need for a separate letter.
I can recommend 'The Sex Lives of Cannibals' if you'd like to know more about Kiribati: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Sex-Lives-Cannibals-Equatorial-Paci...
This is nothing compared to the people who die from lack of access to cheap energy, each year, right now.
It's interesting in 30+ years that island's might disappear.
But I'd be surprised if it isn't solvable with 30+ year tech. (It's solvable with current tech, just expensive)
It's interesting in 30+ years that island's might disappear.
But I'd be surprised if it isn't solvable with 30+ year tech. (It's solvable with current tech, just expensive)
>This is nothing compared to the people who die from lack of access to cheap energy, each year, right now.
60%[0] of greenhouse emissions don't come from the worst of developing countries, so I doubt that many are in those countries are "dying" from a lack of access to cheap energy. 6000 people is a small number. You do risk losing a culture and people, but is the convenience of billions worth the culture of few thousand? I suppose that is a judgement call.
Regardless, it's not like climate change won't affect the billions, it will. It's more like the islanders here will be the first victims.
[0] Added up the numbers from the top ten emitters for greenhouse gases. Brazil and Indonesia are included in this list for their aggressive burning of forest for farmland. Indonesia and Brazil aren't quite "old world" countries, but I doubt access to petrol is the least of their problems.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/apr/21/countrie...
60%[0] of greenhouse emissions don't come from the worst of developing countries, so I doubt that many are in those countries are "dying" from a lack of access to cheap energy. 6000 people is a small number. You do risk losing a culture and people, but is the convenience of billions worth the culture of few thousand? I suppose that is a judgement call.
Regardless, it's not like climate change won't affect the billions, it will. It's more like the islanders here will be the first victims.
[0] Added up the numbers from the top ten emitters for greenhouse gases. Brazil and Indonesia are included in this list for their aggressive burning of forest for farmland. Indonesia and Brazil aren't quite "old world" countries, but I doubt access to petrol is the least of their problems.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/apr/21/countrie...
spraak(3)