Who will pay to protect tech giants from rising seas?(apps.npr.org)
apps.npr.org
Who will pay to protect tech giants from rising seas?
https://apps.npr.org/sea-level-rise-silicon-valley/
21 comments
I quite enjoyed the pictorial introduction on mobile. Props to the NPR digital team; mobile-first storytelling par excellence.
One should ask (rhetorically) why these outlets seem to have an incel-like obsession with esoteric Big Tech stories when there are an abundance of more pressing and pertinent matters they could cover.
Journalism seeks lenses and frames for its stories. Tech giants are both known and high profiles, as well as illustrating burden-of-payment issues and the question "if they can't afford this then who can?"
This article is Activism masquerading as Journalism.
Welcome to the last 10 years
Have you read much mainstream news lately?
There's no distinction anymore. As of this last week, NPR isn't even trying to hide it anymore: https://www.rt.com/usa/530618-npr-reporters-activists-protes...
The government using the taxes paid to the local municipalities and state, because these companies are strong economic drivers for those areas.
It's kind of how the NYC metro is not meant to break even, it cost the city money to run it, but it second order effect it is a huge economic driver thus worth footing the bill for
It's kind of how the NYC metro is not meant to break even, it cost the city money to run it, but it second order effect it is a huge economic driver thus worth footing the bill for
Kind of off topic but I wish I saw more improvement with the NYC subway for the money that goes into it.
As I understand it the system is so behind on updates and repairs that it would take decades to correct and I think there's a lot of graft and mishandling of funds that won't ever be investigated.
As I understand it the system is so behind on updates and repairs that it would take decades to correct and I think there's a lot of graft and mishandling of funds that won't ever be investigated.
They are there a very high income company that can or cannot afford that protection for them or their neighbor communities, but what about everywhere else, where there are no tech giant with that possibility?
They are making the wrong question. Or some of the companies/entities behind (either causing, financing disinformation campaings, or getting "donations" from them) have to support that cost, or should be done by the government (they didn't take any compromise regarding climate for almost 30 years) or the people will have to deal with that in their own way.
And in the last case, the companies are in the same situation.
And the worst part is that the problem won't be a couple of feet of sea level rise, in the last month we've seen plenty of floods by extreme weather alone. And not sure how will end the sea level at the end of the decade with the positive feedback on climate, and high temperatures around Greenland.
They are making the wrong question. Or some of the companies/entities behind (either causing, financing disinformation campaings, or getting "donations" from them) have to support that cost, or should be done by the government (they didn't take any compromise regarding climate for almost 30 years) or the people will have to deal with that in their own way.
And in the last case, the companies are in the same situation.
And the worst part is that the problem won't be a couple of feet of sea level rise, in the last month we've seen plenty of floods by extreme weather alone. And not sure how will end the sea level at the end of the decade with the positive feedback on climate, and high temperatures around Greenland.
It also pretty much affects anywhere with significant amounts of water. The recent floods in Zhengzhou were pretty bad, and that was hundreds of km inland.
It would probably be easier for Facebook or Google to just reboot their headquarters, in multiple offices, wherever their labor pool migrates when their homes get flooded. For the most part it's just people at desks in buildings, which can be set up anywhere there is electricity.
These companies would take a freebie if municipalities decided to mitigate flooding on their behalf, but it wouldn't end up being an existential issue for them to just move elsewhere if things became untenable.
These companies would take a freebie if municipalities decided to mitigate flooding on their behalf, but it wouldn't end up being an existential issue for them to just move elsewhere if things became untenable.
Just as plausible they would seek to protect their existing investments, which could become increasingly valuable due to increasingly limited shoreline protected from weather volatility, while also helping surrounding communities. Win/win.
No matter what you think about climate change, that subhead is a rookie mistake and a false dichotomy: The private companies are taxpayers.
>The private companies are taxpayers.
Yes, in the sense that you would still nominally be a taxpayer if you had ways to pay $1-$5 tax per year, while still making $300K.
Yes, in the sense that you would still nominally be a taxpayer if you had ways to pay $1-$5 tax per year, while still making $300K.
Tech companies generally get away with paying less than their fair share: https://fortune.com/2019/12/06/big-tech-taxes-google-faceboo...
10 billion a year in global tax avoidance for those tech companies combined doesn't sound like a lot considering their revenue is around 600 billion a year.
Also consider that all the workers are also tax payers and they want the company to continue existing, their taxes would also go towards protecting the bay. Their tax dollars wouldn't exist in California if those tech companies weren't there.
Also consider that all the workers are also tax payers and they want the company to continue existing, their taxes would also go towards protecting the bay. Their tax dollars wouldn't exist in California if those tech companies weren't there.
10 billion a year of tax money can fund a lot of stuff. Just because it is a fraction of a 600 billion does not make it somehow better.
It is across the entire world, it wouldn't be used in the bay area. They already pay taxes properly for all the workers and buildings they have in the bay area, if that isn't enough then they ought to raise those taxes since they should cover the cost of operating there.
So it's not useful because it wouldn't benefit the bay area?
In fact, it's from places all over the world, significantly poorer places, where the money would stretch even further.
You're making it sound even worse.
In fact, it's from places all over the world, significantly poorer places, where the money would stretch even further.
You're making it sound even worse.
The discussion is about issues in the bay area. They contribute a huge amount to the tax base there, so saying they don't pay taxes isn't fruitful to this discussion. If those taxes isn't enough to handle issues in the bay area then bay area taxes should be increased, simple as that. And if that makes tech companies leave the area then those tech companies couldn't afford to operate there, and if they can't afford it then nobody can and everyone would have to leave the area.
Edit: The main point is that nobody can say that San Francisco has less money with those tech companies operating there than they would if those tech companies left. They are among the richest places on earth and should easily be afford any measures that can be afforded anywhere.
Edit: The main point is that nobody can say that San Francisco has less money with those tech companies operating there than they would if those tech companies left. They are among the richest places on earth and should easily be afford any measures that can be afforded anywhere.
Just because Mr X gives me 50 when he owes me 500, and I'd have 0 if he didn't exist, doesn't mean he's not taking advantage of me.
The same way any other infrastructure is paid for?
25 or 50 years from now those companies might not be anywhere close to the bay, if they still exist.
MV, EPA and MP becoming Venice. Giving the unstoppably rising price of real estate nobody is going to move away from such a valuable land, even if it is covered by 3 feet of water (to illustrate - imagine the gold rush if real estate development in the shallow waters of the Bay would get allowed today). And once we get used to building in water i can see a new SF built few miles off the Ocean beach :) It can possibly be a future demand generator for various VTOL, human and package carrying, developments around. Google even has its own - KittyHawk. By the time of flooding we'll have batteries improved another order, automated air traffic management, etc.
It's cheaper still to build barriers, especially since the sea level rise is gradual.
It's just that if you think of what we're going to spend worldwide to mitigate the harms of sea level rise, it seems incredibly stupid to be burning subsidized fossil fuels. That's without even factoring in the other problems climate change will bring. A proper carbon taxing scheme with tariffs on countries that don't play along would make so much sense.
One way or another the bill will be paid. Nature is a relentless debt collector.
It's just that if you think of what we're going to spend worldwide to mitigate the harms of sea level rise, it seems incredibly stupid to be burning subsidized fossil fuels. That's without even factoring in the other problems climate change will bring. A proper carbon taxing scheme with tariffs on countries that don't play along would make so much sense.
One way or another the bill will be paid. Nature is a relentless debt collector.
>It's cheaper still to build barriers
for some definition of cheaper. For full cost you need to factor in political costs of implementing such a a collective action as well as opportunity costs. And once built it needs to be maintained. It requires continuous involvement into political fight to insure that the maintenance is happening to avoid Katrina type situations. The implicit threat of non-maintenance becomes a tool of political blackmail and pressure. It makes for high-risk business environment which is just bad for business.
>it seems incredibly stupid to be burning subsidized fossil fuels.
well, removing the subsidies and decreasing the fossil fuel burn is an immediately available very low cost collective action to slow climate change and delay water rise... We can see how it's been going so far.
>A proper carbon taxing scheme with tariffs on countries that don't play along would make so much sense.
Russia for example has all the sanctions and tariffs (and when there is no tariff imposed from outside, Russia usually takes care about that by having self-inflicted inside tariff there :) so it is hard to make much more, and Russia is anyway going full-steam into that warmer future (the global warming was taught in middle school even back in 198x in USSR) pumping oil and gas like crazy. Many Russian territories are becoming much more conductive for living and doing agriculture there. Short of WWIII there is not much can be done here (and Russia is actively building bases in the North and Far East as well as new strategic weapons system - the point is that they don't bet much on global international cooperation :). I'm pointing at Russia because i know it better than other countries, and of course it may be that Russia is large outlier, yet i somehow think that a number of other countries are also not betting much on successful global international cooperation in particular when it comes to global warming.
for some definition of cheaper. For full cost you need to factor in political costs of implementing such a a collective action as well as opportunity costs. And once built it needs to be maintained. It requires continuous involvement into political fight to insure that the maintenance is happening to avoid Katrina type situations. The implicit threat of non-maintenance becomes a tool of political blackmail and pressure. It makes for high-risk business environment which is just bad for business.
>it seems incredibly stupid to be burning subsidized fossil fuels.
well, removing the subsidies and decreasing the fossil fuel burn is an immediately available very low cost collective action to slow climate change and delay water rise... We can see how it's been going so far.
>A proper carbon taxing scheme with tariffs on countries that don't play along would make so much sense.
Russia for example has all the sanctions and tariffs (and when there is no tariff imposed from outside, Russia usually takes care about that by having self-inflicted inside tariff there :) so it is hard to make much more, and Russia is anyway going full-steam into that warmer future (the global warming was taught in middle school even back in 198x in USSR) pumping oil and gas like crazy. Many Russian territories are becoming much more conductive for living and doing agriculture there. Short of WWIII there is not much can be done here (and Russia is actively building bases in the North and Far East as well as new strategic weapons system - the point is that they don't bet much on global international cooperation :). I'm pointing at Russia because i know it better than other countries, and of course it may be that Russia is large outlier, yet i somehow think that a number of other countries are also not betting much on successful global international cooperation in particular when it comes to global warming.
I wonder if some particular hard to establish fabs are going to move into market disturbance resistant vessels.
Basically move the chipplant into an old aircraft carrier, stabilize in production mode with pillars and piers - and thus be encapsulated from local market turmoils, international politics and local politicians.Seasteading, without the sea, but all the negotiation benefits of mobility.
Basically move the chipplant into an old aircraft carrier, stabilize in production mode with pillars and piers - and thus be encapsulated from local market turmoils, international politics and local politicians.Seasteading, without the sea, but all the negotiation benefits of mobility.
You can't run a fab in a ship for a large number of reasons.
There are no old aircraft carriers. They get turned into museums or scrapped.
An aircraft carrier costs about $10bn. It's doable.
If you are not picky, a left-over unfinnished one from the sovjet-union could be had for 20 million.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_aircraft_carrier_Liaon...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_aircraft_carrier_Liaon...
The public, through the state, as always.
I live near Facebook and Google. It's doesn't seem to me much of a task to build dikes. Those trillion dollar companies can pay for it themselves
Costs of sea dikes – regressions and uncertainty estimates (2017)
https://nhess.copernicus.org/articles/17/765/2017/nhess-17-7...
Costs of sea dikes – regressions and uncertainty estimates (2017)
https://nhess.copernicus.org/articles/17/765/2017/nhess-17-7...
According to the article, the ones they built don’t meet federal safety standards. This is probably why it seems easy.
Kind of a weird question to ask with how slowly the sea level is rising and how ephemeral relevancy in tech can be. Remember that Facebook and Google are in old Sun and SGI buildings.
[deleted]
last time this was posted: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27970880
what kind of fool tries to fight against the ocean, and bill the rest of society for it?
what kind of fool tries to fight against the ocean, and bill the rest of society for it?
The Netherlands?
Why not just levy a bond on property in the affected areas?
The article asks who should pay to build dikes that keep the water out of Silicon Valley. Instead of building dikes, though, we should fill the Bay in: https://jefftk.com/p/make-more-land
Wiser to retreat (but retreat unpalatable for USians). Make corps pay directly. If govt pays it's just socialized cost, with no impetus to move.