NationStates Jolt Archive

Paradise lost: climate change forces South Sea islanders to seek sanctuary abroad

After years of fruitless appeals for decisive action on climate change, the tiny South Pacific nation of Kiribati has concluded that it is doomed. Yesterday its President, Anote Tong, used World Environment Day to request international help to evacuate his country before it disappears.

Water supplies are being contaminated by the encroaching salt water, Mr Tong said, and crops destroyed. Beachside communities have been moved inland. But Kiribati – 33 coral atolls sprinkled across two million square miles of ocean – has limited scope to adapt. Its highest land is barely 6 feet above sea level.

Speaking in New Zealand, Mr Tong said i-Kiribati, as his countrymen are known, had no option but to leave. "We may be beyond redemption," he said. "We may be at the point of no return, where the emissions in the atmosphere will carry on contributing to climate change, to produce a sea level change so in time our small, low-lying islands will be submerged."

President Tong, a London School of Economics graduate, said emigration needed to start immediately: "We don't want to believe this, and our people don't want to believe this. It gives us a deep sense of frustration. What do we do?"

Kiribati – a former British colony called the Gilbert Islands – is home to 97,000 people, most of them squeezed into the densely populated main atoll, Tarawa, a chain of islets surrounding a central lagoon. Along with other low-lying Pacific island nations such as Tuvalu, the Marshall Islands and Vanuatu, it is regarded as one of the places most vulnerable to climate change.

Erosion, caused partly by flooding and storms, is a serious problem in Kiribati, which straddles the Equator and International Dateline. Most of the land is as flat as a table. "We have to find the next highest spot," said Mr Tong. "At the moment there's only the coconut trees." But even the coconut trees are dying – casualties of an unprecedented drought. The country has had next to no rain for the past three years and meanwhile the freshwater table is being poisoned.

Mr Tong was in New Zealand – which was chosen to host the UN's World Environment Day after committing itself to becoming carbon neutral – for talks with Helen Clark, the Prime Minister, whom he hopes to persuade to resettle many of his people. But he also appealed to other countries to help relocate i-Kiribati.

Achim Steiner, executive director of the UN Environment Programme, said of Kiribati's plight: "It's a humbling prospect when a nation has to begin talking about its own demise, not because of some inevitable natural disaster... but because of what we are doing on this planet." The world must find the "collective purpose" to combat climate change, Mr Steiner said. "Unless everyone... on this planet takes their responsibility seriously, we will simply not make a difference."

New Zealand already has a substantial population of Pacific Islanders, but absorbing another 97,000 would strain its generosity. Besides, that is just Kiribati. A report by Australian government scientists in 2006 warned of a flood of environmental refugees across the Asia-Pacific region. New Zealand is already experiencing significantly increased levels of migration from affected countries.

President Tong said he was accustomed to hearing national leaders argue that measures to combat climate change would jeopardise their economic development. But he pointed out that for Kiribati "it's not an issue of economic growth, it's an issue of human survival". And while scientists were still debating the degree to which the seas were rising, and the cause of it, he said, the changes were obvious in his country. "I am not a scientist, but what I know is that things are happening we did not experience in the past... Every second week, when we get the high tides, there's always reports of erosion." Villages that had occupied the same spot for up to a century had had to be relocated. "We're doing it now... it's that urgent," he said. "Where they have been living over the past few decades is no longer there. It is being eroded."

The worst case scenario suggested that Kiribati would become uninhabitable within 50 to 60 years, Mr Tong said. "I've appealed to the international community that we need to address this challenge. It's a challenge for the whole global community."

Leading industrialised nations pledged last month to cut their carbon emissions by half by 2050. But they stopped short of setting firm targets for 2020, which many scientists argue is crucial if the planet is to be saved. For Kiribati, it may already be too late.


http://img365.imageshack.us/img365/3927/kiribati31557ajl1.jpg

(link (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/australasia/paradise-lost-climate-change-forces-south-sea-islanders-to-seek-sanctuary-abroad-841409.html))

I wonder how many countries more will die because of this...

astonishing...

http://img365.imageshack.us/img365/3927/kiribati31557ajl1.jpg

I say this is a fake. There is no way you could fit 97,000 people on that island. And where are they all hiding for this photo?

I say this is a fake. There is no way you could fit 97,000 people on that island. And where are they all hiding for this photo?

That's... one islet out of the entire country.

I say this is a fake. There is no way you could fit 97,000 people on that island. And where are they all hiding for this photo?

:p Perhaps they've already been evacuated...

It's rather horrifying to hear about it, though.

That's... one islet out of the entire country.

You don't say, Sherlock.

You don't say, Sherlock.

Fass, look at what I was responding TO. I was setting the guy straight... (If anyone makes a pun about this...)

Fass, look at what I was responding TO. I was setting the guy straight... (If anyone makes a pun about this...)

No...you weren't. :p

No...you weren't. :p

Don't play dumb with me, I'm much better at this game. :p

Fass, look at what I was responding TO. I was setting the guy straight...

One would think the jocularity of his post more than apparent, but seemingly not to all.

This leaves me with one question, though. Why is it that these islands are experiencing catastrophic flooding due to climate change, but places like Florida aren't? Is it possible another thing might be happening here? Perhaps tectonic movements, or some sort of ground settling, is causing the islands to sink, rather than the sea to rise.

Or, to put forth a completely whacked-out theory, the movement of materials, such as filling of land and construction of skyscrapers, had slightly moved the earth's center of gravity toward the western side of the Pacific by maybe a few feet, thus the sea levels rise slightly. No change is noticed in the West, because rising sea levels are counteracted by the movement of gravity.

One would think the jocularity of his post more than apparent, but seemingly not to all.

Sorry, I'm in a "betting on people's stupidity" mood. :p

This leaves me with one question, though. Why is it that these islands are experiencing catastrophic flooding due to climate change, but places like Florida aren't? Is it possible another thing might be happening here? Perhaps tectonic movements, or some sort of ground settling, is causing the islands to sink, rather than the sea to rise.

Or, to put forth a completely whacked-out theory, the movement of materials, such as filling of land and construction of skyscrapers, had slightly moved the earth's center of gravity toward the western side of the Pacific by maybe a few feet, thus the sea levels rise slightly. No change is noticed in the West, because rising sea levels are counteracted by the movement of gravity.

That's a pretty deep thought there, you know. I myself live in Florida. Miami, actually.

However I think their drought problem may also come from the fact that we are in La Niña...

President Tong, a London School of Economics graduate, said emigration needed to start immediately: "We don't want to believe this, and our people don't want to believe this. It gives us a deep sense of frustration. What do we do?"

Now imagine if a similar situation happened to the US and Bush talked about it. You can bet he'd bring up how wonderful the country is, how awful our enemies are, democracy, freedom, 'murrica. And how along with emigration, the situation required we invade and occupy an oil-rich nation with a predominately non-Europoean, non-Christian population. In the name of freedoms.

I dunno, hearing other national leaders speak like real persons instead of some depressing farce makes me feel humble.

It's Too Late. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ZFO3EIXbhg)


Seems like Bob might've been right all those years ago.

This leaves me with one question, though. Why is it that these islands are experiencing catastrophic flooding due to climate change, but places like Florida aren't? Is it possible another thing might be happening here? Perhaps tectonic movements, or some sort of ground settling, is causing the islands to sink, rather than the sea to rise.

First part good, second part whacked-out.

Kiribati is sinking due to tectonic forces. Period. Look at its location and tell me where it sits. Answer: On the Ring of Fire, a very unstable area to be.

Now look at Australia. It is geologically stable, has a huge Pacific shore and, according to National Tidal Facility data, struggles to find sea level change in the order of one-half of one inch per century.

Pray tell, if the ocean's are rising, why aren't the Aussies drowning?

This is just another unscientific, gloom-and-doom, AGW alarmist scare piece that the media puts out to be swallowed without question by the ignorant. I am happy to see someone who questions this.

First part good, second part whacked-out.

Kiribati is sinking due to tectonic forces. Period. Look at its location and tell me where it sits. Answer: On the Ring of Fire, a very unstable area to be.

Now look at Australia. It is geologically stable, has a huge Pacific shore and, according to National Tidal Facility data, struggles to find sea level change in the order of one-half of one inch per century.

Pray tell, if the ocean's are rising, why aren't the Aussies drowning?

This is just another unscientific, gloom-and-doom, AGW alarmist scare piece that the media puts out to be swallowed without question by the ignorant. I am happy to see someone who questions this.

This is probably more like it.


As for the citizens of this tiny nation I wouldn't be opposed to bringing them to the US. We have tons of room. I figure if we can absord 12-20 million illegals then we can absorb 97k Pacific Islanders.

This leaves me with one question, though. Why is it that these islands are experiencing catastrophic flooding due to climate change, but places like Florida aren't? Is it possible another thing might be happening here? Perhaps tectonic movements, or some sort of ground settling, is causing the islands to sink, rather than the sea to rise.

Or, to put forth a completely whacked-out theory, the movement of materials, such as filling of land and construction of skyscrapers, had slightly moved the earth's center of gravity toward the western side of the Pacific by maybe a few feet, thus the sea levels rise slightly. No change is noticed in the West, because rising sea levels are counteracted by the movement of gravity.

If the waters around Florida raised a few inches, no one would really notice outside of those who lived in swampy river deltas. If the same thing were to happen around these islands, the entire nation's source of drinking water would be poisoned.

It also helps that between the two shores of the USA (or even the Florida peninsula, for that matter) lies a complete infrastructure for a developed nation. Between the shores of most of those islets, there are a few coconut trees.

Guess which one is more vulnerable to catastrophe?

Kiribati is sinking due to tectonic forces. Period. Look at its location and tell me where it sits. Answer: On the Ring of Fire, a very unstable area to be.

If being on the Ring of Fire was enough to have your country sink, we would be seeing the same thing happening in Chile, Japan, New Zealand, Alaska, the Philippines, and many other countries. The fact that these countries don't seem to be experiencing the same things would suggest that you are wrong.

Now look at Australia. It is geologically stable, has a huge Pacific shore and, according to National Tidal Facility data, struggles to find sea level change in the order of one-half of one inch per century.

Do you have a link to that data?

Pray tell, if the ocean's are rising, why aren't the Aussies drowning?

See my previous post upthread.

New York City is just a few feet above sea level. What about Holland?

The eart is going to do waht the earth is going to do. She tried to tell us New Orleans was in a bad location, but we didn't listen.

Someday we will learn.

How do they know 1,000 years ago the island wasn't there? And why would you stay in a place 6 feet above sea level? A small tropical storm could wipe the whole friggen island out without climate change!

First part good, second part whacked-out.

Kiribati is sinking due to tectonic forces. Period. Look at its location and tell me where it sits. Answer: On the Ring of Fire, a very unstable area to be.

The Ring of Fire encompasses 75% of the world's volcanoes including the entire west coast of South America and North America. I don't see the entire west coast of the Americas sinking into the ocean, yet they are in the Ring of Fire. How do you explain this?

I suppose you blame tectonic forces for melting ice caps too. Hey, Antarctica's in the Ring of Fire.

The Ring of Fire encompasses 75% of the world's volcanoes including the entire west coast of South America and North America. I don't see the entire west coast of the Americas sinking into the ocean, yet they are in the Ring of Fire. How do you explain this?

I suppose you blame tectonic forces for melting ice caps too. Hey, Antarctica's in the Ring of Fire.

the west coast of the Americas are attached to a continent, just a tad bit hard to drop into and ocean when you've been pressed against a continental plate.

Not surprisingly, certain global climate change denialists on NSG are absent on this thread. Or maybe they're trying to formulate how they can dismiss this as a plot by Al Gore.

How do they know 1,000 years ago the island wasn't there? And why would you stay in a place 6 feet above sea level? A small tropical storm could wipe the whole friggen island out without climate change!

That's my question... 97k people, living barely a man's height above sea level... In what appear to be dismal shacks...

What do they do when storms come?

How do they know 1,000 years ago the island wasn't there? And why would you stay in a place 6 feet above sea level? A small tropical storm could wipe the whole friggen island out without climate change!

Well, given that the people who inhabit that island have been there for over forty thousand years and the island's rocks can no doubt be dated to far longer...

They live there because their ancestors moved there originally, much like why anyone lives anywhere, really. It's only in recent times that we've been able to move across huge swaths of distances cheaply, and how often do we do it even nowadays? Seriously, walk into any random town even in the U.S.A. and see how many people have been there all their lives, their families all their lives, and so on and so forth.

the west coast of the Americas are attached to a continent, just a tad bit hard to drop into and ocean when you've been pressed against a continental plate.

That still leaves New Zealand, Japan, the Philippines, Indonesia, and many other archipelagic countries in the Ring of Fire which are not apparently sinking.

Ahhh.. found a bit more data:

Elevation extremes:
lowest point: Pacific Ocean 0 m
highest point: unnamed location on Banaba 81 m

Environment - current issues:
heavy pollution in lagoon of south Tarawa atoll due to heavy migration mixed with traditional practices such as lagoon latrines and open-pit dumping; ground water at risk

Median age:
total: 20.6 years
male: 20.1 years
female: 21.1 years (2008 est.)

Interesting article: http://www.movermike.com/posts/1212682039.shtml

Meanwhile, wild speculation for you... the Island became wildly popular right around the millenium, due to it being the first to see it just west of the International date line. Now, 8 years later, they need something else to keep bringing in tourists... The local airline had to cut staff recently due to economic cutbacks...

Could this all be related?

The Ring of Fire encompasses 75% of the world's volcanoes including the entire west coast of South America and North America. I don't see the entire west coast of the Americas sinking into the ocean, yet they are in the Ring of Fire. How do you explain this?

I suppose you blame tectonic forces for melting ice caps too. Hey, Antarctica's in the Ring of Fire.

The island sits right before a subduction zone. If you don't wish to investigate this people keep on thinking these people are victims of AGW and not the victims of natural processes. I am sure no who has posted such nonsense would lower themselves to research before writing.

As for the melting ice caps, they aren't melting outside of natural cycles and it is a fact that Anarctica's ice cap is growing as is Greenland's.

Not surprisingly, certain global climate change denialists on NSG are absent on this thread. Or maybe they're trying to formulate how they can dismiss this as a plot by Al Gore.

One does not have to "formulate" when one is right. Please step away from Al Gore's Kool Aid.

Well, given that the people who inhabit that island have been there for over forty thousand years
The Polynesian migration didn't start until about two thousand years ago, and these islands were surely among the last to be occupied.

The Polynesian migration didn't start until about two thousand years ago, and these islands were surely among the last to be occupied.

LIES! God put them there, 6000 years ago. Everyone knows that.:p

The island sits right before a subduction zone. If you don't wish to investigate this people keep on thinking these people are victims of AGW and not the victims of natural processes. I am sure no who has posted such nonsense would lower themselves to research before writing.

As for the melting ice caps, they aren't melting outside of natural cycles and it is a fact that Anarctica's ice cap is growing as is Greenland's.

What exactly does AGW mean? Obviously the G and the W mean Global and Warming respectively, but the A doesn't make sense, because I keep reading it as Anti.

The Polynesian migration didn't start until about two thousand years ago, and these islands were surely among the last to be occupied.
...

Okay, so where did I get my forty-thousand year figure from? I remember reading about the Polynesian migration and I could've sworn it was much older...

That still leaves New Zealand, Japan, the Philippines, Indonesia, and many other archipelagic countries in the Ring of Fire which are not apparently sinking.

and I am sure each individual one has a different reason for why they are not sinking just like California.

and I am sure each individual one has a different reason for why they are not sinking just like California.

Well, the question would be then, what about other small island chains in the Pacific? Are they sinking along with this one?

If this was an isolated incident, then it would be easy to say that it was just a natural slump into the sea. However, if this is becoming an increasing problem for many islands, then there are two possibilities:

1) Its still a natural subduction, if the islands are all around a similar zone, or the same zone.

2) It is really rising sea levels, if these islands are spread out all over, and facing the same problem. By all over, that would mean islands in a zone like this, or islands in a very seismic quiet area.

and I am sure each individual one has a different reason for why they are not sinking just like California.
Because we are cool. :cool:

The island sits right before a subduction zone. If you don't wish to investigate this people keep on thinking these people are victims of AGW and not the victims of natural processes. I am sure no who has posted such nonsense would lower themselves to research before writing.
Which is why the USGS or the regional equivalent has provided evidence of recent tectonic activity in the region that would explain this.

As for the melting ice caps, they aren't melting outside of natural cycles and it is a fact that Anarctica's ice cap is growing as is Greenland's.
http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn9717
http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,469495,00.html

Although it's not really important. Thermal expansion, not the melting of sheet ice, is what causes sea level rise.

EDIT: That should be what mostly causes sea level rise.

The island sits right before a subduction zone. If you don't wish to investigate this people keep on thinking these people are victims of AGW and not the victims of natural processes. I am sure no who has posted such nonsense would lower themselves to research before writing.

As for the melting ice caps, they aren't melting outside of natural cycles and it is a fact that Anarctica's ice cap is growing as is Greenland's.

Which island sits before a subduction zone? There are many. Do you have a map or geological survey that shows this? Your hypothesis would only make sense if all the islets were sitting on the very crest of the ocean plate that is being sucked under the continental plate. I would like to see a geological survey that confirms this. Provide a link, please.

and I am sure each individual one has a different reason for why they are not sinking just like California.

This is called an ad-hoc hypothesis. In other words, you're just making stuff up that you can't or won't prove when someone points out holes in your hypothesis.

What exactly does AGW mean? Obviously the G and the W mean Global and Warming respectively, but the A doesn't make sense, because I keep reading it as Anti.

A = Anthropogenic

It it weren't so serious, I would find it amusing that some people respond to such a crisis by whining "No, no, climate change is all lies!" Stuff it. We don't care about your pathological need for denial. It's beside the point. The fact is that Kiribati is becoming uninhabitable, and that its people are almost certainly going to have to evacuate the country. That is the issue of concern here.

How do they know 1,000 years ago the island wasn't there?

We know it was there a thousand years ago because archeologists have unearthed traces of human habitation dating back to that time.


And why would you stay in a place 6 feet above sea level?


Because it's home. Because you've always lived there. Because you live a subsistence economy lifestyle, meaning that

a) you have no money to pay for an airfare to emigrate, and
b) foreign countries won't take you because you bring them no skills.

Besides, if you read the article, Tong is saying that they do need to leave, which means that your "point" is rather begging the question. Tong has also said that his country needs to focused on providing its people with skills, so that they can contribute to whatever country they move to.


A small tropical storm could wipe the whole friggen island out without climate change!

Nope. They've been living there a long time. They do get storms, and drought. They've always survived it.

That's my question... 97k people, living barely a man's height above sea level... In what appear to be dismal shacks...

What do they do when storms come?

Same as what most people around the world do. Suffer, then rebuild.


Well, given that the people who inhabit that island have been there for over forty thousand years

No, not that long. Between two and three thousand years (I'm saying this from memory from books I've read), depending on estimates.


Elevation extremes:
lowest point: Pacific Ocean 0 m
highest point: unnamed location on Banaba 81 m


Banaba is different in many ways from the rest of the country. It was integrated to Kiribati by the British for political and economic reasons, but apart from that doesn't share a common history with the rest of the islands. It's a phosphate island, whereas the rest of Kiribati is made of atolls. Outside Banaba, I think the highest point in Kiribati is 2 metres.

As has been said before, given how small and low Kiribati is, water rising affects them far, far more seriously than it does larger and higher countries.


The Polynesian migration didn't start until about two thousand years ago, and these islands were surely among the last to be occupied.

For the record, the I-Kiribati are not Polynesians; they're Micronesians.


Well, the question would be then, what about other small island chains in the Pacific? Are they sinking along with this one?


Yes. Tuvalu is sinking. Tonga is beginning to feel the effects of sinking, as is Vanuatu. The Carteret atoll and other islands in Papua New Guinea have already become uninhabitable due to rising sea levels, and have recently been evacuated.

Oh my God, some of you can't be for real.

Oh my God, some of you can't be for real.
Well, it is the internet.

Still, aye, is a total shame. Would be fairly simple to evacuate all of them, the issue is where to put them afterwards.

Can't we just help them raise the island?

You guys see disaster, i see a cheap buying opportunity and a tax write off!

Can't we just help them raise the island?

Put the island on stilts?

Can't we just help them raise the island?

The island can be moved, but it requires a plane crash, Others, some weird magnetism and 3 seasons of complete confusion and frustration first.

hehe


well islands have been built before (Japan, Dubai, I dunno where else). Why can't we just dredge up material from the ocean and add it to their island? Maybe just build huge hills all around it?

Can't we just help them raise the island?
Why, we can do it NS style (http://www.nationstates.net/76213/page=change_region):
This is the place to move your nation from one region to another. A fleet of military-grade choppers will fly in and physically transport [missing $nation in macro NAME] to a better location.

I am sure no who has posted such nonsense would lower themselves to research before writing.
I wonder how much research you did in the two hours between you posting and this thread being posted.
The island can be moved, but it requires a plane crash, Others, and 3 seasons of complete confusion and frustration first.

That'll only move one island, Kiribati is 37 islands.


Shit. 111 seasons of Lost.

Can't we just help them raise the island?

Kiribati is not one island. It's a group of atolls.

http://img373.imageshack.us/img373/4724/18589734wv6.jpg

http://img373.imageshack.us/img373/4030/78457511nl4.jpg

http://img373.imageshack.us/img373/7604/24400789ju2.jpg

I don't see any way of raising that. Many times over.

The island can be moved, but it requires a plane crash, Others, some weird magnetism and 3 seasons of complete confusion and frustration first.

I think you mean four seasons. ;)

If the waters around Florida raised a few inches, no one would really notice outside of those who lived in swampy river deltas. If the same thing were to happen around these islands, the entire nation's source of drinking water would be poisoned.

It also helps that between the two shores of the USA (or even the Florida peninsula, for that matter) lies a complete infrastructure for a developed nation. Between the shores of most of those islets, there are a few coconut trees.

Guess which one is more vulnerable to catastrophe?

Oh, really. Nobody in Key West would notice? Solares Hill is only 18 ft. (5.5m) above sea level.(1) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solares_Hill) Average elevation of the Keys as a whole is about 5 ft. (2) (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/key_west.htm) The island chain that makes up the nation of Kiribati has an average elevation of approximately 6 ft.(3) (http://tyndallreport.com/date/2007/4/2/)

So let's review: Florida Keys, 5 ft. Krirbati, 6 ft. Which is harder to flood?

And if you chose not to believe the tectonic theory (or my gravity theory, which I warned from the start was crazy), then you can try Subsidence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidence).

So let's review: Florida Keys, 5 ft. Krirbati, 6 ft. Which is harder to flood?



Meh, those people have hogged and profited from the shoreline for long enough anyway. Its only fair to create new shoreline opportunities to others farther inland. Just to be fair.

I saw the documentary regarding this about a year ago (I think), and my heart bled for these people. I hope some of them will come to us, even tho we're far to the north.

I saw the documentary regarding this

This one (http://youtube.com/watch?v=qvKEWqOXd1U)?

It includes I-Kiribati people describing the situation, including President Tong:

http://img406.imageshack.us/img406/439/39965549gk0.jpg

Oh, really. Nobody in Key West would notice? Solares Hill is only 18 ft. (5.5m) above sea level.(1) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solares_Hill) Average elevation of the Keys as a whole is about 5 ft. (2) (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/key_west.htm) The island chain that makes up the nation of Kiribati has an average elevation of approximately 6 ft.(3) (http://tyndallreport.com/date/2007/4/2/)

So let's review: Florida Keys, 5 ft. Krirbati, 6 ft. Which is harder to flood?

And if you chose not to believe the tectonic theory (or my gravity theory, which I warned from the start was crazy), then you can try Subsidence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidence).

You apparently missed the point. I was discussing the catastrophic effects arising from a small increase in sea level. You apparently thought I was discussing complete inundation.

Where do the Keys get their drinking water from? If it is not from the Keys themselves, then the residents of the Keys do not have to worry about their source of potable water being poisoned. Do the residents of the Keys grow most of their food on the Keys? If they do not, then they do not have to worry about the majority of their food being destroyed by salt water.

Do you now understand why Kiribati is much more vulnerable to the effects of rising sea levels?

You apparently missed the point. I was discussing the catastrophic effects arising from a small increase in sea level. You apparently thought I was discussing complete inundation.

Where do the Keys get their drinking water from? If it is not from the Keys themselves, then the residents of the Keys do not have to worry about their source of potable water being poisoned. Do the residents of the Keys grow most of their food on the Keys? If they do not, then they do not have to worry about the majority of their food being destroyed by salt water.

Do you now understand why Kiribati is much more vulnerable to the effects of rising sea levels?
I did think you were talking about complete flooding, or flooding to an extent of at least a foot. I have a hard time believing that a nation in such a vulnerable place would have the majority of its agriculture within a vertical foot of sea level. Any storm, even a smallish squall, would put salt water in fields that close.

And you make a good point that, due to the nature of the islands, a small increase in sea level, relative to the islands, would be a problem. Though, I fail to see how the nation would have been able to withstand any major storm without losing water and food, and yet be destroyed by what is, assuming the islands aren't sinking, a mere few inches of higher seas.

But the water and agriculture arguments are still irrelevant to my main point (Global warming/rising seas are not the problem). Islands in the Keys that were always tiny are still there, and still about the same size. So rising sea levels, or more specifically increased volume of oceanic waters, can't be the primary problem here. It may or may not be a contributing factor, but given the lack of universality, it must not be the main factor.

that island group is just making stuff up and trying to guilt trip the rest of the world into Aid money.
well screw that lets invade!! then give them aid money after we win.

I have a hard time believing that a nation in such a vulnerable place would have the majority of its agriculture within a vertical foot of sea level.

All there is of the nation is 37 atolls. They don't exactly have room to spare.

I did think you were talking about complete flooding, or flooding to an extent of at least a foot. I have a hard time believing that a nation in such a vulnerable place would have the majority of its agriculture within a vertical foot of sea level. Any storm, even a smallish squall, would put salt water in fields that close.

You may have a hard time believing it, but that has nothing to do with whether or not it is happening.

And you make a good point that, due to the nature of the islands, a small increase in sea level, relative to the islands, would be a problem. Though, I fail to see how the nation would have been able to withstand any major storm without losing water and food, and yet be destroyed by what is, assuming the islands aren't sinking, a mere few inches of higher seas.

And yet that is how they live. I guess you learnt something new.

But the water and agriculture arguments are still irrelevant to my main point (Global warming/rising seas are not the problem). Islands in the Keys that were always tiny are still there, and still about the same size. So rising sea levels, or more specifically increased volume of oceanic waters, can't be the primary problem here. It may or may not be a contributing factor, but given the lack of universality, it must not be the main factor.

Actually, rising sea levels due to anthropogenic climate change are the cause of the water and agriculture problem, and therefore far from irrelevant. And your claim that the Florida Keys are not being affected is simply wrong: (http://keywestchronicle.blogspot.com/2007/01/could-global-warming-submerge-florida.html)

The Florida Keys eco-system may have already been warning of problems for years. The sea levels have risen, as evidenced by a report from an 18th century ship run aground near Looe Key. The ship reported Looe Key as an island 1000 feet long and 250 feet wide. Today Looe Key is submerged except during very low tides. And, long time Key West residents and mariners remember when Sand Key was an island, and there was sand that they walked upon. Today, the land is gone, and most unfortunately, much of the coral.

that island group is just making stuff up and trying to guilt trip the rest of the world into Aid money.
well screw that lets invade!! then give them aid money after we win.

They probably don't have oil or any other precious resource, so the USA probably has no interest in 'liberating' them.

I live in New Zealand and I work with a lot of Kiribati immigrants.
there are a lot of them. I'm friends with them
anyway i was talking about them about how thier country is supose to dissapear in 50 years or something and how ocean levels will put it under the ocean.
One of them just said "Kiribati is on coral and you know coral is always growing. they said that stuff about kiribati 30 years ago too saying we would be gone by 2010 and stuff" so he didnt think Kiribati was going to sink

I actually believe it will.