Jakarta in Indonesia is sinking and it is recognized as the biggest city on earth. The claim being the city is half under sea level and will be under water by 2050. Of course, news media, is taking the narrative angle of climate change. With ground water levels being the cause. Amazing how it is natural elements that is at fault.
So poor engineering and overweighed skyscrapers have nothing to do with this? I ask this question because Robarts library at University of Toronto is an example of such a miscalculation on part of the engineer; the weight of the books was not considered. If I am not mistaken Robarts library is sinking at a rate of up to 2 inches a year and hydraulics are being used to compensate for this.
Now imagine the cost to use such process for the largest city in the world. Adding weight to this fire, is the fact that these skyscrapers change wind currents that may effect water currents. That is right ladies and gentlemen, these high-rises and how they change wind currents are what is causing this increase in temperature.
I live in a major urban environment in Canada and until recently it was illegal to build such buildings for this very reason. As these building go up so has the temperature. Wind no longer able to pass through a given area as a cooling method, along with the refracted light off all the steel and glass.
Has anyone shined light through a magnified class? Has anyone tried this experiment using a mirror? As a child we were taught this a method to start a campfire without a lighter or matches. We are the kindling in the fire pit now. I guess for that reason we should be happy that the high-rises are blocking the winds. The wind may lead to fires.
Our experience with changing climate has little to do with what is being claimed and has everything to do with development and the pursuit to cut corners without consideration of consequence or cost. They block the wind and we fund a slanted methods of resolve. They reduce us to kindle in a campfire and we fund their slanted methods of resolve.
Do you see the common theme here? They create a problem and we fund its resolve. One economic sector is being used to create another economic sector to funds their future interest and efforts. In this case they create climate issue with real-estate only to establish an empathetic economic (not-for-profit) presence that draws funds seeking resolution. Only to fund their future interest and efforts.
Bait and switch and all that is needed is a marketing angle and it is the empathetic economy that stages and funds such efforts. Just think, if climate crisis wasn't equitable would you be hearing about it? They claim crisis because it is their industry and without crisis and our funding they no longer exist and will no longer stage events that carry with them know negative consequences.
With the end of the empathetic economy is the beginning of truth and honesty. Like the truth that lies behind the sinking of the largest city in the world.
This peice was inspired by this