Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
Well, I started a post on Kiribati, but when it was half written I found Andi Cockroft had beaten me to it with his post. His analysis was fine, but I had a different take on the events. President Tong of Kiribati says the good folk of the atolls are again looking for some place to move their people if they have to. However, this time, it’s different. This time, they’re not blaming it on sea level rise. This time, they’re not talking about suing the industrialized nations. And this time, they’re making their own plans, they’re not waiting for the world to act. The headline in USA Today says:
Pacific nation may move entire population to Fiji
Figure 1. The island nation of Kiribati, which is comprised of the Gilbert and Phoenix groups and the Line Islands. I call it the world’s biggest tiny country. The Kiribati EEZ (Exclusive Economic Zone) is the eighth largest in the world … and it is 99.99% ocean.
Let me comment that if I had a chance to pull up stakes in Kiribati and move to Fiji, I’d do it in a second. Fiji is high volcanic islands, with rich soil and lots of it. And Kiribati, on the other hand, is tiny coral atolls with … well … nothing. Life on the atolls is tough, tough, tough. The highest point on any of the atolls of Kiribati is about 3 metres (10 feet) above sea level, and there is no real soil, only lime coral sand. It is a testament to the ingenuity and perseverance of humans that anyone lives on the atolls at all. The people from Kiribati are great folks, consummate seamen, and very interesting people in general. The ones I’ve known have been great folks. Don’t cross the women, though, bad mistake, the women will clean your clock if you cross them, that’s one of the reasons I like them so much.
But the fact that life is tough in Kiribati is not the reason that they’re talking about moving. And indeed, although the report mentions climate change, the President of Kiribati actually didn’t blame rising sea levels. The article goes on to say:
Fearing that climate change could wipe out their entire Pacific archipelago, the leaders of Kiribati are considering an unusual backup plan: moving the populace to Fiji.
Kiribati President Anote Tong told The Associated Press on Friday that his Cabinet this week endorsed a plan to buy nearly 6,000 acres on Fiji’s main island, Viti Levu. He said the fertile land, being sold by a church group for about $9.6 million, could be insurance for Kiribati’s entire population of 103,000, though he hopes it will never be necessary for everyone to leave.
“We would hope not to put everyone on one piece of land, but if it became absolutely necessary, yes, we could do it,” Tong said. “It wouldn’t be for me, personally, but would apply more to a younger generation. For them, moving won’t be a matter of choice. It’s basically going to be a matter of survival.”
Kiribati, which straddles the equator near the international date line, has found itself at the leading edge of the debate on climate change because many of its atolls rise just a few feet above sea level.
Tong said some villages have already moved and there have been increasing instances of sea water contaminating the island’s underground fresh water, which remains vital for trees and crops. He said changing rainfall, tidal and storm patterns pose as least as much threat as ocean levels, which so far have risen only slightly.
Now, before getting into the story, a few facts. First. name of the nation is pronounced “Kih-rih-bas”, with the accent on the first syllable. Why the strange spelling? Turns out that’s how you spell “Gilberts”, the old name of the islands, in the local language. There’s no “s” in the language, so they use “ti” for the “s” sound, based on how “ti” is pronounced in “motion”. Also, as in many Pacific missionary-derived orthographies of the local language, there are no diphthongs consonant pairs in the Kiribati language. So the “lb” in “Gilberts” becomes “rib” because … you guessed it, no “l” in the language, so they use “r” instead. So in Figure 1, you see that “Christmas” in the local language is spelled “Kiritimati”. Also, the people are called “i-Kiribati”, with the “i” pronounce like “ee”.
Returning to the idea of the i-Kiribati moving to Fiji, curiously, that would not be the first historical intersection between the people of Kiribati and the people of Fiji. In the early days of WWII, it became obvious that the Japanese would invade one of the Gilbert Islands called “Ocean Island” or Banabas. The Gilberts were British at the time, as was Fiji, so the Brits decided to act.
Basically, the British took all of the inhabitants of Banabas Island, and moved them lock, stock, and fishing lines to the island of Rabi in Fiji. Rabi is a beautiful island, and it is ruled domestically not by the Fijians, but by the Rabi Island Council. It’s like a little bit of Kiribati in Fiji, almost everyone on the island is i-Kiribati. So this would not be the first group of i-Kirbati to resettle in Fiji.
Nor would it be the first move by i-Kiribati away from the Gilberts group. The Phoenix group of islands were settled in the late 1930s by people from the Gilberts group. This occurred as a direct result of what would become a recurring problem—when atoll populations intersect with modern medicine, overpopulation is not far off.
As a result, the obliging British, who likely felt some responsibility, gave the Phoenix group to be settled by the i-Kiribati. They settled the islands between 1938 and 1940. But the water was bad and scarce. Communications were hard, as was transportation, and the war made it worse. In 1952, after a series of dry years, the experiment was declared a failure.
However, of course, by then there was no room for the Phoenix folks back in the Gilberts. Besides, by then there were newly overcrowded islands in the Gilberts too, people keep having kids. So … the Brits were looking for people to work on the plantations in the Solomon islands. In the early 1950s, they gave Wagina Island and land on Gizo Island in the Solomons to anyone willing to sign up for the Solomon Islands Settlement Scheme. Many of the folks who emigrated were from the Phoenix Islands, where poor water sources and a drought had combined to make the islands uninhabitable. Compared to that, the Solomons were a paradise. Except for the malaria, of course.
Drought has long been the bane of Kiribati. When your only water comes from a small lens of fresh water renewed only by rain, it is a matter of life and death. There is a fascinating report by some National Academy of Science folks, published in 1957, of their researches in Kiribati in the early ’50s. It was very clear, even back then, that droughts were a huge issue. Among many other interesting things they say are:
As for the rainfall, the attached graphs will show how it varies between the groups in the North, Central and South Islands (Fig. 4). One of the most important ecological factors in the Gilbert Islands is drought. These islands are periodically affected by it. There was a two-year drought in 1917-1919, a three-year drought in 1937-1939, and another which lasted a year and a half in 1949-1951. These periods of drought particularly affect the south islands. Comparative statistics in Figure 4 show the’ monthly rainfall of one island of each group over a period of 4 years, comparing periods or normal rainfall with periods of drought which occurred from August, 1949 to December, 1950.
And here is their Figure 4:
Figure 2. Monthly rainfall on three different atolls of Kiribati. Click image for a larger version.
Tarawa, the middle row, is the capital of Kiribati. Like the other islands, it depended entirely on rainfall for drinking water. Look at what happened in 1950 to the rainfall in Tarawa … yes, that would definitely cause problems. You can see why the British were wanting to move people in the early 1950s, they’d been dying of thirst on some of the atolls. Plus the population on the atolls was already very high. The NAS report says:
It would seem that the Gilbert Islands, where the soil is so poor, and which suffer from recurrent severe droughts, should have a small population. We observe, on the contrary, a very high demographic density. The population of the sixteen islands of the Group amounted at the time of the 1947 census to 27,824, or an average density of 243.9 per square mile. This figure is just given as an average and does not claim to have any great demonstrative value as, in fact, the density varies considerably as between one island and another. Thus Tamana has 441.5 per square mile while Aranuka has only 61.3.
But of course, moving folks from the Gilberts to the Solomon Islands didn’t solve the population problem either. To understand why it made no difference, here’s a historical look at the population of Kiribati
Figure 3. Kiribati population change over time. I picked the photo because for me it exemplified the irrepressible spirit of the i-Kiribati people. Population information is from the FAO and the NAS report cited above.
Remember that in 1947, people were already commenting on the high population density … and now the density is three times as great. So you can understand why the President is looking for more land. Here’s another bit of information. The article says that they want to buy a 6,000 acre parcel in Fiji. In Texas, that would only be a small ranch.
But that land in Fiji is nearly 10% of the total area of Kiribati, and nearly 15% of the inhabited area of Kiribati. So I understand why they want to buy it.
You can see the danger. The population is skyrocketing. And unlike just about every country on the planet, there is absolutely no sign of any slowdown in the Kiribati population growth rate.
But the rain … the rain is unchanged. It’s still years of wet and then years of dry, just like always … but when you have three times the people, the dry years become unsustainable. President Tong correctly notes “increasing instances of sea water contaminating the island’s underground fresh water”. He does not note the obvious reason that the well water is becoming brackish—there are three times the people drinking from each and every well, while the rainwater recharging the wells hasn’t changed.
As a result, I fear there is no obvious solution. Buying land in Fiji in 2012, while it is a good stopgap measure, will do no more to solve the underlying problem than did exporting people to the Solomon Islands in 1954. There is only one solution to their problem, and it has nothing to do with CO2, or the climate, or the industrialized nations, or the sea level. The people of Kiribati have to, must, reduce their birth rate.
I understand that there are issues of religion and social pressure and the like, but look at the blue line in Figure 2. Kiribati is already busting at the seams with people, and the rate of population growth is not decreasing … they will be lucky to come out of this without huge social, economic, and political problems. So I wish President Tong the best of luck in his efforts to reduce some of those problems.
And if anyone can pull it off, it would be the i-Kiribati. Let me close by quoting the 1950s NAS report again:
Another aspect of their nature is their total confidence in others, both in moral and material dealings. We also appreciated their independent spirit and their frankness, which is often disarming. Their answers, whether positive or negative, are always direct. But the Gilbertese’ forthrightness does not preclude a form of respect devoid of obsequiousness. His often unexpected reactions are never arrogant, and are a corollary of his independent, individualistic nature, as are his teasing spirit and fanciful mind. Both are expressed in choreographic attitudes, in which mimicry always has a deserved success.
Finally, these people have a highly-developed artistic sense, and it would be difficult to find anything to equal some of their extraordinarily beautiful choral singing, It is really in their dances and choral singing only that the Gilbertese express the whole genius of their race, and can give rein to an exuberance which, because of a surprising modesty, is no longer manifested in the ordinary course of their everyday life.
The Gilbertese are an intelligent people. Many show real pride in having risen above the general level, but it did not seem to us that this was ever expressed in a contemptuous or even haughty way. Those working with Europeans are generally avid to learn and to understand everything and are full of gratitude for whoever may have increased their knowledge, even about their own territory.
Yeah, that’s the i-Kiribati I know. Interesting, good-natured, hardworking folks. I wish them only the best.
w.
PS—Population density in Kiribati is currently about 750 people per square mile. If they were all moved to the land in Fiji as the headline claims, the population density there would be about 11,000 per square mile … by comparison, Bangladesh has a density of about 2,500 per square mile. So whether they buy the land or not, they won’t be able to move everyone there.
Philip Bradley says:
March 10, 2012 at 5:13 pm
Mmmm … I don’t know about “modest” amounts of money. How are you planning to supply soil to grow things? How are you planning to provide dozens and dozens of scattered atolls, some of which have no natural harbor, with water?
And how are you planning to pay for it all, not just once, but every time it breaks? Because it will break, and when technology breaks on an outer island that’s not good news.
I fear that your claim is like the guy who goes into the hardware store and asks the owner “Do you have tacks”? “Sure, all sizes,” the owner replies.
“How about hammers”? “Every kind known to man”.
“How about pieces of leather, and leather awls, and strong twine”.
“Of course”, the proprietor says, “we have all of those”.
“So why aren’t you a cobbler”?
The point of the story is that the physical stuff is rarely what makes the difference. It is the knowledge and skills and style and perseverance that makes a project like shoe-making possible, not tacks and hammers and awls.
You know the old saying, “What goes around, comes around”?
In the Pacific the corresponding saying is “What goes around … stops”.
What will your “modest” amount of money do when things stop on a half dozen isolated atolls? It will take every penny of your modest means just to get to each of the atolls, much less do anything when you get there.
The islanders are not well educated, but they are not fools either. If there were a simple easy obvious answer as you suggest, someone would have done it.
w.
Alvin W says:
March 10, 2012 at 7:32 pm
As am I, tsunamis are nothing to mess with.
w.
Sounds like this would be as big a problem as the lack of fresh water. Since I’m ignorant: what do most coastal cities do with their sewage? You can’t be serious about using the beach!
Regardless, it seems that the problems of clean water and sanitation are usually linked, and right at the top of the list of issues third world countries need to address:
So many people and so little rain and so few toilets (?)
Sea walls are what you put up when you wish to increase the rate of coastal erosion and which ultimately are undermined by wave surge. The dichotomy of erosion (natural) and seawall preservation (epic fail) is shown in this flawed article:
http://www2.journalnow.com/news/2009/nov/15/hawaii-facing-erosion-of-its-lure-sandy-beaches-ar-154404/
Back to ocean thermal energy conversion:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_thermal_energy_conversion
Here’s the problem – or a problem. All that cold water brought up from the deep is also bringing up things that live in it. Maybe they’ll drop dead on the way up or maybe they will survive and adapt to a world where they have no natural enemies.
And any cold water not used is waste water that is returned to the sea at the surface where it will have a chilling effect on the environment. The opposite, thermally, to what nukular (sic) plants create in coastal waters.
Of interest to gear heads is this water is retrieved using self-sustaining siphons. Once started it needs to be stopped with great care as the inertia of suddenly halting a 3000′ water column in an underwater pipe will likely birdnest that pipe at the surface.
Bill Parsons says:
March 10, 2012 at 9:27 pm
Depends on which cities you are talking about. Toilet beaches are the rule rather than the exception on atolls. For cities, if they have enough water they may pump it out to sea … let me see what I can find out about Tarawa, the capital of Kiribati … OK, emphasis mine.
Regarding the “what goes around, stops” meme, consider the following
This is typical in the Pacific islands.
Sure ‘nuf …
w.
Philip Bradley says:
March 10, 2012 at 5:13 pm
The population density of Singapore is 7,150 per sq kilometer, which is about 18,000 per sq mile, and the government actively promotes immigation. Aiming to increase the population by another 2 million.
So clearly population density per se in Kiribati isn’t the problem.
Kiribati’s problems could easily be solved by modest amounts of money and technical help.
——————————————————————
In addition to Willis’ comments, you need to understand just how isolated these tiny islands are. Not only does almost everything required for modern life (and a lot of food) have to be imported at vast expense, there is practically nothing they can produce that justifies the cost of exporting it.
Much more viable islands like the Fiji group, which has actual soil that can grow stuff, and tourism, which is about all that keeps them going, have been the repositories of hundreds of millions of dollars of Australian aid alone. It hasn’t helped much. The problems are structural.
It is very unlikely that any remote Pacific island will ever resemble Singapore. About the only thing they viably export is people, who drip feed money back to family in the islands. Even tourism, which is technically an export, is permanently constrained by the high cost of travelling such a long way to such a small place.
Willis, you might be interested in Pulau Semakau, a 3.5 sq kilometer island built over what were previously coral reefs offshore Singapore.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulau_Semakau
My modest amounts of money, were in the context of the sums spent on AGW. I’m not an engineer, but I know that extending the land of low lying islands and was solved hundreds of years ago, build a wall and raise the level of the land behind it. It is a solution that doesn’t break.
Where do these materials come from?
Well, we currently ship many millions of tons of rocks across the globe, except we call them coal, iron ore, etc.
What Kirabati lacks is money and technical skills to implement a solution.
Water catchment is a problem with similar low tech solutions even older than land reclaimation.
Kiribati’s real problem is that it lacks an economic base. And I don’t have any solutions for that.
Willis Eschenbach says:
March 10, 2012 at 9:06 pm
Sorry, my friend, but you’ve totally misinterpreted Figure 4. The big swings are what happen at the start of this type of tidal analysis, which is called an “asymptotic trend analysis”. The swings occur, not just from El Ninos, but from any type of phenomenon that affects the sea level.
==============================================================
But Willis, they are all wonky in the beginning….
….if you eliminate the big swings in the beginning, the wonky part
Then, according to their figure 4, sea level has been falling for the past decade
The Kiribati share ethnicity with native Fijians so they may be welcome. It has grated on Fijians that its native population, a mix of Melanesia and Polynesia, has been demographically reduced.
Interesting article, Willis.
But…..
The history of humans is not one of automatic population increases with increasing prosperity. You mention Japan’s population decreasing – why? Other examples include heavily Catholic Quebec, and countries like Canada in general.
I understand that high birth rate is often due to the desire of parents to have someone to take care of them when they get old (feed them, etc.).
(You infer high death rate in the past, due disease. I presume war is not a factor in this case, unlike Iran and Iraq breeding cannon fodder during the war between them.)
Isn’t the solution self-help of stopping breeding so much? (Sounds like many of the tribal reserves in Canada – dependent on federal government many, not motivated to help themselves or move to where there are jobs. Those with spunk have either reformed the tribe to success or moved away to a real life.)
As for how many people can be accommodated on the proposed plot in Fiji, I don’t think Bangladesh is necessarily a great example. It does have much lowland subject to weather, perhaps roughly akin to Kiribati, but you say Fiji has higher land (but don’t detail the plot being considered). What is the population density where intensive agriculture is practiced?
BTW, the Phoenix Islands group (now Nukumanu?) is where Amelia Earhart was headed when she disappeared.
The TIGHAR organization has a plausible theory that she crash-landed on Gardner island (now Nikumaroro) in the chain, which has only been sporadically populated. TIGHAR’s theory is that their navigation strategy was to aim for their destination of Howland, then if not sighted turn southerly because there were other islands in that direction.
(According to Wikipedia Howland and nearby Baker are US territories, but Gardner was given up in 1971. An attempt to farm coconuts foundered in a drought in 1893. An attempt at settlement after Earhart’s time endured for decades but was abandoned in the 1960s due drought and fresh water problems.)
The alternate theory by Mr. and Mrs. Elgen Long is that they ditched in the ocean after exhausting their fuel doing a “square search” for Howland. It has credibility because Mr. Long had navigated in that area, but TIGHAR subsequently did more analysis of radio messages. The Nauticos search was based on their estimates.
(A claim they returned to an island in Papua New Guinea makes no sense, it is likely about a wreck only generally resembling Earhart’s airplane.)
Philip Bradley says:
March 11, 2012 at 1:39 am
While that is true for low-lying islands, it is definitely not true for coral atolls. An atoll is a momentary hesitation in a river of sand that lets the sand build up. The knowledge of how to extend them or influence their growth was definitely not “solved hundreds of years ago”. That knowledge is in its infancy, and there is much yet to be learned about how to control the growth and shrinking of atolls. The answers are highly dependent on the particulars of the individual atoll, there are no one-size-fits-all solutions, and the whole question gives marine and coastal engineers headaches and fits.
Whenever someone starts out by saying “I’m not an engineer but …”, you should be very skeptical of whatever statement follows … even when you’re the one making the statement.
w.
Latitude says:
March 11, 2012 at 5:38 am
Thanks, Latitude. Yes, they are all wonky in the beginning, because the record is short in the beginning. That’s the nature of the analysis method. At the start, with little data, you get wide swings in the results. It is asymptotically approaching the correct answer, and may swing above and below it many times.
But as the amount of data increases, the swings get smaller and smaller, and the answer gets more and more accurate.
However, you can’t “eliminate the big swings in the beginning.” They are the inescapable consequence of not having much data at the start of the analysis. If you take out that data, it just makes big swings from the new beginning.
You seem to think that the big swings are real. They are not, they are only the best guess at the time due to the short data set.
Read Mitchell again, which I cited above. You’re still not understanding how the “Asymptotic Trend Analysis” method works.
w.
But as the amount of data increases, the swings get smaller and smaller, and the answer gets more and more accurate.
=============================
Willis, honest I do understand….
That was what I was seeing and trying to convey, as the results get more accurate, the results are showing sea levels falling…………….
They have only been doing this for 20 years….the first 10 years were wonky/less data, record short, everything you just said….
…the second ten years….more data, less wonky…..Using SEAFRAMES own words “The trends continue to stabilize as the length of record increases”……….shows they finally got their act together…and the last 10 years shows sea levels falling
If you eliminate the wonky part…………the first 10 years that are obviously wonky…..
the last 10 years shows sea levels falling………
Lat said:
“But Willis, they are all wonky in the beginning….
….if you eliminate the big swings in the beginning, the wonky part
Then, according to their figure 4, sea level has been falling for the past decade “
Latitude says:
March 11, 2012 at 11:34 am
I mean this in a supportive manner, my friend … you don’t understand.


What is falling is our best estimate of the rise, not the rise itself. All that means is that our best estimate is approaching the actual rise asymptotically from above. However, it is still well above zero (2.6 mm/yr).
It does not mean that the sea levels are falling as you say. Let me use the Fiji asymptotic trend analysis as an example of another way that the estimates can approach the true value.
Figure S1. Units are centimetres. This shows that asymptotic trend analysis of the Fiji tidal records.
Note that the value at each point is neither the sea level, nor is it the rate of increase.
Instead, it is our best estimate of the rate of increase using only the data available up to that date. That part is important. It is not a historical record of the sea level. It is a historical record of our estimates of the true rise as they get better over time.
So it is not true that in 1994 the ocean was rising at 20 mm per year in Fiji. That just our best estimate, and it’s a bad one because at that point we had so little data.
Now, when you look at that graph you’d probably think it means that the rate of sea level rise was lower in 2006 than it was in 2010. But that’s not what’s happening, because the chart doesn’t show instantaneous rate of rise. What the chart shows is that our estimate is oscillating above and below the true value as it gradually approaches it.
Now, here’s Kiribati:
Note that the Kiribati record starts a year later than the Fiji record. As a result, it has less data during the 1998 El Nino, so our Kiribati estimate is more affected by the El Nino swing. Note that this does not mean there was a larger excursion of the 1998 sea level in Kiribati than in Fiji. It just means we had less data for Kiribati in 1998 than we did for Fiji.
The results do not show “sea levels falling” as you say. All they show is our estimate asymptotically approaching the true value from above as we get more and more data.
At present, per that analysis, our best estimate of the rate of sea level rise is 2.6 mm/yr. Note that that the Kiribati asymptotic trend analysis has not gone negative (sea levels falling) since 2002. Note also that in the most recent years of the record it has begun oscillating above and below the true value, as is typical in this type of analysis.
In friendship,
w.
The curve is very much like what we called the Schuler curve – the settling curve of an Anschütz gyro compass when first powered up. The math involved will hurt your brain, but it is an amazing thing to see. The Anschütz gyro compass was a marvel of technology and two gyros in a neutral buoyancy globe about the size and weight of a US bowling ball. In the battle of gravity and Earth’s rotation, Dr. Shuler wins in the end as the curve finally flattens.
http://www.scribd.com/suranga1568/d/54419406-Gyro-Theory
According to wikipedia the government has already begun to resettle people on uninhabited islands, although I could find no further details.
Owing to a population growth rate of more than 2% and the overcrowding around the capital of South Tarawa, a program of migration was begun in 1989 to move nearly 5,000 inhabitants to outlying atolls, mainly in the Line Islands. A program of resettlement to the mostly uninhabited Phoenix Islands was begun in 1995.
I was surprised at the number of sizeable uninhabited islands in Kiribati.
Philip Bradley says:
March 11, 2012 at 9:29 pm
Interesting, I hadn’t heard about either of those projects.
There are sizeable uninhabited islands, but there are generally reasons. First reason? Bad water. Second reason? No harbor. Likely more I can’t think of at the moment.
Remember, they tried to settle the Phoenix islands in the thirties. And in the South Pacific there’s been really no change since then. The same issues are there, of extreme isolation and intermittent rain, so little rain …
Boats don’t go between the islands any easier now than then, and with current fuel costs, it’s more rather than less expensive to ship anything out there. They used to go between islands in their sailing canoes, but the government outlawed that … so now they are dependent on someone sending a boat around the islands. But what goes around … stops. And when the boat stops, it’s not pretty, Here’s a story.
A friend of mine in the Solomon Islands was running for re-election to Parliament. He was from Sikiana, a tiny coral atoll in the outer islands. He went to Sikiana to start off his campaign. But then the boat broke down in the capital and couldn’t make the next trip to Sikiana. He didn’t get back to the capital until a couple months after he had (understandably) lost the election because he didn’t show up to campaign …
My point is that a Member of Parliament couldn’t even get back for the election. If the boat don’t go, the boat don’t go … and in some place like the Phoenix Islands, that could be life or death.
w.
Willis,
Fascinating but very sad article… My wife lived on Tarawa as a young child in the 60’s, and her father (who was the BBC man there) still has contacts there. We were talking about this at Christmas and I showed them both a Google Earth satellite photo – they were both shocked at the level of development compared to then. I shall show them this as well, though it may break their hearts.
Best wishes
Paul
Thanks Willis!…..now I finally get it…..
It’s hell trying to work with an old brain sometimes……
Latitude says:
March 12, 2012 at 5:59 am
More than welcome. Indeed, it took me a while to understand the method as well.
w.
Here is a link to an update on the Fiji purchase proposal. Sounds like the Kiribati President is a lot more realistic than AGW fantasists. As Willis has said, it is a mistake to confound lack of technology with stupidity – as people who have dealt with Pacific Islanders can attest.
http://junkscience.com/2012/03/12/island-president-rejects-climate-change-evacuation-stories/#more-15510
h/t Junkscience and GWPF
Thanks, Johanna. President Tong seems to be talking sense in the interview. I enjoyed his comment that practical action was more valuable in the short-term than “negotiating climate change issues where common ground is far from reach”.
Sure ‘nuf true where I come from … git’r done takes precedence over theory any dat.
w.
And just for grins, here’s a big atoll
http://www.avweb.com/newspics/potw/1809/large/10.jpg
The diversion/refuelling airport of Wake Island.
(Photo by Francis Martin of Milton, DE from http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/potw/PictureOfTheWeek_206324-1.html.)
Colleagues years ago ferried a 727-100C from SE Asia to Vancouver Canada, via Wake, Midway, and Hawaii.
You get your navigation and fuel reserves right out there, or ….
(I was on a DC-10 HNL-YVR, a number of fellow passengers had been on the previous day’s flight that turned back from PNR – weather was going down all along the coast and they did not have enough reserves to try for Denver or Calgary.
I predicted there’d be much discussion in the airline’s dispatch centre about how their forecasting got in that situation. Though that’s what Point-of-No-Return and fuel reserves are for, you want it to be a very rare case for safety and direct economics.)
The Kiribati may have a very valuable resource they aren’t aware of as such:
fertile women.
Depopulation by birth shortage in all the world — except the US; huge male child imbalances throughout Asia; falling lifespan in Russia.
http://www.fpri.org/ww/0505.200407.eberstadt.demography.html
SE Asia, too, with the added hyper-complication of a 10:1 preference for male (surviving) children, and a de facto 1.26:1 male/female outcome (vs. the ‘natural’ 1.07:1).