American Town Votes to ‘Relocate’ Because of Global Warming

Screen Shot 2016-08-21 at 1.33.39 PM

A small village in Alaska, known as Shishmaref, has decidedly voted to relocate their entire town because global warming is putting its residents at risk of being washed away. This simplified narrative of the town’s uprooting is one environmentalists and the liberal media is trying to push, making the town a “poster child” for their global warming agenda.

A small town of nearly 600 people just north of the Bering Strait, Shishmaref is apparently being threatened by erosion and storm surge due to melting of Arctic sea ice. Earlier this week, the town held a vote, with a majority deciding relocation. The problem?They have no idea where they’re going, or how they’ll even pay for it.

However, the minor thought to chalk up Shishmaref’s demise to global warming is childish. The town itself was built on easily meltable permafrost in the 20th century, making it not the most suitable or safest choice for settlement. On top of that, the technology for advanced infrastructure would not be able to withstand the permafrost melt as well as the shrinking of the sea ice. Plus, back then, global warming was not even a subject of discussion.

The agenda pushers are trying to portray Shishmaref as a recent problem, when in fact erosion and storm surges have been happening for decades. It’s not a contemporary phenomenon unfolding, it’s simply that Shishmaref was “built on a bad place,” says Dan Kish, the senior vice president for policy of the free market Institute for Energy Research.

“They didn’t think about infrastructure or any of that because there was no such thing. It wasn’t until the government came along and started handing out checks and delivering things that you needed to settle down so you could get it,” said Kish in reference to how the U.S. basically forced Shishmaref into existence before doing the research.

Now, the village is trying to get the feds to pay for their removal, which the Army Corps of Engineers estimated the removal could cost $180 million. In perspective: that’s $320,000 per resident.







 

Comment via Facebook

 

Comment via Disqus


dml-report-112616-b
12/5 DML Walk & Talk
untitled
Changes to Walk & Talk
dml-report-120416
DML Walk & Talk: December 4
screen-shot-2016-12-03-at-3-55-08-pm
DML Walk & Talk 12/3
Thanks for sharing!
Register to win! Free DML DVDs and shirts. Plus free iPads, gifts, and more. Enter your email to be eligible. A new winner is picked each week.

Send this to friend