Thread by @AlexSteffen

There are three major problems with the way the equity debate has been framed.

1. Scale: "almost $50 billion" spent over years is almost nothing compared to the scale of immediate needs.

2. Realism ⬇️

nytimes.com/2021/12/03/cli…

2. Realism: We've waited too long to save everything—and costs are rising fast. Even with a lot more public funds to work with, choice will have be made and some sort of cost-benefit analysis has to be used.

The clearest way is calculating dollar or value saved per dollar spent.

3. Triage. Even if we allocate money equally per capita, though, we're just piling it in a heap and burning it if we aren't making the hard choices we actually face. We have to have some sort of approach to managing retreat, and if we're wide it'll be decisive and fast-moving.

That ultimately means acknowledging what has already been made certain: many places probably won't last.

When we pretend we can save everything — that even the least valuable, most endangered places will get every dollar they need — we are in fact triangulating away real action.

("wise" not "wide"...)

(which could almost be a slogan.)

Again and again, the discussion about action in the planetary crisis must always start not at "what can we do to protect people from change" but "what can we do to protect them from inaction."

Incremental projects and being planned uncritically and slowly rolled out is inaction.

Here in the U.S. I think we need a national plan that brings Feds, States and Tribes together, views impacts holistically — and creates an *independent* expert body to anticipate risks aggressively and prioritize the most critical systems-level investments for managed retreat.