FoldingStars
Winger
Huge difference but the main thing binding them both together is once the west are in real grave danger, money and time is thrown at it, i just believe it'll be the same when we are in danger, it may be too late but nobody (huge government and large companies) will truly act till we are in danger.Well possibly but around 2 billion are dependent of fresh water from glacial melt in the Himalayas alone. That's a quarter of the entire population of the planet.
I see your point but there is a difference between developing a vaccine in a lab and the engineering solution needed to counter sea level rise. Just a few inches rise creates a much greater effect due to storm surge and current sea defences would be totally inadequate. So far the solution appears to be to simply abandon some places. If London did come under threat then the entire Thames Valley would be in danger.
In fact all of East Anglia would be in danger and most of west Lancashire.
The current solution is due to the rich countries not caring, if an island in the Indian ocean dissappears its on the news for a day and that's it.
The O zone was a huge issue, laws were brought in and solutions found, I know this is worse but that's one example of the rich countries acting once it started to show issues for them. Let's just hope it is solved otherwise life isn't worth living tbh and I don't want to have that outlook.