Since I dislike the people I know in Florida IRL, I will laugh. Losers!
Obligatory Bugs Bunny cutting Florida off the United States.
I can’t decide which is more comical: fretting over Florida getting rinsed away (what happens is that people who live there now move to higher ground, and current seaside real estate gets shorted), or thinking that over the period of time in which that occurs, we will not solve for the problem.
Ah well…what’s funner than a Great Cause?
Worry on.
Contradicting yourself in just 2 paragraphs? 
If this is not an important issue or a fake one then there is no need to solve a problem that does not exist. Besides, that is not really the point of the OP. It is more related to what the USA would do constitutionally speaking if a state disappears.
other way it could happen: Georgia could dig a trench across it’s south border and just let Florida float away
I think a better scenario for the OP is something more immediate and drastic.
Let’s say that North Korea decides to start a war. It turns out that the range of their missles is somewhat greater than has been reported. (Suspiciously similar to the range of older Chinese missles, altho China insists this is just a coincidence.) By the time the shooting stops, the government of North Korea has collapsed, but the state of Hawaii has been hit by multiple nuclear warheads. Every major island has been struck, and approx. 90% of the population has died or is expected to die from radiation. The survivors are being relocated to the mainland. Even worse, the nukes were of a fairly “dirty” design, and it is not expected that Hawaii will be inhabited again any time soon.
Since the Constitution forbids the government from dissolving a state without its permission, probably what would happen is that they would create the legal fiction of a “provisional government,” operating from Washington. They would find some former residents of Hawaii to sit as the legislature & governor, and this body would pass a law consenting for the state to be dissolved, and the islands to revert to the status of a territorry, which could be administered remotely by the federal government.
This.
Naturally.
Once there is a provisional government, one that still has two senators, they can make bank with lobbyists. Why would they give that up?
Besides, the population is 1.4 million, so at 10%, that’s still 140,000 people. They could start the first online state and just wait for the radiation to fall.
[quote=“GIGObuster, post:42, topic:741024”]
Obligatory Bugs Bunny cutting Florida off the United States.
[/QUOTE]If we’re lucky, South America won’t give it back.
You’re not suggesting that they can take money from lobbyists that goes in their pockets, are you? As opposed to campaign funds to be spent on re-election…
Politicians funded by oil companies will highlight the net positives of aquatic life on elderly people and demand credit for their bold progressive health initiative.
Yes, we could maybe see 2 meters of sea level rise by 2100.
Not how Plate tectonics works. The Pacific Plate is moving North, not down.
In the U.K. the greens tell us that the sea will flood areas around our coast that in 50 years the profile of Britain will change. BUT the developers are still building their great edifices on the land that in the next 50 years will become the seabed. My question is why are we not building on higher ground so that we can move people away from the area’s that will permanently flood. IF it is going to happen why is the government doing nothing to provide for their citizens who will become homeless
Developers are not the government. Anyway, what do you want them to do? Build decades worth of housing stock in places where no-one wants to live?
If the OP thinks Florida would literally disappear completely over the next few centuries, he’s bought into a little too much AGW marketing hype.
But pretending it will, to answer the Constitutional question:
Until it disappears completely, as the population diminishes it will have an increasingly large relative power in the Senate and a diminishing power in the House.
One suspects the last ten inhabitants will build some homes on stilts and hang on to that delicious power.
And before their complete elimination by the Great Flood, surely we will have had time to adjust the Constitution and decide if it applies to those living underwater.
I personally will bet my meager fortune that, over the next few hundred years, we will develop technology that will address pretty much any AGW-related problem. I don’t think AGW problems will be very high on the list of things we will need to worry about. We have a long and hilarious history of worrying about the future because it’s easy to think of problems only in light of current technology.
We’ve never been right about what problems will actually face us, and never been right about what technology will be able to address them.
I doubt our track record on projection is going to be any better with AGW.
Usually, when we’ve been wrong about environmental problems, it’s because of deliberate misinformation (see tetraethyl lead, for example).
Considering the most pessimistic projections show only a rise of ONE meter by the year 2100, I wouldn’t worry too much. Of course that makes the whole premise of the thread kind of silly, too…
Bit of a stretch, albeit a highly popular one, to put “pollutants” like CO2 which is a pollutant that alters climate, in with pollutants like (CH3CH2)4Pb. The likelihood we will get long-term climate effects correct is substantially less than figuring out what happens if you pollute with substances that are toxins.
It is a good marketing strategy for the AGW Great Cause, however.
Funny thing is that if you had paid attention I’m also optimistic on the technology front, the problem has been who will pay for it and who will organise a proper plan of action to deal with the problem, when one follows the money one then finds that the ones twisting our politics (and specially the Republicans) have been the fossil fuel companies.
No good plan can come from the ones that deny beforehand that there is no problem.
(Already classic take down of the Republican ignorants by the Daily Show, link goes to the mentioning of the ones funding most of the Republicans nowadays)
And then when all things fail the contrarians like you reach for the complete denial of what scientists and experts concluded years ago: