Going, going, gone. Five of the Solomon Islands have been swallowed whole by rising sea levels, offering a glimpse into the future of other low-lying nations.

Sea levels in the Solomon Islands have been climbing by 7 millimetres per year over the last two decades, due to a double whammy of global warming and stronger trade winds.

“It’s a perfect storm,” says Simon Albert at the University of Queensland in Australia. “There’s the background level of global sea level rise, and then the added pressure of a natural trade wind cycle that has been physically pushing water into the Western Pacific.”

Albert and his colleagues analysed aerial and satellite images from 1947 to 2014, focusing on 33 reef islands in the Solomons. Five islands present in 1947, ranging in size from 1 to 5 hectares, had disappeared by 2014 (Environmental Research Letters, doi.org/bg54). Another six had shrunk by 20 to 62 per cent, confirming reports of locals. The most populated of these, Nuatambu Island, is home to 25 families, who have witnessed 11 houses wash into the sea since 2011.

The global rate of sea level rise is 3 mm per year, but is likely to accelerate to 7 mm by the end of the century, as rising temperatures melt ice sheets and cause thermal expansion of the oceans, Albert says.

“All the projections show that in the second half of the century, the rest of the globe will reach the rate of sea level rise that the Solomon Islands is currently experiencing,” he says. (New Scientist)

At the place in the Florida Keys I know well, the sea level is visibly rising.  You can see the difference in the high tides and where the water reaches..  The strange thing is that, talking to local people ( or the few we know), nobody is bothered, or they are in denial.  Or they think it won’t affect them at their age  – whatever.   I’m personally glad I don’t own property down there.

Whenever I think of this subject I wonder why no one will discuss human population, whose huge increase is driving so many environmental problems.

NPR News in the United States begins its election day article on Brexit thus:

“Great Britain once ruled the largest empire in history, with  colonies and dominions that spanned the globe and political and econonomic influence that wildly exceeded its modest size.  Generations of school kids were raised on the mantra, ” The Empire on which the sun never sets.

“World War II marked the beginning of the end, and the not-so-United Kingdom votes Thursday on whether to cut itself loose from the European Union, the latest in a long line of moves that would shrink its international presence.”

Like many other British citizen who live part of their lives outside the UK, my vote was removed from me some years ago, but this does not mean I am uninformed or uninterested.  Helpless, I can only hope for the best, reflecting that most  Brits believe that it is better to work together than apart.

To the Guardian
John Harris identifies a fault line in British politics that also cuts through the EU debate: the centralisation of power. The UK is the most centralised country in Europe, behind even its smaller neighbours such as Belgium, Austria and Spain. Despite recent promises of regional devolution, citizens feel increasingly shut out of decision-making at all levels – from local government to European-wide institutions. Antipathy towards the EU, as with politics in its broadest sense, is symptomatic of this sense of powerlessness. The growing distance between the governors and the governed might move voters simply to get rid of one layer of the political elite, if given the chance.
But the recognition that power is concentrated in the hands of a few is not confined to Leavers. It is revealing that, when challenged on the EU’s democratic deficit, Remainers deflect the criticism by pointing to Westminster and our own concentration of power. This is not an adequate response, and the EU must take democratic reform seriously. But England’s own political alienation suggests that we might not feel as hostile to the European project if our domestic democracy were in better shape. To solve problems abroad, democracy must begin at home. It is a basic tenet of democracy that power should remain as close as possible to the people. This principle of subsidiarity may yet prove a remedy for both European and English disquiet.  (Frances Foley, University of Birmingham)

I sbsolutely agree.  The rot began with Thatcher, who neutered local government, abolishing County Councils, and removing any meaningful powers from local government.  The problem is not that there are too many people involved in government in Brussels; the problem is that power is  concentrated in too few, inexperienced and incompetent hands in London, constantly experimenting with new and stupid ideas, only to be  replaced in in months with new placeholders who know nothing. Brussels isn’t the problem, Westminster is.  Devolve again; that is the Epicurean answer.

“People get tired of living in a society filled with the sharp corners of incivility.

“What is different this time is that the challenge to manners is coming from the right — not from the “free speech movement” but from brushfire populism. The standards and values of reality television — the exaggerated feuds, the personal vilification and the deleted expletives — have invaded the political realm. And it is a form of social decay.

“It is good manners that allow citizens to argue without coming to blows, and even to find productive compromise.  Manners are practical rules for living together. Good manners involve an affirmation that we, all of us, are part of the same community, and that everyone is due a certain minimal amount of respect. Poor manners, in contrast, can indicate the dehumanization of individuals and groups. The boor is often the bigot.

“Good manners denote respect for the individual, regardless of his or her origin. They’re about helping strangers, judging people on their qualities rather than on their backgrounds. These are principles that assure the dignity of the individual and help to keep society nonhierarchical.

“Good manners create a livable community without recourse to laws and regulations. They create ties among citizens that are not based on compulsion. When we stand in a stadium with our hand over our hearts, or refrain from using bad language in front of children on the subway, or disagree about politics without becoming personal and vicious, we add a few invisible strands that hold our community and democracy together. In most everyday circumstances, manners matter more than laws.

“This is a social contract. We treat people with respect in the hope and expectation we will be treated with respect. And people who demand respect without showing it are properly viewed as narcissists or sociopaths.

“Those who equate crudeness and cruelty with authenticity are doing a nasty disservice to their country, making it that much harder to live together. Those who want to serve their country should mind their manners.”  (Michael Gerson, Washington Post)

Michael Gerson, a right-leaning journalist on the Washington Post, was referring obliquely to Trump and his disagreeable election campaign.  But no Epicuren would quarrel with his take on manners, and no further comment is needed.  What we need is better manners.