Greedy countries like China, Russia, India and others who are continuing poluting for their greed and are not keen to take drastic steps, should be warned with stringent time limit to mend their ways or forced to part with a big chunk of their income for this project.

The Earth has gone through warming cycles for millions of years. Species live through it by being able to adapt. The current warming cycle, whether man-made or natural, is no different. The water levels may rise now & fall later. If I pay for what's lost now I will want to claim that for myself when the water receeds.

And for that matter of laying the blame on the rich & greedy. . . . Nah. I ain't gonna touch it. Gotta keep my blood pressure regulated.

You ain't seen nothin' yet. When the inundation and starvation and displacement of millions and tropical plagues start in earnest you might have a few more blood pressure problems.

The key word there is "millions". We really don't have a global warming problem as much as we have an overpopulation problem. If there wasn't a constantly greater demand on the resources to service said population we would probably still be experiencing the "global cooling" that Time magazine headlined in 1975.

Perhaps under such circumstances plagues are not only inevitable, but necessary. The larger point is the Earth will still be here regardless of any warming trends. People will either adapt or pass.

And regarding my blood pressure, aw, I just get peeved at things turning into class warfare sometimes. It's one of a small number of things I have a short fuse for.

Hell! I apologise. I thought you might be concerned about people. Of course we probably always will have cockroaches, rats and bacteria. I am not all that enthusiastic about prions, but Saturn, Jupiter, Mars, Venus and all the rest of the bunch will still go orbiting as if nothing at all happened. And who gives a fuck about the polar bears?

The problem I see with this idea is that it depends on countries like the US to pay for poor people in other countries. I can't see the US spending billions to build modern cities in countries that never could afford to do it themselves.

I think that building (or rebuilding) in areas that are prone to future flooding is short sighted. We don't need new Venices, they're too disaster prone. We should focus on building on higher ground.

There is highly limited benefit in the assumption that the USA exists on a different planet than the rest of the world. A world disaster is inevitably infectious and if the USA refuses to participate in preventing it the USA will go under with everybody else. Unfortunately there is no other planet in the solar system that even vaguely approaches the life sustaining capability of Earth and when that capability is destroyed all life will find a hostile environment no matter how independent it conceives itself.

Shifting over to higher land is an escape in my point of view. In this way, the area you have lost is lost forever. You have left no opportunity to either regain it or regain it with much more complexities and costs.

Secondly, think of the density. To what extent are we comfortable today? What will happen if you try to sqeeze the already densly populated world even further? Amongst all other adversities, even more polution! Which is the whole idea behind creating these POLUTION FREE CITIES.

By creating these cities you are only loosing soil and land but not the utility area. You are retaining the area even by loosing your land. This is the point.

This is also an opportunity to segregate your living areas from polution and industry.Which we are not capable of doing today, intentionally or unintentionally.

Let the remaining high lands or pieces of land as serene as possible instead of moving the crowd there and polute them too. These floating new cities will give you an opportunity to find and adapt new ways of creating and maintaining polution free life from start off.

And with existing and ever advancing engineering technology, I do not think it is an hazzardous or risky task.

I see your point, but building floating cities will cost many times more than simply building on higher ground. A few floating cities might be built, but most city building will have to be on dry land. Even if sea level rises two hundred feet, only a very small percentage of the Earth's land would be inundated. Some countries like the Netherlands would be devastated, but this may be inevitable. I know this sounds like a crappy response, but I'm just being realistic.

with countries like US that produce 70% of the total pollutants and not ready to take up Kyoto protocol, there is less chance that this century will be better. They are totally irresponsible in these matters and are more concerned in media-hyped ones like Osama, Saddam, who have killed far less americans than the Rita, Katrina hurricanes. Who cares who is the man of the year on Time if there are hundred other issues around the world. US will act only of An American either dies or injuries. But settling the irresponsiblity with money is too much. Even if you give back the whole american treasury we can bring back a single extinct species. Again its possible only in Jurassic Park kind of movies. Men are just a less/no capable junk species on earth, which cant swim on its own, not adaptable, etc. We are exploting other species for our development not progress. WE WILL TALK ANYTHING FOR FEMALE INDEPENDANCE BUT HATE OUR WIFE/GIRL FRIEND TALKING TO ANOTHER MAN, environmental concern is just like that. Dont blame where's(India, etc.) its done but explore who(US) is doing?

If I were a spiritual type, I would read the Bible where it says "no man has permanent stewardship over the earth or any part thereof", and I would say a temporary steward has no right to screw things up for his descendants.

Funny how some folks take pride in American science, until it tells them something they don't want to hear.

Good thinking. Important and useful idea.