Islands aren't all the same.

I just read an article in "The Conversation" about sea level rise and the problems it causes to the inhabitants of low lying Pacific Ocean atolls. I thought the article was mostly bullshit, so I wrote a polite comment which follows:

I was born on an island, we had a house about 600 meters from the sea. We haven’t noticed much change in over 50 years.

But local regulations won’t allow any construction close to the high tide mark. The beach is so wide it's possible to play baseball and other beach sports without getting tangled with sun bathers.

Piers, groins, or other structures aren’t allowed. Sea walls are only built in limited areas where the coast is exposed reef. And the sewage outfall is taken by a pipe very far beyond where people fish. The island isn’t overpopulated.

I think the biggest problem the population faces is a corrupt socialist government which seems to enjoy abusing human rights, rising prostitution which brings in undesirable tourists. The future looks grim if this dictatorship can’t be overthrown.

So you see, not all islands are the same. I think the article should refer to “low relief overpopulated islands in the process of social collapse”.

The article, written by Patrick Nunn, a Geography professor, is here https://theconversation.com/rise-and-fall-social-collapse-linked-to-sea-level-in-the-pacific-56268

My post from 2014, "Drowning Islands", is here if you wish to read a counterpoint to Nunn's article.
http://21stcenturysocialcritic.blogspot.com.es/2014/09/drowning-islands.html