I was thinking that too - but it could ALSO have something to do with the fact that literally hundreds of millions of Indians and Chinese citizens joined the 1st world economy - and started doing things like driving cars - in recent decades. That could be a larger factor than their particular political/economic systems.
ALSO: The BEST arguments on this thread for why we should worry about flooding or rising water levels - came from arguments that the actual continents are shifting in ways that cause certain coasts to rise or sink - regardless of the actual overall ocean depth. I don't know much about that - but I do know that (1) THAT particular situation has NOTHING to do with CO2 levels or emissions. (2) the parts of this conversation that does have to do with CO2 levels is specifically based on the theory that (a) high CO2 levels cause warming, which then (b) causes the icecaps to melt, which then causes (c) the sea levels to rise at an accelerated pace (beyond what it did when the overall CO2 levels were lower), as a direct result of increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.
but (c) is junk science - since it is NOT happening - the acceleration of sea levels rising beyond an average of 3.5mm/year is almost non-existent - therefore discussions of CO2 levels and emissions unnecessarily politicizes this discussion.
Or, at least, the people who are complaining about how this doesn't belong on NANOG (which is a reasonable assessment) - and who complain about "climate deniers" - shouldn't be able to shut down certain factual and logical arguments (that rock their world) - yet not have a problem with continued discussion about CO2 levels and emissions. (that would be hypocritical and unscientific)
The data is flawed. The carbon emissions per country don't include import, so you can just import the most carbon-heavy product from China and you will see your country emissions falling and China's growing.
And the carbon emission of USA doesn't include Pentagon, while any other army is included in it's country numbers.
So we can' really compare such flawed data - these are just numbers for politicians but they have nothing in common with reality.
Regarding rising sea levels - I wonder why nobody mentioned submarine fiber landing stations. If something will be affected, it will be them.
How much ocean water displacement is taking place in Hawaii as a result of
eruptions? How about volcanoes we don't know about deep in the ocean?
In the last 5 years, California governments have played a negative roll in
the burning of well over a million acres. These carbon emissions are
rarely calculated and considered as a cause of global warming. How many
California miles driven in cars = one 250,000 acre fire? I don't know.
Did you know there are adults in California that don't think burning trees
emit carbon emissions that count unless it happens in a man made fireplace
? Yes, most of those people went to high school in California.
But anyways - can we please drop the non-internet related discussions from
filling my nanog filtered technical email folders?
Lots of smart people to have discussions with in nanog...maybe we create a
list called nanog-other-stuff@nanog.org
Thank You
Bob Evans
CTO
How often does someone ask you for a breakfast sandwich? 
How much ocean water displacement is taking place in Hawaii as a result of
eruptions? How about volcanoes we don't know about deep in the ocean?
Not much on a global scale. The rift that has been erupting for what's
it been, 3 months or so now? That's added a little over a square mile
of coast, all of it where shallow water used to be.
I plan to retire on the slope of a different volcano, so I've been
watching with interest.
In the last 5 years, California governments have played a negative roll in
the burning of well over a million acres. These carbon emissions are
rarely calculated and considered as a cause of global warming. How many
California miles driven in cars = one 250,000 acre fire? I don't know.
Greenhouse gasses are also emitted when dead plant matter rots in the
forest. Not as quickly but there's a whole lot of it.
https://msutoday.msu.edu/news/2017/decomposing-leaves-are-a-surprising-source-of-greenhouse-gases/
But anyways - can we please drop the non-internet related discussions from
filling my nanog filtered technical email folders?
Apparently not. 
Regards,
Bill Herrin
Climate science is interesting and worthy, but it's still too shaky
and incomplete to justify trillion dollar decisions.
So cleaner, less polluting energy sources don't justify it right there?
Check the air quality in Beijing or parts of India for a non-climate-change
reason to get off fossil fuel.
Also, we're going to run out of fossil fuels at some point, and delaying
that point by lowering our us of them is worth it right there. We're resorting
to fracking to get out oil that wasn't economical before - and it's making
more of a mess than ever before.
For anyone who would have us Act Now Before It's Too Late, alarmist is
the right term.
Do you want to get out of South Florida real estate before or after the bubble
pops? At some point, banks are going to start refusing to write mortgages for
the Miami area due to recurrent flooding - at which point all the real estate
will be underwater once their land values plummet (pun intended).
If the Intertubes are going to all be under water in 15 years, then we need
a new cartoon from the New Yorker. I suggest this:
On the Internet nobody knows you are a phish
It's curious phenomena where we are very willing to ignore all the
data points that disagree with us, and accept the one data point that
agrees with us, even when admitted to be fabrication.
Some people just always prefer to do the opposite of everyone else,
and/or the obvious. I have many friends like this.
i have ex-friends like this
Well, Rob, you are wrong on almost every point. But it is not wasting our time with the Flat Earth society.
Regards,
Roderick.
Well, Rod, you just made a claim with zero support, while Rob provided accurate citations proving every one of his statements.
But it’s not wasting our time with the Fiber Optic Networks Are Doomed by Sea Level Rise society 
See what I did there? I brought the discussion back to the original claim, which I think has now been finally thoroughly debunked. Sea levels no more threaten the Internet than marshmallows. Less, probably
-mel
Unfortunately, the science community disagrees with Rob and you.
Have a great day, big guy.
Regards,
Roderick.
Since we have been able to cope with train derailments, backhoes, forest fires, traffic accidents, etc, I am pretty confident that the networks will keep up with the lightning fast 1/8" per year rise in sea level.
Steven Naslund
Chicago IL
You mean the community that lives or dies on whether they get grant
money? And the way to get grant money is to justify why they could be
fed MORE money. Can you imagine how the "science community" would
continue to survive?
Now, the medical research community is another story.
Perhaps a better use for that grant money would be to develop Best
Practices for installing fiber cable that can withstand immersion to a
depth of 200 feet without failing -- thereby coming up with something
positive in light of the so-called scientific predictions.
Instead of "the sky is falling", say "here is how to prop up the sky on
a dollar a day."
BTW, I have installed thousands of miles of fiber and been submerged in plenty of manholes over the years. If you have been in a manhole in the spring you would know what a non-event you are talking about here. A lot of your Internet is under water a lot of the time anyway (not even counting all of the oceanic stuff).
Since we have been able to cope with train derailments, backhoes, forest fires, traffic accidents, etc, I am pretty confident that the networks will keep up with the lightning fast 1/8" per year rise in >sea level.
Steven Naslund
Chicago IL
I don't have a strong feeling on this matter, but it is not the average increase that matters. Every small increase in average has a multiplier effect on storm surge.
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2017/10/23/1715895114.
Nonetheless, my guess is that the real threat is to general property close to the shore, not the terrestrial cables even though they are not waterproof (only submarine cable can handle long term immersion).
Regards,
Roderick.
So, I accept the data. Going back to 1880 I will be generous and say that you have a 250 mm rise in sea level (which is about 10 inches for us Imperial types). I think we will probably be ready to outrun that problem. Let's get back to real network threats like BGP Hijacking which can wipe you out tomorrow.
Steven Naslund
Chicago IL
Have they finished fixing all the corroded copper wiring from Sandy pumping
sea water into lower Manhattan?
I know of tons of manholes that are continuously full of water every time I have been out to them, I am pretty sure those cables have dealt with the immersion for quite a number of years.
Steven Naslund
Chicago IL
That is true of all science today, Stephen. That is a particularly bad argument on your part. Virtually all science depends on grants and academic and government financing. So you are invoking conspiracy theories. Good work.
