If we use the logic of basing geopolitical decisions on population I would ask if Israel and Palestine really deserve a fraction of the news attention given*.

*To be honest I don't think that the Maldives really deserves that much attention relative to say what India should be receiving. The same would go for Israel if Israel did not have a nuclear armament. I personally prefer to only use the small states when a small state embodies a broader issue I concern myself with or when that states' strategic decisions could get me killed.

I think that's a pretty narrow view of the situation. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict receives a ton of attention because it's been going on for an extremely long time in what is probably the most conflict-ridden region of the world. It has very little to do with nuclear armament.

This article is really cool though.

Good publicity stunt, but I’m a bit confused. Does this mean the problem is solved? Island nations just need lots of scuba gear?

Seriously though, I’m glad you posted this. I just read your “Sovereignty for Sale” article (linked above), and though I had heard that Tuvalu had sold its domain name, I hadn’t really thought much about this or the broader implications/trends since.

Regarding what you say isn’t a rhetorical question, President Nasheed points out that it isn’t just about the Maldives: “If we can't save the Maldives today, you can't save the rest of the world tomorrow.” So in your cost-benefit analysis you need to factor in more than the 10 million people living on island nations. Consider the hundreds of millions living in low-level cities/countries worldwide (NYC, Netherlands, Bangladesh, etc.)

Cute stunt, but it doesn't give me a reason to CARE what happens to the Maldives.

Even if I did care, sea levels have generally been rising for much longer than global warming, and some parts of the ocean floor are always undergoing uplift or subsidence, so there's no good reason to believe that cutting back on CO2 (which may or may not have anything to do with the general warming trend, anyway) will affect sea level at that location.

So I just feel manipulated and frankly, I resent it.

I'm enough of a populist to hope the rich residents of the Hamptons, etc. see their seaside villas washed away by rising seas. I suppose I'd extend that malice to whoever has bought a vacation home in the Maldives. Yet, I feel sympathy for the native inhabitants of such island paradises. So, like you, damned if I can decide.

That's an interesting rhetorical question you bring up, but the big countries hold the power over the small islands.

For example: climate change adaptation funds granted by the United Nations are often used as bargaining chips to get large countries like China and India to reduce their emissions. So although countries like the Maldives and Kiribati go carbon-neutral, they're held captive by bigger countries.

See "To The Lifeboats" from the most recent issue of Mother Jones.

Interesting stunt but exactly what did it accomplish? Does this mean that the problems are fixed? Should everyone conduct underwater meetings? No matter the situation, it is something to talk about. sauce