This is the first of many questions we'll be asking you in open letters. Thank you in advance for the favor of a reply.
Let's assume for a minute that you believe climate change has nothing to do with human behavior. Choose whatever cause you want: Sunspots. Natural cycles. Cow farts. King Neptune. Take your pick. They're all good.
Now imagine that you're the Governor of North Carolina, legally and morally responsible for public investments related to natural resources and infrastructure. Infrastructure planning is one of your big deals, right?
Like any good public servant, you expect robust scenario modeling with a long-term horizon. Except in this case, you're faced with a law prohibiting any public official from actually considering one of the most likely scenarios, the one associated with accelerating sea level risk.
How would you justify spending hundreds of millions of tax dollars on strategic infrastructure while ignoring a high-probability and high-risk scenario?
Please explain. Any attempt to argue that accelerating sea-level risk is not at least a plausible scenario will be met with well-deserved ridicule.