Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
People will always pay top dollar to live on or near the coast. Now and a thousand years from now.
They'll just need to pay more! Yacht sales are at record levels.
No one is debating that. Something like 80% of our population lives close to a seacoast. But will the lucky wealthy beachfront dwellers be willing to pay to move inundated utilities, replace swamped sewage treatment plants, fund new rerouted highways and infrastructure, and repositioned yacht docking facilities in order to live there? Or do I, living 1500 miles from the coast, get to pay for that stuff so they can live there? Will they be equally willing to fund water projects for farmers on the plains or California's central valley?
Climate change is not just all about sea levels but that is the most obvious cost factors for most people.
People will always pay top dollar to live on or near the coast. Now and a thousand years from now.
They'll just need to pay more! Yacht sales are at record levels.
Not if they know it will be under water in 12 years.
Boomers, like me, who probably won't be around to deal with a significant rise will happily buy beachfront property and let the next owner deal with the sea level and devastating storm surges. If agents market the property with Boomers in mind they will get top dollar for a few decades. A lot of people are in denial and a lot are out to make a buck. The philosophy since the 1980s or so has been to kick the can down the road.
The reason I opened this thread was not to debate sea level rise but to explore the cost options. How would the massive global expense be paid when we are already in record deficit territory? Apparently a lot of posters are in denial or believe in magic. The monetary/fiscal side is very serious. Moving an airport is not going to be easy. The climate refugee side of the issue is potentially as bad or worse.
Good points, just the military bases and cities alone will be a massive expense and very little has been done to plan for the future. I don't see how they can plan for a disaster of this scale but we should be starting now since people are resistant to changing their habits. The present plan has been to pump more sand on to beaches and make believe this is some sort of solution. Just about every major airport on the east coast is pretty close to sea level, LaGuardia already uses pumps to during storm surges. The answer will end up being to close many of these airports, then there is the issue of finding another location well inland. Then there is the many cities and residences right at sea level.
Good points, just the military bases and cities alone will be a massive expense and very little has been done to plan for the future. I don't see how they can plan for a disaster of this scale but we should be starting now since people are resistant to changing their habits. The present plan has been to pump more sand on to beaches and make believe this is some sort of solution. Just about every major airport on the east coast is pretty close to sea level, LaGuardia already uses pumps to during storm surges. The answer will end up being to close many of these airports, then there is the issue of finding another location well inland. Then there is the many cities and residences right at sea level.
I'm not sure that these efforts are sufficient. But I am sure that the effort is being made, and real money is being spent, regardless of the deniers on C-D.
No one is debating that. Something like 80% of our population lives close to a seacoast. But will the lucky wealthy beachfront dwellers be willing to pay to move inundated utilities, replace swamped sewage treatment plants, fund new rerouted highways and infrastructure, and repositioned yacht docking facilities in order to live there?
Who says those things will even be affected?
Your comments tell me three things, 1) you have no idea what a terrain map is, 2) you don't understand the nature of sea level rise and 3) you've never seen a coastal city.
Nobody builds waste-water or sewage treatment plants within a stone's throw of the sea.
Your inability to understand science is equally lacking.
Science says:
“Even though the warm Eemian period was a period when the oceans were four to eight meters higher than today, the ice sheet in northwest Greenland was only a few hundred meters lower than the current level, which indicates that the contribution from the Greenland ice sheet was less than half the total sea-level rise during that period,” says Dorthe Dahl-Jensen, Professor at the Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, and leader of the NEEM-project.
Palaeo data suggest that Greenland must have been largely ice free during Marine Isotope Stage 11 (MIS-11). The globally averaged MIS-11 sea level is estimated to have reached between 6–13?m above that of today.
You can put your hands over your ears like a small child and start screaming "lalalalalalalala" but it will never alter science.
Sea levels rise 3 meters to 14 meters in every single Inter-Glacial Period.
To suggest the sea level should not rise is fantastically (and fanatically) absurd, since it always rises.
To suggest that lowering CO2 levels will stop sea level rise is equally fantastically absurd.
Sea levels rose 3 meters to 14 meters in every Inter-Glacial Period, even when CO2 levels were 260 ppm to 280 ppm CO2.
So, even if you manage to lower CO2 levels to 270 ppm, you cannot possibly guarantee that sea levels will not rise, because they always rise.
Trying to stop sea level rise during an Inter-Glacial Period is like trying to stop the Sun from rising in the East every morning.
I am truly sorry that everyone chose to build fabulous cities right on the sea before anyone understood that Earth experiences Glacial and Inter-Glacial Periods at somewhat regular intervals.
But, that's how it is and we don't bankrupt the country just because some people like to live seaside. The Free Market will deal with this and do so more effectively than any government intervention.
Even if only some are inundated or have to be moved or replaced the cost will be astronomical. My time as a city planner tells me that folks don't like paying the bill and planning ahead is not all that popular and we'd all rather take shortcuts. I recall, during a major flood, coffins were popping out of the ground and floating down the river and were lodged in trees when the water went down. Nobody expected that.
To suggest the sea level should not rise is fantastically (and fanatically) absurd...
There is no arguing that sea levels will or won't rise. You got that right...we really won't be able to stop it. The question is how to pay the bill. (Or do we? Our national debt is already $23 trillion without a global catastrophe.)
I am truly sorry that everyone chose to build fabulous cities right on the sea before anyone understood that Earth experiences Glacial and Inter-Glacial Periods at somewhat regular intervals.
But, that's how it is and we don't bankrupt the country just because some people like to live seaside. The Free Market will deal with this and do so more effectively than any government intervention.
Almost any city is prone to some sort of natural disaster. Our pattern has been to view those occurrences as worthy of government aid and assistance, even buy-outs. What we are facing is a global disaster, probably (or primarily) an unstoppable natural event that will wreak havoc on almost everything we take for granted. Certainly, some places (ecosystems, cities, even countries, and certain infrastructure) are a lost cause and can't be saved. I am not so convinced that the free market will simply cut places loose. Do we prioritize? The Corps of Engineers builds flood levees and people think they are safe until the levees are blown up to save somebody else's property. Will the inevitable call (and lobbying) for government spending, aid, and bailouts be ignored in the future?
Your comments tell me three things, 1) you have no idea what a terrain map is, 2) you don't understand the nature of sea level rise and 3) you've never seen a coastal city.
Nobody builds waste-water or sewage treatment plants within a stone's throw of the sea.
Your inability to understand science is equally lacking.
Science says:
“Even though the warm Eemian period was a period when the oceans were four to eight meters higher than today, the ice sheet in northwest Greenland was only a few hundred meters lower than the current level, which indicates that the contribution from the Greenland ice sheet was less than half the total sea-level rise during that period,” says Dorthe Dahl-Jensen, Professor at the Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, and leader of the NEEM-project.
Palaeo data suggest that Greenland must have been largely ice free during Marine Isotope Stage 11 (MIS-11). The globally averaged MIS-11 sea level is estimated to have reached between 6–13?m above that of today.
You can put your hands over your ears like a small child and start screaming "lalalalalalalala" but it will never alter science.
Sea levels rise 3 meters to 14 meters in every single Inter-Glacial Period.
To suggest the sea level should not rise is fantastically (and fanatically) absurd, since it always rises.
To suggest that lowering CO2 levels will stop sea level rise is equally fantastically absurd.
Sea levels rose 3 meters to 14 meters in every Inter-Glacial Period, even when CO2 levels were 260 ppm to 280 ppm CO2.
So, even if you manage to lower CO2 levels to 270 ppm, you cannot possibly guarantee that sea levels will not rise, because they always rise.
Trying to stop sea level rise during an Inter-Glacial Period is like trying to stop the Sun from rising in the East every morning.
I am truly sorry that everyone chose to build fabulous cities right on the sea before anyone understood that Earth experiences Glacial and Inter-Glacial Periods at somewhat regular intervals.
But, that's how it is and we don't bankrupt the country just because some people like to live seaside. The Free Market will deal with this and do so more effectively than any government intervention.
The DOD has already indicated many of their ports are impacted, Norfolk, Philadelphia.
It would be interesting and helpful to know how much has been spent on this already.
Just one example at Hampton VA AFB of $10M, the Naval base at Porstmouth, VA already floods 10 times a year as sea level has risen a foot and a half.
I see a quote for $220 Billion nationwide just for the Navy.
Quote:
In 2003, Hurricane Isabel almost crippled the Langley Air Force Base in Hampton, Virginia. Over 200 of the military facility’s mechanical systems flooded, and 35 percent of buildings and 22 percent of aircraft engines were damaged. Runways were flooded and lights were knocked out. The base sustained $166 million in flood damage.
Because the base is surrounded by water, the Air Force recognized the need for protection from future flooding as sea levels continue to rise. It constructed a $5 million 3,000-foot-long seawall around the base, placed electrical infrastructure in huge cement blocks, built steel door dams on buildings at risk of flooding, and installed a $5 million groundwater pumping station to get rid of floodwater.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
