Protecting At-Risk Cities From Rising Seas 243
Hugh Pickens writes "BBC reports that with about 10 million people in England and Wales living in flood risk areas, rising sea levels and more storms could mean that parts of at-risk cities will need to be surrendered to protect homes and businesses, and that 'radical thinking' is needed to develop sea defenses that can cope with the future threats. 'If we act now, we can adapt in such a way that will prevent mass disruption and allow coastal communities to continue to prosper,' says Ruth Reed, President of the Royal Institute of British Architects. 'But the key word is "now."' Changing sea levels is not a new phenomenon. In the Netherlands, for example, with 40% of its surface under sea level, water management and water defense have been practiced since time immemorial; creating mounds and dykes, windmills, canals with locks and sluices, the Delta Works and the Afsluitdijk, all to keep the water out. Similar solutions to protect British cities are based on three themes (PDF): moving 'critical infrastructure' and housing to safer ground, allowing the water into parts of the city; building city-wide sea defenses to ensure water does not enter the existing urban area; and extending the existing coastline and building out onto the water (using stilts, floating structures and/or land reclamation)."
It's How We Are (Score:2, Interesting)
Not pork (Score:2, Interesting)
Whomever labeled this "pork" should think of New Orleans and reconsider. Protecting vulnerable coastal areas with levees and such is a valuable investment in human life.
Re:90 years in the future... (Score:3, Interesting)
When you're talking about coastal areas as densely populated as much of England's are, 90 years is about the right amount of time to plan. Short-sighted, "ahhh, we'll worry about it when it happens" thinking is responsible for most of the death and destruction from natural disasters of any sort.
Re:Interesting Novel idea (Score:4, Interesting)
People can't think in terms of replacing cities because the idea that cities are changing instead of truly permanent is completely outside what they are taught. They cling to cities they should simply abandon and bulldoze (Detroit, the below-sea-level areas of New Orleans) for no logical reason.
Cities are cheap to replace, there is plenty of room, and the way to get better cities (especially in the US) is to smash old infrastructure instead of trying to save it.
Rising sea levels could force healthy changes to current urban areas by making them untenable.
Re:Hold Up Here (Score:3, Interesting)
Found this after I posted...
It has some nice graphs of actual sea level change vs various IPCC predictions and says in part...
"... I conclude that the ongoing debate about future sea level rise is entirely appropriate. The fact that the IPCC has been unsuccessful in predicting sea level rise, does not mean that things are worse or better, but simply that scientists clearly do not have a handle on this issue and are unable to predict sea level changes on a decadal scale. The lack of predictive accuracy does not lend optimism about the prospects for accuracy on the multi-decadal scale. Consider that the 2007 IPCC took a pass on predicting near term sea level rise, choosing instead to focus 90 years out (as far as I am aware, anyone who knows differently, please let me know)."
Re:Interesting Novel idea (Score:5, Interesting)
New Orleans did it badly. The Corps of Engineers had been warning for a very, very long time that the levees were in terrible shape (and in many cases poorly sited) but everyone ignored the warnings until they were illustrated in dramatic fashion.
How long a time? Well, my great-grandfather, William Elam, was one of the leading hydrological engineers of his day; he wrote "Speeding Floods to the Sea" which was pretty much the standard textbook on flood control on the Mississippi for the mid-twentieth century. And he warned about a Katrina-type scenario then, in 1946, and probably well before that. The knowledge was there to fix the problem. What was lacking, for decades, was the political will.
Re:The solution seems obvious (Score:4, Interesting)
We will earn shitloads of money in the coming decades, building dikes and other stuff for other countries. If I had to choose a study now I would go to Delft, where all the relevant education concerning that is given.
Re:Sleepwalking? (Score:2, Interesting)
I'd rather fall in the water than fall down the stairs.
Re:Interesting Novel idea (Score:1, Interesting)
I take it you've actually done a cost estimate on rebuilding a city from scratch?
If so, can you share the results with the rest of us?
My back of the envelope guesstimate looks like somewhere between $100K and $1M per person to recreate a city elsewhere. Which isn't within my definition of "cheap"....
Actually cities are cheaper to replace than upgrade. When you take into account demolision, removing material on top of the usual construction cost is no wonder why countries like India decided to construct New Delhi designed by Edwin Lutyens and Herbert Baker, to replace their old capital Calcutta. This was also done by Brazil with Brasilia . The construction of a new city can help england save money long term in maintenance (which will be an ongoing cost til their system breaks or ocean level decent, whichever occurs first...) and implementation cost. Trying to fight rising levels of ocean water put the country at a disadvantagewith other countries as significant resources are spent maintaining the system instead of spending it in education, healthcare or better causes.
Re:Recommendations for visitors to London (Score:4, Interesting)
3. Go and visit the Thames Barrier [wikipedia.org]. It's very impressive.
Re:On the other hand (Score:1, Interesting)
That it's non-falsifiable?
Re:90 years in the future... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Interesting Novel idea (Score:2, Interesting)
Well, since the problem is caused by carbon dioxide emissions, how about simply taxing said emissions enough to pay for the cleanup? I mean, if you driving my SUV is causing my house to be covered by waves, shouldn't you pay me damages?
Feel free to move to Somalia to experience the glory of anarchy firsthand, if it bothers you so much that civil society needs maintenance and that needs to be paid for. You libertarians always go on about the evils of government and the power of individual, yet you do not use your individual power to relocate to be rid of that evil, and instead demand that the rest of us - who you usually refer to as "sheep" - bend over backwards and rearrange our way of living to accomodate your desires.
It's a pity, really; if libertarians actually stood for freedom rather than Social Darwinism, I might consider backing them. As is, I rate having social safety nets above being able to smoke pot in importance, so I regretfully can't do so.