As Sea Levels Rise, the East Coast is Also Sinking (arstechnica.com) 131
Climate scientists already know that the East Coast of the United States could see around a foot of sea-level rise by 2050, which will be catastrophic on its own. But they are just beginning to thoroughly measure a "hidden vulnerability" that will make matters far worse: The coastline is also sinking. From a report: It's a phenomenon known as subsidence, and it's poised to make the rising ocean all the more dangerous, both for people and coastal ecosystems. New research published in the journal Nature Communications finds that the Atlantic coast -- home to more than a third of the US population -- is dropping by several millimeters per year. In Charleston, South Carolina, and the Chesapeake Bay, it's up to 5 millimeters (a fifth of an inch). In some areas of Delaware, it's as much as twice that. Five millimeters of annual sea-level rise along a stretch of coastline, plus 5 millimeters of subsidence there, is effectively 10 millimeters of relative sea-level rise.
Atlantic coastal cities are already suffering from persistent flooding, and the deluge will only get worse as they sink while seas rise. Yet high-resolution subsidence data like this isn't yet taken into account for coastal hazard assessments. "What we want to do here is to really bring awareness about this missing component, that based on our analysis actually makes the near-future vulnerability a lot worse than what you would expect from sea-level rise alone," says Manoochehr Shirzaei, an environmental security expert at Virginia Tech and coauthor of the new paper.
Atlantic coastal cities are already suffering from persistent flooding, and the deluge will only get worse as they sink while seas rise. Yet high-resolution subsidence data like this isn't yet taken into account for coastal hazard assessments. "What we want to do here is to really bring awareness about this missing component, that based on our analysis actually makes the near-future vulnerability a lot worse than what you would expect from sea-level rise alone," says Manoochehr Shirzaei, an environmental security expert at Virginia Tech and coauthor of the new paper.
counteract? (Score:2)
It's not so easy to get water for this purpose though, maybe they should just buy ice from Greenland (before it melts anyway) and drag the bergs to SC, then pump the melt into the ground.
Re:counteract? (Score:4, Funny)
> and drag the bergs to SC
But SC banned all drag.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Only for children.
Re:counteract? [ban drag] (Score:2)
That's got to be a violation of freedom of expression, and possibly separation-of-church-and-state, being it's religion-motivated. I can understand them banning outright nudity, but "sexual dance movements" is too vague and open-ended.
You troglodytes are silly. Reminds of the time you tried to ban rock-n-roll in the 50's and 60's.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
That's got to be a violation of freedom of expression, and possibly separation-of-church-and-state, being it's religion-motivated. I can understand them banning outright nudity, but "sexual dance movements" is too vague and open-ended.
You troglodytes are silly. Reminds of the time you tried to ban rock-n-roll in the 50's and 60's.
In addition - women have long dressed in men's clothing. Is the religious right going to start outlawing that?
Are we coming to an age where in the states where separation of church and state is gone - will women have to wear only dresses?
Then we'll have to ban men in kilts, I suppose.
All this could be avoided if the men who are triggered so much would just admit that they get off watching RuPaul's Drag race.
Re: (Score:2)
Then we'll have to ban men in kilts, I suppose.
Worse, they'll make us wear undies beneath the kilt!
Re: (Score:2)
Then we'll have to ban men in kilts, I suppose.
Worse, they'll make us wear undies beneath the kilt!
Sacrilege!
Re: (Score:2)
will women have to wear only dresses?
They should consider themselves lucky that the American Taliban, who want to keep them all pregnant and in the kitchen, does not force them to wear burkhas.
Re: (Score:2)
will women have to wear only dresses?
They should consider themselves lucky that the American Taliban, who want to keep them all pregnant and in the kitchen, does not force them to wear burkhas.
That is the incrementalism where these nutcases end up.
Re: (Score:2)
They'll have a different name and slightly different look.
Re: (Score:2)
Wasn't that long ago that women were banned and fined for wearing pants.
Re: (Score:2)
Wasn't that long ago that women were banned and fined for wearing pants.
In some places, yeah. I have a picture of my mother in the 1940's in Philadelphia posing by a fountain, wearing pants.
I never did quite figure out why the religion assholes would object to women in pants. Seems that even those hot ankles are covered up, preventing a wanton display of their pulchritude.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess it was more like a century plus when the clothing laws were very strict, though I think even then drag was acceptable.
Some people just seem to be control freaks. What gets me is how they equate freedom with taking away others freedoms.
Re: counteract? [ban drag] (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Growing up, my mother thought television like All In The Family was inappropriate for children (even high schoolers). Not because it was liberal, but because it was not a proper sort of moral lesson of the perfect family who never bickered. I think there are a lot of people that way who want to rigorouslly control what children see, conservatives and liberals bother trying to keep kids hidden in a bubble that hides any inadvertent harm or exposure to different ways of thinking.
Re: (Score:2)
I normally support pride parades, but an "adults onry" version wouldn't fly in most places. Maybe late at night during Mardi Gras?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Just to build on what you mentioned.
Even here in New Orleans during Mardi Gras.....if you get lewd or nude, flashing, etc....anywhere outside of the French Quarter, you will go to jail (which is never fun, but especially during MG)....
So, just to show you, in a full city where almost anything goes...there are still norms, rules and things to limit things children see that are
Re: (Score:2)
...there are still norms, rules and things to limit things children see that are of an adult nature.
Something that only 5+ years ago would have made sense to pretty much anyone and wouldn't have even been questioned.
All that has changed is "adult nature" is expanding to encompass more and more things.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Yup. I didn't understand that at first: I assumed that this really *was* a planned, adult-oriented parade, but noooo, it's Ron DeSantis telling them that normal pride parades are not family-friendly.
Which is, of course, a complete lie. Kids love those parades. There's no nudity. There's nothing of an "adult nature".
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, DeSantis, the Hispanic guy who hates blacks and gays.
You can't make this stuff up. Like Kanye West hating on Jews. It's lost on him Hitler would have sent them to the same camps.
Re: (Score:2)
The gay parades in FL must be VERY different than the typical gay parade down here in New Orleans....
Those guys are definitely "on full display" in those parades there have here, especially du
Re: (Score:2)
Do you really think that seeing a shirtless human is bad for kids? Perfectly legal here though there was a time that you could get fined for swimming topless and women weren't allowed to show a knee in fear of what it would do to the children.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I'm gonna backtrack a bit: around here, the parades are very tame. Elsewhere...some of the stuff is not family-oriented.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I would posit, that a grown adult man, wearing an overload of makeup, wigs, wearing women panties and shaking their ass in your face for tips has always qualified as something of "an adult nature".
No?
Yes it would be, but it would also be wrong to consider that the typical drag performance. The right has a perverse need to find something sexual in everything even where it does not exist. It reflects more on them IMHO.
This week brought news of the death of Dame Edna (Barry Humphries), one of the premiere drag performances of our time. Must be tough going through life with a stunted sense of humor.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/0... [nytimes.com]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I was assuming that it was the parade organizers who were intentionally planning an adults-only version of teh parade, but nope, it turns out the city council was told by the state government that Ron Desantis plans to classify it as "adults only", because...drag queens?
Holy crap Desantis is a piece of work.
So ya, fuck the city council for being cowards.
Re: (Score:2)
Dame Edna was great. And Barry Humphries out of drag as also very funny. A big loss.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I do know that “drag time story hour” as they call it had been going on around here (and many other places) for probably a couple of decades with no issue. The average parent didn’t care. It was when these shows started having a strip component with children encouraged to slip bills into their underwear is where the average parent threw a hand up in complaint.
That would of course be inappropriate. I also think it is made up. Did you see it on Faux News? That would explain a lot.
Re: (Score:2)
Since I'm not aware of any drag reading hour turning into a strip show, would you care to provide sources?
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm, the man in drag not always. Maybe with some prudes; but drag in comedy has always been around. Maybe not in kids shows, but anyone in junior high or high school is not going to be confused by this. Now don't go twerking of course, but apparently they're not passing laws against twerking just against the drag...
I think there's homophobia going on here, even though a man in drag is very often perfectly straight. Even many transexuals still have attraction to those of the opposite birth sex. But to som
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Klinger wasn't a colonel, and Dustin Hoffman was never in a movie titled Trixie.
I sincerely hope you were trolling. If not, consult a neurologist.
Re: (Score:2)
Milton Berle, Flip Wilson, Colonel Klinger, Robin Williams in Mrs. Doubtfire, Dustin Hoffman in Trixie, Madea... pretty sure it's always qualitied as family entertainment, not "adult nature". You must be watching the only drag queens in the world that aren't funny!
I'm going to have to assume Mrs Doubtfire is banned in Florida. Bastion of freedom that it is.
Re: counteract? (Score:2)
Re: counteract? (Score:2)
Re: counteract? (Score:2)
That's a funny way of saying your cancel culture worked.
The east coast is not sinking (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Because the rich folks will just make the government (aka we the people) pay for keeping their homes safe.
Re: The east coast is not sinking (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In response to a similarly uninformed comment here on slashdot many years ago, I recall studying this question.
Most of Obama's land, and in particular the location of the mansion and its surrounding yard, is at or above 52 feet above sea level. There are paths down to the shore so it's not exactly 100 percent.
The point being that unlike the assholes who expect to be protected after buying property on barrier islands in the carolinas and other areas that are well known to be hurricane and flood targets, the
Re: The east coast is not sinking (Score:2)
Did you notes the rates?
That motherfucker, his children and his grand children will be long dead before it's any kind of real threat to his house.
Re:counteract? (Score:4, Interesting)
Either that or just abandon those areas and move inland to places more than 200 feet above sea level. It's not like we don't have hundreds of thousands of square miles in the United States that are underpopulated.
Satellite radar (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, we are now getting good measurements by satellite radar: https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-05... [usgs.gov]
This has been known for a while (e.g., https://www.nature.com/article... [nature.com] ), but the measurements are now getting a long enough time sequence to show the effect pretty clearly.
Re: (Score:2)
IIUC, what they're saying is not that the information is new, rather than just more precise, but that it's not being counted into the predictions of things like "future danger of flooding".
the east coast is over populated (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Nah.... the people of St. Louis don't want them. Trust me. I just moved back from that area recently, myself. Most of us were under the impression the DC area at least has been sinking for a long time.
So it's like a big seesaw right? (Score:2)
So this is how I understand it. Correct me if I've got it wrong. There's a big tectonic plate that extends from New York to Los Angeles. The east coast pumped all the water out of the ground and the plate started to sink. California never had any water in the first place so it was pretty light.
So, here's my proposal. We just need to get the east coast folks to take a week long vacation in California. Stop off in Chicago to pickup bottled water. When we get everyone to California, it should sink back d
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Remember, being well informed, educated, and intelligent will be a detriment when trying to be elected.
Re: (Score:2)
Eh, I wouldn't bet on it. Most of Montana is either Federally owned or Natively owned. Try Idaho though.
continental movment (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Because it is?
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/147439/californias-rising-and-sinking-coast
Re: (Score:2)
It's why the West has those amazing Sierras and Rockies and the east coast mostly has some piddling hills.
Re: (Score:2)
The Americas have been moving west since Gondwanaland broke into pieces. But, IIUC, the movement *has* been slowing. Perhaps in a few more million years it will start drifting back eastwards.
So How Do We Make Money Off This? (Score:2)
That is the real question. Resell them land inland maybe? Condemn their existing properties? are also a few more questions.
Re:So How Do We Make Money Off This? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is the market can't decide.
The market says - redevelop because there will be value there and the losses will always get socialized because 'helping people is a no-brianer', some of the free-after-the-fact disaster insurance needs to come with strings, ie there is a sunset date that gets attached to deed after which it revers to federal park land or something..
At the very least we need to the actuarial tables set the flood insurance rates. Which of course does rapidly get rapidly priced into prop
Re: (Score:2)
EXACTLY - Mr. Market sees a properties in hot market and says BUY BUY BUILD. The people there say blow our tax dollars on raising roads and stuff but my store front / beach rental / whatever prints money anyway and when the CERTAIN DISASTER does come we will stick the FEDs and by extension the rest of the USA with the bill.
Its a not a NY problem or FL problem its simply a moral hazard problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Skeptical (Score:2, Interesting)
We are supposed to accept as "fact" that sea level will rise a foot in 30 years, when the data going up to 2019 showed the actual rise was around 1/16 of an inch per year [scienceunderattack.com]...
Yes sea levels are rising, but don't let the doom merchants mislead you as to the amount of increase, which is easily handled by modern day tidal engineering... Amsterdam exists.
Re:Skeptical (Score:5, Insightful)
We are supposed to accept as "fact" that sea level will rise a foot in 30 years, when the data going up to 2019 showed the actual rise was around 1/16 of an inch per year [scienceunderattack.com]...
And accept as "fact" the sea level rise as measured locally, which includes the local land subsidence, as solely water-level rise, and then the 'discovery' of the land subsidence, which is then added onto the sea level rise that already includes the subsidence, and chickenlittle around screaming about how this makes the problem of sea level rise even worse.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Hilarious, and likely accurate, observation.
Very little different than these same people ignoring the "carbon cost", as well as the disproportionate ecological damage, of EVs.
climate change is fact (Score:2, Informative)
1/16 inch (1-2 mm) for 1901 to 2018 is correct. After 2019 it's over an 1/8 inch (3.7 mm) per year. We predicted an increase in the rate of sea level rise. And it's actually happening now. That's science, and you'll need to work very hard to disprove what all of us have been able to measure from direct physical observation.
Climate change is fact. Sea level rise is a fact. The details of the cause and the schedule are still up for debate. Even if climate change is not entirely man-made, it's accepted that it
Re: (Score:2)
Either get on board or get out of the way.
I agree. Those opposing nuclear fission as an energy source are in the way.
Re: (Score:3)
It is now the year 2023, 27 years from the year 2050. The claim in the GP post is that we will see "over a foot of sea level rise by 2050". The evidence cited in this comment is "1/8th of an inch per year". Well, one of you is wrong, because 1/8th of an inch over 27 years is 3.375 inches, not 12 inches.
Furthermore, even using 1/8th of an inch rise as an average is also just wrong. Sea levels rise and fall at very different rates, because the land is moving relative to the water level, among other factors. T
Re:Skeptical (Score:5, Informative)
We are supposed to accept as "fact" that sea level will rise a foot in 30 years
Nope, it is backed up by scientific research [nationalgeographic.com]. Of course, you can still hope it won't happen, but this is the equivalent as putting your fingers in your ears and go "lalalalalalala".
The problem with sea rise, is that it is small by human measures (~3.2mm/year if I recall correctly). However it is accelerating, and already more than doubled since 1880.
which is easily handled by modern day tidal engineering...
Yet flooding in Venice is worse every year [bloomberg.com], despite huge engineering efforts to protect it.
Talking about Amsterdam too [weforum.org].
Re: (Score:2)
We are supposed to accept as "fact" that sea level will rise a foot in 30 years
Nope, it is backed up by scientific research [nationalgeographic.com]. Of course, you can still hope it won't happen, but this is the equivalent as putting your fingers in your ears and go "lalalalalalala".
To be fair, that is pretty much what a large part of the human race is doing. And another large part is grasping at straws like geoengineering. Anything to just not have to change their ways or do anything actually effective about the problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Could you point to any studies that actually predicted global cooling? All I recall is that there were studies saying that if we *hadn't* been raising the CO2 level, we'd be entering a new era of glaciation. But we *had* (and have) been doing that, to excess.
Re: (Score:3)
You don't understand how acceleration works?
Since 1880, we've measured over 8 inches of seal level rise. The thing is, 3 of those inches happened in the last 25 years, and the rate now is somewhere around twice what it was in just 2018.
That acceleration is what should be worrying you. The graph is not just linear, it's curving up.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't understand how acceleration works?
Since 1880, we've measured over 8 inches of seal level rise. The thing is, 3 of those inches happened in the last 25 years, and the rate now is somewhere around twice what it was in just 2018.
That acceleration is what should be worrying you. The graph is not just linear, it's curving up.
I have a question about this acceleration, at the current rate of acceleration how long would it take for this rate of sea level rise to reach the speed of light?
An interesting bit about steam locomotives from long ago was the faster they went the more traction power they produced. Steam locomotives were quickly replaced by diesel-electric locomotives because the power of an electric motor is largely independent of how fast it goes, and with traction power being important in getting a locomotive moving out
Re: (Score:2)
For sure, it's not just going to curve up FOREVER.
We can't just assume the acceleration will keep on at the current rate.
Of course, it could curve up even faster, too.
The thing is, we are very, very sure that a lot of the forces involved in causing that graph to shoot up are man-made.
So here's the thing: if you want to propose that the rising sea level will slow DOWN, then you have to propose a decent hypothesis as to what change we can make to cause that to happen.
So what is your hypothesis? What will we d
Re: (Score:2)
Your sig boldly proclaims "We solved global warming, now stop scaring everyone's kids to death over it.". So, how exactly did we solve it, and if we solved it, why is the sea level rising at faster and faster rates?
Nuclear fission as an energy source.
We solved the problem of rising sea levels from global warming, with global warming caused by burning fossil fuels, in the 1950s. Practical application of nuclear fission as an energy source was demonstrated with the USS Nautilus (SSN-571) in the 1950s, and that technology was further developed and demonstrated as practical in relatively short order through civilian and military nuclear reactors used to produce electricity and propel naval vessels. The sea level is stil
Re: (Score:2)
I agree that we aren't building enough nuclear power capabilities currently. That is what we should be doing.
I just don't see how *not* building nuclear (pretty much what we are currently doing is not building nuclear, right?) is supposed to stop the raising sea.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think you can assume smooth rates of sea level rise. Some of the predictions for Antarctica are a bit sudden. I haven't seen anything similar for Greenland, but I see no reason to doubt that they could happen also.
IIUC your predicted "acceleration" is a best case scenario. It could happen, but there's no reason to really expect it (except as a long term average).
Re: (Score:2)
Fear not! We the people will happily keep voting the exact same way and the rich will have government bail them out. All is going according to plan!
Re: (Score:2)
Well, you can complain about that when it does not happen. Incidentally, sea-levels are not the same all over the planet. They depend a lot on local conditions. This was just recently discussed here.
The fun thing is though that climate changes in the short term (30 years is "short term" for something like this) are already all locked in and there is nothing that can be done about these anymore.
Open Season on Songwriting (Score:2)
Now it's not just New Orleans that is sinking... it's everywhere on the coast. So write some hit songs.
Re: (Score:2)
Already been done:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Bet (Score:2)
> Climate scientists already know that the East Coast of the United States could see around a foot of sea-level rise by 2050
[who?] as they say.
I'll bet 'em each a hundred bucks that the East Coast doesn't get a foot of sea level rise by 2050.
In other words, this submission starts off with a blatant lie (and no, you can't hide behind 'could' among decent people). Not an auspicious beginning.
Anyway, ocean water used to flow north into Lake Champlain (NY/VT/QC) so it's full of giant ancient fish and such*.
Re: (Score:3)
Personally, I may live to find out, but I'll be awfully old.
Good bye Florida (Score:2)
and good riddance, where it's illegal to discuss climate change. Think they'll get it when the're treading water? Nah.
Re:Good bye Florida (Score:4, Interesting)
Pretty much all urban areas of Florida are going to get hard hit by climate change, because the majority of them are already pretty close to sea level.
Florida is not just sinking geologically, but socially.
No matter how bad it gets... they're still mostly going to be smart enough to migrate elsewhere, and they'll bring the poisoned culture of ignorance they're currently enhancing and reinforcing.with them when they do.
Quick somebody tell the solar protesters! (Score:2)
Once again proving, Climate change ain't all that (Score:2)
The lag of climate change makes it dangerous in it's own way, but when you can sink half a state into the ocean purely by agriculture long before sea level rise gets to it, it does call into question its ultimate significance.
Which is not to say I don't think we should fight climate change, it's something to do while all the less tractable problems drag civilization down regardless. Only singularity can save us now though.
sea level "rise"? (Score:2)
Not long ago, satellite studies showed sf bay area has far more subsidence than actual sea level rise. I would not be surprised if much of what is attributed to sea level "rise" is actually subsidence. There are also places where sea level is "falling" due to upthrust of surrounding land.
Re: (Score:2)
I would not be surprised if much of what is attributed to sea level "rise" is actually subsidence.
They're looking at it from space, not from the land. They can tell the difference.
There are also places where sea level is "falling" due to upthrust of surrounding land.
Few. Few places.
Re: (Score:2)
You do know that much of San Francisco (and a lot of the other Bay Area) is built on land fill don't you? Subsidence should be expected.
What you should check is whether the foundations of the skyscrapers are sinking. Those were anchored in the underlying rock.
Re: (Score:2)
Bedrock also moves in seismically active regions.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but the motion of the bedrock *is* the motion of the tectonic plate. It also move in regions that aren't seismically active, though more slowly. E.g. the northern part of North America is still rising after the melting of the last glaciation.
Land fill subsiding, though, is a strictly local thing.
Until... (Score:2)
...someone proves that this sinking hasn't always been going on, I'm going to simply file this with all the other 'climate change histrionic falsifications and half-truths', m'kay?
Coastlines change over time.
If I had to guess why the coasts of the US are sinking into the sea, it's because so many people hope they do.
Re: (Score:2)
Repeat (Score:2)
I’ve been listening to climate change alarmists for 40+ years. Every time the next horrible milestone is just a couple decades in the future. None have ever occurred. It reminds me of cult leaders who speak of a rapture for his followers. Every time a date is missed, he chastises the unbeliever and sets a new date. Meanwhile, both cult leader and climate scientist / leader profits off the gullibility of the followers.
Sea Levels ARE NOT rising (Score:2)
But the east coast IS sinking. Florida, too, but all of the "soft" ground is sinking.
Look at photos of Fort Denison, in Australia's Sydney Harbor. That structure is at the same water level as 140 years ago. Sea levels aren't rising, and it's an enormous hoax to claim that they are.
Re:Insurance will cover it (Score:5, Insightful)
Overland flooding coverage is getting harder and harder to get. Up here in BC, if you live in a flood plain or any low lying area where rivers or tides can swamp your property, you're going to end up having to get disaster assistance from various levels of government, and in general, as I understand it, disaster recovery funds for a property owner end up being at best 50% of the cost of repairs.
But whether it's the taxpayer footing the bill, insurance footing the bill, or some combination of the two, everyone ends up paying. And if you're going to build dams, dikes and the like, that's simply going to mean someone further down the river or the coastline gets flooded, so it becomes a game of whose property is more important than someone else's, which usually ends up being which areas have or generate the most money, and if you don't live there, you're screwed.
Probably the best idea I've seen here in BC, in areas like the Fraser Valley, where pretty significant parts of some communities sitting on that huge flood plain is to basically start moving everyone to higher ground. In the end it's going to mean the government purchasing the land, refusing building permits for most structures, and essentially letting nature take over again. But let's be blunt, a fair chunk of the human population lives along rivers, lakes and coastlines, so the long term costs of sea level rise, major atmospheric river events are going to be astronomical, forcing mass migrations and huge mitigation projects.
And that's before we even talk about regions of the planet, often important tracts of arable land, where the opposite problem is happening, and change rain belts mean loss of agricultural capacity. And since so many major river systems have already been so tapped there is no capacity, good luck to those folks too.
Re:Insurance will cover it (Score:5, Informative)
In the end it's going to mean the government purchasing the land, refusing building permits for most structures, and essentially letting nature take over again.
Yes, unfortunately that's the opposite of what we have now. The federal flood insurance scheme only pays people to rebuild the same thing in the same place.
Re: (Score:2)
And this has always been true, and probably always will be. Living along a coastline gives you access to the sea, giving you easy access to a good source of protein, as well as sea transport for commerce. Living along a river bank or lake shore gives you access to a reliable water supply, very important in the early days of a new settlement.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. Also 2050 is not that far away. Would have been cheaper overall to not kick off these changes or at least delay them as long as possible. But this is yet another (extreme) case of privatized wins financed ultimately by public losses. Problem here is the public losses to be expected may well exceed what is sustainable.
Re: Insurance will cover it (Score:3)
Please note that you are mixing two very different issues. Flooding by the sea is affected by sea level. Flooding by rivers is not.
When rivers flood, the reason is often poor civil engineering, where the river has been channeled, and no longer has access to floodplains.
Both issues are important, of course, but the causes and solutions are very different.
Re: (Score:2)
The OP referenced the Fraser river (actually the Fraser Valley, lower Fraser river). I'm 50 odd miles upstream from the ocean and the river is considered tidal here, tide comes in and the river rises, tide goes out and the river lowers. Thats 50 odd miles of valley where the river rises at high tide, if those tides are higher, and they have been, then the odds of a flood goes up.
We even have a tidal lake (Pitt Lake), which while fresh water, responds to the tides and if it had flood plains around it (and th
Re: (Score:2)
Insurance will stop offering coverage before the problem hits. Or the insurance will simply go bankrupt. Insurance risk modelling people have taken climate change quite serious for a while.