You may have read this from the Federal Report titled “The Cost of Holding Back the Sea.” The following shows us the national cost of doing just that. These costs are adjusted for a 1 meter rise.
Previous studies suggest that the expected global warming from the greenhouse effect could raise sea level 50 to 200 centimeters (2 to 7 feet) in the next century. This article presents the first nationwide assessment of the primary impacts of such a rise on the United States: (1) the cost of protecting ocean resort communities by pumping sand onto beaches and gradually raising barrier islands in place; (2) the cost of protecting developed areas along sheltered waters through the use of levees (dikes) and bulkheads; and (3) the loss of coastal wetlands and undeveloped lowlands. The total cost for a one meter rise would be $270-475 billion, ignoring future development.
We estimate that if no measures are taken to hold back the sea, a one meter rise in sea level would inundate 14,000 square miles, with wet and dry land each accounting for about half the loss. The 1500 square kilometers (600-700 square miles) of densely developed coastal lowlands could be protected for approximately one to two thousand dollars per year for a typical coastal lot. Given high coastal property values, holding back the sea would probably be cost-effective.
The environmental consequences of doing so, however, may not be acceptable. Although the most common engineering solution for protecting the ocean coast–pumping sand–would allow us to keep our beaches, levees and bulkheads along sheltered waters would gradually eliminate most of the nation’s wetland shorelines. To ensure the long-term survival of coastal wetlands, federal and state environmental agencies should begin to lay the groundwork for a gradual abandonment of coastal lowlands as sea level rises
The report comes with his warning.
“Sea level rise is an urgent issue for coastal environmental planners for the very reason that it lacks urgency for some directors of public works. If state and local governments fail to develop plans to protect the coastal environment as the sea rises, the public will almost certainly call upon engineers to protect their homes in the years to come.”
So as we ignore the potential of having windmills blowing off our east side, we will be asked to pay increasingly more to fight back the sea. All this at a time when according to this man, we can least afford it.
As far as I know no one yet has tried to account for the additional cost required to build ourselves above oblivion, but in all fairness, that should be added to the Delmarva side of the ledger when it comes to debating just how much this proposed Wind Farm will cost us.
The answer…….ironically comes in the form of another question:
How much will NOT building an offshore wind farm……cost us?
.
5 comments
Comments feed for this article
January 17, 2008 at 9:14 am
David Anderson
This is an unlikely scenario indeed. It is nature and we can deal with it over 100 years. The sunspot activity will end in a couple of years and this will be forgotten. That is nearly half of your warming. Next melt ice in glass of water. Does the glass overflow? No.
Is the minor glacial melting due more to cyclical geological conditions? Some studies suggest that. It used to be that glaciers went down to Maine and Montana. Now they don’t. We didn’t drown.
I don’t deny a global warming trend, but I do deny the need to panic over something that has happened many times.
I do agree that it is prudent to move away from an over dependence on fossil fuels.
January 17, 2008 at 2:03 pm
kavips
No offense intended, but your reasoning sounds like Cheney’s dismissal of extravagant deficit spending.
“Don’t worry, we’ll grow out of it.”
That philosophy was wrong then. It is wrong now.
January 17, 2008 at 6:24 pm
Alan Coffey
If I read this right, and I am not an expert, the sea level rise in the next 100 years will be about 20% more than the sea level rose over the last 100 years. As David said, we did not drown.
Now money, that is another thing. I think the fools who built right on the coast can go pound sand underwater. It is the poorer folks who live along rivers that might be put out.
And the report does not address the issue of causes. I don’t think we can stop global warming in either the short or long term.
January 18, 2008 at 1:59 am
STOP - Subsidizing Stupidity
Ever since the story of the three pigs, I have been wondering about the stupidity of some people in building houses, and where.
Likewise the ARM fiasco. Why bail out stupid investors. People knew the mortgage rate would rise, at any level eventually.
Here we go again, subsidizing stupidity.
Stop taking care of the reckless and stupid, and they will take care of themselves, and live within their means.
Same with SCHOOLS. Stop pampering those who are defiant in the classroom and refuse to learn, and who consume vast teacher resources.
Support those who come to learn, and the defiant will sink or swim.
Their choice. Stop forcing an education on them.
Watch their parents start helping them to succeed.
Watch how soon they decide that they will be left behind,
if they do not correct their behavior..
Give them the opportunity. But no guarantees on success.
If the horse, when led to water refuses to drink, too bad. Do not start an IV DRIP.
The Middle class, the working class gets no help. But we work for what we got. Why do we have to suffer watching those who are defiant and lazy, constantly get government help?
Help us, and we will flourish, be even more productive and more successful. Stop undermining OUR progress.
.
.
.
January 18, 2008 at 3:40 pm
kavips
Alan, I am not sure where you got the data for the last 100 years. I couldn’t find it. But twenty percent more than the last hundred years does not sound correct. Particularly with the whole of Greenland and the arctic Caps liquefying.
Can you point me to where you saw that?