The beach nourishment meeting was the first stakeholder meeting where at the end the groups came to a (reluctant) consensus. This consensus was reached partially because none of us saw relocation of hotels and residents who live close to the beach as a feasible option in the current political climate. On further reflection, it seemed incredible that in one of the wealthiest nations in the world there is no centralized, organized effort to prepare for an inevitable natural phenomenon. Even those who deny that climate change is anthropogenic can’t pretend like the sea isn’t rising. In addition to putting some developments located on the coast underwater, this will leave development more vulnerable to coastal storms.
In their book Rising Sea Levels: An Introduction to Cause and Impact, Janin and Mandia use the United States and the Netherlands as case studies to illustrate opposite reactions to planning for sea level rise. The Netherlands reacted to Hurrican Katrina by insisting they needed to expand the amount of protection of their coast ten times the current protection. Levees and Dikes protecting major cities are prepared for a 10,000 year flood and more rural flood protection is prepared for a 4,000 year flood.
By comparison, there is virtually no preparation for sea level rise at the federal level in the United States. In some ways, the effects of sea level rise seem less immediate than in the United States. A smaller portion of the U.S. population live in an area that will be immediately affected. Tax payers are also unwilling to pay for projects that have obvious, measurable.
But sea level rise will likely still have a substantial social and economic effect on the country.1/3 of the US population lives in a coastal zone. 14 out of the top 20 biggest US metropolitan areas are on a coast. If the coast is seriously negatively impacted, the whole country will feel the crunch.
Despite extensive study of the negative effects of climate change, including sea level rise, increased storm intensity, and loss of wetland habitats and species, the United States is not planning ahead. Is it rational to put off relocation of people living near the coast until sea level rise is directly threatening them? Are loss of coastal habitats and increased damage from storms enough incentive to relocate people now or does the sea have to be up to the level of those properties to justify relocation? Is there a disconnect between the scientists and the policy makers when it comes to climate change?
Featured Image:
http://www.bcre.com/san-clemente-beach-front-homes.php
Post Image:
Source: