Slashdot Mirror
NC Planners May Be Barred From Using Speculative Sea Level Rise Predictions
ideonexus writes "Republicans in North Carolina are floating a bill that would force planners to only consider historical data in predicting the sea-level rise (SLR) for the state as opposed to considering projections that take Global Warming into account. NC-20, the pro-development lobbying group representing twenty counties along the NC coast, is behind the effort and asserts that the one-meter prediction would prohibit development on too much land as opposed to SLR predictions of 3.9 to 15.6 inches." Scientific American has an acerbic take on the bill.
That's public sector planners. Insurance companies will use whatever sources they think are reasonable, so some of this to-be-planned development may be hard to insure.
How about passing a law that also states that insurance companies are forbidden to use that data as well. I can totally see them raking folks over the coals on insurance premiums for building in the "One meter zone".
Wouldn't this force such developments to require flood insurance that would be backed by FEMA, thus pushing the cost onto the federal government and tax payers in the rest of country?
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
This bill seeks to do for the state what should be done through Engineering guidelines.
A sea-level rise estimate would have to take in to consideration all sorts of issues, not the least of which is potential for Tsunamis, Storm surges, and the like.
This is what happens when lawyers write technical documents...
Nearly fifty percent of all graduates come from the bottom half of the class!
An actual law to prevent looking forward. For North Carolina Republicans, the entire world is in the rear view mirror.
If you were sneaky you'd be going for the Superman 1 plot...buy the land behind the lots that will be underwater
Any state senator who votes for the bill must purchase and move into a house on the beach, one which would be flooded if global warming were true. Let them put their money where their mouths are.
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
NC is also considering a law that forbids use of any science in any way. All decisions must be based on history or the Bible. A liberal amendment has narrowly passed allowing use of both Old and New Testaments. A similar amendment to allow use of the Apocrypha languished in committee for three days before it finally died.
jew are late
We did this a lot in AD&D. DISBELIEVE!
Works for illusions. Not so good for actual dragons...
I can't imagine how it could possibly to live as someone with such a braindead retarded lump of ignorant useless flesh atop my shoulders. And how somone hasn't such people from civilized society yet.
if i was that close to sea level i would design and build stuff to account for it getting wet (and maybe even staying wet for extended periods of time). Also they are saying that in 80 some years the water could maybe if we twist the numbers right be at THIS LEVEL what happens if its at THAT LEVEL (which happens to be 2X as high)?
Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
...as opposed to considering projections that take Global Warming into account...
Otherwise known as the Lex Luthor effect.
Using the estimate that sea level will rise by 1 meter (about 1 yard or 3.3 feet) means most of eastern NC could not be developed. Plus it's doubtful it will actually rise that much in one century.
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
Rewards typically always require risks. If I were an NC legislator, I'd seriously consider reaping rewards of millions or billions of dollars for my state with the understanding that if the worst fears of AGW alarmism pan out, all of that could literally go underwater in the next 100 years. But it's arguably not actually even that risky, because building and further data collection will happen at the same time, at a gradual pace. If the AGW alarmists' predictions come true (which would be a first), we should see it happening and be able to react and at least limit losses.
And there's nothing insidious and evil about trusting historical data more than the most complex empirically derived computer models, which are typically just about as valid to extrapolate as a stock market trend.
That decree should obviously came toghether with another one forbiding the sea to rise faster than the hystorical average. By not passing that second decree, the legislators are letting people endanger their buildings.
Rethinking email
If we can let the morons in New Orleans rebuild (which is already -8ft, save for the French Quarter) then we can surely let those who are still positive to build.
On top of that NASA estimates "Sea-Level rise within the next 87 years projects within a range of 0.2 meters to 2 meters, " That's an error margin of 1,000% which in anyone's book is a WAG (wild-assed guess). I think the historical record is much less alarmist and is based on facts not guesses .
The governement has a duty to the people to operate on facts, not superstition, religion, or WAGs.
Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
There have been people that have wanted to ban development on barrier islands for many years.
It sounds like the R's are passing this bill to prevent the Ds from back dooring this policy.
Personally I think if someone lives somewhere that the house is destroyed every 30 years or so their insurance payment is equal to their 30 year mortgage payment. This should be true on barrier islands and in Santa Barbara canyons. Then it's just an informed decision.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
One meter isn't really that much. How about raising the houses? They even do that in fast-moving flood areas in California. The Russian River area comes to mind. I've seen cabins raised on concrete one story. Earthquakes and floods, and they are dealing with it. Of course that's existing development with existing permits. They probably can't build anything new there; but that's beside the point. Why do they have to choke off all development? Why not simply require the houses to be on raised foundations?
When the sea level rises further, NC can just post signs saying "This is not happening".
NASA predicts ice-free North Pole by end of summer 2012
Which not only did not come to pass, but we're well within 1 standard deviation of the 1979-2000 average.
Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
This dang PI with a stupid value like 3.141592654 is making calculations difficult. I wish they would also create a law and define PI to be something simple like 3 so that math would be a breeze.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
This should remove all doubt (for anybody that had any) that Republicans are solidly anti-science. It doesn't get much more blatant that using the power of the state to outlaw the consideration of scientific data that conflicts with their ideology.
Remember Fukishima? Their problem was that they didn't go back far enough with their historical data when they designed their tsunami wall. Now, in what amounts to the same thinking, people do not want to overstate any possibility of water levels going too high for the sake of the almighty dollar. So when the ocean levels rise, or a 'once-in-a-lifetime' hurricane swells the sea up high enough, will those who support these lower levels be responsible for the cost?
Republicans in North Carolina are floating a bill that. . .
The question is, at which sea level will that bill be floating -- the developers' sea level or the scientists' sea level?
Or will it have been sunk?
State governments regulate insurance companies so there is no good reason they shouldn't prefer a requirement that builders take out insurance policies over central planning of what should or should not be allowed. Let the insurance companies pay for relocating the buildings if they charge premiums that are too low, or suffer the loss of business if the premiums they charge are too high. The only thing of interest to the State government would then be whether there was a reasonable chance of fraud going on with the insurance companies intending on closing up shop if their bets go sour.
Seastead this.
The problem with politics and science is that one is supposed to cope with reality, the other is supposed to describe reality as it exists now.
The prediction of 1m rise is not going to happen. It isn't. Either politicians are going to look at that number and do something about it, and keep it from getting that bad. Or they're going to ignore it, and 1m is going to a significant under prediction. And that's far bigger than any state government.
Politicians have to guess what *is* going to happen, that's a guess, not a scientific prediction. Because who knows what the world economy is going to do, and what policies are going to be adopted about, or inspite of global warming, especially over the next 88 years.
Scientists can, and do make predictions, which are based on a series of assumptions about what people will or won't do. But the point of making the predictions is to change what people will, or won't do, which makes the assumptions wrong and requires new predictions. That's perfectly reasonable, but where you choose to pull the guess of what will actually happen as opposed to what will happen if people do nothing is basically arbitrary.
If this was a well thought out discussion from the german state of hannover saying that they believe governments will take action to prevent sea level rise beyond 50cm, and that forms the basis of their projections that would be about as good a guess as 15.6 inches (40cm) as north carolina comes up with. Guessing 100 years in the future is hard. Moreso when you don't want to believe in the present reality sure, but we have to be realistic in recognizing that those scientific predictions are for much different levels of government than a single US state.
It is well known in North Carolina scientific circles that words can hold back the ocean. The proof is right there in the Bible when Moses held back the red sea with just a few words to God. Obviously the population will be able to merely say a prayer hold back sea. Global warming is a problem created by man but it can quickly and easily be cured by God, all you have to do is ask. NC alchemists have already succeeded in turning slave labor into gold, sea level will be a snap!
If only these annoying science-based predictions could be reined in, we won't have to worry about the North Carolina outer banks washing away...
I always consider the geography when looking for a house. River valley, probably a flood plain. Dense bush nearby, forest fire risk. Steep slopes, too prone to landslides. Silt bed in an earthquake zone, well, let's just say that I want a chance of survival. The thing is, after taking out the crazy risks, there are still plenty of places to live.
Problem is, homeowners want something scenic. Developers want something cheap to build upon. City planners are more concerned about tax revenues. If they want to accept the risks, fine. It's their homes and their lives.
Just don't make the wiser folks pay for it when the disasters ultimately strike.
My projections based on historical sea level rise in NC over the last 4 hours (3 feet) mean that we are going to be in a whole lot of trouble in a year or so.
About King Canute (Not sure where he was King of, probably some Scandinavian country.)
Anyway he passed a royal decree forbidding the tide to rise. It didn't work out so well.
NC Disappears Underwater as Sea Levels Rise.
Slashdot Comment: Check out this article from 30 years ago! It predicted this!
12000 years ago sea levels were 100 feet lower your safe.....
on other hand at around 130000 years back the levels were 300 feet higher GEE which historical do i panic people to make me money....
Don't invest in North Carolina.
"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act!" -- George Orwell (Eric Arthur Blair)
They already have the engineering report. They don't like the results. It's inconvenient for the developers to have the water rise 1M
Obviously whoever decided they should plan for the sea level to rise a meter is not an engineer.
Even the IPCC is estimating now, a maximum of around 2 feet.
But of course, no predicted massive sea level rises have taken place yet. They keep predicting doom but the sea level simply continues to creep up along the same historical trend line it has been on for decades. If forecasts cannot get the rise correct in the short term, why should planners be forced to use the even longer term wild estimates?
People who live on the coast will have to deal with potentially much higher water levels from storms anyway, so all the planning around this baseline number does is make some land off-limits that would not be otherwise, which is pointless.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
They don't have any coastline so therefore they cannot use retarded politics when making future planning decisions.
I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
This has nothing to do with global warming belief or disbelief. As if you didn't figure it out already, it's all about the benjamins.
Fact is, the state of NC subsidizes the Outer Banx quite a bit, be it through constant repair of NC 12 (the main drag up the island chain) or encouraging property development and sales on what amounts to a giant glorified sandbar.
Bear in mind that tourism and agriculture are the only large industries in NC east of the I-95 corridor. If that portion of the state ever seceded, that new state would be the poorest in the nation per capita. The solons in Raleigh, regardless of party, will protect their tax base by whatever means, even if it requires sticking their fingers in their ears and singing "la la la" during the legislative session. Frankly, if you told me that the Army Corps of Engineers were going to build Dutch-style dikes out there, I wouldn't be surprised.
So, if you do want to buy a house out on the Banx, you'd be in great shape, since the taxpayers will help, whether they like it or not, if your investment gets washed away. (Never mind the fact that an undeveloped barrier and some wetlands would mitigate hurricane damage. What are you, some kind of socialist?)
Okay, we'll use historic CO2 and climate data for prediction...
Republicans in North Carolina... why do I read that as Koreans in North Korea and dismiss every credibility of everything said afterward?
those fools will be the first to drowned.
...knuckle dragging, to-hell-with-them-college-boys-and-their-durned-science, North Carolinian Republican dipshit waste of time. Noooo...., not because the science isn't accurate, but because it doesn't matter yet. A one-meter rise isn't going to happen in our lifetime, so why waste time legislating against planning for it now, other than to score political points with other dipshit Republicans?
Nah. 1 meter is around the consensus projection.
IPCC is saying "around" 59cm now. Which is a HUGE difference.
It may be lower
MAY?
You'd have to show evidence that sea level increases were actually accelerating, which they are not - despite predictions over the past several years they would be. Since those projections were wrong then, what suddenly makes them so trustworthy now?
in the case of Republicans, the scenario you want to believe.
Why do the Democrats get a pass? They are picking 1M out of THIER ass simply to prevent development in some areas.
The Republicans are at least saying, look, here is a clear trend line, it has been roughly on this path for decades, why not look at that as a baseline for predictions until a theory comes along that starts DEMONSTRATING otherwise? The Republicans seem to be the only ones presenting a way to come up with a reasonable estimate devoid of guesswork and hyperbole.
The most annoying thing about the global warming cultists such as yourself is that you continue to ignore what happens in reality, and dismiss all attempts at reasonable and rational estimates for future change in favor of your own scare-mongering huge numbers. All while draping yourself in the false flag of "science" which you refuse to listen to or practice.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The problem is not confined to the possibility of rising sea levels.
The problem that won't go away no matter which side of the global
warming question you adhere to is that barrier islands MOVE over time.
It is not possible to build a fixed structure which accounts for that.
But the developers want the suckers ( aka taxpayers ) to ignore that,
so they can get rich. I think they should be allowed to build and that the
law should prohibit government disaster relief. Then, what happens
will only impact the idiots who made the poor choices and not the rest
of us who would have made better choices.
An amendment has been offered to the bill that would condemn the ocean to 300 lashes and branding with hot irons if it were to rise more than historical data.
So republicans are now opposed to *all* global warming, not just man-made global warming?
This is starting to feel like a Looney Toons sketch where Bugs Bunny walks over a cliff and declares that he never did believe in gravity.
http://www.brainfuel.tv/bugs-bunny-on-gravity
"Evil will always triumph over good, because good is dumb." - Dark Helmet (Spaceballs)
You might want to try that again
As in, the real answer is 900%...
Whenever you are doing estimates like that you should always use some kind of quick common sense check of your result. For example, a 100% increase from 0.2 is 0.4 - so obviously your 90% calculation was way too low.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
An actual law to prevent looking forward.
That's what the 1M rule was, not looking forward - it was putting on the fantasy goggles and pretending what they saw was real.
Republicans wanted this looking forward to base projections on reality, not on fantasy.
Why would you support people who only want to pretend instead of see accurately?
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
That gives me an idea. The North Carolina legislature can easily create a space exploration industry in the state (boosting economic development and creating plenty of jobs.) All they need to do is to pass legislation outlawing gravity for all vehicles designated as "space vessels" inside a region designated by lines extending from the center of the Earth through the borders of the state out into space. Want to launch something to the ISS? Just put it in a trash bag and formally state "I dub this trash bag to be a space vessel." Zip, up into space it goes. Simple as that.
Everyone so far has missed one very relevant point. Land that is developed or developable is worth a *lot* more than land that can't be developed.
So the taxes paid on it would be higher.
That's right.. the taxes paid by those evil rich people.
Someone else pointed out that the attempt to use the AGW numbers were a possible backdoor run to prevent building on the barrier islands. What else are they using this to prevent? Or, to cause?
Example: why wouldn't the evil rich republicans support banning development now, so that prices drop. Then they buy it all and change the law back after the models get revised.
Because in terms of the nature of what they write about and how they write about it, they seem pretty interchangeable.
Government "planners" should be barred from existence.
Liberty in your lifetime
The Tea Party has more than once demonstrated their lack of comprehension at even the most trival of fact. So the next question is, "Who would benefit from this Tea Party flatulence while marching around the breakfast table?"
NC-20's position: http://www.nc-20.com/sealevelrise.htm
"It is NC 20’s position that any SLR projections should be based on science, not computer models based on human speculation."
Couldn't have said it better myself.
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
My Geology professor (Huge AGW proponent), said that Memphis TN will be a coastal city in 50 years (then)... well now that will be 40 years. Right now most of the Florida Keys should be underwater.
Sounds like the people want something more measurable and reliable than theories.
if (it != oneThing) it = another;
...has been a political shill for the left eco-agenda since about the early 90s. That's when I cancelled my 25 year subscription anyway. Used to love that magazine, until they became a political organ.
Disagree with what I'm saying? No objective observer - even someone who disagrees with his data - could condone how they handled Bjorn Lomborg.
Or 2007's Conservatives are stupid religious zealots, Liberals are wise, reasonable people: "Left Brains vs. Right Brains Political ideology is tied to how the brain manages conflict"
Or their "scientific" article that came out - coincidentally - 6 weeks before the 2008 election: "Media Bias: Going beyond Fair and Balanced
Despite popular accounts, researchers found that Barack Obama got more negative press coverage than John McCain did in the early summer"
What's your point there again, SciAm? Science? Really?
-Styopa
How about this: we don't force you take scientific estimates of the increase in the rate of sea level rise into account, and in 50 years if/when your land gets flooded, the government does exactly NOTHING to help you, other than rescuing your person.
I have no problem with people building in dangerous, stupid places, as long as they pay all the insurance costs (not government-subsidized insurance) and are legally required to disclose the hazards to any tenants and during any sale of or investment in the property. The government should not be using taxpayer dollars to subsidize people who build their fantasy beach home on barrier island systems and other places known to be hazardous even under the present-day conditions.
Most of the liberal press is using titles such as "NC Senate makes sea rise illegal" in order to immediately set the reader's mind to believing what the Senate is proposing is absurd. Slashdot used a fair title.
In realiity: This is 20 counties that will be financially hurt by the new (yes, new) estimate. Imagine you have plans for your county, and along comes one new report that allows a state bureaucratic unit to declare that a huge chunk of your county can no longer be developed. You get together with a bunch of other counties and petition the legislature to allow you to use your land.
The legislators are, rightfully, being responsive to the desires of those they represent.
An engineer who would decline a good safety margin in an unclear situation
An engineer who wastes a ton of material because he vastly overpads estimates is NOT an engineer. Not one who would be able to keep practicing anyway. 1/3 increase over a rough estimate from historical data is terrible, terrible padding.
Of course, the "engineers" the poster I was responding to were pure fantasy, there were no "engineers" that came up with the 1M number. Real engineers would look at actual data and laugh in the face of the warming cultists.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Lobbyists say it will only rise 15 inches, and it rises 1 meter, what are the consequences then? Billions of dollars in flood damage and destroyed homes and businesses.
Given the rate of rise even in pessimistic scenarios, why on earth would you think that?
Years of the sea rising, even if it ended up being 1M 100 years hence, is far more time than is needed to install dykes and pump systems to protect anything important in low areas. In fact it is BETTER to develop that as much as you can now so that there are enough resources to be worth the cost of a dyke system later.
The Dutch would LAUGH in your face for suggesting you need give up one square inch of land to a sea rising that slowly. In fact they would build new land for a football field offshore and bring you in to laugh at you there.
A storm surge that rises five feet in minutes? THAT is a huge problem (and has to also be planned for). Anything else is easily worked with.
Lastly, simply saying "we'll follow the trend line until there is evidence of deviation otherwise" is NOT HOPE. "Hope" is the people claiming the sea will rise 1M in 100 years, because they have no EVIDENCE to base that prediction on, and all such predictions to date outside the trend line have been utterly wrong. Why is it not more reasonable to follow historical data when all other models are obviously flawed?
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
so one mm ? you get that in ONE year.
Yes, and people are panicking over it and claiming it to be some kind of base proof of a 1M rise in 100 years. Even though that's off by an order of magnitude from the observed trend.
Point, hsthompson69.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I did the calculations, and it'll be about 72 years before the AGW projection exceeds the 100 year linear projection of 350mm, assuming the current rate is 3.5mm/year.
72 years in which NC gets the use of 2000 sq miles is probably worth taking, even if all investment in that area is subsequently lost.
These people are mentally ill and not fit for office.
No, its not. Its 1.1m +/- 0.9m. The margin of error is 0.9m. Its not a percentage, because you aren't measuring Y/N polling results or something else where the measurement is a percentage ("margin of error" isn't a percentage of the measurement -- and certainly not a percentage of the minimum measurement as you present it -- its the radius of the confidence interval, or, IOW, half the size of the range between the minimum and maximum value.)
It is true that 2.0 is 1000% of 0.2, but that has nothing to do with "margin of error".
Even if you rewrite this into something that looks like English, you've confused "factor" with "subtract", and still don't know what a margin of error is, because just like its not the ratio of the maximum value to the minimum value, its also not the ratio of the size of the range to the minimum value.
If you wanted to measure something related to the margin of error as a ratio of anything (which might in some contexts be useful as a way to make it scale-independent), the only thing that would make sense would be measuring the ratio between the actual absolute margin of error (in this case, 0.9m) to the center of the distribution (1.1m), which would be ~82% in this case. (But note when an actual margin of error is reported as a percent, this isn't what it means, it means that the actual values being measured are percents, and the list percentage is still the absolute size of the range, not a ratio.)
The people who are going to be at most risk are the people affording beach front property. A large number of these people are republicans who are supporting businesses, who are supporting these types of laws. Talk about stupidly screwing yourself...
Disagreeing with you does not make me a troll.
Instead, they should simply pass legislation that forbids the sea from rising. On penalty of fines or whipping. Problem solved.
I was thinking well historically everything was at some time or the other sea bed, but then again this is NC where the Earth is only 10,000 years old and Jesus fought on the back of a Raptor to free the South from the Tyranny & oppression of Giant Robot Lincoln.
Mod me troll, whatever... the gentleperson posting the parent is either an idiot or a shill.
The proper analogy is to fill a glass to the brim with water and ice. As the ice begins to melt, throw in more ice.
Luke, help me take this mask off
Bet the R's that if sea level is above x meters in 20 years, then single-payer health insurance is implemented and taxes go up 5% on the rich. Let's see if they want to put their money where their mouth is. You can only lie about the future until it comes.
Table-ized A.I.
If they weren't gonadally driven toward government reduction, they could have a Department of Science to adjust their textbooks, &c. so that inconvenient "theories" could be properly deprecated in all policy decisions.
Now they just have to wing it, as usual.
They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
Any Android Phone should be fine, as long as you take out the battery and fill the charging port with superglue.
Never shake hands with a man you meet in a fertility clinic.
Indeed. My town was hit by a tsunami in 1946. They rebuilt. It was hit by another in 1960, they got a clue, and there are now beautiful parks along the ocean where there used to be a neighborhood. I'm just a few minutes' walk from the area that was inundated, and although my house is up a rise and no tsunami has yet come close to it since it was built in 1938, at 1km inland and 13m above sea level, it's still within the "inundation zone" defined by Civil Defense, where total evacuation is enforced if a tsunami is heading for us.
Preparing for temporary sea-level rise due to a tsunami isn't all that different from preparing for permanent sea-level rise. You either build far enough inland that you're at least 1km from the current waterline and 15m up (my house could be oceanfront in a century by worst-case models) or you elevate your structure significantly. Lots of houses near the ocean here are up on stilts, which would help them at least in the case of a small tsunami, but probably not in a big one or permanent sea-level rise.
Village idiot in some extremely smart villages.
Easy solution... the Bible says the whole world was once flooded. There's your historical data. :-)
The the Republican's argue that the Bible is not historically accurate
Bwhahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!
Lets see what the temperatures were like in the 20's and 30's...
http://chartsgraphs.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/giss_anom_trend_by_decade.png
Hrmmmm.
Maybe I'm wrong, but my understanding of Sendai / Fukushima disaster is that, at the time of building, only the centennial tsunami record was available, while afterwards the continental drift theory (then in its infancy) developed enough to calculate, and predict, new water levels.
These levels, that caused the accident.
Aren't we close to such a scenario here?
(disclaimer: I'm not a new yorker, I'm in France, the country with so many nuclear plants that we voluntarily blind ourselves rather than analysing new geo data. Lucky you...)
Herve S.
[...] First of all, you seem to not understand that we cannot mandate that the world use those technologies and in fact they would not because it would give them an advantage.
Why not, it worked for ozone destroying CFCs.
More generally, it doesn't have to be a world mandate, just enough of it that the rest gives up, or joins voluntarily. In the U.S you can now find Bisphenol-A free products widely available and advertised as a benefit (particularly baby cups, bowls, etc.) because all products with that chemical have been banned in Canada. Similarly many smaller or developing countries basically just follow FDA decisions for drug approval.
For carbon emissions in particular, a "carbon tax" strategy in developed countries could be applied to imports from non-complying countries, hindering them in of European, North American, and developed Pacific economies until they comply, much like U.S based intellectual property laws have been spread to Australia (free trade requirement) and elsewhere.
Secondly, you still have the problem of excess CO2. Which requires reduction, either through additional carbon sinks in the form of forests which requires killing people off to make room for those forests, or massive carbon sequestration.
Carbon gets absorbed naturally, though slowly, by natural processes. Also transformed to less damaging forms, such as methane oxidated to carbon dioxide. And human processes - paper buried in landfill will stay there for centuries, taking carbon dioxide out of the carbon .
Also, there is room for adjustment to changes in carbon levels. It's stressful on the species involved when this change happens too quickly, and some extinctions will probably occur, but as with most environmental changes, it will also open up new areas for some species to expand into. I remember an estimate that Earth could handle CO2 levels of around 400ppm without too much problem, so we have 50 ppm of leeway (that we're using up - I don't have a citation for this, sorry, so take it for what it's worth). So atmospheric carbon doesn't require reduction so much as limitation.
So in summary, you're pretty much wrong from the very start.
Even if you weren't, your "only two options" is also not correct, there are far more responses that reasonably intelligent people (apparently not you) can come up with.
For those with an actual interest in the science of sea level rise. Try reading the "Open Discussion" paper available here
http://www.earth-syst-dynam-discuss.net/3/357/2012/esdd-3-357-2012.html
The paper is still under review so consider it a work in progress, but it at least summarizes many of the difficult issues that have to be considered to project sea level rise into the future. The study attempts to assign uncertainties to the predictions as well. The global sea level rise projected has a median value of ~1m but the error bars are large globally (+-~0.5m) and over specific regions.
Take home point is that, based on a combination of physics and empiricism it is not unreasonable to conjecture that sea level rise globally (and in the NC) region might be approximately 1m. It might also be 0.4m (or 1.4m).
and give them zero government assistance when reality comes knocking.
The more ways society can construct for deniers to be separated out from the general population so they can be selectively forced to suffer the consequences of their decisions, the better.
The real problem with flood insurance comes in several parts:
1) Flood damage isn't covered by normal insurance. Ever.
2) You cannot buy flood insurance unless you live on a flood plain.
3) You do not live on a flood plain until it has been shown to flood.
4) If you live on a flood plain, you are *required* to buy flood insurance.
So, if your house is in an area that's never flooded before, you can't buy flood insurance. If your property floods, the resulting damage will not be covered by your insurance, regardless the level of destruction. Then, in addition to having no home (but still having a mortgage for it), you need to replace your home out of pocket, and *also* buy flood insurance for the new property.