Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

NC Planners May Be Barred From Using Speculative Sea Level Rise Predictions

Posted by timothy on from the individual-frames-can-imply-motion dept.

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.

34 of 419 comments (clear)

  1. Hard to insure by utoddl · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Hard to insure by berashith · · Score: 3, Insightful

      well, insurance on the coast in Florida generally costs as much as the house. There is a very good reason for this.

    2. Re:Hard to insure by turbidostato · · Score: 5, Funny

      "I suspect that the law is currently that the insurance companies are only ALLOWED to consider historical flood data when formulating their rates."

      Which demonstrates (again) how stupid politicians can be. They should just pass a law forbidding the sea level to rise above 5 inches and done with it!

    3. Re:Hard to insure by Genda · · Score: 5, Informative

      Clearly the folks scoffing not only didn't read the article, but are using poor information. When scientists originally predicted a 59cm rise in sea level by end of century, they were surprised and dismayed to find that the "Actual Rise" was significantly greater than expected and then were forced to revise the prediction to a meter. This is still a very conservative prediction. There is significant probability that the rise will be greater, perhaps significantly. This is particularly significant because when you add that meter to the substantial increase of serious storm surge from more frequent category 4 and 5 hurricanes (another gift from climate change), you have a significant coastal region which is going to be impacted in a number of really unhappy ways. To not use the information in hand to make intelligent plans based on best available information is tantamount to religious fanaticism, whether the religion is Gawd base or more Ideology centered. The smart money is on folks building floating homes on the N.C. Coast. Happy sailing!

    4. Re:Hard to insure by Genda · · Score: 4, Informative
      You sir are a wise man. Here in California, we used to have a 5 mile wide "No Build Corridor" near the San Andreas fault in San Bernadino. No problem, it was sparsely inhabited dessert. As more and more folks moved out to what they call the "Inland Empire", the size of that corridor kept shrinking, cuz the real estate folks were howling to the State Gubernment that the laws were taking the very bread out of their chillens mouths. California has a very powerful Real Estate lobby (which can tell by the fact that 98% of our state's estuaries have been turned into marinas, waste treatment plants, or landfill, all for and because of Real Estate agents.) Soon they were putting mobile homes within a 100 yards, because heck their mobile homes right, who cares if they move a little... their mobile. Today, you can travel out to San Bernadino and go to the eastern edge of town and if you look real close at the diagonal line running from top left to bottom right of the Google map, you can see the meeting of the Pacific and North American plates. You can also see the fault has been littered with housing developments. Because who should be denied the breathtaking adventure of seeing their home split down the middle and travel in 2 different directions at 60 mph!

      People are stupid, and greedy, and they have a real poor memory. If you let'em they will stick their head right in the lion's mouth to see where the lamb went. That's why we pass laws to protect us from ourselves. Sadly who will protect us from the greedy buggers who buy the people who are supposed to protect us. Sigh!

  2. Insurance? by Lester67 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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".

    1. Re:Insurance? by i+kan+reed · · Score: 3, Interesting

      No, using poorly thought out limitations on what governments can do is rule of law. Using poorly thought out laws to limit what corporations can do is destroying freedom.

      I honestly could not formulate that statement in a way that I feel no republicans would agree with.

    2. Re:Insurance? by UnknowingFool · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It was so long ago that the Republicans had this philosophy of less government--wait that's still their current stance but only on certain things like business, oil, the environment. For things like science and gay rights, it's their purview to interfere as much as possible.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    3. Re:Insurance? by Alomex · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Remember, it isn't socialism if the money is taken to the poor and given to the rich.

      It's only "bad" when it happens the other way around. I mean, surely the poor don't need the money, since they are used to having none. The rich in contrast have amply proven their unbounded need for more money, so it is only logical that the government should strive to give them as much moolah as possible (e.g. bailouts, income tax cuts, state tax cuts, capital gains tax cuts, oil exploration subsidies, free land for mining within federal parks, etc.)

    4. Re:Insurance? by diodeus · · Score: 3, Funny

      PI = 3

    5. Re:Insurance? by anwaya · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Using poorly thought out laws to limit what corporations can do is destroying freedom.

      Do you think that corporations should be free to aggregate as much power over individuals as they possibly can, as they will if unregulated? Because that's an excellent way to maximise shareholder return on investment. Or is it possible that the problems of corporate tyranny would be just as bad as the problems of tyranny by the state?

    6. Re:Insurance? by jkauzlar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      When he says 'interfere', he means 'stop it from happening.' Please stop thinking in absolutes. Funding science as a security to our country's future has often been a good thing. Problem is, it doesn't pay off right away.

    7. Re:Insurance? by fermion · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Insurance is going to drive some of the development, but some of the development and policies will be driven knowing that the federal government will subsidize bad decisions. Take for example the Texas wildfires. Rick Perry encouraged the budget to be cut for firefighters and fire prevention, loose regulations allowed structures to be built where they presumable should not have been built, and a further presumption can be made that some of those structures did not have proper insurance because it was either too expensive or not required. I can say this because I know that, for instance, not everyone in the flood plane on the Gulf Coast of texas has flood insurance. They just expect the feds to pay the rebuilding costs.

      Just like Rick Perry expected the feds to pay all the costs of the fire even though just a few months before he was saying that the state should secede. The taxes to the feds are not the problem, Texas gets most of those back, it is the Perry slush fund that allows him to reward donors. Simple fiscal incompetence. That is what tends to characterize those that don't want to invest in rational infrastructure and development, instead pushing projects based on ideology.

      Just imagine if Texas had passed a law saying in 1900 saying that only long term historical data could be used to make plans. That the hurricane could not be used and it would be illegal to based future plans on the fact that Galveston had just been destroyed. It was a one time thing. Not going to happen again. That people are just liberal fanatics who want to destroy the island economy and waste billions of dollars to build an unnecessary ship channel. Texas would not be in the good shape it is now. Fortunately people in Texas are not as crazy as most other states in the south.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    8. Re:Insurance? by interkin3tic · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It has little to do with beliefs at this point, tea partiers today are simply rooting for one side in a wrestling match. It's not that they think Triple-H has a better philosophy than The Rock Obama, they just have decided they really hate The Rock Obama.

      Unfortunately, some interested parties have used that effectively to cut their own taxes to the point that conservatives who care about the future of the country are saying they're taking it too far.

    9. Re:Insurance? by dr2chase · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "Health Care which even the moderate Republicans won't touch"

      So what does that make Romney, who actually mostly pushed for the universal health care that we have here in Massachusetts? Obamacare used to be the Republican counterproposal to Democratic single-payer (i.e., Medicare for all, or what they have in Canada) proposals.

  3. Insurance? by Kenja · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?"
  4. Engineering Standards by AB3A · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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!
    1. Re:Engineering Standards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      this is what happens when you have retards working for the senate.

    2. Re:Engineering Standards by tinkerghost · · Score: 5, Insightful
      They already have the engineering report. They don't like the results. It's inconvenient for the developers to have the water rise 1M, so they are trying to prohibit people from planning for it.

      This way, developers can make piles of cash today and soak the public for FEMA flood insurance payouts later. Oh it won't hurt that they might get to build the replacement houses too.

  5. Now that's conservative! by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 4, Insightful

    An actual law to prevent looking forward. For North Carolina Republicans, the entire world is in the rear view mirror.

    1. Re:Now that's conservative! by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I find it kinda funny that you think James Hansen (who do you think the J Hansen is, there?) is an authority to be believed when he finds negative forcings, but a total eugenic crackpot who is paid off by the EcoMafia when he finds positive forcings.

      All models are wrong. Some are more useful than others. Which ones are useful, and why? Show your work.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    2. Re:Now that's conservative! by Jeng · · Score: 4, Interesting

      There is an ice sheet nearly 3 kilometers thick sitting on Greenland, that is not floating in the water, if that one single ice sheet melted the oceans would rise by around 7 meters.

      Now imagine how much worse it would be if the the Antarctic ice sheet also melted.

      --
      Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
    3. Re:Now that's conservative! by StikyPad · · Score: 3, Funny

      So we push some glaciers into the ocean to cool it off. Problem solved!

      --
      https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
  6. They did not do enough! by marcosdumay · · Score: 3, Funny

    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
  7. Barrier Islands by HornWumpus · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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'
  8. Re:New Orleans Anyone? by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    A range of 0.2 - 2.0 is 1.1 +/- 90% or so. Not 1000%.

  9. Bad idea by skyraker · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

  10. Legislating Security by busyqth · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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...

    1. Re:Legislating Security by Penguinisto · · Score: 3, Informative

      Actually, if memory serves, they've been washing away and coming back in various places for some time now. Hurricanes wash out parts of it, and the Gulf Stream drops off more due to North Carolina's unique geology (basically, it sticks out into the current).

      The Outer Banks are pretty much a dynamic setup, and IIRC are not as cyclical or regular like, say, the removal and deposition of sand out here on the Oregon Coast (winter storms wash it away, currents drop more off come Spring, etc).

      In either case, they've not always been there, and in truth, won't always be there - well, unless climate, tectonics, ocean currents, and weather all conspired to suddenly stop changing.

      By the way: "science-based predictions" isn't enough. I'd prefer "accurate science-based predictions" before whipping out the hysteria.

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
  11. Just don't make taxpayers cover it ... by MacTO · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Just don't make taxpayers cover it ... by guises · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Just don't make the wiser folks pay for it when the disasters ultimately strike.

      This is a useless thing to say. It's nice in principle, but it will never happen. Disasters can never just be ignored, the only way to keep "the wiser folks" from paying for them is to prevent the disasters.

      If you need examples, look at the bailouts for Freddie Mac and Fanny Mae, the auto industry, and everyone else four years ago. Or look at the Mississippi floods last year for something almost exactly the same as what's happening here - the Army said, "Don't build in these areas, we may need to flood them in case of heavy rains at the wrong time." People built in those areas anyway because they were on the water and scenic and could sell for high prices. Heavy rains at the wrong time happened, result: endless whining, people blaming environmentalists and everyone else they could point their fingers at except themselves. And bailouts from FEMA.

      (Caveat: I realize that not everyone harmed by the flooding were in places where they shouldn't have been, and some of those that were had been deceived or misinformed about the possibility of floods. I'm not trying to blame the victims, just the whiners.)

  12. Since when is "around" 1/3 off... by SuperKendall · · Score: 3, Informative

    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
  13. North Carolina's new space exploration industry by Hotawa+Hawk-eye · · Score: 3, Funny

    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.

  14. Re:Misdirection is prevention too by LanMan04 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Republicans wanted this looking forward to base projections on reality, not on fantasy.

    I have a grease-fire on my stove. Based on the fact that my house has historically not been on fire, I will do nothing about said grease-fire, and will legislate that everyone ignore experts' "wild fantasy predictions" that the house may indeed burn down.

    --
    With the first link, the chain is forged.