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.

9 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 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!

    2. 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!

  2. 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?"
  3. 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.

  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.)

  7. 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?