Sea Rise Could Force Millions In Florida To Adapt Or Flee (miamiherald.com)

mdsolar writes: For the first time, a team of researchers looked at ongoing population growth in areas where the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has created flood maps that more accurately reflect local conditions. What they found was startling: projections that failed to factor in population growth in dense states like Florida hugely underestimated the number of people at risk and the cost of protecting them. Combined with the findings from a 2015 report, that means Florida can claim two titles: most property at risk, and now, most people.

Comments

Let's all start running now!

[cjonslashdot]

Yes but at a sea level rise rate of 2-4mm/year, I think that people will have time to adjust!!

Re:Let's all start running now!

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope, problem is everyone insists on living in low lying areas, they are nicer with that sea view. Common sense is that you ban new housing, make it attractive to move somewhere higher - won't happen.

So what happens is the same people insist the authorities 'protect their investments' so yoiu bankrupt yourselves building defences against rising water - which don't work. Once it's realized that's pointless - well no money left so you get lots of very poor refugees, no ability to handle that.

So sad.

Re:Let's all start running now!

[DrXym]

It's not the gradual rise that's the issue but the increased likelihood of extreme events. Events that might be considered "once in a lifetime" will happen with such frequency that insurers simply won't provide cover. People living in at-risk areas will be wiped out so often that they'll be driven to live somewhere else. It doesn't help that Florida is so flat either since it means storm surges could well travel miles inland and do damage.

Re:Let's all start running now!

[ooloorie]

Common sense is that you ban new housing, make it attractive to move somewhere higher - won't happen.

In principle, there is no need to ban such housing, we just need to stop subsidizing it. Right now, it's subsidized both through government-financed flood insurance programs, as well as through the provision emergency services. That encourages people not only to build in risky places, but also to pay for flood-proofing their homes. If people had to pay for the full cost of insurance and emergency services out of their own pockets, many people who currently build in flood zones would consider it too expensive and build somewhere else, and others would flood proof their homes instead of getting a fresh home every few decades courtesy of the tax payer. Attempts to reform the system have been repeatedly undermined. (I think the reform act was probably too heavy handed. A better and simpler choice might be to limit payouts from government subsidized flood insurance to a one time payment, both per site and per property owner.)

Re:Let's all start running now!

[Ol Olsoc]

Yes but at a sea level rise rate of 2-4mm/year, I think that people will have time to adjust!!

Well, yeah. Sortakinda. Adjusting can mean everything from moving to drowning and there ya go.

Sounds so benign, so manageable. Next thing ya know, its 2100, and the levels have risen by 3 feet (conservative) to possibly 6 feet. That is death for places like Miami.

Flooding is a regular even there now. http://www.newyorker.com/magaz...

And the right weather event, at the right time - even in the near future - will just grease the skids for it.

Now of course, its pretty easy to say "Well - they shouldn't have built there!

Problem of course, is after Miami is gone, you'll be able to say the same thing about the new lowest lying land.

Re:Let's all start running now!

[DogDude]

They are gone. They're all artificial at this point.

Re:Let's all start running now!

[Grishnakh]

We can't afford to build dikes like that; we're too busy lowering taxes for the rich and giving handouts to Wall Street.

If we can't even afford to keep our bridges from falling down, what makes you think we can afford to build a sea wall?

Re:It'll sort itself out.

[Ol Olsoc]

You had better not let the environmentalist religious wackjobs hear you saying that humans can just adapt. They'll burn you at the stake if you're not running around screaming "THE END IS NIGH!!"

Who are these people? The environmentalists I know aren't religious, and are more oriented towards mitigating the issue.

And the religious I know don't believe in global warming, sea level rise, or any of that "liberal claptrap" at all, and are actively seeking the end of the world.

And as I've had to explain to many people, adapting doesn't men that you and your family change. It means you and your family and 99 percent of everyone dies, and the rest are left to reproduce.

Re:It'll sort itself out.

[serviscope_minor]

You had better not let the environmentalist religious wackjobs hear you saying that humans can just adapt. They'll burn you at the stake if you're not running around screaming "THE END IS NIGH!!"

I know, right? Straw men are vicious and incredibly dangerous. You'd do well to avoid them because you never know what they might try to do to you!

PS, whenever I see your sig, I think of AmiMojo's sig. It fits awfully well.

Re:It'll sort itself out.

[dave420]

Want to try again? You just listed some organisations with no proof they (and all their members) are actually doing what is claimed. Sure, it's a pithy argument and looks good, but it is logically bankrupt.

Re:It'll sort itself out.

[david_thornley]

So the Sierra Club is anti-nuke? Disappointing, but hardly religious. "Horsemen of the Dirty Fuels Apocalypse" sounds more like a reference than a real religious belief. They're probably banking on the fact that most people can tell a literary reference from a religious dogma.

Greenpeace may be overestimating the fragility of the Greenland ice sheet, and is also anti-nuke, and these are supposed to be religious beliefs? The IPCC considers it extremely unlikely that the sheet will be almost totally destroyed, which is not exactly the same thing as an irreversible meltdown. The Greenpeace reference would be reasonably accurate if, by 2040, the Greenland meltdown had started and wasn't going to be stopped, because then an irreversible meltdown will have been triggered. The sentence you quote is ambiguous, since it isn't clear whether "in the coming decades" refers to the trigger or the actual meltdown.

Anti-nuke doesn't mean anti-scientific, unless we're going to go ahead and declare opinions other than mine to be anti-scientific. There are legitimate reasons to be nervous about nuclear power plants, and it's reasonable to weigh these differently than I do.