Sea Levels Are Rising: It's Time to Decide Which Coastal Cities Are Worth Saving

By Scott Thill, AlterNet. Posted April 17, 2009.

It floated several recommendations to attack the problem head-on, including obvious remedies like limitations on coastal development and abandonment of at-risk areas, as well as more complicated ones like stopping federally subsidized insurance for regions likely to be drowned.

But first and foremost, says Cooley, is dealing with the reality of what is coming.

"We first need to ensure that all new developments integrate future sea-level rise into their designs. This should be done immediately," she said. "Communities must then conduct local analysis to determine what is at risk and what they want to protect. All stakeholders must be involved in this process.

"And by involved, I do not mean simply holding public meetings. Adapting to sea-level rise may require some difficult decisions, and it is important that the decision be made by those that will be affected."

Not that it is going to be that easy. Just explaining the problem, let alone the solutions, will be difficult.

"Communicating the risk of flooding can be challenging," Cooley said. "It is likely not something that people will understand immediately. Public education is needed to begin the process."

The public will need that education to wrap its head around a problem that has plagued other regions of the world, from Bangladesh to the Netherlands, for centuries.

Indeed, the Pacific Institute's report even considers constructing Netherlands-style seawalls and levees, at the cost of billions, although Cooley takes pains to point out that it is far from a panacea.

"Seawalls may be appropriate in some areas," she explained. "However, they do have adverse consequences. First, the footprint of the structure can result in a loss of beach. Second, seawalls fix the position of the shoreline, thereby drowning the beach in front of the structure and resulting in a loss of recreational opportunity and habitat."

But leaving behind 20th century staples like coastal development and recreation, and even some habitat, may be the right price to pay for saving California.

Whatever we decide to do with the Golden State, Cooley and crew suggests we do it quickly. There’s no time to waste, given that we've already wasted so much energy, money and atmosphere living our lives outside of the reality dictated by our natural environment.

After all, the Pacific Institute's study is but one in a long line of climate clarion calls that have gone mostly unheeded by local and national governments. Cooley hopes that is not the case with her organization's report.

"I have heard of some local agencies that are already beginning to use this information to inform their planning," she said. "The report is still fairly new, and it remains to be seen if this will become the exception or the rule. But there are risks to putting off action on sea-level rise. Continued development in vulnerable areas will put more people, infrastructure and property at risk. It will also increase the cost of protecting those areas."

In the end, California will probably be forced, like so many other territories, to literally retreat from a problem it has put off for far too long.

And while the Pacific Institute's analysis stopped short of recommending a mass migration inland, its fearsome future maps offer little other alternatives.

Like other global "envirogees" set adrift by climate crisis, Californians will have to change their concept of home, and not just those living on the coast. Once its already-terrible drought worsens and firestorms, lightning strikes and more torch its lands, California as we know it could end, replaced by something far more terrible: A ghost state.

See more stories tagged with: water, global warming, climate change, oceans, sea level rise

Scott Thill runs the online mag Morphizm. His writing has appeared on Salon, XLR8R, All Music Guide, Wired and others.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »