Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Water

Countries Are Preparing for Rising Seas But the U.S. Is Far Behind

By Orrin Pilkey and Rob Young, Island Press. Posted October 7, 2009.


By 2100, a projected sea level rise of up to seven feet will have tremendous impact around the world.
therisingsea
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

From The Rising Sea by Orrin H. Pilkey and Rob Young, Copyright © 2009 Orrin H. Pilkey and Rob Young. Reproduced by permission of Island Press, Washington, D.C.

Sounding Retreat

’Round the World

All around the globe, there is growing awareness of coming sea level rise. To date, the United States appears to be behind in what are still very preliminary efforts of many other countries. In 2008, the EPA released an important document intended to set the stage for the nation’s response to sea level rise, but the stated goal of the report was to add to the nation’s prosperity while responding to sea level rise. Maintaining prosperity may be desirable, but you can’t have your cake and eat it too. A report with such conflicting goals cannot be taken seriously. Response to a major sea level rise will, of course, involve economic sacrifice on the part of property owners, government, and society as a whole even though jobs will be created in building relocation and other industries.

Initial major sea-level-rise impacts on U.S. development will likely occur along our barrier island coasts. Eventually, urban problems, especially stormwater and wastewater disposal, will begin to take precedence over preservation of beach communities. When our main population centers are truly threatened, and we begin to build dikes and move ports and other infrastructure, small beachfront communities are likely to become declining public priorities. The end result, decades from now, but certainly in this century, will be abandonment of many island tourist communities and, unfortunately, massive seawalling of others.

Today in the United States, action on sea level rise occurs in scattered pockets on a mostly local scale. In Olympia, Washington, a controversy erupted over the siting of the new city hall. Detractors argued the planned site was on low-elevation land built out into Puget Sound and was sure to be inundated within a few decades. A new site at higher elevation was chosen. In Santa Barbara, California, a citizens group proposed to paint a blue line around the city at the 23-foot (7 m) elevation contour to show a worst-case scenario of sea level rise (melting of the Greenland ice sheet). The voters threw it out. Joseph Riley, the mayor of Charleston, South Carolina, said that replacement and upgrading of the city’s stormwater drainage system was a necessity because of rising sea levels.

Florida takes the prize for being the least prepared of all, especially given its extreme vulnerability. The state effectively has no building setback-from-the-shoreline requirement, and yet it is bound to experience numerous powerful hurricanes in coming decades, storms that will have been intensified by global warming, and it has hundreds of miles of high-rise-lined beaches. When insurance companies backed away from insuring coastal property in 2006, the state, instead of taking advantage of the opportunity to slow down hazardous development, simply decided to take over the financial obligation—in spite of the fact that a couple of hurricanes in succession could wipe out the state’s treasury. In early 2009, State Farm Insurance decided to pull out entirely from insuring property in Florida after state regulators denied a request for a rate increase. At a time when sea level rise should be a part of every coastal management program, Florida seawalls are growing by the day. The cost of beach nourishment in the state is skyrocketing, as is the number of people at risk from future storms.

Coastal engineers in the state blame most of Florida’s coastal erosion on coastal engineering activities that interrupt sand transport along beaches rather than on sea level rise. In addition, coastal engineering consulting companies make their living from beach nourishment projects. Why would they ever want to advocate for relocation of buildings? Meanwhile, coastal high-rise construction continues, even though, in a purely geometric sense (because it is so low and flat), Florida is the most endangered state in the nation from sea level rise and Miami the most endangered major city.

Lighthouses, the sentinels of the sea, have a long history of falling into the ocean due to shoreline retreat. Located, as they are, as close to the sea as possible, they are global symbols of the destruction ahead for our society as we face a future of rising seas.

The Eddystone light in Plymouth, United Kingdom, famous in song and legend, went through five iterations between 1696 and 1882 when the current version was built. Each successive lighthouse was destroyed by storm or fire. When the Great Storm of 1703 took out the first lighthouse, its overconfident designer, Henry Winstanley, a famous architect of the time, was inside making repairs. He was never seen again.

Among the U.S. victims of the sea and shoreline retreat are Ponce de Leon Lighthouse, Florida, lost in 1835; successive lighthouses on Sandy Point, Block Island, Rhode Island, in the 1830s and 1840s; Chatham, Massachusetts, twin towers, 1879 and 1888; Cape Henlopen Light in Delaware in 1926; and Tucker Beach Lighthouse, Long Beach Island, New Jersey, 1927. Cape May, New Jersey, is now on lighthouse number three, and perhaps most startling of all is the Morris Island, South Carolina, lighthouse, still standing tall and surrounded by the ocean, 1,600 feet ( 500 m) offshore.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: climate change, sea level rise, sea level, shoreline

Orrin H. Pilkey is emeritus in the Nicholas School of the Environment at Duke University, author of The Corps and the Shore, and editor of the twenty-volume series Living with the Shore.

Rob Young is the director of the Program for the Study of Developed Shorelines and professor of geosciences at Western Carolina University.

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


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Some things are not too bright.
Posted by: Libsrule on Oct 9, 2009 4:01 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am writing only about the proposed blue line that would have shown where the water was projected to rise. The problem was the cost at a time when SB is like other cities experiencing money problems.

Even those who most back doing something about GCC, felt the cost would have been better spent on doing something else.

BUT until something really happens, nothing is going to be done. We can't see it...therefore it doesn't exist.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It is not too late
Posted by: cplot on Oct 12, 2009 1:26 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
More than simply restricting beachfront development, we need to urgently respond to global warming so that the sea level rise never occurs. It is not too late. We can eliminate the vast majority of greenhouse gas emissions within a decade. Read “2020 Vision: A strategic response to the urgent crisis of climate change” to find out how.

After all, if Florida drew a line for the 23 foot rise representing the loss of the Greenland ice-shelf where would it go? Near the border with Georgia? What should Florida do? Stop building entirely? If anything we should try to direct construction financing toward higher ground as an insurance policy, but I don't think it makes sense to relocate or redevelop communities into nearby areas that might also be insufficiently elevated above our future sea level.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Sea level wipe out
Posted by: colinsyme on Oct 12, 2009 4:42 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
l suspect that the reality will be that the poor will be made homeless and destitute with the wealthy in receipt of generous compensation via their legal teams who will find blame somewhere.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What happened to global warming? - BBC
Posted by: tony_opmoc on Oct 12, 2009 6:56 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
» Typical denialist remark Posted by: Unumnunum
Mess with Mother Nature
Posted by: willymack on Oct 12, 2009 10:56 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
An' yer ass is grassed.
It probably IS too late to prevent future disasterous flooding, but that doesn't mean we should be spending precious time and resources looking for more oil, coal or natural gas to burn. Burning this stuff IS the problem, and definitely NOT part of any solution.
We SHOULD be going all out in seeking new technologies aimed at ending the Age of Combustion, but face resistence from ruthless and determined criminals who couldn't care less about anyone but themselves.
They're CRAZY, folks. It's that simple.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Bye bye NO
Posted by: LeaderofMen on Oct 12, 2009 3:02 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yep, New Orleans will disappear, the Gulf will eventually end up way inland up the Mississippi, the coastline of TX will change dramatically and FL will be mostly underwater. The bay at Mobile will be way different. The casinos in MS? Buh-bye.

Guess what. Red states all. No surprises there. Denial is a bee-yaatch.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Bye bye NO Posted by: countingdaisies
I used to have a crazy cousin...
Posted by: Prinzowhales on Oct 12, 2009 7:43 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...who was the devotee of some preacher who favoured a message of hell fire and destruction. She once called me up and told me about all the trials and tribulations that were waiting for us in coastal Georgia...flooding was, of course, prominent on her menu of dire entres.

Now, in the 21st century we've ditched the hell fire and god-inspired mischiefs...but the preacher-man psychology behind them has not been forgotten or neglected--at least not by the sisters and brothers of the fervored brow who cherry pick scientific prognostications with the same wild abandon of the old preacher man to sell a message of fear if you do not give your heart and soul to the beady-eyed prophets of doom.

Will cities go under the waves? Of course they will! They have been for millenia. Do you think you're going to stop it?...You and King Canute...Is it worth it? No. I've seen hundreds of millions of dollars thrown into the ocean in Maryland and North Carolina to protect a few businesses and condos...hotels and the like. Hell with 'em....there is a price to be paid for living on the edge of the ocean...don't ask us to move heaven and earth to change the way of things...let's just go with the flow...who knows...the damned beady-eyed scientists might change their minds again...like they did when they moved from global cooling in the Seventies, to global warming in the 21st century...there used to be a land bridge to Sri Lanka...Wouldn't it be funny if the mafiosi of Atlantic City prepared for high water and in 2100 tourists had to walk a mile to the beach? And, lets not forget the wierdness of those ports high up in the mountains of South America...surfs not going to be up there for a long, long time.

Lets worry about some clown in Washington... like O'bomb'em...starting another mindless war and ruining the days and lives of more people. That's something we can do something about whether the water rises...or not.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Climatologists evidence is too thin and too selective.
Posted by: Dickinseattl on Oct 12, 2009 8:06 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The problem with this issue is that it is entirely politicized. The majority of the monied interests here promote "Global Warming" (not "Change"), the U.N. is now leading the charge, and there is complete hostility to differing views from credible scientests. There is also a decided bias in their peer review organization preventing an honest dialog, and the public debate is decidedly emotional and personal, as one might expect from the extreme politics of the day, not science. Worse still, the Global Change/Warming scientests have been caught committing scientific fraud. (Some of the lesser "deniers" are no doubt guilty of the same.)
My concern in this non-scientific subjective debate is that in our haste to do the right thing (35 years ago it was Global Cooling and the coming Ice Age) we have lost our science to extremists and opportunists. Further there are obvious and credible flaws in many of the Climatologists arguments, not to mention factual flaws.
The fact is, our sense of time and space is vastly different than what we deal with in terms of Earth time or Sun time. The difference is so great as to be incomprehensible. But Geologists know that the record shows repeated 100,000 (+/- 10,000) patterns of similar and drastic temperature changes for at least the last 800,000 years. We also know the record shows heat driving the CO2 increases, with none of this related to anthropogenic impacts. Astrophysicists will tell you that the Sun is the all powerful driving force in our Solar system and we know too little about it and its various short and long term cycles. Little is mentioned of this by the anthropogenic caused climate change advocates even though we know enough about it's cycles to relate it and the Earths orbits directly to these cycles of Earth climate changes. We need to realize that this is bigger than us and the best we can do is try to learn more with honest debate and research. Sadly, that is not the primary agenda here for the proponents of this theory of anthropogenic driven climate.
I presume we are all aware that the 24th Sunspot cycle is off by several years? The last time this happened we had something called the Little Ice Age. I see winter has set in early this year. More protests in the snow?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement