Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Sunday November 27 2016, @08:31PM   Printer-friendly
from the run-away,-run-away! dept.

According to this article, Vancouver, Canada officials have put out a report that lays out options for dealing with sea level rise. Three generic strategies evaluated are: Adapt, Protect, or Retreat, the last of which means that for some parts of the city, people might just need to "get out of the way". In that case, the city would buy up homes and remove infrastructure over a period of several decades. It's not an easy thing to ask for people to leave their homes decades before an area is flooded.

By the year 2100, 13 square kilometers of Vancouver (containing around 4,000 households worth $7 billion) will be on floodplains so action needs to be taken soon to protect them. Areas like Jericho Beach and the Fraser River are already experiencing more frequent flooding.

First, Vancouver will publicize its plans then gauge public reaction. The world will be watching.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by vux984 on Sunday November 27 2016, @10:55PM

    by vux984 (5045) on Sunday November 27 2016, @10:55PM (#433795)

    The first question which could be asked is, is this a shady Eminent domain-type seizure where the government buys beachfront property at cost, waits until the "all clear," then allows condo development on it? The second question is, what are the cost terms of the buyout? Market value? Using governmental power to force them into a buyout below market value? Using the threat of danger to drive down market value to buy at a discount? Or does this mean nothing at all, because the plans are only feelgood bullshit for climate alarmists and not likely to be implemented?

    What is the cost of a levee etc to 'protect' the land. Who will pay to build and maintain that? The people protected by the levee? Or the whole city? Province? If we assume the 'city' or 'province' is going to bear the cost of 'protecting' the area, then there is definitely a point at which relocating people makes more sense than protecting them.

    The cost model is of course extremely complex, because you are right, areas targeted for relocation will decline in value. But how can that not happen... ? People who refuse to move will eventually find themselves underwater... literally. And the properties will be worthless. And its always been the case that an engineering report can ruin a property value. This is just on a larger scale.

    Your cynical assessment of it all being a scam to transfer property to developers after the 'scare' clears people out is... an interesting take on it. But even if you think AGW is bunk, and its all natural cycles or something (despite the evidence)... Even "natural cycles" can change the coastline too. Right now the sea levels are rising. Does it really matter whether the sea rising is the result of human activity or otherwise once your house is underwater?

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Insightful=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 2) by Reziac on Monday November 28 2016, @02:55AM

    by Reziac (2489) on Monday November 28 2016, @02:55AM (#433886) Homepage

    The sea levels are rising a few centimeters per century, which is hardly an emergency. And the coastline may rise (or fall) as the land itself shifts.

    I think EtOH is dead on here.

    --
    And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
    • (Score: 4, Funny) by vux984 on Monday November 28 2016, @05:12AM

      by vux984 (5045) on Monday November 28 2016, @05:12AM (#433915)

      At risk of bringing some facts to the debate:

      http://vancouver.ca/green-vancouver/sea-level-rise.aspx [vancouver.ca]

      There is a chart showing sea level from 1950 to projected 2100.
      Now you can dispute the predictions if you like, but there was a 20 cm rise from 1950 to 2000. That makes a 40 cm rise from 1950 to 2050 a petty conservative estimate.

      "The sea levels are rising a few centimeters per century"

      Sure, if by a "few" you mean 40+

      I'm sorry that's a lot more than a 'few' in my book. Further, if you are willing to even consider that the earth is on warming trend right now (nevermind the 'why') then doing your disaster planning based on a 1m sea level rise is pretty justifiable.

      • (Score: 1, Troll) by Reziac on Monday November 28 2016, @02:07PM

        by Reziac (2489) on Monday November 28 2016, @02:07PM (#434029) Homepage

        At the risk of bringing different facts to the debate...

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LkMweOVOOI [youtube.com]
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCy_UOjEir0 [youtube.com]
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DrWznOFq38s [youtube.com]

        Lots and lots of facts and figures, with the advantage of having not been massaged to fit the narrative.

        --
        And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
        • (Score: 3, Informative) by vux984 on Monday November 28 2016, @05:00PM

          by vux984 (5045) on Monday November 28 2016, @05:00PM (#434096)

          youtube? give me a break. im not watching a video. I'm not watching any of that...and the final one features arguments by "Lord Christopher Monckton" seriously... this guy:

          In July 2011 the House of Lords took the "unprecedented step" of publishing online a cease and desist letter to Monckton from the Clerk of the Parliaments, which concluded, "I am publishing this letter on the parliamentary website so that anybody who wishes to check whether you are a Member of the House of Lords can view this official confirmation that you are not."

          That guy? So much for the "Lord".

          Monckton advocates for climate change denial He says a greenhouse effect exists, and that carbon dioxide contributes to it, but claims there is no "causative link" from CO2-concentration to global average temperature...

          He doesn't even really support your argument; because even he agrees the temperature is rising, he just doesn't think its anthrogenic. And for the purposes of planning for sealevel rise -- it doesn't MATTER if its anthropogenic or not, all that matters is that the sea level is rising.

          http://www.skepticalscience.com/sea-level-rise.htm [skepticalscience.com]

          First chart. That's not a climate change prediction. That's not up for debate. That's the sea level over the past 140 years. Better than 1.5m. In the last 20-30 years it's moving 10cm per decade. It doesn't matter whether you believe in global warming or not. Only a complete fool wouldn't do their 10-, 20- and 100- year plans for the future based on seeing that trend continue.

    • (Score: 2) by TheRaven on Monday November 28 2016, @12:25PM

      by TheRaven (270) on Monday November 28 2016, @12:25PM (#433997) Journal
      The average sea level is rising by a few centimetres per century (actually, a bit faster than that), but the shapes of tides mean that the extremes vary by a lot more. Then you add in more energy in the atmosphere, you also get higher waves, so a few centimetres of average sea level can result in faster erosion of things that were previously a few metres above the high tide point.
      --
      sudo mod me up
      • (Score: 2) by Reziac on Monday November 28 2016, @02:10PM

        by Reziac (2489) on Monday November 28 2016, @02:10PM (#434033) Homepage

        Of course they vary. And the global tidal bulge can cause variations of several feet. But this is nothing new or extreme, and has damn little to do with global warming (which in any event, is ... well, read Dr.Roy Spencer's book.)

        --
        And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.