Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Vancouver Considers Abandoning Parts of the Coast Because of Climate Change

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

driven writes:

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This discussion has been archived.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.
Vancouver Considers Abandoning Parts of the Coast Because of Climate Change | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 47 comments | Search Discussion
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: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 27 2016, @11:04PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 27 2016, @11:04PM (#433802)

    That works out to a mean of $1.75 million. Wealthy folks, in other words. Do they need to be protected?

  • (Score: 2) by Username on Sunday November 27 2016, @11:09PM

    by Username (4557) on Sunday November 27 2016, @11:09PM (#433804)

    But will they be worth 1.75m in 100 years?

  • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 27 2016, @11:19PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 27 2016, @11:19PM (#433812)

    That works out to a mean of $1.75 million. Wealthy folks, in other words. Do they need to be protected?

    They are protecting the insurance companies that will end up paying tens of (or hundreds of) billions of Canadian dollars several decades from now. It's cheaper to start it now, even if it takes several decades to utilize Canada's version of eminent domain.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 28 2016, @01:12AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 28 2016, @01:12AM (#433855)

      You think insurance companies will pay out for this? lmao.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 28 2016, @09:45AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 28 2016, @09:45AM (#433965)

        No, I think insurance companies will end up paying if homes, buildings, infrastructure, etc, etc still exists in these locations and the sea swallows them up.

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

          by TheRaven (270) on Monday November 28 2016, @12:28PM (#433999) Journal
          I think those insurance premiums are going to get higher each year until the insurance companies have made enough money that they can happily pay out and still make a lot of money. Of course, they won't pay out because the premiums will hit the point a few years before they'd need to pay out where rational people would notice that it's cheaper to write off the cost of the house than keep paying the premiums.
          --
          sudo mod me up

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 28 2016, @07:46PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 28 2016, @07:46PM (#434175)

            If Canadia is anything like America then insurance on the buildings, roads, infrastructure, etc will be mandated by law.

  • (Score: 3, Informative) by j-beda on Sunday November 27 2016, @11:42PM

    by j-beda (6342) on Sunday November 27 2016, @11:42PM (#433826) Homepage

    That works out to a mean of $1.75 million. Wealthy folks, in other words. Do they need to be protected?

    Probably Canadian dollars, so more like $1.3 USD if that helps for any sort of comparison. And according to the Globe and Mail, the average price in Greater Vancouver for detached houses sold in June of 2016 was $1.77-million (Canadian).

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/real-estate/record-house-prices-in-vancouver-toronto-reclassifying-luxury/article30775246/ [theglobeandmail.com]

    So, these prices are a bit less than the average selling prices in the region. To the extent that any homeowner is, I suppose these are "wealhty folks".

    Yeah, Vancouver real estate is crazy.

    • (Score: 0, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 28 2016, @12:13AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 28 2016, @12:13AM (#433835)

      It's the other way round, C$1 is worth US$0.74 and US$1 is worth C$1.35.

      • (Score: 1) by j-beda on Monday November 28 2016, @03:19PM

        by j-beda (6342) on Monday November 28 2016, @03:19PM (#434060) Homepage

        It's the other way round, C$1 is worth US$0.74 and US$1 is worth C$1.35.

        I think that is what I said. C$1.75 is about US$1.3.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 28 2016, @08:34AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 28 2016, @08:34AM (#433945)

    In Vancouver BC a $1.7CAD house is a dump.