Oh my! Climate change threatens to cause 'trillions' in damage to world's coastal regions

From the University of Southampton  and the department of potential assorted threats and sundries, comes this claim.

Aerial views during an Army search and rescue mission show damage from Hurricane Sandy to the New Jersey coast, Oct. 30, 2012

New research predicts that coastal regions may face massive increases in damages from storm surge flooding over the course of the 21st century.

Yes, and a asteroid could hit us, and some errant jihadist might get a nuke and set it off. I worry about those things more than I worry about coastlines and the affluent who build there, especially since Global Tropical Cyclone activity is at 33-year lows.

According to the study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, global average storm surge damages could increase from about $10-$40 billion per year today to up to $100,000 billion per year by the end of century, if no adaptation action is taken.

The study, led by the Berlin-based think-tank Global Climate Forum (GCF) and involving the University of Southampton, presents, for the first time, comprehensive global simulation results on future flood damages to buildings and infrastructure in coastal flood plains. Drastic increases in these damages are expected due to both rising sea levels and population and economic growth in the coastal zone. Asia and Africa may be particularly hard hit because of their rapidly growing coastal mega-cities, such as Shanghai, Manila and Lagos.

“If we ignore this problem, the consequences will be dramatic,” explains Jochen Hinkel from GCF and the study’s lead author. In 2100, up to 600 million people (around 5 per cent of the global population) could be affected by coastal flooding if no adaptation measures are put in place.

“Countries need to take action and invest in coastal protection measures, such as building or raising dikes, amongst other options,” urges Hinkel. With such protection measures, the projected damages could be reduced to below $80 billion per year during the 21st century. The researchers found that an investment level of $10 to $70 billion per year could achieve such a reduction. Prompt action is needed most in Asia and Africa where, today, large parts of the coastal population are already affected by storm surge flooding.

However, investment must also occur in Europe as shown by the recent coastal floods in South West England. Professor Robert Nicholls from the University of Southampton, who is a co-author of the paper, says: “If we ignore sea-level rise, flood damages will progressively rise and presently good defences will be degraded and ultimately overwhelmed. Hence we must start to adapt now, be that planning higher defences, flood proofing buildings and strategically planning coastal land use.”

Meeting the challenge of adapting to rising sea levels will not be easy, explains Hinkel: “Poor countries and heavily impacted small-island states are not able to make the necessary investments alone, they need international support.” Adding to the challenge, international finance mechanisms have thus far proved sluggish in mobilising funds for adapting to climate change, as the debate on adaptation funding at the recent climate conference in Warsaw once again confirmed.

“If we do not reduce greenhouse gases swiftly and substantially, some regions will have to seriously consider relocating significant numbers of people in the longer run,” adds Hinkel. Yet regardless of how much sea-level rise climate change brings, the researchers say careful long-term strategic planning can ensure that development in high-risk flood zones is appropriately designed or avoided. Professor Nicholls says: “This long-term perspective is however a challenge to bring about, as coastal development tends to be dominated by short-term interests of, for example, real-estate and tourism companies, which prefer to build directly at the waterfront with little thought about the future.”

###
Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
0 0 votes
Article Rating
98 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
jl
February 4, 2014 5:40 pm

“10 to 40 billion today up to 100 billion by the end of the century.” Interesting for what it doesn’t say. How much of that monetary increase is from inflation?- things will just cost more 85 years from now. And how much is from more people living in those areas?

Gail Combs
February 4, 2014 5:46 pm
Rud Istvan
February 4, 2014 5:52 pm

Princess Bride, Inigo Montoya:
I don’t think it means what you think it means…
En Garde!!

Gail Combs
February 4, 2014 5:53 pm

Adrenal Exhaustion is setting in among the sheeple.

February 4, 2014 5:57 pm

ilma630 says at 5:24 pm
Flew into SFO yesterday and noticed that the San Mateo bridge is mostly a causeway at just above sea level. If the US gov’t or CA state were that worried about sea level rise, they would be raising it up well above sea level.
————– ————————- ———————– ———–
There’s so much stuff like that, things just barely above sea level and the owner or governments aren’t the least bit concerned. And what about the Malibu Colonies and celebrity mansions? There’s been no rise in front of their estates in at least four decades. The beach is just the same as it ever was. And what about Al Gore’s Montecito (CA) seaside mansion he bought in 2009? Is he even slightly concerned? He doesn’t seem to be.
I can feel it: over the next several decades to come there’s going to be no sea level rise. None. And that’s the main aspect of the doomers’ scare mongering. And here’s a video where Nils-Axel Morner shows, with a tree in the Maldives, that there has in fact been zero, or even negative, sea level rise in the last 5 decades:

Editor
February 4, 2014 6:24 pm

Yet regardless of how much sea-level rise climate change brings, the researchers say careful long-term strategic planning can ensure that development in high-risk flood zones is appropriately designed or avoided.“. Well, that tells you how much to spend on cutting CO2 emissions. Zero. Now, about the long term planning: how about we leave that to the people doing the development – (a) private or (b) elected or (c) dictating – if they get it right everyone wins, if they get it wrong then (a) they lose or (b) they get thrown out or (c) the public loses. Conclusion : avoid dictatorships.

troe
February 4, 2014 6:25 pm

What a load of baloney. A long rant and nothing more. Meanwhile here in the US the climate zombies are threatening ugliness if the Keystone pipeline is approved.
Radicalization could have some very positive benefits for society. Get the nuttiness into plain view where it can be observed by the public. They are civilized as long as the process is going their way. Now we may come to the heart of the matter.

Mike Tremblay
February 4, 2014 6:31 pm

“If we ignore this problem, the consequences will be dramatic,” explains Jochen Hinkel from GCF and the study’s lead author.
People have been ignoring the problem of settling in flood areas since they first found that crops grow better in fertile river valleys.
Does Herr Hinkel also realize that if we continue to ignore the widespread poverty and hunger that this environmentalist obsession with the climate is causing that there will be even more dire consequences much sooner than the next century?
“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” – George Santayana

ossqss
February 4, 2014 6:35 pm

Ummmm, did I miss any reference to susidence and or building in flood plains or landfill construction on the water?
What percentage of the population lives near the water (any water) globally. Is it really 80%.
Perhaps I dont see how one can complain when most water threats are really an elective choice made by those who made that choice in the first place.
Just sayin……….
Ignorance and greed is no excuse.

Quinx
February 4, 2014 6:43 pm

Nothing in Africa is worth $10 billion.

Fabi
February 4, 2014 6:47 pm

One hundred trillion dollars? That’s a lot of money – we had better take this seriously!
/sarc
Is there a metric for ‘scare dollars’? This is getting out of hand. Soon it will exceed the value of all known and future wealth.

Almah Geddon
February 4, 2014 6:58 pm

Professor Nicholls says: “This long-term perspective is however a challenge to bring about, as coastal development tends to be dominated by short-term interests of, for example, real-estate and tourism companies, which prefer to build directly at the waterfront with little thought about the future.”
Maybe the Dutch should have done a multi-century modelling exercise on sea-level impacts before founding New Amsterdam in the 1620’s. Maybe all our ancestors should have done this, world-wide, but then again, port cities tended to be close to the ocean.

Steve from Rockwood
February 4, 2014 7:06 pm

At some point in the distant future someone deciphering our ancient English will mistranslate asteroid epidemic for hemorrhoid epidemic and a new search will begin.

Steve from Rockwood
February 4, 2014 7:11 pm

And how do you invest money to reduce greenhouse gases anyway…

February 4, 2014 7:20 pm

Eric Simpson says:
February 4, 2014 at 5:57 pm
I can guarantee you that if you take a mal dive YOU will be sinking. Be careful out there.

February 4, 2014 7:38 pm

Some good references.

Jeef
February 4, 2014 7:48 pm

But imagine all that extra land once the seas boil off…/sarc

Chad Wozniak
February 4, 2014 8:07 pm


Here’s how people are really getting rich from global warming;
1. Global warming scare leads governments to demand development of “renewable” energy.
2. To cover the excessive cost of that “renewable energy,” so that “investors” in it can make a profit, electric rates are raised (doubled here in California, as a direct response to the renewables mandate) and big taxpayer subsidies for it are provided.
3. Low- and middle -income people pay those higher rates, so that billionaire “investors” (translate: scam artists) can get richer.
A perfect case of wealth redistribution: from poorer to richer.
Why does anyone think some (not all – a few do have scruples and/or know better) wealthy “investors” support renewable energy? There’s your answer – another opportunity to rip off ordinary folk.

Martin C
February 4, 2014 8:08 pm

OK, just posting that I wrote Prof. Nichols with the below in an e-mail to him ( it was my ‘new years resolution’ to this more, and I am beginning to . . )
We are TIRED of the GLOBAL WARMNG/CLIMATE CHANGE GARBAGE ! ! ! ! ! that supposed ‘academics’ like you are trying to peddle on the world. Referece your shameless article: http://www.southampton.ac.uk/mediacentre/news/2014/feb/14_19.shtml
I don’t buy any of this garbage, and you need to know your article was posted on Anthony Watts’ site :
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/04/oh-my-climate-change-threatens-to-cause-trillions-in-damage-to-worlds-coastal-regions/#more-102669
I have followed the ‘global warming’ movement since the 2007 IPCC report, and I am tired of the ‘alarmism’.
I am writing to you to ask you to PLEASE STOP THIS DRIVEL .
I know that sea leve rise IS NOT ACCELERATING per the University of Colorado website:
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/
There are a LARGE number of people in the WORLD that are tired of this. I have no idea if more people than me are letting you know this, but is is true.
I can only assume that some ‘funding’ you may have been promised is the reason for your PATHETIC paper.
Please prove me wrong, and reply to me. Tell me WHY your really think people are at risk. OH, please don’t use the excuse , ” . .because people are building near the shore line . .”: NO, BASE IT ON YOUR ‘SEAL LEVEL RISE ‘ comment in your article, and PROVE TO ME THAT ‘GREENHOUSE GAS emissions ( that is, CO2 primarily ) are causing SEA LEVELS to rise.
I eagerly await your SCIENTIFIC BASIS for this.
Martin C
USA
Mechanical/Aeronautical Engineer, 1982.

Bob Shapiro
February 4, 2014 8:11 pm

“From $10 – 40 Billion to $100 Billion…”
I think these guys are waaay understating the case. That’s only a 2.5 to 10 times increase. Based on the last 86 years, the Dollar should lose more value than that by 2100… maybe even another 30 times. If they’re right, then in real Dollars, such catastrophic losses are due to decrease.

James at 48
February 4, 2014 8:36 pm

And in other “news”:
O … M … G! Glacier QUADRUPLES speed!

February 4, 2014 8:41 pm

For Gail – something a little more upscale: http://www.overwater-bungalows.com/main.php
Doesn’t look like this group and dozens more like them are too worried. Course they can jack them up an inch or so every few years and no one will notice … 🙂

True Conservative
February 4, 2014 8:49 pm

“prefer to build directly at the waterfront with little thought about the future” … you mean like AlBore?

CNC
February 4, 2014 9:14 pm

It is amazing how short peoples memories are. Sandy is always to be brought up as a an example of more server storms do to global warming but there were many stronger and more destructive storms in the past, always ignored. For the New Jersey shore the 1962 Ash Wednesday storm is a perfect example. Compare the picture of the Jersey shore at the beginning of this article to some picture of the 1962 storm and decide which is worse.
http://www.lbiviews.com/about/history/march-1962-storm.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ash_Wednesday_Storm_of_1962
You build a house on a big sand bar an this is what happen every 50 years or so.

February 4, 2014 9:22 pm

Where and by whom have these clowns got their basic mathematic education? That they forgotten all doesn’t make their case stronger.