Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Climate professor Orrin Pilkey thinks it is wrong to rebuild after major storms – though so far coastal communities whom he has advised have not been receptive to his wisdom.
Beyond Evacuations: Climate Change May Mean Abandoning Our Coasts Forever
By Casey Williams
Sep 14 2018, 8:10amA climate scientist thinks that we aren’t taking major storms like Florence seriously enough.
Get out, and stay out. Or at least, don’t come back and build a high-rise. That’s the message Orrin Pilkey, a climate scientist and emeritus professor at Duke University, hopes Hurricane Florence will send lawmakers and coastal residents when it smashes the southeastern US this week. As climate change warms the oceans, swells the seas, and makes deadly hurricanes a fixture of American life, a massive and permanent retreat from the coasts may be the only way to protect lives and livelihoods in the long run, Pilkey says.
In his 2016 book Retreat from a Rising Sea, Pilkey, whose family’s Mississippi home was destroyed by Hurricane Camille in 1969, argues that unchecked climate change could make coastal regions uninhabitable sooner than we think. He thinks coastal communities should respond to this threat by moving away from the ocean now, before it’s too late. Pilkey takes particular aim at post-storm “urban renewal” projects—replacing modest homes with high-rises and mansions, for instance—that swell coastal populations. But even ordinary residents might have to give up the comforting dream of rebuilding after the storm.
Sooner or later, he says, coastal communities will have to choose from two bad options: hunker down beyond proliferating seawalls, or pick up stakes and move inland, forever. As Florence approached, I talked with Pilkey about his thoughts on the storm, climate change and “managed retreat.”
…
For a lot of people living on the coast, the idea of retreating—giving up their homes, their way of life—is going to be a tough pill to swallow. They’re going to swallow it sooner or later. The sooner they swallow it, the better off they’re going to be. I understand completely. When I’ve talked to people on the coast, I’ve been told to go jump in a lake, and a lot worse than that. In many of the communities on the coast, their beaches will become unstable. And if they don’t want to lose their buildings, they’re going to have to rely on a seawall. So, you’ll have a tourist community without a beach. That’s already happening. For instance, Miami Beach is considerably narrower than it was.
…
In the midst of a major flooding event like Hurricane Florence its easy to forget that living on the coast often provides protection against severe flood damage. The reason is flood water drains back into the sea far more easily if you live on the coast, than if you live inland. Coastal floods are usually very short lived, often lasting minutes rather than days, peaking at high tide.
You can usually protect a home against a brief flood, the way I once did, by covering the doors in waterproof tape and using non-setting plumber’s putty to seal any leaks we missed. Coastal houses can also be built to resist short floods, the house I protected had telescopic air vents, vents which had been deliberately set a lot higher than normal so they were less likely to become inundated by floodwater. Other houses on the same street were elevated on stilts, or set back a little from the water, to provide a buffer.
Houses further inland during that particular event were in a heap of trouble – their flood lasted days rather than minutes. Instead of their floodwater draining away back into the sea as rapidly as it had arrived, the inland floodwater was trapped in slow moving river systems. It is far more difficult to protect a house against prolonged flooding than against a brief coastal inundation.
Obviously a very large large storm surge can overturn the flood advantages of low lying coastal properties. The protective measures I describe don’t work if your near sea level house is buried under 20ft of water. But such severe storm events also affect inland properties, sometimes even worse than properties in coastal communities.
In my experience as a former and current coast dweller, blanket advice to “abandon the coasts” is nonsense.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Poor old Orrin Pilkey.
You are doomed, Orrin Pilkey.
The coast is coming to get you, Orrin Pilkey.
Like the Hound of the Baskervilles.
You can run from the coast, Orrin Pilkey, but you cannot hide.
Poor Orrin Pilkey.
Ah, the famous Ballad of Orrin Pilkey. As good and as folky as the Edmond Fitzgerald.
Fair, but let’s face it.
Orrin Pilkey is merely creating the fusion of Climate Change and SJW “safe places”, the continuing of the myth that your parents told you when “little” that they would protect you forever and ever and ever.
The truth is … WE ARE ALL GONNA DIE.
Shane Falco: Pain heals. Chicks dig scars. Glory… lasts forever.
I’m going to put this here, because Mr. Pickle’s advice is ludicrous. His ignorance is not astonishing, but a sad reminder that his ignorance affects other people.
The US Navy and the US Coast Guard both have facilities on all our coasts, as part of the national defense system. Groton , CT is the home of the submarine force. Hampton Roads, VA, is a massive Navy base which is, among other things, home to the East Coast Spec Ops groups (DEVGRU), the SEALS. They don’t just train there. They deploy to Atlantic coastal areas. The entire Atlantic coast, all the way down to the Florida Keys, has Navy/Coast Guard bases, and along the Gulf coast as well, never mind what we have located on the West Coast, PacNW at Whidby Island (subs) and on up to Alaska.
This is part and parcel of the DoD defense system. Does he WANT to be attacked by hostiles from other countries with no warning? Must I bring up the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941? Is he willing to be forced out of his home or condo or whatever at gunpoint because some rabid, US-hating invaders have done just that – invaded this country?
He is extremely ignorant and naive, to an unfortunate degree, if he thinks that the only people who live and work in coastal areas are homeowners, which is completely not true.
Seriously, some of these navel-contemplating nunches need a hard dose of reality about these things. Our outermost defense IS the coasts. He is too ignorant for words.
Not only is he ignorant but lacks any basic history. Back in the 1980s President Reagan’s Interior Secretary, James Watt proposed changes flood insurance rules, environmental standards, etc. Basically it went something like this, first no more building on lands at risk, e.g., barrier islands, flood plains, etc. Second if you got wipe out by flooding, storms, etc you had a choice, you could rebuild where you were or rebuild in a “safe(r) zone” and your land in the threat area would go/ be traded to the government. If you chose to rebuild where you had been and faced a natural disaster again, that was it, no money to rebuild and no rebuilding. Either way the land in the threat area would ultimately be protected. One would have thought that the environmentalists would have loved the idea. Yet they so hated Watt because of his western lands policy position they made fun of his proposal. Claiming it demonstrated what an idiot he was.
And nothing to do with climate change! Risk areas have been risk areas for centuries.
I had forgotten about this. Thanks for bringing it to our attention. A link or reference would be welcome so we can read source documents for these ideas.
Ecclesiastes 1:9 New International Version (NIV)
9 What has been will be again,
what has been done will be done again;
there is nothing new under the sun.
As most Leftists would say, “Don’t confuse us “hate” facts.” They:
1. Don’t want to know the truth.
2. Believe anything they don’t like is hateful.
3. Don’t understand the idiocy of their positions about truth.
Well, you make a good point that the military needs to be based on the coast, BUT you make a BIG mistake in assuming that Pilkey doesn’t acknowledge that as well. I didn’t reread THIS article, nor have I done external reading of works by Pilkey, so I don’t know if this is covered by them.
“He is too ignorant for words.” – look in a mirror before making such a proclamation. I will do the research and come back if I need to, to apologize for criticizing you.
While I advocate a partial abandoning of danger zones, I agree that there are certain things that need to remain.
I believe that there is no longer a need for workers to live walking distance from water-based businesses such as fishing, shipbuilding, cruise operations, cargo hauling and defense operations. In most situations living a short drive from the water would greatly reduce the danger to life an property from hurricanes and not significantly impact the workers. And, it is entirely possible that allowing nature to reclaim certain coastal features would reduce the danger further.
Coastal vacation homes could still be built and used, but the cost burden should be shifted away from ALL taxpayers to those who directly benefit. I don’t buy the “economic benefit” arguments that government employees (who directly benefit through “bribes”) give for taxing ALL taxpayers to benefit tourist industries. I’ve been involved in this sort of economic development and the numbers are generally greatly inflated. If there really is such a great benefit, then let the businesses that cater to tourist benefit through lower taxes for ALL taxpayers.
This reply is written AFTER Florence made landfall in Wrightsville Beach. We had hoped to vacation there next year. That probably won’t happen now. I’ve driven through that area and understand it is a “typical” American neighborhood with businesses, houses and other residential properties.
Do I advocate abandoning it completely? No. But neither do I want to be taxed for it to be rebuilt without consideration of the dangers.
What should be done? I don’t know. I just want the PEOPLE to be responsible for THEIR own choices, NOT the government. And the PEOPLE need to be responsible for the consequences.
Pilkey’s picture should be used as the
definition of “dingbat” in the dictionary.
A dementia test is recommended.
While there are a few places that regularly flood, some property that gets minorly damaged every thirty years is not an unreasonable bet. And in some places, such as New York City, the costs of inflatable storm barriers is much less than the value of the property protected.
BY the logic of this dufus “professor”, the entire state of California ought to be abandoned.
Why even wait for the next big Earthquake…evacuate NOW!
Only if we can quarantine the Californians to prevent them from turning other states into socialist hellholes.
A large challenging issue.
AGW is trying here in Colorado. I suppose the politicians are following the moonbeams that left because California was working out so well.
One other note, Pikey looks like he is in need of his meds. I’ve seen that look before. They don’t let you wander freely around.
Let’s just send them all to states such as New York, Massachusetts or Connecticut that have already fallen down the rabbit hole.
Amen
Oh God No! If California is evacuated some of the evacuees will end up in Texas. We have more than our fair share of Californicators here already.
No federal flood insurance in 100 year floodplains. Problem fixed.
Some of the flood plains that were under 15 feet of water during Agnes in 1972 have mysteriously been removed from the list of floodplain areas. Problem unsolved.
If you live on the coast and want to continue to live on the coast then if your home is washed out to sea, or damaged beyond repair, then you get to rebuild and at your own expense. The taxpayer is not on the hook for one single dime.
+100 !
Or along any inland river that may flood. Lots of flooding in “Coastal” Wisconsin last week.
Let’s not leave out those who live on fault lines, in tornado alley, or areas subject to extensive forest fires, mudslides, or river flooding. ,
one should assess risk where ever one lives and act as their conscience moves them, just don’t whine to others when you have a problem.
@oldwhiteguy: I agree with you. I would add a further covenant to that. You only get to rebuild once. Subsequent destruction results in condemnation of property with reasonable compensation for the property (based on current assessed value) Changes in building codes will help enforcing this.
you pay the compensation, right?
or do you propose to steal somebody else’s money to redistribute?
Where will all the other famous climate scientists and climate activists live if they have to evacuate their beachfront homes ?
I remember a few years ago after the latest heavy rain/fire/rain/mudslide sequence when folks in Laguna Canyon. TV news was interviewing folks who had lost their homes in the slides. One guys was saying this was the third time he had lost everything on that site. It was so discouraging, such a disaster. what was he to do.
The third time.
He built a new home on the same site.
Well, call me insensitive, but you can’t fix stupid you can only kill it. I grew up in Southern California, East LA actually, and remember movie star homes falling into the Pacific off the cliffs of Malibu. It was hard for me to boo hoo over it.
I don’t care if they use THEIR own money to build. I DO care if they want me to subsidize them and if they ENDANGER the lives of others (first responders, the people around them) because they build in dangerous locations.
We shopped for homes in San Clemente around 1998. We were shown homes that were precariously perched on hillsides. We did NOT buy any of those despite expansive Pacific Ocean views. And we didn’t end up as a “if it bleeds, it leads” headline.
My reading list in college included the seminal Design with Nature by Ian McHarg 1971
https://www.amazon.com/Design-Nature-Ian-L-McHarg/dp/0385055099/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1536964084&sr=8-2&keywords=ian+mcharg+design+with+nature
I recall a thorough discussion of natural destruction/reformation of the east coast shoreline and dune environment. Yep. His recommendation … DO NOT build there. Hell … DO NOT even WALK there. Meh. Good luck. Go ahead and destroy/evacuate 20-25% of America’s population and built environment. Shall we start with the Monterrey Bay Aquarium ? Al Gore’s neighbors down on the Santa Barbara shores ? Malibu ?
Yawwwwwwwwwwnnnnnnn
If I was in government in a coastal community I’d be tempted to issue him a permanent abandonment order. As in no trespassing. The people who settled on the Falklands thought they’d found the perfect safe space. The next advice would be never build where there could be earthquakes, or wildfires, or volcanic ash. Or landslides, or malaria or ticks. Or liberals or scientists who talk about the sky falling.
I believe that you are referring to the Maldives?
I live in Quebec. In 1998, we were hit with a freezing rain storm that toppled power line towers and left us without power for as long as two weeks. Thanks to global warming, the likelihood of a recurrence has been diminished. What would Dr. Pilkey suggest that I do?
Actually it is a well known fact that whatever catastrophe is most likely to happen in any particular region is far more likely to happen now because climate change. Hot, cold, wet, dry, windy or calm, all of it is now more likely and it will only get worse.
Define ‘climate change.’
And give us some references for your “well known fact.”
Perhaps you ought to find a dictionary and look up the word “sarcasm”?
Poe’s law.
Your sarcasm is to the point!
We’ve had catastrophic niceness here for about 25 years. Where should I go?
Excellent comment – catastrophic “niceness” is a term to use frequently to green snowflakes. The BBC reporters and newscasters have been using the word “catastrophic” in nearly every sentence since last week when reporting on the two hurricane/typhoons currently making the news. Without in any way belittling the harm to people and homes these weather events have caused, the tone of disappointment in the voices of the Beeb’s (slang forBBC) reporters is quite palpable.
But do they learn to be more careful in their use of language or dire wailing predictions? No, of course not. God forbid, but what would they do if ever we had a repeat of the 300,000 lives lost in the Bangladesh typhoon of the ‘seventies?
If it is a warm winter, that has a positive anomaly and is “extreme” weather. Nothing nice about that! 🙂
It’s not a well known fact. In fact it’s not a fact at all.
The reality is that there is no evidence that catastrophes are in creasing. Many such as hurricanes and tornadoes have been in fact, decreasing.
Mark wrote:
“Many such as hurricanes and tornadoes have been in fact, decreasing.”
Definitely true re hurricanes Mark – here is data from an excellent NOAA report that I digitized and plotted in 2005.
Chris Landsea was one of the co-authors – I have always liked the integrity of his work.
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pdf/NWS-TPC-4.pdf
Since 2005 it has become even quieter – far fewer hurricane landfalls in the USA. Contrary to popular opinion, that a warmer Atlantic Ocean will make hurricanes more frequent and more powerful, the opposite appears to be true based on the evidence.
Maybe it’s not the water temperature than drives hurricane strength, but the temperature difference between the tropics and the poles, and that would typically be lower in a warmer world. Gets back to the fundamentals of thermodynamics, and all that. Comments?
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1516457668431790&set=a.1012901982120697&type=3&theater
I have no data on tornadoes – have not bothered to look.
Best, Allan
Alan wrote: “Maybe it’s not the water temperature than drives hurricane strength, but the temperature difference between the tropics and the poles, and that would typically be lower in a warmer world. Gets back to the fundamentals of thermodynamics, and all that. Comments?”
Like all heat engines, thermodynamics says that the maximum strength of a hurricane is limited by the difference between SST and the temperature in the upper troposphere where air flows out of the top of the hurricane including the latent heat released by nearly saturated air rising from the surface to that altitude. The rate at which air is rising vertically is proportional to how fast this energy can be released. The central low pressure is probably related to how fast vertical transport takes place.
Hurricane season occurs mostly in the NH during the season when the meridional temperature gradient there is the weakest. The idea that hurricanes are powered by the temperature difference between the poles and equator appears absurd for hurricanes. In temperate regions,
Alan wrote: “Maybe it’s not the water temperature than drives hurricane strength, but the temperature difference between the tropics and the poles, and that would typically be lower in a warmer world. Gets back to the fundamentals of thermodynamics, and all that. Comments?”
Like all heat engines, thermodynamics says that the maximum strength of a hurricane is limited by the difference between SST and the temperature in the upper troposphere where air flows out of the top of the hurricane including the latent heat released by nearly saturated air rising from the surface to that altitude. The rate at which air is rising vertically is proportional to how fast this energy can be released. The central low pressure is probably related to how fast vertical transport takes place.
Hurricane season occurs mostly in the NH during the season when the meridional temperature gradient there is the weakest. The idea that hurricanes are powered by the temperature difference between the poles and equator appears absurd for hurricanes. In temperate regions, clashes between cold and warm air masses often produces storms.
Frank – I wrote “maybe” because hurricanes are not my expertise.
However, something in your interpretation does not make sense either – if what you say is true, how is it that warmer Atlantic SST’s have produced weaker hurricanes in recent decades?
Stronger hurricanes seem to correlate with colder weather.
Seems to me you want a theory that corresponds to observations, and yours does not.
Below is an independent post from Bob. Bob’s hypothesis may or may not be correct, but at least corresponds to observations, unlike Frank’s.
I always prefer a hypo that actually corresponds to observations – it’s a lifestyle choice*.
[P.S.: * It’s called the Scientific Method.] 🙂
______________________________________________________
Frank wrote to Allan:
“The idea that hurricanes are powered by the temperature difference between the poles and equator appears absurd for hurricanes.”
Allan responded to Frank:
“Stronger hurricanes seem to correlate with colder weather.
Seems to me you want a hypothesis that corresponds to observations, and yours does not.”
Bob wrote on a different thread:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/09/16/the-washington-posts-slander-on-hurricanes-and-climate-change/#comment-2458526
“… manmade global warming that creates “unusually warm ocean water” that worsens hurricanes.”
“The Earth’s climate is a heat engine. That means the process is driven not by absolute temperature but by the difference in temperatures. That difference in temperatures is what creates the kinetic energy of the wind.
If the oceans were uniformly hot, there would be no hurricanes. Warm ocean waters spawn hurricanes only if there are corresponding cold waters.
We are told that global warming will affect the polar regions much more than the tropics. In other words, the difference in temperature between the arctic and the equator will be smaller. That means less atmospheric circulation in general except for vertical convection.
So, basic physics as well as observational data indicates that there should be fewer hurricanes in a warming world. It’s high school physics folks.”
[end of Bob’s comment]
So Frank and Bob – you guys can duke it out – I’ll hold your coats and manage the bets.
Ten bucks on Bob…
Like every other unfortunate weather event, it can never happen again. That’s because, if it does happen again, it will be unprecedented.
I’m so sick and tired of this crap every time there’s a hurricane…
There’s not even one little spot anywhere in this country where you’re not going to run into some kind of disaster….
What other disaster gives you at least a one week warning? sometimes even two weeks…
…and to top it all off
They preach coast coast coast blah blah….hurricanes go hundreds…sometimes thousands…of miles inland
…using their metric, Atlanta is just as coastal….
Some ignorant “emeritus professor” that’s never had a real job…or done a real days work in his life….has no clue where sea food comes from…and how many millions of people make their living because of the sea
…he thinks they can trailer their boats and equipment…back and forth….several hundred miles every day
/rant
rant….and forget all the millions that live on islands….I live on an island
I think a vast majority of the world populations live along the coasts.
Ummm…that’s how shipping works. It’s kind of difficult to send stuff from China to Peoria without passing over a coast line. And, seeing that Elon hasn’t designed the amphibious freight train just yet, well we will stay put thanks.
The man has a point about rebuilding in a flood plain or in areas with a strong history of hurricane damage.
(I also object that my tax dollars go to subsidizing insurance for those who take that risk.)
However he is disingenuous if he wants us to believe that this is the result of “climate change”. He knows that Massachusetts and the Carolinas were hit by larger and more frequent storms in the 1600s.
He really steps in it when he uses Miami Beach as an example; the streets were was originally built below the highest tides. (Building high rise hotels on marsh doesn’t help either.)
Miami Beach as an example; the streets were was originally built below the highest tides….
Exactly, Fisher bought that dirt/sand road from 5th street north, so he could run the trolley around to Lincoln Road…paved it…and named it Alton Rd…. it went to a coconut farm…coconuts because it flooded with salt water and they could take it…that was in 1920….it’s been flooding almost 100 years
Back in the 1970s I worked with a group of hydrologists, hydrographers, scientists, and assorted engineers studying coastal regions. Their uniform complaint was that it is stupid to build on a flood plain. When they suggested that to politicians and the general public, the response was the same. If they were lucky, they were politely told to take a hike.
People insist on building in stupid places and then they think they should be rescued by FEMA or whoever when the inevitable inevitably happens. Aaargh!
Elon Musk is getting ready to build on Mars. 100% hurricane safe but the commute’s a bitch!
AGW will be a very good thing for Mars!
Well, there’s plenty of the Magic Gas available to warm things up. Wait! It takes SUVs to make it hotter, right? I’m so confused!
Many moons ago, our native American peoples (Indians) had a saying. Put the tent next to the creek, you will get wet. (paraphrased) Things haven’t changed a bit.
Yet more common sense. I routinely point out that our “dumb” ancestors didn’t sit around waiting for a disaster to kill them.
The “mysteries” of civilizations “disappearing” are easily understood if you start with the premise that the lower classes moved away in search of a better place to live. They didn’t know how to “write” and even if they did, they were more focused on survival than “journaling” their experiences.
It was the rich, lazy upper classes that sat around and died in place.
I didn’t understand it until I took a family vacation on the Outer Banks of North Carolina. We stayed in a big house that was part of an endless row of big houses. Every one of them was filled with renters who came to enjoy the beach, just like we did.
I knew what my family paid to rent that house for a week, and realized that if the owners got about 4 or 5 good summers in a row, they paid for the house. If they got 10 decent summers in a row, they paid for the house and made enough money to replace it if it was wiped out in a storm. Considering that, on average, any one place along the Outer Banks averages about 20 years between the really big storms, I realized that these home owners had a pretty good investment scheme going on, and that is why the beach was lined with similar houses.
The market will take care of the coastal development. When it stops being cost effective, the development will stop. Of course, the government needs to stay out of it, and stop enabling development with ridiculously low insurance coverage and public money to the homeowners after the storms. The home insurance industry needs to run like the car insurance industry, and base premiums on the statistical data.
It would be utterly stupid to start giving 16 year old boys federal assistance so they could buy souped up Mustangs and Corvettes, or any car for that matter. The stats show a high risk that they will destroy or damage any car. So teenage boys are charged a very high rate to insure any vehicle they are driving. That makes sense. So why not do the same for homes that are built where statistics show a high likelihood of future claims?
Another Amen! Hallelujah, brother.
You mention insurance – and rightly so. Certainly tax-payers should never be expected to subsidise any insurance. This whole problem can actually be left to insurance companies to deal with. If in the future there is a perceived risk of flooding they will up their annual premiums – and eventually refuse cover against flooding. Then slowly all coastal areas will change character – and only people who can afford to go without insurance will live there. Abracadabra – problem solved.
At last someone with common sense.
I guess my biggest objection to rebuilding is that it is NOT those who chose to build along the coast that are paying for it with THEIR money, but MY taxes that are being used (and raised) to pay for the rebuilding.
Pilkey is not a climate scientist. He is a coastal geologist. While I agree with him that we need to retreat from coastal regions, attributing this disaster to climate change is disingenuous at best.
I used to tell my students this: If you built your house on railroad tracks upon which trains traversed on a regular basis, would your house not eventually be destroyed? Afterwards, where would you place the blame? Poor planning, ignorance of natural processes, or climate change?
Orrin Pilkey, esteemed Duke Professor, has been on NC Public TV for as long as I can remember telling all us North Carolinians to pack up and move from the coast. This predates the global warming/climate change early years.
I’m writing this 120 miles from the coast and we are currently having issues with flooding, trees on houses, power outages and the occasional tornado from hurricane Florence. Granted we aren’t having a storm surge, but there are plenty of issues with this coastal storm so following Pilkey’s advice, maybe I need to be 500 miles from the coast to avoid this.
Everything has a risk. The big question is the benefit worth it? I say it does.
At least after a flood there is land to come back to: in my region (East Anglia) the coast is steadily disappearing into the sea taking beach homes with it. Unluckily the UEA is a long way inland!
Perhaps it’s simply nature taking back East Anglia with no GW involved? From wiki –
Despite some engineering work in the form of sea barriers constructed by the Roman Empire, much of East Anglia remained marshland and bogs until the 17th century. From this point onward a series of systematic drainage projects, mainly using drains and river diversions along the lines of Dutch practice, converted the alluvial land into wide swathes of productive arable land
no its different.
coastal erosion of sand is not the same as flooding of low level land
The area of the Wash and Fens was drained, coastal erosion is different and, of course, nothing to do with GW! Been going on for centuries.
Dr. Pilkey is a member of the excessive sea level rise camp (3 feet +) but to his credit not the extreme 20 foot crowd. In the aftermath of Hurricane Florence we can look for his shiny new opinion page submission to the Raleigh News & Observer. Meh.
Didn’t he get his coastal block of land last year?
Surprising he didn’t suggest putting wind turbines up all along the coastlines. After all 97% of scientists reckon that is the solution.
Mind you I tried that about 77 years ago when I put a windmill on top of my sandcastle. – Didn’t work.
Glenn Reynolds has a proposal that he calls “Tax The Blue Zones”, meaning, increase taxes on the areas most likely to be impacted (if any) by “climate change”. Reynolds notes that these areas are also predominantly “blue zones” politically, so his proposal would increase taxes more on Democrats than on Republicans.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/10/19/glenn-reynolds-tax-blue-zones-climate-change-coastal-flooding-column/74186596/
I have long advocated a plan to require that in case of any flood, owners would be required to rebuild on stilts or pilings as a condition for any flood insurance payment. Too many people have had their homes rebuilt by flood insurance and disaster relief SEVERAL times. We shouldn’t act like the “Itsy Bitsy Spider” and continually rebuild in the same storm gutter.
Good suggestions; and if I recall correctly these ideas are already in the building codes of some coastal communities, e.g. towns on the New Jersey shore and Hatteras Island, NC.
(It would also help if flood insurance did not cover any damage to the ground floor of any new builds or re-builds.)
Why not simply pick a time some years (say 15) in the future when buyers of flood insurance would pay full cost? Between now and then the subsidy would gradually diminish to zero.
The dollar values of some of the new shoreline homes are astronomical. If they can afford those mansions, they can afford to insure the risk.
I would be more tolerant of subsidizing relocation (for lower income levels) outside of the risk zone.
Not gonna happen as long as the insurance carriers can jack up the rate on the rest of the state to defray costs. Similar thing in Hawaii. Insurers are required to cover structures built in a volcanically active rift zone if they do business in the state. So, all residents pay more.
Yes NJ put new rules in place concerning rebuilding after Sandy, here’s an excerpt:
“What is the flood hazard area emergency rule? In order to better protect lives and property following Superstorm Sandy and other major recent flooding events, the state has adopted emergency amendments to New Jersey’s Flood Hazard Area Control Act rules that set minimum elevation standards for the reconstruction of houses and buildings in areas that are in danger of flooding. If your property was not substantially damaged, you do not need to take any action now.”
Phil,
You are absolutely correct, NJ requires all new or rebuilt construction in flood zones to be elevated according to a published standard depending on the risk factors. In fact, I own a house on the Jersey shore that the recent post Sandy standards changed the elevation requirements for my home on the Bay even though it has never had a claim for flood for it’s 40 years of existence. Consequently I cannot make significant additions to the house without raising the house 1 foot to meet the latest requirements.
As far as NJ is concerned there appears to be a lot of misunderstanding about flood Insurance. I assume other states may be different.
When one acquires a shore home or adds flood insurance, there is a waiting period before the insurance is covered.
Flood insurance is separate from homeowners insurance which covers wind and non flood hazards.
One cannot buy flood insurance except through the Federal program, although my home owners Insurance handles the transaction.
Homes cannot be insured for over 250,000 dollars damage, so more expensive homes do not have complete insurance.
The cost for raising the home is not covered, although NJ did provide some assistance for permanent residences.
For raised construction the lower level is not insured at all. I know people who lost refrigerators, washers, driers, etc during Sandy and these items were not covered if in the lower level.
Existing homes that do not meet current standards pay a premium.
Homes that are not primary residences also pay a premium over those which are primary residence.
Since homes can be raised and built to withstand to elements including flooding, I don’t understand the comments suggesting banning construction along the shore. Most homes that are raised provide garage space under the living quarters above
Remove all federal flood insurance. Force those who build on the cost to pay the full premium for their own insurance. If it’s too much, or they can’t get it at all, well, it sucks being a grown up. We need to re-introduce moral hazard in this country before we turn into France with bad bread.
This I totally agree with
The federal flood insurance program is supposed to be self funding. Claims are paid from the premiums. It is an additional premium to your regular homeowners insurance.
We have a commercial building in Baton Rouge that has never flooded until last year and it cost us quite a bit of out-of-pocket money to repair the building. This year we bought a flood policy for around $2000. Federal Flood insurance isn’t free.
Nonsense. If it was self funding it wouldn’t be a federal program.
Bingo WRT
This x1000. Enough with subsidizing vacation homes of the uber wealthy.
I assume you are aware that Flood Insurance provides only 250,000 dollars of coverage so the balance is on the uber wealthy, not the flood insurance program.
True though anything the government gets involved in gets corrupt, but the private insurers cannot provide flood insurance
If you watch the news, one would note that much of the flooding is not on the coast but inland.
Surely it’s up to the insurance companies. ?
Build on a flood plain, ex-coastal marsh or in a delta and you should pay appropriate flood premiums.
Build on a mountain and you have different risks and different premiums
Yeah, right. People should stop living in port cities.
At least states like Florida don’t have to spend hundreds of millions of dollars each year removing snow from their streets.
Or replacing power lines downed by ice storms.
There’s a town just up the coast from me in Southern California that portions of the streets flood every year during king tides and flood worse when accompanied by high surf. Been going on for as long as I can remember …… over 60 years … and happened before I was born. After the high tide conditions everything goes back to normal. Not to miss a chance at plugging Climate Change NOAA says “Sea level rise will make today’s king tides become the future’s everyday tides.” By bet is in 60 years nothing will change and the people that are building multi million dollar homes on the sand are betting the same thing.
One advantage of Climate professor Orrin Pilkey’s advice is that it could open up the coast to everyone, make the coast a series of state parks, like much of the west coast, esp. Oregon.
It’s not exactly shocking that a leftist like yourself would be against private ownership. I presume you mean just for other people’s stuff, not yours, right?
Right, RS. And everyone will live away from the coast in gubbermint-funded, mass-produced block-apartments. And ride gubbermint-funded, horse-drawn trolleys into their gubbermint office building re-writing history, controlling the info metered-out to all the citizen-comrades, and writing new, innovative & stifling regulations.
And those government-mandated, government-designed, government-funded block houses away from the coast can only be 4 stories high (no elevators!) with open windows for every room (no lights!) and an accessible “open space” between every building, and within walking distance of schools, grocery stores, parks, and all the (permitted) conveniences of life …
New York liberal politicians tried that before ya know. We could even mandate walls around those ghettos to keep the residents in (er, keep the criminals out) if there are any problems – National socialists tried that before too. Gotta be safe.
Let’s not have double standards. The coastal half of California needs to permanently evacuated because of earthquakes. And then anyplace else that can have any adverse event, including fires, blizzards, floods, volcanos, whatever. Won’t be much left though.
‘Sooner or later, he says, coastal communities will have to choose from two bad options: hunker down beyond proliferating seawalls, or pick up stakes and move inland, forever.’
Communist turd. INDIVIDUALS build and live on the coasts. Not communities. Communities result from many individuals choosing to live on the coasts. Communites are the result, not the cause. Communities don’t rebuild after a storm; individuals do.
Many communities live behind sea walls. The Japanese for example. Why is this professor so afraid of sea walls?
I highly doubt Orrin Pilkey himself actually stated: “As climate change warms the oceans, swells the seas, and makes deadly hurricanes a fixture of American life.” The uninformed journalist inserted that. Pilkey is a very achieved marine sedimentologist, and the last time I heard him speak, a few years ago, not taken in one bit by AGW. He decries mathematical modelling of coastal sediment behaviour, and likely has the same opinion about climate models as well. He was the editor of the journal and very kindly accepted two of my first papers so I am obviously biased.
Brian, you might want to read some things Orrin is writing…
http://coastalcare.org/tag/orrin-h-pilkey/
Thanks Latitude,
Six feet of sea level rise by 2100 does not sound reasonable to me at all
“On the surface, it looks like America is a place where scientists and scientific achievements are held in high regard. However, just below the surface, there is another America. This America is populated by people who, on economic, political or religious grounds, have chosen to reject the consensus of the global scientific community on various topics.”
You seem to be wrong, Brian.
I’m stunned! Thanks Latitude. Is this another case of a public intellectual gone south? I mean publicly, because what he said was not this at all.
Another hero bites the dust.
“It is easier to be philosophical or financial with other people’s lives or money.”
Anonymous Heins
“Beyond Evacuations: Climate Change May Mean Abandoning Our Coasts Forever”
Shoulda thought of that 15000 years ago. Before the ice sheets retreated, there was a lot more coastal property than there is now.
I’d be willing to bet that during once the next glacial is in full swing, and all of Canada and some of the US are under miles of ice, all those displaced peoples will relish the new enhanced coastlines. Millions of new homes will go up, hotels, casinos, whatever. Then, 100k years later when the ice sheets start retreating again, we’ll go through this bogus human-caused alarmism all over again. We don’t learn.
No, no! If we’re smart about this, we’ll move most industry into orbit and turn the Earth into a series of enormous parks.
So basically evacuate Florida.
…exactly
How in the He!l can this idiot hold a job? And who is being forced to pay for this total waste of food?
Around that area – are you familiar with the term “turner”?
He is retired. Emeritus. Like many climate den1ers. But he is not one of them. He actually knows what he is talking about.
If a leftist troll thinks highly of him, then i am reallyskeptical of anything he says.
Right. Everyone moves out of some of the most desirable real estate in the US and then the climateistas move in cheap and easy.
Could this response from Climate Professor Orrin Pilkey be connected to Agenda 21/30?
http://agenda21news.com/2014/08/nightmarish-megacities-near-future/
Did he give a definition of coast? Maybe he is concerned for the first few feet of dry land
Hey, you guys.
There’s nothing new to abandoning shorelines. Mankind has been doing it since the end of the last ice age. We’ve been marching inland as sea levels have risen 300 feet. And we’ll continue to do so until sea levels start to fall because ice is accumulating on land again. But then we’ll have to start abandoning high latitudes and altitudes as ice sheets and glaciers build.
So what? This shite (pardon my Irish) happens over timeframes with which we don’t need to concern ourselves.
(Hmm, I think I’ll have to save that and include it in my next book.)
Cheers,
Bob
Bob Tisdale said:
>happens over timeframes with which we don’t need to concern ourselves
We have cities that have been around for millenia. Some historical cities are under water e.g. Heracleion. On the scale of civilisations sea level rise even at the current modest rate of 3mm/a does matter. For Bangaldeshis living barely a meter above sea level on the Ganges delta, 30 years worth of sea level rise at that rate is a big deal, regardless of why the sea is rising.
While sea level rise is not an existential threat for an anglosphere wealthy enough to deal with it, poorer exposed populations should consider deploying their scarce resources on measures that mitigate their sea level rise risks more directly than uncertain measures such limiting CO2 emissions. Whether by bulding on stilts, moving to higher ground, floating or building barriers, we do need to stay above the water. As Bob Tisdale says, we have always been doing it. It will be cheaper and nicer to get ahead of the water than to wait to be forced out.
Stripped of the hyperbole and the gratuitous anthropogenic attribution, Pilkey’s message is essentially adaptationist. CAGW skeptics should welcome it for that aspect as a rational and effective alternative to the precipitated decarbonization advocated by the renewable energy lobbies.
At the rate sea level is rising a dozen guys with spoons could build a high enough levee bank.
You can shift a lot of dirt with a spoon if you have several centuries to do it in.
Exactly!! The smarter ones are already using bulldozers to build huge sand dunes