Climate Scientist Demands Permanent Evacuation of Coasts Because Climate Change

Orrin H Pilkey
Orrin Pilkey, James B. Duke Professor Emeritus of Geology. By Orrin H Pilkey – Orrin H Pilkey, CC BY-SA 3.0, Link

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, 8:10am

A 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.

Read more: https://www.vice.com/amp/en_uk/article/xwpzma/beyond-evacuations-climate-change-may-mean-abandoning-our-coasts-forever

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.

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
0 0 votes
Article Rating
200 Comments
UK Sceptic
September 15, 2018 11:38 am

The man is what my grandad would describe as a mucking foron to spare the blushes of ladies and children.

BlueCat57
September 15, 2018 12:34 pm

What part of BELOW sea level do you NOT understand?

I don’t agree with Orrin Pilkey’s belief that climate change will make the current coasts unlivable, but I do agree that we need to rethink constantly rebuilding on the coasts.

I spotted this article when I came to WUWT to suggest that one of the regular writers for the site do a post about where all the storm debris goes. I’m sure I can find some articles elsewhere on the topic, but I trust WUWT for provide a relatively unbiased report on the subject.

I’m curious where all the stuff from Indonesia (2004), Haiti (2010) and Puerto Rico (2017) was “buried.” Or, is it still sitting around in piles?

“…its easy to forget that living on the coast often provides protection against severe flood damage.”

Yes, but why rebuild if your home and livelihood will be destroyed again?

There is no longer a reason to live in the low-lying coastal regions because transportation to those locations takes minutes not hours or days.

Isn’t it wiser to live inland in a location NOT in a flood zone and commute to the coastal location?

“Obviously a very large large (sic) storm surge can overturn the flood advantages of low lying coastal properties.”

“You can usually protect a home against a brief flood…”

What is a “brief flood”? And how HIGH is a “brief flood”? Can taped doors protect against water that rises 3’, 6’, 12’ above the ground level around your home?

“The protective measures I describe don’t work if your near sea level house is buried under 20ft of water. “

“their flood lasted days rather than minutes”

And they should not be building in flood prone areas to begin with. And, prophylactically, I grew up in Southern California, so don’t say, “You probably think we shouldn’t build in earthquake zones.” See the rest of my comment. I don’t care where you live as long as it isn’t at MY expense. I don’t want to share MY money with you or anyone else. Yes, I am extremely selfish.

“In my experience as a former and current coast dweller, blanket advice to “abandon the coasts” is nonsense.”

That is because it was Other People’s Money that was paying for rebuilding not only YOUR house but also all of the infrastructure, government buildings, businesses, etc. destroyed because YOU, and not ME, get to live on the coast and in areas prone to disasters.

I’ve chosen to live in what I consider a “safe” location. You are free to choose where YOU want to live, but you have NO right to MY money to subsidize that. Isn’t that one of YOUR chief arguments AGAINST carbon taxes and other climate change regulations? That each INDIVIDUAL should be allowed to make their OWN choices?

There are MILLIONS of square MILES of land that is NOT prone to disasters. And there are transportation solutions to allow rapid, low-cost access to those areas that are that must be used for certain activities – water based shipping, fishing, recreation. It is the environmentalists and NIMBYs that are preventing their development as alternate locations to rebuilding in coastal danger zones.

Oh, and if we stop rebuilding in coastal zones, won’t those zones (wetlands, barrier islands and other natural features) PROTECT the inland areas from the most severe consequences storms?

Why did the Okies flee the Dust Bowl? Can we make that land desirable again?

So many questions, so few answers.

Reply to  BlueCat57
September 17, 2018 7:18 pm

“So many questions, so few answers.”

The answer is to develop techniques that:

1) Are inexpensive,
2) Can be deployed anywhere in the world, and
3) Are portable, so they can be brought in where needed and set up in the days before a storm.

I developed a conceptual design for a portable hurricane storm surge reduction system as I analyzed what went wrong in Hurricane Katrina. It involves tubes filled with water and air. The air-filled tubes float on top of the water, reducing the amount of wind-blown water that reaches shore. The water-filled tubes provide sufficient mass such that the tubes never reach shore, but instead stay out at sea until the hurricane comes ashore.

I think tubes filled with water and air could also be used to reduce inland flooding, although I haven’t spent much time analyzing that possibility.

BlueCat57
Reply to  Mark Bahner
September 18, 2018 9:57 am

Did I read something about water filled tubes around the time of Katrina? I vaguely recall one of the governors wanting to deploy something but being told they couldn’t.

I do recall them using water filled tubes to either reinforce or repair the levies.

Reply to  BlueCat57
September 18, 2018 1:37 pm

“Did I read something about water filled tubes around the time of Katrina?”

As far as I know, my idea of tubes filled with water and air (and with a weighted curtain extending to the sea floor), and deployed relatively far out at sea has never been proposed before.

But much more important than the specifics of my particular idea to reduce storm surge is that the main point is that the system needs to be *portable*. It needs to be capable of being deployed to protect any city anywhere in the world on a few days’ notice.

Fixed levees and fixed storm surge barriers (such as the storm surge barriers to protect London, Venice or New Orleans via Lake Bourne) are *not* the answer. A fixed barrier that protects New Orleans does not protect New York City. And a fixed barrier that protects NYC does not protect Miami. And a fixed barrier that protects Miami does not protect Tampa. Etc., etc. etc.

Right down to protecting New Bern, NC from Hurricane Florence. If my proposed system was available, it could have been deployed at the exit of the Neuse River into Pimlico Sound, and New Bern probably would have been spared most of the flooding it experienced:

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/maps-heres-where-flooding-from-florence-could-be-the-worst

Sweet Old Bob
September 15, 2018 1:30 pm

So … he doesn’t like Holland ?
Wouldn’t like Pella Iowa either ….where if you aint Dutch ..you aint much !

September 15, 2018 2:39 pm

I’ve visited a few 18th Century Plantation Mansions near New Orleans that must have weathered some beauts. Post and heavy beam construction. I think a little thought using a light anchored steel beam in the ceiling and cables could be employed that might he cheaper than the regular sticks they still call 2x4s. Maybe you would save on insurance costs.

Reply to  Gary Pearse
September 15, 2018 3:02 pm

It amazes me that people in the hurricane and tornado areas of the USA continue to build with wood-frame construction, which is so easily destroyed by high winds and flooding.

In the mid-1990’s, I designed and patented an Insulating Concrete Form (ICF) System called Advantage Wallsystems. http://www.advantageicf.com/

I no longer have any interest, financial or otherwise, in this product or company, but want to point out the advantages of ICF Systems.

An ICF structure can be built with concrete floor and ceiling decks and steel shutters to survive most natural disasters. The polystyrene foam is closed-cell, so it will also survive a flood – interior finishing materials such as drywall must of course be replaced.

Moving valued possessions to the second floor should preserve them in most flood situations – if your second floor floods, you are building in the wrong location.

The primary benefit of this particular ICF system is that it is stronger and can sustain much higher concrete pour heights than most other ICF products – it also has features than enable ease of use.

When areas in the USA rebuild after natural disasters, will they simply use stick-built construction that will be destroyed by the next natural disaster, or will they employ ICF construction that can survive floods, hurricanes and tornadoes?

Regards, Allan

Reply to  ALLAN MACRAE
September 16, 2018 10:08 am

That’s why more states should follow NJ’s lead after Sandy by requiring tougher standards for rebuilding (and new construction) in affected areas.

See Phil. September 14, 2018 at 6:04 pm

tom0mason
September 16, 2018 5:42 am

So Orrin Pilkey, James B. Duke Professor Emeritus of Geology, has no appreciation of climate or weather history and how human communities coped with its variability. No appreciation of how the climate has changed quite naturally over the last 1,000 years or more, and continues to this day.
It would seem that Orrin Pilkey has studied a version of geology of which most people were not aware.

September 16, 2018 8:06 am

What a blemish on Duke University.

Here’s a thought — know where you are building and developing human population centers, and plan accordingly via focused preventative measures, as well as focused intervention plans where preventative measures are not enough.

Use money squandered on hysterical CO2 prevention for building more hurricane-resistant structures. Also, know that the REAL cost of developing in such areas is the cost of repairing or replacing what storms destroy. Again, use the money squandered on hysterical CO2 prevention for a standing rebuilding fund, whose sole purpose is to fund inevitable storm-damage repair. THIS is living in reality.l

John B
September 16, 2018 8:44 pm

10,000 years ago this blokes ancestor was saying “No move from river to coast. River stable, sea water go up and down. One day sea rise and we all drown, flood caves.”

Mr. David Laing
September 17, 2018 7:38 am

I think that’s a pretty good idea, actually, just as long as we don’t do it as a result of “carbonophobia.” My own (unfunded) research persuades me that the old CO2/warming mechanism is rubbish, and that thinning of the ozone layer by anthropogenic and volcanic chlorine is the actual cause of global warming and perhaps of sea level rise as well.