We’re too close to the sea
Hurricane Sandy confirmed what Irene and Katrina had suggested: We will retreat from the edge of the sea. We should do so in a planned, organized manner that protects citizens’ interests and the ecological, economic, recreational and aesthetic values of our coasts. This endeavor will require major changes in the way we manage coastal lands.
Coastal storms have killed thousands of people and have caused more than $250 billion in damages in the past 12 years. Costs are increasing with each storm because more and more people live, and build infrastructure, in risky places. For example, hundreds of thousands of people live on barrier islands along the East and Gulf Coasts. The nature of these low-lying sand islands is to move. Independent of hurricanes, winds, waves and currents cause barrier islands to roll toward the shore and migrate along the coast. Put another way, they naturally migrate from under buildings placed on them. The population density of U.S. coastal counties increased 28 percent from 1980 to 2003, to about 153 million. Clearly, coastal development must be rethought.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Essentially, only the elites that rule should have shoreline access and homes.
tom daschle concerned on November 22, 2012 at 9:49 PM
But, but, I thought Obama was going to … oh, never mind – he got in again, anyway.
OldEnglish on November 22, 2012 at 9:54 PM
After Katrina, they should never have rebuilt in that swamp. Nature has a way of telling us things. But then that would be letting the
terrorists,hurricanenature win.keep the change on November 22, 2012 at 9:57 PM
Sounds good. Let’s pass forced relocation acts tomorrow. Ground zero (if you’ll pardon the expression), is, of course, the megalopolis at the mouth of the Hudson on the rim of the Atlantic Ocean.
HitNRun on November 22, 2012 at 9:59 PM
Heck,
Just set up the FEMA reeducation
relocationcamps!ProfShadow on November 22, 2012 at 10:03 PM
Someday we’ll be seeing a “We’re too close to the Earth” opinion column.
Mark1971 on November 22, 2012 at 10:04 PM
This has nothing to do with changing sea levels, but the ill-advised creep out toward the edge of the beach which I’ve seen happening all up and down the Atlantic and Gulf coasts. A good rule of thumb is 40′ elevation. Less than that and you are in the direct path of storm surge, tsunami, and Japanese monsters.
I live in sight of the ocean here in Oregon. I checked the property elevation before even thinking about the suitability of the house itself.
Scribbler on November 22, 2012 at 10:15 PM
I’ve just been advised that on the East Coast one doesn’t have the Japanese monster threat as we do here on the Pacific. But of course you all have the obvious Belgian threat to contend with, so it all evens out.
Scribbler on November 22, 2012 at 10:16 PM
Let’s try sacrificing California to Gaia first. See if we can appease her. If that doesn’t work, then let’s work that relocation plan.
The good news would be that the new coastlines of Nevada and Arizona wouldn’t have had time to get populated. So we’d be a leg up on that relocation effort.
ButterflyDragon on November 22, 2012 at 10:21 PM
No no no no no no no. Flyover country doesn’t want to absorb coastal elites. Stay put. You’re not likely to have another Sandy in your lifetime. I swear.
dczombie on November 22, 2012 at 10:29 PM
The idiocy of intellectuals continues to astound. Humans have been around, what? 2 million years? I think the species will survive the occasional hurricane.
BKeyser on November 22, 2012 at 10:55 PM
1. Build barrier islands to absorb and disparate the storm surge before it hits the main land.
2. Build houses and whole communities on the barrier island as there is nothing better than beach front property.
3. Storm Surge destroys the barrier island and the communities there like intended.
4. Build new barrier island to protect the old barrier island communities and the main land.
5. Repeat.
tjexcite on November 22, 2012 at 11:04 PM
November 6 suggests we’re moving back into the trees. That should be above flood stage.
viking01 on November 22, 2012 at 11:25 PM
If this value is correct then nearly 50% of the US population lives in Coastal Counties.
chemman on November 22, 2012 at 11:57 PM
If people and local gubmints are going to be stupid enough to keep building in harms way, then let them suffer and keep rebuilding at their own peril if they’re that stupid. But it’s not limited to only the coasts. Look at all the towns built in the overflow and flood plains of rivers, like the Mississippi River, which comes to mind with the flood of 1993 among the dozens of others over the centuries and all the towns and cities that got washed out. Even where I live in the midwest, housing developments were built in floodplains, with houses that back up to rivers and creeks in areas that should be left vacant for those occasional floods which sometimes happen consecutively several times and aren’t so occasional.
stukinIL4now on November 23, 2012 at 1:32 AM
“Some say a comet will fall from the sky,
followed by meteor showers and tidal waves,
followed by fault lines that cannot sit still,
followed by millions of dumbfounded dipsh*ts…
I’ve a suggestion to keep you all occupied:
learn to swim.”
WeekendAtBernankes on November 23, 2012 at 2:32 AM
Indeed. But talking about “coastal counties” is misleading. There are coastal cities with little below the 40′ line. Living a quarter mile from the ocean on a hill is not a problem. Living at or below sea level in a place regularly washed out with a government blank check to forever rebuild is.
calbear on November 23, 2012 at 2:33 AM
Beyond stupid. About 70% of humanity lives in coastal flood plains, and always has. In fact, between tsunamis, floods, earthquakes, landslides, wildfires, droughts, the Yellowstone supervolcano and the Canary Island Tidal wave, about 90% of us live in harm’s way. Disasters happen, and we rebuild. Net net, the benefits outweigh the periodic losses. 250 billion over 12 years? Less than 1/6 of 1% of the GDP. That’s the way it works.
HTL on November 23, 2012 at 2:49 AM
And also move everyone out of tornado prone areas. Oh, and let’s not forget California: close it down completely because of fires, mudslides, earthquakes, dimocrats, etc.
Dingbat63 on November 23, 2012 at 8:34 AM
“By decree, all beach front property is available for government use only”
Is that Constitutional?
“Are you serious? Are you serious?”
BobMbx on November 23, 2012 at 8:55 AM
How about the US government stop offering ‘insurance’ for areas subject to inundation, floods and storm surges and let people pay the going insurance rates? Suddenly ‘beach front property’ will no longer look like such a good place to be because you can’t afford the insurance and Uncle Sam won’t be footing the bill to rebuild your place.
The market will take care of the rest.
In no time at all you will find these vulnerable places barren of population because no one can afford to live there without a government subsidy. Plus that gets the cost overhead of having to cover people building homes in unsafe places out of the federal ledger… always a good thing, that. And I really don’t care if those that can afford it live there or those with nothing to lose live there, either: that is their choice, and no one else should be paying for it.
ajacksonian on November 23, 2012 at 9:03 AM
We really need to remove from the federal government to ability to spend money on “rebuilding” in general. Elected officials are always going to blow huge amounts of public cash on these charity projects to make themselves look good. Of course, it would be impossible to actually pass such a prohibition for the very reason that “disaster spending” is so popular.
Count to 10 on November 23, 2012 at 10:00 AM
If people could only buy flood insurance from insurance companies, and not from the federal government, this would take care of itself. Their premiums would reflect the risk inherent in living 10 feet from the ocean, and only those who could afford to take that risk would live there.
cptacek on November 23, 2012 at 3:33 PM