Environmental Economics

The cromulent economics blog

recent posts

About the authors

For those in the northeast, I would suggest moving to North Carolina where sea level rises of this magnitude will soon be against the law.

Sea levels on the East Coast are rising three to four times faster than the global average, putting several major U.S. cities at increased risk of flooding and storm surges, according to a new study by the U.S. Geological Survey. The findings were published in the journal Nature Climate Change.

The dramatic acceleration in sea-level rise, which is driven by climate change, poses an enormous threat to Boston, New York and other urban centers, as well as to coastal wetlands, beaches and other vulnerable ecosystems, according to scientists with the Center for Biological Diversity.

While scientific experts predict that global average sea levels will rise by 2 to 4 feet or more by 2100, sea levels along a 620-mile East Coast “hotspot” could increase by an additional foot, according to the USGS study.

“This is an alarming study that shows just how fast climate change is transforming our planet. The waters are rising, and it’s time to stop making excuses and start controlling greenhouse gas pollution,” says Shaye Wolf, climate science director at the Center, which has advocated for years for rapid, major cuts in greenhouse gas emissions. “To get sea-level rise under control, President Obama and our other leaders need to act now to reduce emissions and tackle global warming.”

via www.enn.com

Posted in
  1. John Whitehead Avatar
    John Whitehead

    I think it is OK for me to make fun of my state, but when Northerners start doing it I need to defend:
    The problem is that the stuff behind sea level rise projections isn’t science. It is just computers. Science is when you test a hypothesis. There is a null and an alternative hypothesis. There is no way to test the hypothesis of sea level rise 100 years from now so it isn’t science, just wild-eyed environmentalists using computers (and they are probably all Macs too).
    So there, you bunch of Northern elitists, you can kiss my southern fried horse’s behind.

    Reply
  2. Hesychast Avatar
    Hesychast

    John, please stop throwing that particular stone in that particular direction.
    I’m sat in the economic glass house with you, it’s a lot more fragile than theirs is and I don’t have any shoes on.

    Reply
  3. Hesychast Avatar
    Hesychast

    [dons hard hat whilst scrabbling for his boots]

    Reply
  4. Rene Salinas Avatar
    Rene Salinas

    What I find interesting about the issue is the temporal and spatial aspects of the science and economic interplay. One thing that you guys haven’t brought up (I am sure John has in his astonishing pub record) is the immediate economic impact on the coast. Yes, losing most of the outer banks in 100 years would be devastating, but the only way to “fix” it is by global action. You are asking a local area to take a relatively immediate economic hit (real estate and insurance) to make a point on global action. It would be different if the coastal communities could do something about it, but they can’t.
    Do I agree with how NC is dealing with the issue..Nope, but I do understand their concern about the economic impact. People do need to be aware that many of the houses on the coastline will be lost, but it is a double shot in the arm when you also give the insurance companies ammunition to jack up your rates now.
    I guess I am saying that being aware of what will happen and having it be official are two different economic realities. NOTE: I am not an economist, I am a mathematical ecologist….be gentle……

    Reply
  5. PaulS Avatar
    PaulS

    “Sea levels on the East Coast are rising three to four times faster than the global average…”
    “While scientific experts predict that global average sea levels will rise by 2 to 4 feet or more by 2100, sea levels along a 620-mile East Coast “hotspot” could increase by an additional foot…”
    If the hotspot sea levels are rising three times faster, shouldn’t those levels rise by 6 to 12 feet, or an extra 4 to 10 feet beyond the average amount? Or is the “three times faster” some sort of transitory effect that will sort itself out, giving only a 33% (give-or-take) rise (1 extra foot) rather than a factor of 3? Or is the “three times” factor just meant to scare up large numbers of votes in the populous, liberal (in the US sense) Northeast?
    And do those raising the scare really think that even if they turned off all the electricity and transportation and heat tomorrow, the rise would stop just like that? Since modern construction is so shoddy that almost everything has to be rebuilt several times a century anyhow, why not just rebuild it slightly away from the sea? And why not phase in honest insurance billing to encourage that? If some idiot foolishly insists on living hard by the sea in a place where the rise is going to be a problem, that’s fine, but why subsidize it?

    Reply
  6. John Whitehead Avatar
    John Whitehead

    Rene,
    Yep, the immediate economic impact of fully adjusting now would be huge. I like Andy Keeler’s understanding of the issue:
    http://www.env-econ.net/2012/06/an-economist-on-nc-sea-level-rise-follies.html

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Discover more from Environmental Economics

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading