Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

craigworknova t1_j1gkh3j wrote

They should just buy these people out. Knock down the house and restore the land. They can move inland.

131

[deleted] t1_j1gles0 wrote

[removed]

54

kslusherplantman t1_j1gnqid wrote

Just ask the Dutch how the sea walls are working…

42

kingofpotatopeople92 t1_j1hsxvx wrote

That's like asking the Thwaites Glacier not to shatter next year. In other words, what difference is it really going to make?

4

Tar_alcaran t1_j1lkqjx wrote

We're coming up on 70 years with no flooding thanks to the Delta Works, so I'd say there's a pretty big difference.

1

kingofpotatopeople92 t1_j1m8922 wrote

Well you've been working with centimeters of sea rise. Let's see how it works with meters 70 years early. Good luck ;)

2

Tar_alcaran t1_j1n61hq wrote

Thats why we're spending over a billion per year, upgrading to the the worst of the current projections instead of the average of the 1990s projections

1

qtx t1_j1hrqyw wrote

Venice only made flood gates. The were finished in 2020 and they seem to work well, but they are just flood gates, not actual permanent defenses. So it's not sure they will work against rising sea levels.

7

yo2sense t1_j1h7e2w wrote

Doesn't seem to make much sense to spend $52 billion to try to protect the $147 billion worth of property that are on the current floodplain when we are expecting sea levels to rise.

50

Agent_Angelo_Pappas t1_j1hl81v wrote

That’s only what’s at imminent risk today. Every year that number will grow as rising sea levels expose more and more of the city. This infrastructure would be the foundation of what will protect the whole of New York City as the century continues and conditions get worse

New York City is one of America’s most efficiently populated spaces. More than half the population uses public transportation regularly and they are densely packed in limiting the amount of land use per person. If the goal is to minimize ecological impact then we want Americans living in places like New York. It probably is worth walling it up than ceding that to the ocean.

45

Brave-Examination-70 t1_j1ivzr9 wrote

They'd be better off restoring the wetlands, sandbars, and other natural elements that used to prevent this from happening. Cheaper and more effective.

16

asdaaaaaaaa t1_j1i4gtw wrote

I also wonder how much extra energy is "saved" through winters due to heavy population. Heavily populated cities like that tend to stay warmer due to all the heat bleeding from vehicles/electronics/buildings, right? Not to mention I'd imagine it's cheaper heating x25 apartments in one building than say, 20 or so separate houses.

3

11fingerfreak t1_j1kqulk wrote

There’s nothing we’re going to create that will permanently keep the ocean at bay. The only things we could’ve done are:

  • stop cutting down trees
  • stop putting greenhouse gasses in the air

We collectively choose to do neither. So that’s done and over with. There’s nothing that’s going to change what we did at this point. We adapt or we die and go broke along the way. Pretending there’s some magical terraforming we’re going to engage in that will prevent the ocean from rising at this point is magical thinking.

3

asdaaaaaaaa t1_j1i47yj wrote

Depends on who owns those properties. If say, a major CEO who could decide the pricing/availability of a new contract with the state or something owned one or a few, it can certainly influence decisions. The examples unlikely, but stuff like that does happen.

2

TenderfootGungi t1_j1hzpob wrote

On a same note, we need to give the majority of flood planes back to the rivers, at least in rural areas, and stop rebuilding buildings below sea level.

14

Telrom_1 t1_j1gkh4c wrote

That’s cute. We can’t engineer against this especially not on a budget.

42

PracticableSolution t1_j1hwput wrote

I like how they show some nice old middle class looking dude in an well cared for but older home. They thought hard about that picture. Pics of the many multi million dollar homes I guess wouldn’t elicit the same response

27

craiger_123 t1_j1gq1mf wrote

Let's pretend that the sea won't continue to rise. Ask Venice how their plan is going. They use a series of 5 gallon buckets and put two planks up. That way people can have two directions of travel. The shops have to fend for themselves with all the water damage. This has been going on for years and years.

20

qtx t1_j1hrvew wrote

On the flip side, ask the Dutch.

12

Brave-Examination-70 t1_j1iwcaz wrote

The Dutch have mostly stopped building seawalls and are instead restoring the natural barriers that would prevent this like wetlands and sandbars.

3

Tar_alcaran t1_j1ll3t4 wrote

As a Dutch person... what?

We just threw 2 billion euros at raising and strengthening the Afsluitdijk and installin some insanely huge pumps to make sure we can get rid of water from the IJsselmeer even in high-sealevel conditions. That's on top of the 1.2 billion were spending on the Delta Program every year to make sure we're beating climate change.

There are no sea-side wetlands to prevent flooding in the Netherlands (though were definitely doing that for our rivers. There are large sections of coast that have dunes, but that's not new, that's how they've always been. We DO do a lot of shoreline suppletion, which maintains the beaches and dunes, but that's not really a solution for many places.

1

MelissaMiranti t1_j1idnaa wrote

Let's become the new Netherlands, as we were always meant to be.

8

baxterstate t1_j1ie5c0 wrote

Many of the families in Hamilton Beach have lived here for several generations and don’t have plans to leave.

I could not afford to buy a home in the town where I grew up, so I bought a home in a location I could afford. I don't have a college degree but I was smart enough to buy in an area that's not in a flood plain. I don't have oceanfront property and I believe these people have been counting the generosity of other taxpayers (cleverly disguised as the government) to insure that they can continue to live there. They may have no choice and all the money spent over the decades will have been wasted. Money that could have gone to combat climate change.

8

CrownOfPosies t1_j1jros3 wrote

NYS spends tons of money on combating climate change. This is just a mitigation program.

2

Mizral t1_j1icbe6 wrote

Just one more huge dike in NYC

6

Brave-Examination-70 t1_j1ivtkw wrote

Or you could stop building in a floodplain and restore the wetlands and sandbars that used to prevent this from happening...

5

Denaljo13 t1_j1i06u4 wrote

$52B?! Just the tip of the ice-berg.

4

ToxicAdamm t1_j1icue7 wrote

Sea levels have risen 12 inches in the past 100 years and are expected to do the same in the next 30-80 years (depending on who you read).

So, regardless of how you feel about climate change, this is a needed step for future Americans.

It isn’t ‘throwing money away’. Every engineering project gives us an opportunity to learn and improve on future projects. As we’ve seen with inflation, money spent today will be WAY more affordable then attempting to do it 30 years from now.

2

indica_please t1_j1ih4n0 wrote

If you consider it a $52 billion dollar lesson in the sunk cost fallacy, then yes it will certainly give us an opportunity to learn. You can't stop the ocean. People will need to be relocated away from low lying coastal areas.

6

artcook32945 t1_j1iw2mo wrote

Is this not just an attempt to put off answering the question of "Where do these millions move to"?

2

davidwb45133 t1_j1kbuyc wrote

Anyone seen an estimate of the cost to relocate the people and businesses affected? Also abandonment without some kind of orderly cleanup ahead of the surge would need to be included in the relocation costs. Whether you clean up the abandoned areas before they are flooded or deal with the pollution and mess afterwards there will be a high cost involved.

2

ogobeone t1_j1ivif6 wrote

It's such a complex coast. It seems too expensive to do anything but abandon it. The best law would be to require realtors to disclose rising sea level and flooding as an accelerating hazard in order to deter resources from being unwisely applied there.

1

11fingerfreak t1_j1kq7ru wrote

That same money should be spent relocating these folks. We’re not going to win a battle against the ocean. I get that nobody wants to accept that the world has changed and that it’s our own fault. However, the longer we live in denial, the harder it’s going to be to adapt to a warmer world with less stable weather patterns and higher sea levels.

1

Tar_alcaran t1_j1llpgq wrote

>We’re not going to win a battle against the ocean

laughs in Dutch

2

jawshoeaw t1_j1l9irz wrote

If it’s any consolation, your grandchildren will only see a 12” sea level rise. It’s your great great grandchildren who are fucked. Ask yourself how important your relationship is with your great great grandparents is. That’s right, they’re strangers you don’t know or care about. And that’s why we’re in this mess.

1

AnchoriteOfPalgrave t1_j1miolb wrote

Building infrastructure in the path of the ocean using low-ball estimates of sea level rise is a waste...We know sea level is rising 240 feet, we just don't know how many centuries it will take. Build or maintain nothing of lasting importance within 240ft of sea level and add another 60ft for future storm surges for good measure.

If you want to pitch a tent in a flood zone, go for it. But if you want to put a nuclear waste depot or hospital or transit artery, you are shooting yourself in the foot. Retreat now while there is time.

1

No-Cover4205 t1_j1i6mm9 wrote

Rising sea levels have seemed to coincide with the revival of whale populations 🤔

0

OnePlus4Equalsfun t1_j1jeppa wrote

ehhhh let em sink we dont really need new york city ...

−2

eggitywegs t1_j1juqrv wrote

Yeah you know it’s only the financial capital of the world and one of the few places in the country that can claim to have any real discernible culture.

2

NPVT t1_j1hqody wrote

I bet the plan involves the emission of tons of green house gases.

−3

Mental-Operation3926 t1_j1gp26s wrote

They'll just release all the homeless insane people into the areas so when they kill everyone and themselves they wont have to do anything

−53

xCthulhu2000 t1_j1hp8mq wrote

Lol wtf is going on in that little head of yours

15

kingofpotatopeople92 t1_j1hugak wrote

"Don't worry, the insane poeple, at the time, technically aren't/weren't "homeless." So they got that wrong. - Pestilence

1

indica_please t1_j1ihmfp wrote

Homeless insane people are better company than a lot of the folks considered normal nowadays.

2