How Should San Francisco Plan for Sea-Level Rise?

How Should San Francisco Plan for Sea-Level Rise?

www.scientificamerican.com

REDWOOD CITY, Calif.—A 1,400-acre swath of salt flats along the western edge of San Francisco Bay has become the latest site for a development dispute that promises to become increasingly common in coastal U.S. cities: Whether new waterside growth makes sense when sea levels are rising.

(visit the link for the full news article)

So a quick summary of this article, is basically there is a dispute of whether or not they should bother building new communities and such near the coastline, when sea levels are rising. The folks against the construction think that it would be better to leave the coastal areas undeveloped, to serve as a buffer for the upcoming flooding.

What I find interesting is they casually mention that other coastal cities, New York, Boston, Seattle, etc are considering the same problem. They also state that they believe that the barrier islands will be swamped within 40-60 years.

So basically, amidst the current U.S. mindset of denying global warning (despite record-breaking temperatures, and the steady melting fragmenting of the arctic ice shelves), it seems that the state governments are are in full planning mode to avert disaster in the near future (disaster caused by rising sea levels making current coastal developments uninhabitable).



www.scientificamerican.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

It is amusing, isn't it.

There is no sickness...there are only symptoms...but nope, no sickness here..lets ignore it...and meanwhile take some medicine for the not a sickness.

I think the problem here is that most costal places are the places saying there is a problem, but people in mountains and other safe zones are demanding there are no issues...so its not even a situation of karma..


stating also that technology must be the answer here...cap and trade is putting a expensive band aid on a severed arm...will prove to be expensive and ultimately far short of what is needed...token gestures won't be enough here I fear.

Ask Al Gore, with the oceans rising, he just bought a ocean side home.

Hmmm, must not be that big a deal. Or is it?

I think I am going to build a home 20 feet from a river and I will have the FF 3 ' below the 5 year flood stage.


Here is the deal in California, the government is filled with a bunch of morons. They will spend 15 years deciding on something, then a judge will call for more studies blocking it.

Do any of you know the handicap access laws? Do you think it has only to do with parking spaces? It changes the very layouts of entire cities. Because now you are required to make all components handicap accessible. Which in turn makes all the sidewalks and hence entire communities flat. What is wrong with flat you may ask me? Ask anyone that has seen a flood plain. That is what is wrong with flat.

Our government is filled with a bunch of morons. Handicap access should be required of say 5-10% of places, no more. These rules make flooding in newer communities worse.

Unintended consequences.

Oh, and stick your Global Climate Disruption up your..........Al Gore.

reply to post by Blazer



Good find. S&F

...It's a global issue - and has been for a while. Ie., Early in the '90's, Canada was already opening Yukon land for homesteading (near the Arctic).

It's only in the US that people bought into the Denial Industry and the Koch bros PR campaign - people elsewhere aren't so gullible.

reply to post by Blazer

What I find interesting is they casually mention that other coastal cities, New York, Boston, Seattle, etc are considering the same problem. They also state that they believe that the barrier islands will be swamped within 40-60 years.

There is one other factor in this equation and that is land fill, very common in the San Francisco Bay Area as well as other Coastal areas in America. The major damage from the 89 quake in San Francisco occured in the Marina which is all land fill, rising water levels are not the only concern.

the Marina is built on former landfill[4], and is susceptible to liquefaction during strong earthquakes. This caused extensive damage to the entire neighborhood during the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake.

en.wikipedia.org...

They are assuming quite a lot. I mean other reports i have read say that we may actually face an ice age.

But this is san fran the mecca of hippyness so its not much of a surprise. Seriously though they are acting like ocean levels rising is a forgone fact, which its not. I dont like to see them stifle free enterprise, if the developers can find the backing for it, and they can find the tenants for the properties then it is a risk the tenants are willing to take.

reply to post by Blazer

star and flag for a very good point,when i think of the subject i can only come up with one word,RUN!!!

reply to post by saltheart foamfollower


None of you derisive talk of Al Gore or handicap parking laws in California comes anywhere NEAR relating to the information in the story whatsoever.

If governments ALL OVER THE COUNTRY (not just california, you easily miss) are planning for this, then clearly the info is on the table. debate it looking at the facts. not cliche attacks that arent even related to the info here.

Originally posted by Desolate Cancer
They are assuming quite a lot. I mean other reports i have read say that we may actually face an ice age.

But this is san fran the mecca of hippyness so its not much of a surprise. Seriously though they are acting like ocean levels rising is a forgone fact, which its not. I dont like to see them stifle free enterprise, if the developers can find the backing for it, and they can find the tenants for the properties then it is a risk the tenants are willing to take.

Please see my above post that points out how focusing on your preconceptions of 'california' is hardly a legitimate dismisal when the article also mentions this is happening all over the cuontry. So, if your criteria for dismissing California is air-tight, then apply it to NY, Florida, Maine, LA, etc.

Originally posted by Blazer



So basically, amidst the current U.S. mindset of denying global warning (despite record-breaking temperatures, and the steady melting fragmenting of the arctic ice shelves), it seems that the state governments are are in full planning mode to avert disaster in the near future (disaster caused by rising sea levels making current coastal developments uninhabitable).



www.scientificamerican.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Of course they are. When planning something as real as a city, one has to be realistic about the information in front of you.

Conversely, when running a political campaign, ignoring the evidence in front of you can actually be the best route, because your campaign is just words meant to deceive.

So politicians can deny all they want, and pretend their position as politician gives them an ounce of validity.

But people who have to plan for something tangible in the next 2-60 years have to make decisions based on facts.

The dis-info denier tactic is to muddy, mislead, and befuddle, with flippant comments about "Al Gore" (and how does he relate to all the science showing that the ocean is indeed rising??) and wacky californians. Classic tactics. But no legitimate science. NO willingness to debate point for point.

These are all signs they are just muddying the water.