Rising Sea Levels Could Cost World Economy $100 Trillion Annually...

Storms And Rising Sea Levels Will Cost World Economy $100 Trillion Annually Without Investment In Protective Measures

It's no longer a question of if sea levels will rise or when, but how to protect coastal cities and towns before they do, the Ecologist reported.

Based on a new study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the damages caused by storms and flooding will reach $100 trillion per year this century if current measures don't change. The current figures are between $10 and $40 billion per year.

"If we ignore this problem, the consequences will be dramatic," said lead author Jochen Hinkel of the Berlin-based think-tank, Global Climate Forum (GCF).

According to his co-author, professor Robert Nicholls form the University of Southampton, focusing governments (and people in general) on long-term protective measure is a challenge because " coastal development tends to be dominated by short-term interests of, for example, real-estate and tourism companies, which prefer to build directly at the waterfront with little thought about the future.

With proper investment -- about $10 - $70 billion per year worldwide -- the global economy would be able to contain damages to a significantly more manageable $80 billion annually by 2100, according to the report.

Not only must countries invest for themselves, but they must help other countries in need - and not just after a major storm has struck. By aiding the defenses of economically developing countries, richer countries may actually be saving money down the line they won't have to send as storm relief.

"Poor countries and heavily impacted small-island states are not able to make the necessary investments alone, they need international support," said Hinkel

I read this earlier today while having my morning coffee and wondered if this was fairly accurate or just more Doom porn?

There is no denying that we have seen some dramatic flooding and storms the past few years. I've always questioned if it's just the fact that we are now more globally connected via interwebs and cable news etc, and that we are now simply more aware of these events globally and that it may only seem like we are seeing an increase? Add to that, the human population has grown dramatically over the past few decades and have moved into areas which are more prone to these types of events.

With so many low lying major cities around the world we may need to, if true, start taking these types of stories seriously? When I read posted articles along these lines there seems to be two camps. One takes the view that it's all a bunch of BS designed to scare the masses and generate revenue, then there are those who seem to imply there isn't anything we can do, so do nothing and enjoy your day.

Sounds to me, in my opinion, both sides have their heads buried in the sand. I dunno, I've always tried to err on the side of caution.

You?

The oceans of this planet are connected, so there's really only one body of water covering 70% of the world. What concerns a single port city must concern them all.

The rise in sea level and ocean temperature are also connected as water expands as it warms, making added fresh water from other sources a second threat. But the small increases evident in ocean levels pale beside increasingly destructive weather systems which are blasting coastal regions with storm surges during higher tides.

We can ignore it, but at our collective peril. There's this old adage: "You can pay me now or you can pay me later'.

Wonder why they chose a picture of the Great Lakes for their article?? The Great Lakes have been dropping and they are now almost covered in ice which they have indicated should help with the evaporation this coming year.

reply to post by SLAYER69

It would only cost us $100 Trillion dollars annually if we stick to present paradigms.

If we were more forward thinking and willing to take the plunge (pardon the pun) and invest a single years $100 Trillion investment, we could have floating sea based cities, hydroponic stacked farms and fish and livestock nurseries, similar to the concepts and ideas offered by the Venus project and others forwarding the idea of sea based cities (and mega-cities in some cases).

Or we can keep spending that sort of money, every year on year and eventually lose.

there are too many powerful people that don't give a damn, it's going to happen no matter how much you jump up and down. climate change is too far along to stop it...now it's a matter of adaptation.

There are so many variables that seem to change and effect other parts of our earths eco system .Weather the gulf stream or the polar cold and how it can reach places it normally doesn't .This article is just one more thing to consider in the grand scheme of things .wattsupwiththat.com... ...As humans we have ways of adapting or just plain getting out of the kitchen when it gets too hot .

the2ofusr1 ...As humans we have ways of adapting or just plain getting out of the kitchen when it gets too hot .

Simply move Hong Kong, London, NY etc etc etc, not to mention many low lying countries that do not have the means?
I'm not trying to be an alarmist, trust me.

reply to post by the2ofusr1


90% of everything we have comes to us through shipping. Adapting major ports to accommodate the threats involved in rising sea levels is going to be a costly endeavour on a global scale if we want to keep that system going, never mind our desire to live on the coast in places like Venice Beach.

I like the idea of floating ports. That makes a lot of sense. How to get those millions of containers to shore might be problematic though. Mini-containers ships?

reply to post by MysterX


I really like how you're thinking but wouldn't that take a massive coordinated effort by many Nations all pulling together for the common good or should it simply be left to the private sector in search of new profit and market demands or both?

reply to post by SLAYER69

Well we can imagine the jobs it would create .I find it strange when we are moved to make decisions based on $ ..I mean like they create it from nothing and pour large amounts into wars and travelling into space .If the oceans are going to rise and they probably will ,making the changes wont be that great seeing we have most of the ground work there already .It's not like we are starting from scratch without the materials and the knowledge to do it .

reply to post by SLAYER69


Preparing areas at risk for severe weather is just Common sense. Or I'll say it should be anyway. It should have been done in the first place. Areas like New Orleans that lie below sea level and are right by the Sea. There is no acceptable reason that city was not prepared for Katrina.

Unfortunately, common sense is not a common virtue. The areas that are prone to frequent flooding and the occasional tsunami rebuild their communities time and again knowing full well they will be flooded again.

I know they are not very wealth countries, and their options are limited. But surely another course of action is in order instead of doing the same thing over and over.

reply to post by masqua


My X boss bought a property near the water and up until that time there was never any flooding ...well ,with the right tides and the right winds and the moon his place took some flooding .. It was a rare thing to have happened but he just went at it and cleaned it up and said well if it happens again I will just have to go through the process again .I would think that if it was going to be a regular occurring thing he might take a different attitude to the situation .

These big super tankers don't have to even come into port with the ability to pump their load onshore . Maybe some sort of a shuttle container boats might be the answer like you mention . I think the world might just be changing too in that we really don't need to buy half the junk we by at Wall Mart and the like ..Hard to say but I could see a big curve in the amount of stuff we receive from these container ships going down ...It's really hard to imagine them actually increasing .....

reply to post by the2ofusr1


If I were to buy ocean front property, which I honestly won't, it would be very high up indeed, not because I fear higher tides on quiet waters but more so the storm surges from wild weather. I'm old enough to remember the last time Holland flooded when the dykes failed and that was the result of a storm surge.

When I think of international posts like Los Angeles, there's the port itself but then there's also all that humanity that lives there. Perhaps the port itself could be adapted without too exorbitant a cost, but what about the suburbs and all those people who are in harms way when the next 'mother-of-all-storms' comes ashore? Do we really need a dozen incidents like New Orleans or Jersey shoreline?

Where will we draw the line as too much?

reply to post by masqua


When I was growing up in California and would travel up and down the coastal highway I'd marvel at the beauty of the coastal cliffs and still do whenever I see images from around the world. Since then I've learned the process that create those cliffs, Tsunami, Earthquakes, Landslides are very violent and if they were to happen in a populated area would cause massive loss of life not to mention costing in the Billions...

All the beaches I have been going to for almost fifty years are still exactly the same. No coastal city anywhere has water reaching any higher than three hundred years ago.

This "rising" oceans meme keeps getting trotted out and remains nonsense.

reply to post by masqua


I live in a very quiet place not pron to tsunamis or earthquakes .After seeing what can happen and seeing the results from the past it amazes me that anyone would consider living in L.A. or anywhere even close to the water up the coast .I recently watched a youtube vid about a giant tsunami hitting the east coast and of coarse it was doom porn .But even if something like that was to happen there would be millions dead never mind the cost to bring back a sense of normal operating conditions .They were saying a 1000ft .wave ..sheesh ..I am only a couple 100 feet above sea level and although I wouldn't expect that a wave that big could directly impact me I am sure the damage to the coastal towns and cites would be incredible . There are so many forces of nature and the cosmos that have the potential to become the next hugh disaster that I cant dwell on it in my mind . Life is a bit short to be freaking out about the what could happens ...

SLAYER69
reply to post by MysterX

 

I really like how you're thinking but wouldn't that take a massive coordinated effort by many Nations all pulling together for the common good or should it simply be left to the private sector in search of new profit and market demands or both?

Thanks.

I'd go with a mixture of both personally. Nations pulling together in a long term massive effort for the common good of all mixed with private investment to protect their future business plans.

It'd be expensive, very expensive and would take a lot of co-ordinated planning and political cooperation..but as a certain Mr. JFK said a while ago, we should do these things because they are hard. I agree with him. We need to do it anyway, we might as well do it properly instead of spending massive amounts shoring up the old, use that money for the new and better.

It'll probably create full or almost full employment, rescue the world economy and create a new sense of cooperation and community among nations as a handy side benefit too.

The future is floaty.

reply to post by sprtpilot


It's like the trotting out they do of how this whole area is sinking 1 ft a year. Now, everyone knows that there's subsidence happening in Louisiana--clearly so. And we're losing our delta because they won't let the Mississippi change courses. But my home is the same level of elevation it's always been.

So someone's been playing over-dramatic twit with the sensationalism. What we do have going on is bad enough.

Lots more "what ifs", "Maybe's" and other nonsense spouting from computer models and outlandish projections based on theories and ideas rather than cold hard facts.

Where is the sea level rising exactly? I found it funny a while back, seeing a large new airport planned for the Maldives, those islands that, according to the experts, will disappear beneath the waves before we know it. Now, that's either gotta be one of the worst business ideas of the century, or the rising sea levels are in fact not what the "experts" tell us they are.
I also have to laugh at the projections talking of possibilities in decades or centuries to come, long after those making the claims will be dead and buried, so not around to have the scorn heaped on them for their idiotic projections.

As it relates to the current weather and flooding, well this is the first time in a long while that we have had such weather, but it's hardly indicative of a long term trend. Coastal erosion happens, storms happen, the two together are always going to affect someone, somewhere, but it's a natural process. Sure, we can build defences, as the Dutch did, which will keep the seas back for a while maybe, but longer term, who knows what's coming? Problem is, as we have already seen with the floods here in the UK, successive governments keep cutting funding for the programmes that are needed, preferring to spend £Billions in propping up the criminal bankers and other hair brained schemes to maintain the elites in their ivory towers.

reply to post by SLAYER69


This reminds me of a speech that Al Gore gave 6 years ago when he stated that

[T]he entire North Polarized cap will disappear in 5 years

So now I look at the ice pack figures for the Arctic and it would seem that the ice is still there....and growing.

Artic ice pack up a whopping 50% percent this year...

Given that so very many of these gloom amd doom climate predictions have not come to pass, makes me extremely sceptical about claims like this. The UN climate commission's predictions have been wildly off for the last 20 years.