From Happisburgh, on Britain’s eastern coast, an interesting story about the way adaptation decisions end up being made not at some global level, but one crumbling seawall at a time:
Ronan Uhel, a top official at the European Environment Agency in Copenhagen, said the situation in Happisburgh shows that governments and insurance companies have finally started letting the public know that it will have to do more than buy fuel-efficient cars and better light bulbs to fight global warming.
He said citizens are being shown they can’t keep building homes on islands and near lowlands and coastlines, especially in vulnerable areas where it no longer makes sense to rebuild offshore barriers.
In countries like Britain, “a national debate is just starting about what is an appropriate policy of adaptation to climate change,” Uhel said in an interview. “People are just beginning to realize the risks of global warming and the big lifestyle changes that may be needed to brace for them.”
Late last year, a new law took effect in England and Wales whereby the government decides whether it makes sense, economically and environmentally, to rebuild barriers.
For Happisburgh, 135 miles northeast of London, the answer was no.
“Basically, whatever we do to reduce greenhouse emissions we’re going to face about one meter (3.3 feet) sea level rise on the east coast of England in the next 100 years,” Clive Bates, a top official at the British government’s Environment Agency, told The Associated Press.
John,
“Basically, whatever we do to reduce greenhouse emissions we’re going to face about one meter (3.3 feet) sea level rise on the east coast of England in the next 100 years,”
a frightening thought for Londoners.
Closer to home: that projected one meter sea level rise will be global and one need only visit the Houston, Galveston, Baytown TX area either in reality or via Google Earth to see the massive concentration of petrochemical and oil refinery facilities all situated at sea level and in a region suffering economic loss from land subsidence.
Given that the Houston complex produces 40 percent of US petrochemical products and the fact that all coastal (at or near sea level) chemical, electric power, shipping faciliities and airports will simultaneously cope with the sea level rise in this century, it makes present day talk about the inconvenient truth almost trivial.
Houston, we really do have a real life problem.
Where to relocate the world’s shore line oil and chemical industry when public opposition can stop expansion of the town land fill.
Given the investment and value of coastal real estate anyone who pretends that adaptation is the low cost alternative has sea water for brains. It may be necessary, but it won’t be cheap. I rather like J. Willard Rabett’s fourth law of climate change, adaptation without mitigation drives procrastination penalties to infinity.
Happisburgh (pronounced Hayes Boro) is affected by numerous factors (including SLR). Interestingly, there are parts of the same coastline that are growing (see Wells-Next-The-Sea – http://www.multimap.com/map/browse.cgi?lat=52.8254&lon=1.5273&scale=500000&icon=x).
See links for more information:
http://www.happisburgh.org.uk/campaign (esp. the history link)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/2020/story/0,,1304301,00.html
The reference to the Broads is worrying as any sea-water encroachment would trash them (http://www.broads-authority.gov.uk/index.html).
http://www.multimap.com/map/browse.cgi?lat=52.8254&lon=1.5273&scale=25000&icon=x
The map above shows where the Broads start (in yellow) and Happisburgh (red circle). The contours are in metres.
“it will have to do more than buy fuel-efficient cars and better light bulbs to fight global warming.”
Undoubtedly true, but getting more bang from each gallon of oil burned certainly would be a good start and will undoubtedly be critical to eventually making a transition to an economy based on renewable energy sources.
The old saw about an ounce of prevention being worth a pound of cure is almost certainly as true with global warming as it is with everything else.
What bothers me about many of those calling for adaptation is that they present it as the only reasonable approach. Of course we will have to adapt. That’s a no-brainer. But it’s also a no-brainer that we must use energy and resources more efficiently and figure out how to create an economy that is sustainable in the long term — much like natural ecosystems are sustainable.
That clearly is going to require major lifestyle changes but more importantly, it is going to require major attitude changes — particularly by those claiming that adaptation is the only way to go.
Interesting, it makes present day talk about the inconvenient truth almost trivial.
Pingback: fed insurance will skyrocket with climate change « SusHI | Sustainability in Hawai`i