A host of laws need rewriting
New structures that must be built along the coast should be elevated, they say, to allow periodic floodwaters to sweep in without causing damage to a building itself.
The draft report to be discussed over the coming months "is an important first step in developing a statewide framework to address the risks posed by sea level rise and coastal storms," said Adam Freed, who serves as New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg's deputy sustainability director.
City and state records show that the level of New York Harbor has risen by approximately 15 inches in the past 150 years. Gauges in the harbor have recorded the high tide mark rising by about 4 to 6 inches since 1960.
Citing international scientific estimates, the task force says the region can expect a further 2- to 5-inch rise in average sea level by as early as 2020. With the most pessimistic observers predicting the sea rising by a few feet by the end of the century, state officials and environmentalists are worried that some sensitive habitats and islands lining the region could be lost entirely, exposing the city and state to the full brunt of strong storms.
Among its 14 recommendations, the panel suggests specific changes to a host of laws now on the books, including state legislation governing wetlands protections, hazardous waste handling and shoreline erosion prevention.
Emphasis on 'soft engineering'
For instance, the task force suggests adding specific text to the state's Tidal Wetlands Act stating: "It is declared to be the public policy of the state to preserve and protect tidal wetlands and to prevent their despoliation and destruction, giving due consideration to the occurrence of sea level rise that will result in wetlands loss and migration, and to the reasonable economic and social development of the state."
And taking a cue from recent initiatives in New York City, the task force is calling on the state to undertake a complete review of zoning laws and building codes, including even fire and health codes, directing the development of New York's waterfront for decades out. Such changes would ideally "require consideration of sea level rise impacts in comprehensive plans for coastal communities," the 17-member task force says.
The group also calls for so-called "soft engineering" solutions to trump hard infrastructure projects like sea walls or tide gates. Worried that such major projects would be too expensive or that they may become overwhelmed by storms and the encroaching sea, they instead call for investments in expanding the size of salt marshes and barrier islands that may offer greater, longer-lasting protection at a much lower cost.
It is unknown how the incoming Legislature and Gov.-elect Andrew Cuomo (D) plan to move forward with the findings and recommendations. The meeting to be held Monday at DEC headquarters in Albany is meant primarily as an opportunity to explain the particulars of the plan in greater detail and give the public a chance to offer their comments and suggestions. Comments will be gathered until Dec. 12 in time for officials to revise the report and submit a final draft to state lawmakers on Jan. 1.
"This also folds into the larger climate action planning process," said Marcell. "This is kind of going into more detail on what sort of impacts are going to have the largest potential costs to New York state. That process is a much longer process."
Real change is unlikely to come soon. A similar New York City team assigned to review building codes in order to enhance the city's energy efficiency and cut greenhouse gas pollution took over a year to complete its work, and implementation of its plan is expected to occur gradually over the next decade.
Reprinted from Climatewire with permission from Environment & Energy Publishing, LLC. www.eenews.net, 202-628-6500
See what we're tweeting about
38 Comments
Add Comment@dbtinc,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe wealthy will always make sure their interest are taken care of. It is the poor that will suffer the most.
Can you say "Waterworld"?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTrent1492 is right, even if it costs trillions of dollars and stalls human progress for a century, the First World countries will survive climate change if it isn't averted (and at this point it's looking unlikely that it will be). The Third World countries on the other hand will be completely screwed unless there is a massive change in the way the First World interacts with it. And when it's all over, people will wonder how we let this disaster happen, and will regret inaction as much as we currently regret the Church of the Dark/Middle Ages repressing scientific progress for several centuries.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo the part of the solution for the soon to be expected rise in sea levels in the New York coastal region is to move the people in Long Island and lower Manhattan, Queens and Brooklyn is to move people upstate. That's a plan? Is it the same as asking people on the Titanic to move to the other side of the sinking ship? Abandon all hope ye who enter, how long can you tread water? I do believe that Albany has to do a better job in protecting life and human property in the future. If the waters are rising to the point that they will threaten live on the coastal areas, then maybe we should try what the Dutch have become good at. The Dutch are good for their construction of dikes and levees in order to protect themselves from the rising seas. We should not try to run. We should take a stand and fight for the survival of the human race in the face of a live ending episode on this planet. We are so concerned about the money that we do not care about the lives of human living on this planet. We always talk of the value of a dollar, but what is the value of a human life? What is the value of the human race?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe need to plan for sea level rise should include a measurement of actual sea level rise. Now that sunspots have disappeared, cooling will occur and sea level will decrease instead of rise.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCosmic rays cause more clouds now since the sun is not protecting us from interstellar cosmic rays now. This means that the current cooling trend will cause sea level decrease, as more ice is formed.
@rA bLAKEY,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Now that sunspots have disappeared, cooling will occur and sea level will decrease instead of rise."
That hypothesis has been falsified many time over. The past couple of years has seen minimal sunspot activity and yet we have had the hottest ten year on the instrument record.
Further that is not the only way that the sun as culprit has been ruled out. E.G we can see that the stratosphere is COOLING while the troposphere is WARMING. If it was the Sun then the top of the atmosphere should warm FIRST followed by the lower parts of the atmosphere.
Another one is that the nights are warming faster than the day time. Exactly the opposite of what you should expect to see if it was the Sun.
A forth piece of evidence is that the Arctic is warmer much faster than the Tropics. Again exactly opposite of what you would expect. Why? Because the Sun shines the most consistently and most intensity on the tropics.
There is more than what I have listed here but I hope you get the point by now.
I wants mah big honkin v8 injin anyways it's mah raht as an Americ'n, an hummer should a had a v12!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am wondering if most of the posters here are aware of the fact that most of N.Y. city was underwater to begin with and that the land was extended artificially over time (see the article about the boat they found underneath the world trade center)and now are wondering why they may have flooding problems when the water has been rising for the last 150 years and they are just now noticing? Also please note that if you blame glacial melting for this fact how can you not take into account the higher temps causing more evaporation around the equator, thus nullifying all melting by a ratio of 2 to 1 to evaporation? And further more how do we know with any certainty that N.Y is not sinking?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAll the countries with coastlines should follow suit including Indonesia, India, Japan and so on...But the biggest problem is what happens to those countries encircled by sea and are also below the sea level. Countries like Maldives, Kiribati, and Tonga and so on will end up sleeping under the sea.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@Pabsy Loudmouth,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"I am wondering if most of the posters here are aware of the fact that most of N.Y. city was underwater to begin with and that the land was extended artificially over time (see the article about the boat they found underneath the world trade center)and now are wondering why they may have flooding problems when the water has been rising for the last 150 years and they are just now noticing?"
I am wondering if Pabsy Loud Mouth knows that global sea rise is ...well GLOBAL. Did you read the article at all?
"Also please note that if you blame glacial melting for this fact how can you not take into account the higher temps causing more evaporation around the equator, thus nullifying all melting by a ratio of 2 to 1 to evaporation?"
This is simply not true.
A. Glaciologist are reporting that over 90% of glaciers have been losing mass for steadily for decades.
B. I already mentioned this but it is worth mentioning again. The sea is RISING and has even accelerated over the past fifteen years.
Why do you insist on being so militantly ignorant?
Let's hope! Improve the world.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNah, Pabsy's real problem is this. The atmosphere only holds a certain amount of water. Whatever evaporates FALLS AGAIN AS RAIN and does so within a 12 day period or so on average. So evaporation balances against RAINFALL not against ice melt. Every bit of land ice that melts adds an equal amount to the ocean's volume (and thus sea level). Actually one of the largest factors is thermal expansion of the oceans as they warm. Another is an area like Greenland actually lifts up out of the ground some as the weight of ice decreases, raising sea level even more.
The actual levels we are going to have are hard to say exactly. A planning process to take into account the continuation of an existing trend is only basic good public policy. If for some reason the ENTIRE scientific community were to turn out to be utterly wrong, then we just enjoy our enhanced planning ability and don't bother to do certain projects, big deal. OTOH the chances are rising seas are real, basic prudence is we spend a little money to plan and avoid wasting a LOT of money. Anyone that can't get that concept isn't equipped to be in this debate.
New York should take it's lessons from the Gungans on Naboo and build a city undersea. They could name it Atlantis.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNew York is a state that is in effect (if not legally) bankrupt. Other than useless talk what do they have to offer? Nothing at all.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"New York is a state that is in effect (if not legally) bankrupt. Other than useless talk what do they have to offer? Nothing at all."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell except for being the financial capital of the world. A center of book publishing for the English speaking peoples. Home to some of the world's greatest museums and research centers. And the cultural center of the U.S I guess you are right; that is if I was a barbarian.
There will be a need to evacuate everything in ground-level storeys. But before the sea rises, buidings will need special attention to avoid the adverse effects of sea-water on steel in reenforced concrete. And all roads would have to be raised to the height of the first storeys. All this and much more needs to be planned and implemented long before the sea-rise event occurs.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPeople you are supposed to be making intelligent informed analytical contributions to a story about a planning response to an identified danger so why not do this surely you have studied science math history etc and can give this subject respectfull attention ? The planning proposals seem to be to initiate research followed by policy options to be analysed using standard techniques what is wrong with that ?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@Silent planet,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI will tell you why. They do like the implications that climate change is here and humans are going to have to adopt and mitigate.
This lot here would prefer to party.
Doing reasonable planning for protection of infrastructure simply makes good sense. Most scientists who have studied the data now seem to agree that while the reports from the IPCC vastly overstated the potential rate of sea level rise, it still makes sense to plan for changes over the next 100 years.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is absolutely nothing the United States can do to prevent any potential world wide climate change that may happen in the next 100 years; so the smart move is to improve our infrastructure.
@Sisko,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Most scientists who have studied the data now seem to agree that while the reports from the IPCC vastly overstated the potential rate of sea level rise, it still makes sense to plan for changes over the next 100 years."
I think it is neat how you think you can just make up these little facts without anyone calling you on it. Please provide evidence of this survey.
Sisko,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWRT: "Most scientists who have studied the data now seem to agree that while the reports from the IPCC vastly overstated the potential rate of sea level rise"
That's not really true. The IPCC created some projections based on different scenarios that could play out regarding human GHG emissions. Not nearly enough was known about ice dynamics in a warming world; so, they did not account for some factors that were not well understood. Under the same scenario where the IPCC projected less than a meter of sea level rise, more recent estimates have 1 meter by 2100 near the bottom of the expected range.
100 years? Simply false; the US is currently the most powerful nation on earth, and you are assuming that the actions of the US have no effect on other nations.
Partly true. The trajectory of planetary temperatures won't change until about 2050 even if substantial changes were started now. Sea levels will continue to rise for decades if not centuries after we stabilize CO2 levels. Should we wait until 2050 to start making changes; so that an improvement would not be felt until 2100? Should we wait until we are well into the down slope of peak oil, and having more problems with energy supply to divert some of that energy production to creating alternate supplies? Should we wait until we are in more of an ecological dire strait than we are now before taking steps to protect our food production? Under business as usual, anthropogenic climate change is not a problem that will hit us once and move on, it will be a problem that gets progressively worse the longer we delay correcting our course.
@Chris-I really just look at the math regarding the impact that the United States will have on total CO2 emissions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe US currently emits about 15% of worldwide CO2. If the US was to reduce down to....(pick whatever reduction number you wish).....worldwide emissions will continue to rise. A large percentage (somewhere close to 60%?) of humanity is/will greatly increase their use of hydrocarbon products over the next 25 years. People in vast numbers who never before had electricity or personal transportation in central and south Asia are now getting both.
I am not suggesting that the US should do nothing. We should do what makes sense. I believe that the US should reduce GHG emissions while at the same time reducing the outflow of US capital by standardizing the design of 3rd/4th generation and thorium nuclear power plants.
You were correct in your comment.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI should have said "many" and not "most" since no survey was done.
I would however be willing to bet you that if we surveyed 25 randomly selected climate scientists that the majority would agree that the IPCC vastly overstated the threat of sea level rise over the next 25 years.
"I should have said "many" and not "most" since no survey was done."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisName these specialist. Let us see what peer reviewed works they have published on the subject.
@Trent1492- Since you seem to read on the subject, you must know that what I have written to be correct, but here are a few names- Dr. Judith Curry, Dr. James Elsner, and a link to Dr. Pat Michael's testimony before the US Congress earlier this month.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://science.house.gov/publications/Testimony.aspx?TID=15567
Dr. Pat Michael"s:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIs an ecologist who has never published anything on the sea level rise in the peer reviewed literature. He also admits to receiving funding from the fossil fuel industry:
Watch the video here:
http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2010/08/15/michaels-political-acceptability/
So that is one down.
And by the way here is debunking of the sea level lie:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm
Notice that the article uses real data.
Like wise I can not find ANY published works on sea level rise by a Dr. James Elsner.
Perhaps you can provide a citation.
Dr. Judith Curry:
Dr. Curry has a good publications history but once again I am failing to find what she published on sea level rise that supports your assertions.
Here is here publications record in the peer reviewed literature.
http://curry.eas.gatech.edu/onlinepapers.html
So in short you have not provided one person who has even PUBLISHED in the literature on the subject. Care to explain why?
Trent1492-- I never stated they had published peer reviewed articles, nor do I believe that is necessarily critical in addressing a previous position taken by the IPCC.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI also do not agree with your tendency to immediately ignore information from sources that you do not like or from those that may have worked with the oil industry or the UN. I read what their positions and evaluate whether or not it made sense. As an example Dr. Pat Michael's testimony before the US Congress did summarize errors in the IPCC's report.
@trent1492-- I would be interested in what you think the United States should be doing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIsn't what I wrote in comment #22 generally accurate regarding worldwide CO2 emissions???
Sisko says now: I never stated they had published peer reviewed articles, nor do I believe that is necessarily critical in addressing a previous position taken by the IPCC.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHere is what you said:
Sisko said then: : "Most scientists who have studied the data now seem to agree that while the reports from the IPCC vastly overstated the potential rate of sea level rise, it still makes sense to plan for changes over the next 100 years."
So now scientist who study a subject can just say they studied a subject and not have a peer reviewed record trail? Are you that credulous?
I mean that would mean any old person could say anything and you would believe as long as it fit your ideology. Oh, wait you are already doing that.
Let us face it Sisko, you lied. There is not even a substantial minority of specialist who say that sea rise is over stated. In fact, their is close to no literature on sea rise that states it has been over estimated. You have resorted to making up things...again.
"I read what their positions and evaluate whether or not it made sense. As an example Dr. Pat Michael's testimony before the US Congress did summarize errors in the IPCC's report"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIs bunk. What kind of testimony cites a internet poll on Scientific American as a legitimate source of information?
Your source, like you, has lied about the projections of sea and atmospheric temps being way off. I provided a link to that debunking and as usual you have ignored it? Why be so blatantly dishonest?
Sea level will drop because sunspots have ended the Grand Maxima state that has persisted for most of the 20th century. It is clear that the sun has changed state. An article by James A. Marusek has the details. We are going to get crushing cold in the near future.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@ R. Blakely,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Sea level will drop because sunspots have ended the Grand Maxima state that has persisted for most of the 20th century. It is clear that the sun has changed state"
A hypothesis that has been debunked multiple times.
@Trent- you seem to put out meaningless comments demeaning the positions of scientists that you do not agree with ( Curry, Michaels, etc) and fail to respond to the most basic of realistic questions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGiven that:
The US currently emits about 15% of worldwide CO2. If the US was to reduce down to....(pick whatever reduction number you wish).....worldwide emissions will continue to rise greatly. A large percentage (somewhere close to 60%?) of humanity is/will greatly increase their use of hydrocarbon products over the next 25 years. People in vast numbers who never before had electricity or personal transportation in central and south Asia are now getting both.
Given the above, does it make sense (and please explain your reasoning) to spend vast amounts of US funds to reduce US CO2 emissions at current facilities by some amount that will do absolutely nothing overall for the climate?
@Sisko,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Trent- you seem to put out meaningless comments demeaning the positions of scientists that you do not agree with ( Curry, Michaels, etc) and fail to respond to the most"
I offered a critique. You just did not like it. Let me see *scrolls up*
"Is bunk. What kind of testimony cites a internet poll on Scientific American as a legitimate source of information?"
Why do you think that no one is going to notice? I also pointed out that NONE of the people you named had actually done any work on sea level rise. A point you seem to think is trivial.
I also offered a post debunking Michaels testimony. Again, you do not seem to like to even admit these points have been made. I wonder why?
"The US currently emits about 15% of worldwide CO2. If the US was to reduce down to....(pick whatever reduction number you wish).....worldwide emissions will continue to rise greatly."
1. The U.s emits about 20% of Co2.
2. You make the assumption that the U.S would be or is the only country in the world trying to cut emissions.
3. Ever heard the old saw of: When you find yourself in a hole stop digging?
4. This all rather disingenuous of you since you can not even admit to a serious problem. For goodness sake you think sea level rise is not a problem, can not admit that Corals are dying to inhospitable temps, declare against all evidence that the Antarctic Peninsula is NOT warming, and think that we can not figure out how much of the present CO2 levels is attributable to humanity.
Sorry you have to first admit to all of the above if you want people not see you as a hypocrite.
@trent- Since you do not respond hen confronted I post the comment again here---
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou say the US accounts for 20% of worldwide CO2. I do not see that as accurate. I agree that the most recent published worldwide data (which is from 2006) has the US at approximately 19%, but that would not be the same for 2010. US per capita usage was declining at approximately 1% per year while worldwide per capita emissions were increasing at a rate of 1% year. Based upon that, I estimate that in 2010 the US will be at approximately 15% of worldwide CO2.
You also wrote trying to summarize what you believe to be my position, but did this inaccurately.
You wrote-
"you think sea level rise is not a problem"- I think the IPCC overestimated the rate of sea level rise in the short term, but over the long term I think sea level rise is inevitable. Humanity should take steps to protect their infrastructure.
You wrote-
"can not admit that Corals are dying to inhospitable temps" What I have written is that I believe Scientific American repeatedly publishes articles attributing and inferring that specific events (in one case coral dying) are due to long term climate change. Scientific American does this without any data to link what they believe to be a long term trend (climate change), to the specific root cause issue that really caused to described event (coral dying). We know the coral died, we know coral doesn't like warmer water....we do not know that long term CO2 changes caused the temp changes in this specific case, or that warmer water was the cause in this case.
You wrote-
"declare against all evidence that the Antarctic Peninsula is NOT warming"- That is simply untrue.
You wrote-
"think that we can not figure out how much of the present CO2 levels is attributable to humanity."
I believe we know that the data using carbon 14 is no longer accurate and that data using the relationship between carbon 12 and 13 has a wide range of error. I think science can tell generally but not preciously what percentage of atmospheric CO2 is due to humans. I have also written that the non human variations in atmospheric CO2 emissions can be quite significant.
@Sicko,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"You say the US accounts for 20% of worldwide CO2. I do not see that as accurate."
When will you learn that your baseless objection hold no water? You never ever cite scientific information. You just assert expect it to be accepted.
ou wro
"I think the IPCC overestimated the rate of sea level rise in the short term, but over the long term I think sea level rise is inevitable."
Now you are lying again. Why is it every time you change your position you think no notices?
"What I have written is that I believe Scientific American repeatedly publishes articles attributing and inferring that specific events (in one case coral dying) are due to long term climate change."
Increase temperatures are a result of climate change bright one. You have also been shown multiple scientific works showing you just that. You have refused to acknowledge that.
"I believe we know that the data using carbon 14 is no longer accurate and that data using the relationship between carbon 12 and 13 has a wide range of error."
When will you learn that making baseless assertions holds no water?
also posted here lakota so your stupid comments do not go unanswered
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisand lakota-- I addressed exactly what you said. You said if the # 1 and #2 emitters of CO2 reduced their emissions....and I demonstrated that #1 China and the other 60% of the world will continue to increase emissions. By any measure CO2 and total GHG emissions will rise dramatically in the next 25 years. (per the IPCC)
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch1s1-es.html
The smart will adapt to the change, because it will happen absolutely regardess of US actions.
And the science is referenced for you to learn.
@Sicko,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"also posted here lakota so your stupid comments do not go unanswered"
Oh, I see that baseless innuendo continues. Am I part of the conspiracy Sicko? Are the greenies in your closet waiting to jump out?
"You said if the # 1 and #2 emitters of CO2 reduced their emissions....and I demonstrated that #1 China and the other 60% of the world will continue to increase emissions."
No, you have conflated the words emissions with reduction. Why you do not understand this is a testament your idiocy. If CHINA REDUCES emissions TOO then a large chunk of co2 EMISSIONS are REDUCED.