3 ms·

Indeed the question is not if, but when the Netherlands will flood due too sea level rise. Unlike many other nations the Netherlands is managed in a way that it

by tda 7y ago

Indeed the question is not if, but when the Netherlands will flood due too sea level rise. Unlike many other nations the Netherlands is managed in a way that it can potentially handle quite significant (I would say 1-3 meters) in the next couple of decades if necessary at high but bearable costs. The cost of retreating to higher parts of the country would easily go into trillions of euro's, which compared to the +/- 1 billion euro spent on sea defense according to the latest "Deltaplan". Until now most climate models put catastrophic (say 3m+) sea level rise at hundreds to thousands of years of now so we (I'm Dutch) should be alright. However, I personally feel that there is a non negligible possibility that all the current models are wrong because they are more or less extrapolating current changes and conditions. There are several mechanisms that could cause runaway sea level rise in shorter timescales, think melting permafrost with methane, regime change of jet stream, regime change/stop of ocean currents. And more importantly that sea level rise is IMHO the possibility of extreme storms hitting the North Sea. Last year we say a few of those cyclone/hurricanes that usually stay on the other side of the atlantic come our way. That was highly unusual, and even though Ireland and Portugal are still a long way from the Netnerlands, if if all of a sudden a super storm with 300 km/h winds hits us (highest record gust unitl now is only 173 km/h), then we are sure doomed. I can't predict the future, but living in the potentially vulnerable west of the country, I'm glad my parents in law have nice bit of property in the east at 17m+ sea level. I intend to live another 50 years, a lot can happen in my lifetime

jacquesm 7y ago
That's a lot of ifs! Yes, if the sky falls we'll all wear blue hats. But for now the indications are that change will be gradual rather than sudden and we are actively working on this rather than sitting back and waiting to see how bad things will get (which is the standard in the rest of the developed world). NL is one of the few places where there is substantial funding today to deal with this. Level of upheaval that could happen is of course orders of magnitude worse than what you can reasonably plan for but if such a thing were to come to pass it will have much larger effects than that NL would end up being a part of the ocean again. By that time you're looking at 100's of millions of people that will be displaced and catastrophic events pretty much all over the globe. NL will be a footnote in that story.
- tda 7y ago
  Just to be clear, I still enjoy and plan on living in the west for a long time. But there are quite a few theoretically possible regime changes that I am aware of (and probably even more that I am unaware of) to make me concerned about it. Any significant regime change (break with historic trends) will automatically invalidate all models/predictions/assumptions about our safety levels. Current design criterion is we should be safe for 1/10.000 year conditions. And if all goes wrong, you better be in a low population density rich country that can handle a little warming (thinking of Sweden and Norway in particular) Better move there before everyone else does ;)
  - jacquesm 7y ago
    Sweden and Norway are attractive for many reasons, but I don't think any of this will happen soon enough to impact my life in a meaningful way. I'm 54, I haven't exactly been too careful with this body and if I live to 80 it would highly surprise me. But my children likely will see this in full force and I sincerely hope that by then humanity will have come its collective senses.
    - tda 7y ago
      I hope you're right, I expect the world to be in a very different place in a few decades and not for the better. I'm still under 40 so I'm keeping my options open; even though the chances are probably very low, the effect is also pretty extreme making the risk (probability * effect) approximately 0 * inf. I estimate the probability to be somewhat higher than 0, so therefore I believe the risk is significant.
      - jacquesm 7y ago
        > I expect the world to be in a very different place in a few decades and not for the better Given history to date I would say that is a safe assumption when you are living in a time of prosperity, it is the global equivalent of 'this too shall pass'. But even if NL will be hit hard I highly doubt it will be hit hardest or first. We've been vaccinated in a sense in not trusting nature to leave her boundaries where we'd like them to be, the country is more like a machine than a static arrangement. If we stopped pumping water out you'd be living on the lakeside within a few years, and on the seaside a few years after that.

by tda 7y ago

jacquesm 7y ago

That's a lot of ifs! Yes, if the sky falls we'll all wear blue hats. But for now the indications are that change will be gradual rather than sudden and we are actively working on this rather than sitting back and waiting to see how bad things will get (which is the standard in the rest of the developed world). NL is one of the few places where there is substantial funding today to deal with this. Level of upheaval that could happen is of course orders of magnitude worse than what you can reasonably plan for but if such a thing were to come to pass it will have much larger effects than that NL would end up being a part of the ocean again. By that time you're looking at 100's of millions of people that will be displaced and catastrophic events pretty much all over the globe. NL will be a footnote in that story.

tda 7y ago
Just to be clear, I still enjoy and plan on living in the west for a long time. But there are quite a few theoretically possible regime changes that I am aware of (and probably even more that I am unaware of) to make me concerned about it. Any significant regime change (break with historic trends) will automatically invalidate all models/predictions/assumptions about our safety levels. Current design criterion is we should be safe for 1/10.000 year conditions. And if all goes wrong, you better be in a low population density rich country that can handle a little warming (thinking of Sweden and Norway in particular) Better move there before everyone else does ;)
- jacquesm 7y ago
  Sweden and Norway are attractive for many reasons, but I don't think any of this will happen soon enough to impact my life in a meaningful way. I'm 54, I haven't exactly been too careful with this body and if I live to 80 it would highly surprise me. But my children likely will see this in full force and I sincerely hope that by then humanity will have come its collective senses.
  - tda 7y ago
    I hope you're right, I expect the world to be in a very different place in a few decades and not for the better. I'm still under 40 so I'm keeping my options open; even though the chances are probably very low, the effect is also pretty extreme making the risk (probability * effect) approximately 0 * inf. I estimate the probability to be somewhat higher than 0, so therefore I believe the risk is significant.
    - jacquesm 7y ago
      > I expect the world to be in a very different place in a few decades and not for the better Given history to date I would say that is a safe assumption when you are living in a time of prosperity, it is the global equivalent of 'this too shall pass'. But even if NL will be hit hard I highly doubt it will be hit hardest or first. We've been vaccinated in a sense in not trusting nature to leave her boundaries where we'd like them to be, the country is more like a machine than a static arrangement. If we stopped pumping water out you'd be living on the lakeside within a few years, and on the seaside a few years after that.