6 ms·

I don’t think NYC is really a counterexample/gotcha to their argument. If the commenter is right that a 1.5ft rise in sea level will cause a lot of damage to Ne

I don’t think NYC is really a counterexample/gotcha to their argument. If the commenter is right that a 1.5ft rise in sea level will cause a lot of damage to New Orleans, surely that line of thinking applies to both places (and all places close to the sea).

beerandt 5y ago
>a 1.5ft rise in sea level It won't, precisely because New Orleans already has many places below sea level. It's got a head start. It's spent billions of dollars over 100+ years making the outer boundaries water tight, and building the infrastructure to support all of that, including the ability to pump 100% of rainfall out. To New Orleans, the cost of any sea level rise has essentially already approached the marginal rate. No where else in the world, with the exception of probably the Netherlands, is better prepared for rising waters, whether it's storm surge or sea level rise. Everywhere else has to pretty much start from scratch.
- 8note 5y ago
  ... katrina happened though, within the past 100+ years. either they didnt make them water tight, or they planned for situations that arent reality.
  - beerandt 5y ago
    It was mostly geotech failures related to the organic material mentioned above, combined with a patchwork system at that point in time. The post-Katrina improvements have combined the patchwork systems into one. The improvements should have been made long before Katrina, but the corps of engineers stalled most attempts, and Congress refused to let the corps do anything without direct Congressional funding, which never came. Until Katrina.
beerandt 5y ago
And I only use New York City as an example, because of the argument about spending money on investments and infrastructure near sea level. People aren't currently avoiding New York because of sea level rise. And are spending far greater amounts on business investments there.
8note 5y ago
Where they are different is that there's a lot of wealth in New York that will put money on mitigating the sea level rise
- beerandt 5y ago
  Will? New Orleans already has.

beerandt 5y ago

>a 1.5ft rise in sea level It won't, precisely because New Orleans already has many places below sea level. It's got a head start. It's spent billions of dollars over 100+ years making the outer boundaries water tight, and building the infrastructure to support all of that, including the ability to pump 100% of rainfall out. To New Orleans, the cost of any sea level rise has essentially already approached the marginal rate. No where else in the world, with the exception of probably the Netherlands, is better prepared for rising waters, whether it's storm surge or sea level rise. Everywhere else has to pretty much start from scratch.

8note 5y ago
... katrina happened though, within the past 100+ years. either they didnt make them water tight, or they planned for situations that arent reality.
- beerandt 5y ago
  It was mostly geotech failures related to the organic material mentioned above, combined with a patchwork system at that point in time. The post-Katrina improvements have combined the patchwork systems into one. The improvements should have been made long before Katrina, but the corps of engineers stalled most attempts, and Congress refused to let the corps do anything without direct Congressional funding, which never came. Until Katrina.

beerandt 5y ago

And I only use New York City as an example, because of the argument about spending money on investments and infrastructure near sea level. People aren't currently avoiding New York because of sea level rise. And are spending far greater amounts on business investments there.

8note 5y ago

Where they are different is that there's a lot of wealth in New York that will put money on mitigating the sea level rise

beerandt 5y ago
Will? New Orleans already has.