John Clague: Rising Sea Levels Require People To 'Defend' Or Retreat

First Posted: 02/19/2012 5:53 pm Updated: 02/19/2012 8:15 pm

Ocean
A British Columbia-based scientist says people who are living in low-lying coastal areas around the globe have two options when it comes to protecting themselves from rising sea levels.

VANCOUVER - Hundreds of millions of people who are living in low-lying coastal areas around the globe have two options when it comes to protecting themselves from rising sea levels, says a British Columbia-based scientist.

John Clague, a professor at Simon Fraser University, said Sunday that people can either "defend" their communities or "retreat" from the threat of sea levels that are expected to rise over the next century.

Clague was one of four researchers who addressed the issue during an annual gathering of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Vancouver.

So massive is the issue that Margaret Davidson, a director with the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, said as many as 500 million people could be affected worldwide, and the economic impacts have yet to be determined.

"It's a bit like the options open to the military during a war," said Clague. "We can defend or we can retreat. Both are not very palatable options."

While sea-level fluctuations are natural and have remained relatively constant during the past 5,000 years, the situation has begun to change over the last 200 years, he said.

During the last century, sea levels were rising by about two millimetres a year, but more recently they have increased to about three millimetres a year, he said.

"Why is that happening? Well, probably obvious to you, glaciers are melting and oceans are warming, and a warmer ocean occupies more space so the sea rises as a consequence of that," said Clague.

Three millimetres a year may not sound like much, Clague added, but it adds up, and over a century could mean a minimum 30-centimetre rise in sea levels — although he thinks the jump will be more like one metre.

Combined with other environmental factors, like storm surges, high tides and erosion, an increase of just 30 centimetres can cause severe problems for low-lying communities, he said.

Meanwhile, Davidson said some aboriginal communities in Alaska have already been forced to move inland because of problems related to flooding and coastal erosion.

She said the issue impacts anybody living on an island or a low-lying region, whether they be residents of Alaska, Louisiana or the south Pacific nation of Tuvalu.

"It has been estimated that it's close to 500-million people worldwide that we're going to have to figure what we do with over the next 80 years," she said.

None of the scientists could say exactly how much of an impact rising sea levels would have on the global economy, but they all agreed it would be massive.

Denise Reed, a professor at the University of New Orleans, said fixing her city's levies cost more than $14 billion.

"Depending on the nature of the place and depending upon what we're trying to protect, the protection strategy can be really expensive," she said.

But cost hasn't stopped some communities from planning ahead

David Flanders, a research scientist at the University of British Columbia, said he has been working with the Metro Vancouver community of Delta, B.C., on several strategies.

Delta residents can hold the line against rising sea levels by building higher dikes, or by implementing unique architectural solutions, like building homes on stilts, he said.

The community can also create habitat or barrier islands in inter-tidal zones that reduce the impact of winds and waves during storms, said Flanders.

Or, residents can begin planning for a long-term retreat, an actual movement of the community, he added.

Whatever residents of Delta or any other low-lying coastal community decide, Clague said he thinks there's still time to plan for the problem, which will also include grappling with funding issues.

"Where the money's going to come from?" he asked. "I don't think anybody knows because it's a large amount of money and, you know, it's outside the ability, I think, of most communities to deal with this problem."

The science symposium wraps up in Vancouver Monday.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST CANADA

VANCOUVER - Hundreds of millions of people who are living in low-lying coastal areas around the globe have two options when it comes to protecting themselves from rising sea levels, says a British Col...
VANCOUVER - Hundreds of millions of people who are living in low-lying coastal areas around the globe have two options when it comes to protecting themselves from rising sea levels, says a British Col...
Filed by Jacqueline Delange  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 118
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2  Next ›  Last »  (2 total)
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Richard2
09:15 PM on 02/21/2012
The NOAA tide station website provides real historical data from three Canadian tide stations in the area.

The Tofino data shows a long term decline in sea level averaging 1.7 mm per year.

The Vancouver data shows a long term rise averaging .27 mm per year.

The Victoria data shows a long term rise of .59 mm per year (2.28 inches in a 100 years).

People in Victoria and Vancouver should flee to the hills immediately.
09:47 PM on 02/20/2012
Please, this nonsense has to stop... Over the past
5,000 years but change over the past 200...it has begun to change....
Changes happen, always have and always will...
Mother earth knows how to take care of herself regardless of what you believe
photo
mbkeefer
Elder Amateur Scientist
10:32 PM on 02/20/2012
Natural changes (with the exception of super volcanos and asteriod impacts) take tens of thousands to millions of years. We are going to do it in two or three more centuries at the rate we are going.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Hans Littooy
11:47 PM on 02/20/2012
Not true at all. Paleoclimate studies have shown past climate disruptions as short as 10 yrs, based on ice core samples. Secondly, we were in a major ice as recent as 10,000 yrs so your time scales are way, way off. Do a little research on climate facts.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Dallas Dunlap
07:38 AM on 02/21/2012
Cage me -There is no such person as Mother Earth. Earth is a planet which has an environment consisting of the atmosphere, the sea, and the land. We live on the planet and we are adapted to a certain range of conditions. Although we are the most adaptable of life forms, we still can exist only within that specific range. If the environment on earth gets outside those conditions, we can't survive.
We are in imminent danger of pushing the environment into a condition that is outside our surviveable range.
10:08 AM on 02/21/2012
Noted, thnx
03:25 PM on 02/20/2012
I'm going to higher ground! Over AT LEAST the past 30 years all of the talk about climate change,global warming,etc has become more widespread and rampant. What the Earth itself has been doing as far as the weather - they way that has impacted more things than most people realize. Where there's smoke, there's fire. And anything the naysayers can say against global warming - I'm sure was said to Noah while he was building the Ark.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Jorge Escondido
02:47 PM on 02/20/2012
"Future generations will look back at this moment and say' this was the moment the seas began to lower, this is the moment the planet began to heal", just another broken campaign promise from the One.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Kenneth Alton
02:06 PM on 02/20/2012
Après moi, le déluge? It is the nature of the rains, the rivers, the sands, and the earth to shift, to change, to move, over the course of centuries. When there were fewer people on the planet, when cities and towns were smaller, the impact of these natural changes was less... catastrophic (though obviously no less painful for the people affected).

We will adapt. There will be many complaints. Some people will make money and others lose. And history will move on.
photo
mbkeefer
Elder Amateur Scientist
10:38 PM on 02/20/2012
The Earth on its own makes those chages over the coarse of tens of thousands of years not centuries.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Dallas Dunlap
07:39 AM on 02/21/2012
Kenneth Alton - By lose, you mean die.
01:17 PM on 02/20/2012
The article states: "Three millimetres a year may not sound like much, Clague added, but it adds up, and over a century could mean a minimum 30-centimetre rise in sea levels — although he thinks the jump will be more like one metre."

A prediction of sea level rise 3 times the current rate.
A prediction that rising sea levels will affect 500million people - approx 7% of the worlds population.
And you guys wonder why individuals are skeptical of the "science"
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Dallas Dunlap
01:52 PM on 02/20/2012
Joe Dallas - Scientists who study the melting of the cryosphere believe that a one-two meter rise is likely by the end of the century. A rise of that magnitude would easily affect that many people.
02:16 PM on 02/20/2012
Doomsday predictors thrive on a small segment of the population accepting the science without a trace of critical thinking or a trace of skepticism. Yes the world has warmed since the emergence of the little ice but it has warmed as much as the doomsday models have predicted. Are we to believe doomsday predictors who havent be able to the actual results have been at the lower than the low end of the models.

Yet a predicted sea level rise 3 times the current rate – is that credible – not questioning the claim without the slightest hint of skepticism – and you still wonder why people question the “settled science”.

It is worth having a healthy dose of skepticism so that you can ferret out the good science from the hysteria.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
silverwolf13
I know that I do not know.
08:50 PM on 02/20/2012
Note that the 3 mil per year rise is an acceleration over the earlier 2 mil per year rate of rise. We've still got the hammer down, with last year setting a record for CO2 emissions, and we're getting more feedback from melting permafrost releasing CO2 and methane from formerly frozen plant and animal remains, more open Arctic and Antarctic seas in the summer soaking up more solar heat, and more release of methane from the Arctic Ocean, so we can expect further increase in the rate of sea level rise.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
yeti7
don't need no stink'n badges
10:10 AM on 02/20/2012
Gasoline is going up what is barry going to do for us?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
HellBank
Curve: The loveliest distance between two points.
02:45 PM on 02/20/2012
You want him to truckle & fawn over the oil companies like republicans do?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
yeti7
don't need no stink'n badges
03:58 PM on 02/20/2012
==do something we cannot afford $ 5/gal in this economy! why are the saudis cutting back now. they said 2 weeks ago they wouldn't!!
El Justiciero
HP mods have NO sense of humor, obviously
03:13 PM on 02/20/2012
Use our tax dollars to subsidize oil companies to artificially deflate prices even more than we already do?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
yeti7
don't need no stink'n badges
03:54 PM on 02/20/2012
drill some more wells
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Hans Littooy
11:51 PM on 02/20/2012
Can you please list the specific subsidiese the oil companies get that are unusual and significant that other business of similar capital investment do not get. By significant, I mean $25BN or more - or a level that would discount the price of a gallon of gasoline by more than 25%.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Gary Storch
Democracy is NOT for Sale!
10:05 AM on 02/20/2012
There will be knee jerk reaction at the moment of realization that it is taking place and then the naysayers will blame the government for not warning them and doing something about it earlier.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
silverwolf13
I know that I do not know.
08:55 PM on 02/20/2012
You are plainly stating the obvious that so many are willing to see.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Gary Storch
Democracy is NOT for Sale!
10:06 AM on 02/21/2012
Plainly NOT obvious to many!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Michael D Ballantine
Texas Justice Party - Chairperson
09:27 AM on 02/20/2012
We need to begin constructing high-density ultra-modern urban centers away from the coast to provide housing for displaced people. Virtually, the entire state of Florida will need to be evacuated as well as cities like New York and Charleston. Bemoaning and bewailing the fact that rising seas will destroy our way of life yields little benefit. Instead of focusing on the costs of relocation, we can leverage the value of job creation, improve pollution issues, and rebuild our urban societies from the ground up. We should take this opportunity to create a better future for America and in turn the world. Support the only candidate with a job creation plan that includes managing climate change, Mike Ballantine, www.mikeandjon2012.com
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Dallas Dunlap
02:00 PM on 02/20/2012
Michael Ballantine - Even seven meters of sea level rise would leave most of Florida above water, although coastal communities and cities would be flooded. The one to two meters of sea level rise possible by the end of the century would flood thousands of acres and turn the Everglades into sea floor but most of the state would still be there.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Jorge Escondido
02:49 PM on 02/20/2012
You tell 'em.
photo
blackwind
Relax, nothing is under control
06:23 PM on 02/20/2012
He never said flooding would make the State not "be there", he said "Virtually, the entire state of Florida will need to be evacuated . . "
That's a big difference.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
silverwolf13
I know that I do not know.
09:12 PM on 02/20/2012
We could right now commit to devoting 10% of ours and the world's military budget to implementing wind, solar, and tidal energy, together with building a smart electrical grid capable of switching energy from where it is produced to where it is needed; then use the leftover amount to build a local and intercity transport system that would allow everyone to get around with an electric car at most.

Iran would be bereft of oil revenues and would have to concentrate on providing food and consumer goods to its people, lest they rise up in earnest and throw out both Ahmadinehad and the Mullahs.

Saudis would have to concentrate on providing food and consumer goods to their people, and so would have no money to fund radical movements and madrasah schools.

But of course we are not going to do that, so what you predict will come to pass.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Michael D Ballantine
Texas Justice Party - Chairperson
08:57 AM on 02/24/2012
10% of military spending globally is about $110 billion per year. It's a start but this problem requires about 5 times that per year. I'm okay with cutting military spending by 50%. It's not like any nation has the capacity to invade us.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Wanderland
Generic white guy
09:02 AM on 02/20/2012
"Where the money's going to come from?" he asked. "I don't think anybody knows because it's a large amount of money and, you know, it's outside the ability, I think, of most communities to deal with this problem."
------------------------------------

Hmm... Maybe all that coal and oil wasn't such cheap energy after all.
photo
Bienville
Make levees, not war
11:41 AM on 02/20/2012
The difference between cost and price.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Warren Yuill
Jesus Built My Hot-Rod
05:47 AM on 02/20/2012
I live on the bay of Fundy.
Yesterdays 'spring tide' was 12.8 meteres.
Last monday it was 14.6 metres.
A whopper of a tide will run 15.8 meters.
Meters
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
doriath22
Born-again Jacobin. Robespierre had the right idea
03:08 PM on 02/20/2012
Your point being?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Warren Yuill
Jesus Built My Hot-Rod
09:10 PM on 02/20/2012
I aint likely to sweat 3mil per year.
photo
askskia
Applaud the people that make you think.
03:33 AM on 02/20/2012
Whatever the cause, the reality is the water is higher today than it was yesterday. Chances are it might be higher tomorrow. You sit here and debate, I'm going to find higher ground cause I remember watching Doctor Who when he said, "Water always wins!"
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Hans Littooy
11:56 PM on 02/20/2012
Not true. In many part so the world, the land mass is rising or droping unrelated to sea level rise. Measuring sea level rise is extremely difficult by the way and I would suggest hardly accurate.
ThinkCreeps
Seriously, it's time.
11:55 AM on 02/21/2012
The places where there are hills tend to rising, and the places where there are deltas tend to be sinking. Bad luck.
12:47 AM on 02/20/2012
In the last four interglacials, sea levels eventually rose about seven meters higher, and there were no greenhouse issues. That would appear to be the minimum we should expect. With greenhouse emissions, we can expect more of the antarctic sheet to melt, and reducing emissions now will do nothing to stop this. We have to remove the emissions already there.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
alteredstory
Hold on to the center
08:54 AM on 02/20/2012
We do, but first we need to stop adding to what's there.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Michael D Ballantine
Texas Justice Party - Chairperson
09:35 AM on 02/20/2012
You are right, until we start taking CO2 out of the atmosphere, we are only delaying the inevitable. Without a high tech solution, we have to depend on low tech, trees. Right now, America could plant 400 million acres of land with trees to offset our carbon production. As we reduce production of CO2 over the next decade, those trees would take our more CO2 than we produce over the next 40 years. If each acre holds 250 trees and each tree costs $5. For $500 billion, we could solve America's immediate climate issue and do it in a cost effective way. If we have $2 trillion for the banks, then we can afford half a trillion for our future. If you want a Green policy for America, you need a Green President, support Mike Ballantine, www.mikeandjon2012.com
01:34 PM on 02/20/2012
Mike, that is true, but there is a possible additional way. The biggest area on this planet doing nothing is the ocean. This requires additional research, but in principle it is possible to grow algae, either micro, or as the US Navy showed in the 1970s, macro on rafts. Some algae grow an order of magnitude faster than trees, so there are additional benefits. At this stage I should add that I am a semiretired scientist who has worked in the area of algae and biofuels, so I guess I am biased towards more research funding.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Jorge Escondido
02:52 PM on 02/20/2012
Are you accusing Obama of ducking the issue? Are you planning to attend the Presidential debates so that you may confront this carpet bagger?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
12:20 AM on 02/20/2012
Chuckle! These folks still don't get it. Each generation always thinks they are the first to go through the process. Humans have always migrated in response to climate changes due to all sorts of "causes". History and archaeology are replete with example, after example after example.

Since the kalaidoscopic nature of this earth's enviornment and weather will continue to change and sometimes change dramatically over time until the end of the earth I reckon human beings along with other species will just keep moving from less hospitable to more hospitable places as long as we remain on the planet.

Only the delusional and would be tyrants among us entertain any possibility that all that change will be slowed down one iota if human beings just stop driving SUVs or using incadescent light bulbs or burning the carbon that is recycled from the atmosphere into flora and fauna growth each year.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
01:47 AM on 02/20/2012
Intelligent life form detected!!

Read "Climatopolis" by Matthew E. Kahn for the real story on adapting to climate change.

What people overlook is that in the next 40 to 50 years most of the world's buildings will be torn down and replaced. It is a process that goes on every day. Only historical buildings are kept up from generation to generation.

In developed countries nothing drastic is needed, only planning for expected outcomes. All flood plain development should be discouraged because it places too great a burden on society to keep replacing homes in flood-prone areas. Only port facilities should be left on the shores. Zoning ordinances and similar land planning can encourage people to move to safer ares.

In this country the federal flood insurance program should be dismantled because it encourages people to build in flood plains. Private insurance can cover the businesses that need to be on the shore, like port facilities. As for other businesses and homes, well, if no insurance company will cover you then you probably shouldn't be living there.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Tony Dickey
Futurist-Historian-Astrologer
07:14 AM on 02/20/2012
The scientist cited here is just saying we need to plan for the inevitable. What is wrong with that?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
sabelmouse
i love to tumble , ask me why .
09:01 AM on 02/20/2012
you can't be in denial and plan for the inevitable.
11:28 PM on 02/19/2012
Well I guess now more can cun