Which Cities To Save From The Changing Climate

After several years of brutal flooding and hurricanes in the U.S., a distressing debate is emerging:  if there is not enough money available to protect every coastal community from the effects of global warming, how do we decide which ones to save first.



Recent research looked at the costs involved in providing basic
storm-surge protection in the form of sea walls for all coastal cities with
more than 25,000 residents.  That number
was $42 billion.  Expanding the list to
include communities smaller than 25,000 people would increase that cost to more
than $400 billion.   Realistically, that is
just not going to happen.




This particular study only looked at sea walls and no other methods
for minimizing flood risk, such as moving homes and businesses away from the
most flood-prone areas.   It also didn’t
look at additional and costlier actions that will be required even with sea
walls, such as revamping sewers, storm water, and drinking water
infrastructure.




The facts are that many cities, especially small ones, will not be
able to meet the costs facing them. 
Those that can’t will depend on federal funding.  But even optimistically large proposals for
federal infrastructure spending are likely to fall far short of the vast
need.  Ultimately, the money will end up
being spent where it can do the most good – even if it means that some places
are left out.




But what criteria will be used to direct the money?  Economic value?  Historic significance?  Population? 
Political influence?




This is a looming and massive issue whose chief obstacle may be that many officials refuse to acknowledge that it is happening.  This is the next wave of climate denial – denying the costs that we are all facing.




**********




Web Links



With More Storms and Rising Seas, Which U.S. Cities Should Be Saved First?




Photo, posted October 31, 2018, courtesy of Patrick Kinney via Flickr.




Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio.