A Mindblowing 2040 Price Tag for Sea Level Rise in San Diego
Adapting to sea level rise over the next decade is going to cost California $22 billion in order to protect coastal properties from near-term, unavoidable sea level rise, according to a new study by the Center for Climate Integrity.
The City of San San Diego is looking at the probability of building an additional 27 miles of seawalls at a cost of $357 million. The County’s cost will top $984 million for 60 miles. Other price tags(in millions): Imperial Beach - $211, Del Mar - $57.5, Oceanside - $37.7, Chula Vista $12.9, National City - $10.2.
Nationally, 130 counties are looking at billion-dollar-plus costs to defend against chronic flooding from climate-driven sea-level rise by 2040. The total cost for state and local governments in the U.S. adds up to $400 billion.
And that’s just the price for just building sea walls and other protective barriers. Not included in the data set are the costs of water/sewer infrastructure, road repair and relocation, replacing sand as rising seas lead to increased erosion at beaches.
There’s no time to delay starting these efforts, according to a story at KPBS:
Richard Wiles, executive director for the center, said the study looked at the local costs of building a seawall in any given community. So, in places like San Diego, which juts right up to the ocean, the costs ran high.
"These defenses will need to be constructed essentially starting now," Wiles said. "What you are looking at is roughly the size of the interstate highway system to be constructed in half the time."
Wiles says without these defenses coastal cities would likely experience costly flooding.
"Within 10 to 20 years a lot of these places are going to be experiencing flooding on a routine basis, so much that it will cause significant economic damage," he said. "People’s homes will be flooded three or four times a year, businesses will be underwater (many) times a year."
Seawalls provided the opportunity to do an apples to apples study on potential costs. Well documented warming-induced increases in sea-level rise are strongly linked to fossil fuel emissions and other greenhouse gases. Determining sea-level rise at any given location has also been studied, allowing researchers to use a single method to produce coastal-protection cost estimates.
Not included were indirect costs, like aid to growing numbers of climate refugees, longer, hotter droughts, damage from more severe storms/wildfires, and the spread of vector-borne diseases like Lyme, West Nile virus and Zika.
Once all the possible factors are included, we’re looking at some truly scary numbers, via the Union-Tribune:
The $22 billion statewide estimate, the report states, represents just about 10 percent to 15 percent of the total cost of addressing chronic flooding and seawater inundation. Other measures could range from re-engineering infrastructure to moving roads and rail lines inland, but the center didn’t calculate those costs…
...Some coastal infrastructure could be indefensible, or too expensive to maintain, he said. And indirect costs may include damage to coastal economies, said Adam Young, an associate project scientist in the Integrative Oceanography Division and Center for Coastal Studies at Scripps Institution of Oceanography.
“Additional costs in California could be significant from bluff/cliff retreat and tourism revenue loss if our beaches become submerged,” he said.
A near-term moderate “stabilization scenario” was the basis for cost estimates, showing emissions peaking around 2050 at about twice the level of 2000, declining rapidly for 30 years to roughly half of the year 2000 levels. Current carbon emissions are already ahead of projection used, making it quite likely future climate change adaptation costs are underestimated.
Meanwhile in Trumpland….via the Associated Press (June 18, 2019)
Amid scientists’ increasingly urgent warnings, the Trump administration ordered a sweeping about-face Wednesday on Obama-era efforts to fight climate change, easing restrictions on coal-fired power plants in a move it predicted would revitalize America’s sagging coal industry…
...It came despite scientists’ cautions that the world must cut fossil fuel emissions to stave off the worst of global warming and the EPA’s own analysis that the new rule would result in the deaths of an extra 300 to 1,500 people each year by 2030 compared to the never fully enacted Clean Power Plan, owing to additional air pollution from the power grid.
And on the other side of the looking glass..
Marin, Santa Cruz and San Mateo Counties as well as Imperial Beach, Oakland, Santa Cruz, San Francisco and Richmond, have all filed climate cost recovery cases seeking to hold climate polluters accountable for damage. These cases are working their way thru the court system.
From the Los Angeles Times:
The plaintiffs assert that the companies freely promoted the use of their products even though they were aware of the products’ effect on global warming — information the industry allegedly suppressed for years. The municipalities are asking that the companies be forced to help pay for the damage wreaked by climate change, including drought, wildfires, sea level rise and extremes of heat and precipitation. Since the filing of the California cases, similar lawsuits have been filed by Rhode Island, Washington’s King County (that is, Seattle), Baltimore and New York City.
The oil companies succeeded in transferring the state lawsuits to federal court, where they expect to face less liability under the law. The plaintiffs’ argument that the cases belong back in state court is being heard by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.
***
And in Other Bad News…
https://twitter.com/SDNewsfeed/status/1142133402310758402
Hey folks! Be sure to like/follow Words & Deeds on Facebook. If you’d like to have each post mailed to you, check out the simple subscription form on the right side of the front page.
Email me at DougPorter@WordsAndDeedsBlog.com
Lead image via Climate Central