This past fall I made a number of trips to the New Jersey barrier islands to observe the dune construction project (Shore Protection Project), which grew out of the destruction caused by Hurricane Sandy in 2012. The dune project was controversial, with both private citizen and municipal objectors. This isn't your grandmother's seagrass dunes, which were staggered and collected sand over the years. This is a straight, massive sand fortification being constructed by the Army Corp of Engineers, assisted by private contractors. The wall is twenty two feet high, and twice as wide at the base... It completely blocks the view of the ocean. The construction is ongoing, 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Large dredge ships, a mile off shore, pump the sand through pipes onto the beach, where large bulldozers shape it into the wall.
As someone who doesn't sit on the beach per se, but enjoys seeing the ocean, I consider this new dune wall a gross overreaction to a 100 year storm. I believe that thousands of shore-goers this coming summer will be shocked and disappointed by the restricted ocean view. However, I must report that every shore property owner I met in the Seaside Park area, without exception, was in favor of the new dunes.
sand dredgers, a mile off shore, pipe tons of sand to waiting bulldozers
molovinsky on allentown is published early morning every weekday. Although mostly Allentown centric, occasional forays out of town are taken to places of regional interest.
The reason the home owners are in favor of the construction is that without it, no one except for the very rich, could afford any kind of home owner's insurance. Flood insurance is already virtually impossible to obtain; carriers are reluctant to provide it, not withstanding some federal guarantees of (limited) indemnity.
ReplyDeleteWhile the current federal Administration denies & ignores it, insurance carriers pay close attention to evidence based scientific warnings of climate change affects, and realize that rising sea levels accompanied by more severe coastal weather cycles means more payout claims can be anticipated.
Trent -
ReplyDeleteA few points:
I've been around long enough to have scientists tell me that the planet is cooling, and that the planet is warming. Nobody disputes that and it's been going on for the planet's entire history.
Where we err in a broad sense is in trying to categorize what we're accustomed to as "normal", or in the assumption that temperatures should somehow remain within a consistent range. That's simply not supported by the history of our planet.
Where we likely differ in a more narrow sense is on the extent that the changes are man-made. Even if myself and others here in the states were to buy that it was, good luck with getting lesser-developed countries like China and India to truly buy into even the best solution.
Most likely, the man-made aspect of climate change is exaggerated by those who want to use it as an excuse to gain control. I find it ironic that those who most greatly cry out about climate change being man-made fly from city to city in chartered jets to do so. Those are not the actions of people who genuinely believe there is a crisis.
Similarly, the "solutions" (like cap and trade) that have been put forward by governments for climate change are nothing more than redistribution schemes that allow those purchasing credits to continue their supposedly harmful activity. Again, that's not a solution to a real crisis.
If the claims about rising sea levels were true, I doubt that anyone would support the federal government insuring any properties on the coast line. Why should we rebuild only to have the properties succumb again to the inevitable sea level rise? If one truly believed in climate change, they should be advocating for the buy-out of property owners whose homes are already destroyed, and moratoriums on building within a certain number of miles of the coast. But we certainly don't see that anywhere, which explains the ever-increasing cost of storm damage.
Finally, and to the post's main point about the construction of the dune wall, we should all be against it for the simple reason that walls are immoral. I know this to be true because Nancy Pelosi said so.
UNKNOWN:
ReplyDeleteClassic example of circular reasoning.
What is different this time from the eons age old cycle of the earth's climate & weather cycle is that for the first time in earth's history.....for the last 150 years or so.....man has altered the earth's atmosphere by the enormous deposit of carbon residues as the result of burning fossil fuels at a rate unprecedented in history. Computer simulations of these effects are borne out by the actual observational events.....from the reduction of the polar caps to rising sea levels to the warming of the oceans and the results on coral & sea life.
Yes, cap & trade and other such "remedies" are inadequate because they are crafted by lobbyists and accordingly gamed by business for advantage, resulting in "winners" & "losers." DUH! What else is new?
Ultimate solutions are going to have to depend on renewable energy solutions, which technological advances could accelerate, especially if battery storage technology catches up with the potential that wide spread wind/wave/solar or fusion applications afford.