Many people involved in climate activism have probably heard of North Carolina’s reaction to sea level projections. The reaction has been exaggerated by some of those same activists. I read this article and had the following thoughts.
By the end of the century, state officials said, the ocean would be 39 inches higher.
There was no talk of salvation, no plan to hold back the tide. The 39-inch forecast was “a death sentence,” Willo Kelly said, “for ever trying to sell your house.”
Coastal residents joined forces with climate skeptics to attack the science of global warming and persuade North Carolina’s Republican-controlled legislature to deep-six the 39-inch projection, which had been advanced under the outgoing Democratic governor. Now, the state is working on a new forecast that will look only 30 years out and therefore show the seas rising by no more than eight inches.
Up to this point, readers probably have one of two reactions. They either agree with quoted environmentalists and think N.C. tried to “legislate away sea level rise.” Or they agree with Kelly’s reactions and the legislature’s boundaries on projection scope.
I think the reactions were entirely justified from a personal standpoint and easy to predict if anyone had stopped to think things through. Nearly everybody would have the same reaction if your property was under threat to be considered worthless – regardless of the underlying reason. Why? Because you have an emotional attachment to your property that far exceeds the attachment to a 90-year sea level projection. You’re going to react to the former more strongly than the latter. The article identifies the underlying process:
“The main problem they have is fear,” said Michael Orbach, a marine policy professor at Duke University who has met with coastal leaders. “They realize this is going to have a huge impact on the coastal economy and coastal development interests. And, at this point, we don’t actually know what we’re going to do about it.”
This is the problem with the vast majority of climate activists’ language: they coldly announce that civilization will collapse and won’t offer actions people can take to avoid such a collapse. Well, people will respond to that language, just not the way activists want them to. People will fight activists and identify with climate skeptics’ arguments since they view the announcements as a threat to their way of life.
Where I differ with Kelly and others is this: she and other coastal residents had better look for viable long-term solutions before that 30-year period is over. If they prevent long-term planning beyond 2040, inland residents of N.C. will be unfairly burdened with the cost of subsidizing Kelly and others for their lifestyle choices.
Kelly’s view is not without merit, to be sure:
Long before that would happen, though, Kelly worries that codifying the 39-inch forecast would crush the local economy, which relies entirely on tourism and the construction, sale and rental of family beach houses. In Dare County alone, the islands’ largest jurisdiction, the state has identified more than 8,500 structures, with an assessed value of nearly $1.4 billion, that would be inundated if the tides were 39 inches higher.
That’s 8,500 structures in just one county – worth $1.4 billion – an average of $165,000 per structure. I would absolutely fight to keep my $165,000 worth as long as I could. Nationwide, the estimate is $700 billion; not a trivial sum is it? The article has this choice quote:
“What is it you would ask us to do differently right now? Tell people to move away?” “Preaching abandonment is absurd. People would go in the closet and get the guns out.”
The Coastal Resources Commission bungled their attempt to evaluate the science and establish policy. By the time they announced results with no action plans, rumors fed by misunderstanding and bias confirmation ran rampant. The result was Kelly’s actions to change the time horizon that planners could use.
So what are the solutions? The Commission should establish and maintain relationships with stakeholders. Get to know the mayors and planners and scientists and property owners. Find out what their interests are and what motivates them to do what they do. Identify actions they can take in the next 30 years that sets them up for success afterward. But don’t release information without context. Because sea level rise is likely to accelerate in the 2nd half of the 21st century. But most people will focus on potential direct threats to themselves and their livelihoods, not global concerns. So get into the weeds with folks.