You greatly exaggerate the problem. Let's put what you say about the value of lost real estate in perspective (assuming of course you are correct and that we are headed for sea level rises, caused exclusively by man-made CO2-- which is open to debate):

You say that the cost of real estate lost to sea rise could be as high as $150 billion (in today's value) over 100 years of sea level rise. Well that works out at $1.5billion/year. Australia's current economy is about $1 trillion (approximately). So the cost is about 0.15% of the economy-- which is bugger-all. eg: it is less than losses caused by people taking smoking breaks and sickies!

Indeed, it is even nowhere near 0.15%, because the above averages it over the 100years and assumes that business/houses are built and operate where they do now on the coastline. However this is obviously a false assumption: Very few buildings/infrastructure last 100 years, they naturally decay and fall into disrepair (eg: take a look at any town/city over 100 years old in Australia, how many of the buildings built over century ago are still standing?)- if there were gradual sea rises over people would notice it and any new buildings/infrastructure would be built further away from the sea.

Kelly you are a lawyer, which leads me to assume that you must have atleast 1/2 a brain-- in the future please at least attempt to use it before you write more of this crap!

Rising sea level stories are now my favourite. They have just edged out the anti-populationist stories. If I can get a lets 'get rid of the people story with coastal land values falling due to rising sea levels' story, then that's a news clip for me.

I think it was Sydney Mayor Clover Moore who said last year that the Sydney Opera House was threatened by rising sea levels. Er,... it's seven metres above high tide.

Of course less beaches means less surf rescues, which is a saving. But what will we do with the life savers? How will this effect their marriages? Might we say that rising sea levels may increase the suicide rate amongst surf life savers and their families. THINK of the CHILDREN!

More "dead cat bounce". Do we really have to have this endless "Chicken Little" rubbish on OLO?

We need to distinguish between actual sea level rise and projected. Actual rise is about 3 mm per year since the mid 1990s, in other words only 30 cm per 100 years. See: http://sealevel.colorado.edu/

The rest is speculation.

Kellie, the world is divided into two main groups: the flat-earthers and the thinkers. The flat-earthers predominate.

Because we live in a capitalist world where profit is worshiped devoutly to the exclusion of all else, the facts concerning climate change are being ignored because there's trillions of dollars to be made out of selling and using fossil fuels.

When the rising water gets up to the nostrils of the flat-earthers, they will probably change tack. Expect nothing until then.

Tut tut Michael T. Are you proposing that we should take notice of proper science rather than believe computer projections.
Yes, of course you are right. It was lawyers in the USA who decided that CO2 is a pollutant. There has been no science to agree with it but the USA Supreme Court made such a decision. In their wisdom!
Here's some more real science;
Some notes on sea level change, especially referring to southern Australia
Prof R.M. (Bob) Carter. James Cook University
http://members.iinet.net.au/~glrmc/RMC%20-%20aspects%20of%20sea-level%20rise%20in%20southern%20Australia%20Z.pdf
It is observed that Professor Carter et al work conflicts with forecasts provided by the IPCC. The observation has to be made that Prof Carter’s research is based upon actual physical measurements and evidence. Nowhere is a computer forecast offered as evidence of anything..

South Pacific Sea Levels.
Dr Vincent Gray. New Zealand.
http://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/spsl3.pdf
There is no discernable rise in sea levels.