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.

I can swim so I dont care

Kellie - you point to various stories about rising sea levels affecting food sources in the NT and of South Pacific islands sinking under the waves. As is widely acknowledged the sea level increase for the entire 20th century was of the order of 20cms (much less than a foot in the old measure). Michael T points to a link of satellite measurements suggesting that the rate of increase may now be a little bit more.
In other words, although there are some islands in trouble out there, sea level increases to date have been far too small to be the problem. There are other factors in these matters, including local subsidence, which may be natural or may be due to, say, the locals extracting too much ground water. If you really want to do green you should pick your ground more carefully (pun intended).

Similarly its possible that neutrinos from a massive solar flare are causing the temperature of the Earth's core to increase rapidly. This will trigger a catastrophic chain of natural disasters. In, 2010 international leaders, begin a massive, secret project intended to ensure humanity survives. Approximately 400,000 people are chosen to board ships called "arks" that are constructed in the Himalayas. Additional funding for the project is raised by selling tickets to the private sector for one billion euros per person. By 2011 they start to move humanity's valuable treasures to the Himalayas, so that their history can survive when the end comes.

The question is, how come there’s no publicly funded lottery? Secondly, are cackling geese part of a conspiracy plot?

Posters appear unaware that sea level rises are not all about them and their houses and foolishly quoting the unscientific hubris from industry shills such as Carter and Gray demeans their position.

Both are members of the NZ Climate ‘Science’ Coalition and publish for industry front groups. The peer-reviewed papers written by Gray was >seventeen years ago – not on climate but coal, where Gray was a researcher for the coal industry and Carter is a marine geologist drilling for oil and gas – hardly reputable sources on matters of climate science.

Other human activities affecting rising sea levels (according to Curmudgeon) do not mitigate the problem which remains anthropogenic because trans-national criminal corporations will continue to bludge off the environment with impunity.

During 2009, Zhou Qiulin, professor with the Third Institute of Oceanography of State Oceanic Administration warned that ‘during the past 50 years, the accelerating speed of sea level in China had exceeded the average global speed and the Bohai Rim,Yangtze River Delta and Pearl River Delta have been the worst affected regions.

‘So far the sea level's rising has destroyed 70 percent of China's sand beaches and the coastlines are drawing back at an increasing speed in different regions.

‘Zhou warns that the rising sea level had also caused more frequent storm tides in China's coastal areas. For instance, in the past decade the Yangtze River Delta was affected by storm tides 2.5 times more than in previous decades.

‘At the east bank of Liaodong Bay in northeast China's Bohai, the coastline is retreating toward the shore at an annual speed of 15 metres. Between 1998 and 2002, parts of the coastline areas on Hainan island retreated by 80 metres.’

The current migrant intake into Australia will be a drop in the ocean compared to the millions of climate refugees seeking dry land elsewhere in the geologic future but inaction may also render that dry land, a temporary refuge.

Meanwhile transnational polluters rejoice over inaction but a bust always follows the boom times so may I suggest that the next bust may come from an outraged planet?

"an outraged planet" sheesh where do these people come from?

(that's rhetorical, no response required)

Protagoras - your professor Zhou Qiulin is a right, raving nutter. Do you a link for him? Beaches receeding 15m a year through sea level increases! Half of the beaches in certain areas being destroyed! sorry but even the IPCC agrees that the increases are 3.1 mm a year and that just does not add up to mass beach destruction.. If you have correctly reported him Qiuline deserves to be locked up..

Protagoras: "...the millions of climate refugees seeking dry land elsewhere..." (assuming that AGW is true-- which is far from settled science) in the bigger scheme of things would hardly make any difference to the human life. You really should attempted to see the big picture on this. Let me try to explain:

Firstly, all most *everybody* throughout the world moves and relocates over their life time regardless of rising sea levels. Personally, I've lived in Queensland (where I've lived at 6 different addresses), Tasmania (2 addresses) and Western Austrlia and I'm only 37 years old. Many of my friends have even moved overseas and lived for a while. What about you-- are you living in the same house that you did as when you were a baby? Millions of people moving is an insignificant problem, infact it is not a people at all but rather a benefit because it increases people's living standards and enjoyment of life. It would be a problem if everyone moved at once without having time to plan for it, but this doesn't normally happen!! Spontaneous mass movement of refugees is caused by violent events such as war, earthquakes, etc. The *alleged* rising sea levels in Kellie's articles will take 100 years so people have plenty of time to move in an orderly fashion without disrupting the economy and distribution of goods.

Secondly, the number of people forced to moved by raising sea levels (even if millions) is insignificant compared to the number of people that face more dire problems such dying a painful early deaths. For example, at the present time at least 5,000,000 people die every year from completely preventable diseases (such a diarrhea) and millions more from other diseases. Millions of people die every year (directly or indirectly) from smoking, alcohol and other drugs. Car crashes kill about million people a year. A million or so die from suicide a year. Dangerous work practices are also a major killer. Extrapolating these current death rates over the next 100 years gives a death count in the BILLIONS-- ..continued below....

--continued from above.... If you really are concerned about people's wellbeing: forget about global warming-- instead donate to a charity that provides clean drinking water, vaccinations, safe sex education, etc.

Thirdly, the article's 2m sea rise will take 100 years. This is longer than the average life of a person! What this means is people will naturally die off before sea level rises become a problem. Take Bangladesh for example: the current average life expectancy is about 60 years which means that the almost the whole population of Bangladesh will be renewed twice within 100 years. So when (more like if) the sea slowly rises the population will be able to respond in a timely manner by having less children (they would be encouraged by the economy to have less since there would be less land to live which would derive up land/rent prices). This orderly and timely response to rising sea levels needn't result in the death or other major negative life threatening effect on a single Bangladeshi-- it only means that the current population dies off naturally with a smaller population to follow.

Kellie Tranter has finally lost it! This is nonsense. Nils Axel Morner wrote to the President of the Maldives to tell him for the third time they were in no danger of rising sea levels. That would be the same for Australia. The real news is that it may rise by about 200mm in the next 100 years. I am really having to control my impulse to be cruel about this article.
Lets have a TAX but make it only applicable to Lawyers and Scientists and to THEIR superannuation and then lets see how terrible things are going to get.
Or what about a volutary tax all you people who believe this nonsense can take your hands out of my pocket and pay for this yourselves.

Kellie Tranter is the prettiest OLO contributor I've ever seen.
She can disempower me anytime she wants.
In fact, she already has.
I agree with everything she says.

Kelly, if you want work as an advocate for the insurance industry please do not hesitate to apply. Otherwise marketing doom and gloom could be a proxy for capturing other nefarious creeds craving influence.

There is another way to look at it.

If the so called 'rising sea levels' takes away waterfron t land, then the land on the nect level will then be come 'wwaterfront' and, more valuable.

Also, as the land lost can't really be replaced, then this creates a shortage, hence, increases the value of general land.

How come when people raise concerns about sea level rises, they fail to take into account that tectonic factors can cause land to subside (thus giving an impression of sea level rising) or emerge(thus giving an impression of sea level falling).

Surely, if sea level was rising globally due to a global phenomenon, wouldn't the increase in sea level be the same everywhere? The observed fact that it is not is telling you something. Something else is going on.

In some cases there is subsidence due to extraction of the groundwater (Adelaide for example). In other cases such as river deltas, the subsidence is caused by the additional sediment loads as the rivers deposit sediment on their deltas.

Unfortunately Our CSIRO, in reporting on sea level rises, choose not (I can't imagine why this is so) to tell us that local ground movements are a major factor in the observed data.

It is time that the CSIRO tells us the truth on these matters.

Why is it that no-one in developed countries ever notices sea level rise? We only ever hear it from those who seem to be after some cash. Funny how the sea only rises near poor communities.

"Unfortunately Our CSIRO, in reporting on sea level rises, choose not (I can't imagine why this is so) to tell us that local ground movements are a major factor in the observed data.

It is time that the CSIRO tells us the truth on these matters.
Posted by Herbert Stencil, Tuesday, 11 May 2010 7:39:12 AM"

Perhaps, if Herbert Sencil were to read the actual reports (CSIRO and others) on these issues, rather than re-gurgitated misinformation about them, then perhaps he would see that they are telling the truth. But then again, probably it is not the preferred spin on the issue and will not be accepted.

“Protagoras - your professor Zhou Qiulin is a right, raving nutter.”

Curmudgeon – Careful about name-calling because the empirical evidence om shoreline retreats is hardly scientific.

The following link should bring you up to date on some of the coastal retreats around the planet and on page 421, researchers state that in the Yellow River Delta in China, the maximum shoreline retreat reached 11 kilometres between 1976 an 2000, an annual loss of 420 metres.

In addition, a maximum retreat of 300 metres/year has been estimated at the Luanhe River Mouth and an average of 25 metres/year for its offshore sandbars:

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:ir3rNhnVELwJ:pub.nsfc.gov.cn/pinsen/ch/reader/create_pdf.aspx%3Ffile_no%3D2009415%26flag%3D1%26journal_id%3Dpinsen+Liaodong+Bay+in+northeast+China's+coast+line+retreat+15+meters&hl=en&gl=au&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESjkP1D0T_G2s3YEui5SvaezMdKV12Xic2q7LRnC42P8_9EgxdI0TQsDZtz70c9kdxOs6zg9z84qdlvvOeawHiKYB7dfMsgmvUATTAjiZrdPV65q9VqnA_JdiBsG1y0vtRSRHcN4&sig=AHIEtbTVDyKU0X-L-mdqa37gMjKiW6d6ig

‘Most of the world’s sandy shorelines retreated during the past century (Bird, 1985; NRC, 1990; Leatherman, 2001; Eurosion, 2004) and sea-level rise is one underlying cause.

‘One half or more of the Mississippi and Texas shorelines have eroded at average rates of 3.1 to 2.6 m/yr since the 1970s, while 90% of the Louisiana shoreline eroded at a rate of 12.0 m/yr (Morton et al., 2004).

'In Nigeria, retreat rates up to 30 m/yr are reported (Okude and Ademiluyi, 2006). Coastal squeeze and steepening are also widespread as illustrated along the eastern coast of the United Kingdom where 67% of the coastline experienced a landward retreat of the low-water mark over the past century (Taylor et al., 2004).’

“You really should attempted (sic) to see the big picture on this. Let me try to explain:“

Thinkabit – Please desist from explaining further since I have no idea what relevance your post has to preparing for shoreline retreats caused by human activity hence the economical, social an environmental consequences. Your comments on the situation in Bangladesh are particularly ill-informed, if not bizarre!

However, rather than lecture we grownups on how to donate “to a charity that provides clean drinking water, vaccinations, safe sex education, etc” why not collect your own begging bowl and plead with the new welfare queens, the Wall Street bankers, whose obscene bail-outs put all the non-military government programmes to shame?

Protagoras - had a look at the paper you referenced. Your Chinese guy isn't a nutter but you have wildly oversold the paper. I have to read it more carefully but the dire warnings are not so much about stuff that's happened, but about stuff that they project will happen. Most of it points to local conditions as well as sea level increases as cuasuing known changes. Those sea level increases it attributes to climate change. Actually its fair enough. These guys want funding so they need to stick in refernces to climate change where-ever possible. Looks good in the grant applications.

how do such 'clever' people write such dumb stuff. If anyone wants to sell me a cheap property on the beach in Perth, Sydney or the Gold Coast please let me know.

Protagoras: You're still not getting it so I'll try again--

Let's assume that AGW is real and that what the article says is true, ie. sea levels will rise 2m over 100 years. With this hypothesis lets compare the resulting losses against losses caused by other catastrophic events. The important point that I'll try to plainly demonstrate is that the losses caused by sea-rise are non-existent in the big scheme of things due to the fact that it happens so slowly that people have more than enough time to react to it in a orderly, safe and controlled way. In otherwords, rising sea levels pose no real threat.

---EVENT--- : ---TIME TO RESPOND AFTER INITIAL WARNING SIGNS--- : ---LOSSES CAUSED---
1) Earthquake : Seconds to a couple of minutes : Extreme losses- many people die, most property lost. People don't have enough time to run to safety let alone save their property.
2) Bushfire : Minutes to hours : Heavy losses- very few people die, some small light important property saved (eg: photos, documents), pets saved but other animals lost. Most heavy/large mobile property lost, most fixed property (eg: buildings) lost
3) A new major dam : Years : Few losses (no economic loss overall)-- nobody dies, all mobile property saved, some important fixed structures saved but most fixed structures lost. However, even the though there are losses of buildings/other fixed structures, overall the economic gains caused by the new the dam outweigh the losses.
4) AGW caused sea-rise 2m/100years : Decades : Almost no losses of any sort (No loss overall)-- nobody dies, all mobile property saved, hardly any buildings/structure lost because they naturally decay before the rising tide gets to them. No loss overall because the economic activity that caused the tide-ride also leads to improvements in wealth, health and life style improvements that vastly outweigh any loss.

*Hopefully*, you now understand that rising-sea levels are not a problem.

Protagoras

It looks like he's at it again – strawman arguments and red herrings.

Following his logic (fallacy), research into rising sea levels should not be funded at all, let alone be associated with global warming or thermal expansion of sea water – how dare they!

Quite frankly, given some so called science writer’s comprehension of scientific papers is inversely proportional to his shoe size (imo), I wouldn’t be surprised if some so called ‘science writer’ thought Professor Zhou Qiulin (the "right, raving nutter") was implying the sea level over there was increasing by 15 metres a year.

If that be the case, perhaps the science writer should just stick to science fiction, he said his book is out next month :)

If glaciers can recede, so can the shoreline – albeit under a different mechanism. Do we stop funding those pesky glaciologists too?

Ummm, thinkabit, thinkabit.

Adapting to the consequences of a changing climate (human induced or not) will take decades.

When do you think we should start?

Colinsett

Actually, I HAVE read the CSIRO reports relating to Sea Level. I could find no discussion at all relating to tectonic movements affecting recorded results.

I have also done some google research on Subsidence Adelaide. You can do the same and will find that subsidence due to extraction of groundwater is recognised.

I might have missed some commentary where CSIRO HAS discussed the effects of land datum rise and fall on sea level results. It would be helpful if you could provide some references that refute the points I have made. Thank you in advance.

qanda: "Adapting to the consequences of a changing climate (human induced or not) will take decades.
When do you think we should start?"

Hmm, Just to fill you in on recent events (like the last, oh, I don't know, 200,000 years that you seemed to have missed)

WE HAVE ALREADY STARTED!!

Homo-sapiens started adapting to the consequences of changing climate from the very first time we evolved (ie, 200,000 years ago)!! Indeed, life on this planet has been adapting to the consequences of changing climate for about 3.7 BILLION years.

I hear your shouting, thinkabit - sorry to have offended.

If, just if ... sea levels do rise by say 80 cm, on average. What do you think that will do to, oh ... I don't know, say all the septic tanks that lie within that rise on the eastern sea-board of Australia.

I hope you can think a bit about what other things will be impacted by the consequences of a changing climate. Sure, there will be some good outcomes (in the short term) ... but in the long term, there will be very serious challenges. All I am saying is that we should start now - I don't see much substantive evidence of that, yet.

If we don't start to plan in a timely way (although I obviously agree that Man can adapt - when is the question, btw) then waiting till later maybe, just may be, too late ... in more ways than one.

Good idea, qanda. What have you done to plan for it?

The government's idea of planning for climate change is the pink batts debacle. What makes you think their planning is going to be better than yours or mine?

Qanda, you've got to stop troubling your little mind with all this high tech stuff. It's obviously beyond you, [& a few othere on here].

There is nothing for you to worry about anyway. Ruddy will bung a Great Big Tax on something or other, & the problem will be solved. So there you are, as easy as sticking pink bats in your roof mate.

And so we have been left with the what ifs of labors left overs!

quanda: "1)I hear your shouting, thinkabit - sorry to have offended. .... 2)If we don't start to plan in a timely way (although I obviously agree that Man can adapt - when is the question, btw) then waiting till later maybe, just may be, too late."

1)Well I shouldn't really have been so loud.
2)Glad to hear that you agree that mankind can deal with any sea-rise (whether it happens or not). As regarding planing, in reality not a lot needs to be done- society's will naturally look after it quite nicely without major hassle.
For example, let's consider the loss of buildings near the shoreline assuming the 2m/100years sea-rise actually occurs: Well firstly observe that very few buildings built 100 years ago in Australia are still standing today-- most old buildings have been replaced by newer ones simply because the old buildings fell into decay/disrepair/disuse. Now assuming that there is 2m rise/100 years, this means that over the next few decades there would be a detectable rise of a few 10's of centimeters. People would obviously see this rise and hence when the older buildings built near the sea that need replacing at that time will be replaced not at the same position but father back away for the encroaching sea. Over the whole 100 years, almost all the original buildings that were below the 2m mark will have been gradually replaced. Very few will need to be demolished specifically because of the sea rises rather because they grew old and needed demolishing anyways. This will naturally happen, we don't need to have grand planning/enquiries/reports/political grandstanding, etc. about this.

Peter Hume

Actually, I’m involved in helping individuals, businesses and government “plan for it”. You just can’t pick up a 10000 acre farm and move it, relocate a ski-resort, develop regional areas without adequate infrastructure, etc. On a personal level, I am probably doing more than most – but I accept that many don’t care.

>> The government's idea of planning for climate change is the pink batts debacle. <<

No Peter, it’s much more than that – your quip is a ‘strawman’ argument.

>> What makes you think their planning is going to be better than yours or mine? <<

Peter, you might think that relevant, I don't.

_____

Hasbeen

Good post mate

thinkabit

>> As regarding planing, in reality not a lot needs to be done- society's will naturally look after it quite nicely without major hassle. <<

Some societies will be better able to adapt than others.

Your hypothetical: I just can't imagine picking up Circular Quay and all its surrounds and moving it up George St a kilometre or two. Not to mention the infrastucture that services it (train, electricity, sewer pipes, water pipes, etc) - but I take your point.

My point is (and I think it went over Peter's head) - there is a difference between what we can do personally, and what governments should do on behalf of the society they represent.

For example, adaptation in terms of energy supply, water supply, food supply, transport, health services, etc. These things require proper planning - something that should be bi-partisan in the national interest.

I don't see that with the current crop of politicians (in Oz anyway) albeit one lot seems to be trying harder than the other lot, combined. This does not bode well (imo) if in fact climate change turns out to be as dire as projected - and I for one don't think a 2m rise in sea levels is likely (80 cm is bad enough) - changing rainfall patterns/regions and temperature trends concern me more, btw. Unfortunately, we won't know until we get there.

So, it would be prudent (if not worthwhile) for the government (and opposition) of whatever persuasion, to plan now for the longer term - that is all.

“As regarding planing (sic), in reality not a lot needs to be done- society's (sic) will naturally look after it quite nicely without major hassle.”

Thinkabit – Just how long do you intend peddling this brazen nonsense because you’re doing my head in? Believe me, your claptrap’s enough to drive anyone to drink.

Geoscience Australia advised that between 1967 and 1999, storm surges and cyclones had cost the Australian community $40 billion including the costs of deaths and injuries. "Without major hassle" you say Thinkabit?

Tropical Cyclone Alby passed close to the southwest corner of WA in 1978 killing five people and causing widespread damage and the cyclonic storm surges and large waves caused coastal inundation and erosion from Perth to Busselton.

In addition, fires fanned by the very strong winds burned an estimated 114,000 hectares of forest and farming land. Insurance payouts amounted to $39 million.

Over the past four decades, the greatest insurance losses in WA's south-west region have all been due to severe storm events. In May 2003, a storm tide half a metre above the highest astronomical tide (recorded at Fremantle) again caused substantial coastal erosion and flooding of low-lying areas.

Due to man’s engineering stuff-ups, a permanent pumping system had to be built in 2000 which has pumped more than 500,000 cubic metres of sand each year from New South Wales across the border onto the Gold Coast beaches, costing tens of millions of dollars.

Climate scientists suspect a link between rising sea-surface temperatures over the past 40 years to a trend of more globally intense tropical cyclone activity.

Not only do storm surges and rising sea levels have the potential to dump the contents of septic tanks, they also cause salt intrusions, wiping out agricultural crops and native flora.

Are state and federal governments prepared for the next one? And what about the already perilously low-lying developments (particularly in Cairns) at considerable risk to inundation?

*&%$*@#!!

Qanda – Would you agree that Man is often an ass – some more asinine than others?

Protagoras: You seem to have no sense of scale/perspective--
1) "...between 1967 and 1999, storm surges and cyclones had cost the Australian community $40 billion ...": ie. that is $40billion over 32 years = 1.25 billion/year, just a small percentage of the national economy (less <1%) at that time. Oh, and by-the-way you can't link these events exclusively to AGW- they were actually nothing out the ordinary.

2)"Tropical Cyclone Alby ... killing five people ..": 5 people killed is less than the number of people who die from lightning strikes *every* year in Australia.

3)"In addition, fires fanned by the very strong winds burned an estimated 114,000 hectares of forest and farming land. Insurance payouts amounted to $39 million.": $39 million is peanuts compared to the size of Australia's economy-- its not even an hour of lost production of our yearly GDP

4)"... 500,000 cubic metres of sand each year from New South Wales across the border onto the Gold Coast beaches...", so what! This is nothing at all- compare it to the fact that last year Australia shipped over 400,000,000 metric tons of iron ore 1/5 of the way around the world!

Thinkabit – Statistician Supremo – The annual cost to the Australian community for the ad hoc nourishment of shorelines between 1967 and 1999 wipes out the current revenue per annum for livestock exports but restoration expenditure and maintenance for shoreline retreats is infinite.

The estimated costs for the ongoing nourishment of Woorim Beach in Queensland alone is in the vicinity of $500,000 per annum to ratepayers. However, it appears that this ad hoc project has also been mangled:

http://caboolture-shire-herald.whereilive.com.au/news/story/mp-slams-woorim-sand-pumping-strategy/

Pray tell Thinkagit why you would demean, then compare a single catastrophic day in WA, such as Cyclone Alby (5 deaths) to the entire annual mortalities from lightning strike (5-10 deaths/yr: BOM)?

4)"... 500,000 cubic metres of sand each year....compare it to the fact that last year Australia shipped over 400,000,000 metric tons of iron ore 1/5 of the way around the world!”

The Gold Coast project happens to be one of hundreds necessary Thinkabit and it's obvious that you are engaging in this debate to sabotage recommendations in preparing this nation for climate change and rising sea levels (not that any sensible person would pay attention to your hubris) but why not say so?

1: You irrelevantly boast of Australia's massive export earnings

2: Compare export earnings with coastal restoration costs and scoff at the puny amount spent on coastal restoration, inferring that the costs are peanuts

3. Insist that nothing should be spent on coastal restoration because "we don't need to have grand planning/enquiries/reports/political grandstanding, etc. about this."

So which is it Thinkabit and while you're at it, just which planet do you reside on?

Eco-ignoramuses, in possession of half a sensory neuron go off topic to bang on about Australia’s massive exports. Compelling evidence reveals Australia's international reputation for inaction on climate change and the serious degradation of Australia's ecosystems caused by industrial exploitation (particularly by transnational miners where allegations of and successful prosecutions for human rights and environmental abuses abound on every continent).

Depleting resource after resource whilst ignoring the environmental consequences makes no sense and is a strategy for long term economic and ecological collapse.

Protagoras

If you mean some people don't see the big picture, sure.

Man? The bar isn't set too high and still we're not clearing it. That is telling.

Kellie you make some very good points and keep up the good work.

Sea Level may rise 30 cms in 100 years or it may rise 30 meters in 20 years - we do not know. What we do know is that it will go up. What we also know is that our society has inadequate mechanisms to cope with change on any major scale. Insurance only works if few properties are affected and the properties are scattered randomly.

If the Gold Coast sand "washes away" then insurance will be of little help to the people affected.

The only way to solve problems of massive loss of assets is to provide the people who lose their assets - through no fault of their own - a way to recover the assets or equivalent assets. This can be done by providing people with interest free loans to build a new asset equivalent to the lost asset in an area that is safe.

This can be easily done, will not cost the government anything as the loans are taken out and repaid by the people affected. We can create money that results in the building of productive assets and lend it interest free without causing inflation because the loans will be repaid from the income from the new assets.

This approach will work for many other situations where we have market failure such as asset price inflation that leads to bubbles that ultimately burst. That is targeted interest free loans to individuals and businesses will help solve many market failures.

Planning has already started to take into account the risks of sea level rise. With the NSW Government adopting their Sea Level Rise Policy Statement in November 2009, all NSW coastal councils are required to manage their coastal hazard risk the best way they see fit. What this means, is that from now on, if Councils allow new development in areas of high risk of coastal inundation, they could be sued when the house (or other building) subsequently floats away. Hence local Councils are preparing local environmental plans now to prohibit or limit development in high-risk areas (for example Shoalhaven has recently had their draft LEP on exhibition)- see here www.illawarramercury.com.au/news/local/news/general/rising-sea-levels-put-freeze-on-coastal-developments/1608990.aspx and here
www.southcoastregister.com.au/news/local/news/general/homes-going-under/1648701.aspx and here
www.smh.com.au/national/beachfront-owners-left-high-and-dry-by-planning-changes-20100103-lndi.html
So for those people with their heads in the sand, unfortunately the reality now (not some time in the future) is that insurance companies won't be willing to cover properties in high risk coastal zones, and these high risk zones will be readily identifiable from local environmental plans, such as Shoalhaven's.

Its difficult times for people who own or are thinking of buying a coastal home.

The current effects of AGW sea level rise are somewhat invisible, (around 18cm in NSW), and have not yet had any major implications for coastal living. However, the projections of 1.1m by 2100 have been adopted by the federal government, and as such changes to insurance and development regulations are becoming more stringent every day. There is no federal level policy and so councils are acting in a somewhat piece-meal way, causing confusion and contradiction for home owners.

It's up to the home owner or potential buyer to be aware of their personal situation. Get a Climate Change Impact Assessment done on the block to find out exactly what development restrictions apply, what insurance options their are, what physical risks there are and what can be done about it.

The liability currently sits squarely with the home owner, and insurance companys will act in their best interest to reduce their risk.

Home owners should be armed with this knowledge, and make an informed decision on how to manage their asset.

Heather Stevens

Climate Change Impact Assessments
www.ClimateChangeIA.com