“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.