In dealing with the current crop of so-called environmentalists, one has to bear in mind that they have an extremely short attention span. To keep them happy it is only necessary to announce a 'victory' for them now and then; having done this one can usually then go on with one's normal rational activities for a while without fear of interruption. This article illustrates the folly of actually taking them seriously and trying to put their absurd 'solutions' into practice. As in dealing with small children, it is far better to nod, smile and agree in public than run the risk of a tantrum over an issue that will be forgotten in fifteen minutes.

Roger Welch has pointed to another area where the current obsession with global warming, and its dodgy long-term forecasts, detracts from good policy formation concerning the environment.

While the NSW mandarins swallow the most extraordinary nonsense about sea level rises, they are neglecting their job of protectin gthe foreshore.

I find myself conflicted on this issue. On the one hand, I think it is appalling that the deliberate mis-information program of the CAGW advocates is having such massive impacts on our economy and our lifestules. It is even more appalling that our elected representatives (and journalists) seem so captive to those views with few of them demanding the answers to the obvious and simple questions. What happened to critical thinking in this country?

On the other hand, I'm not sure how sympathetic I am towards those members of the population who knowingly take risks with where they choose to live (on flood plains, coastal zones subject to storm surges and erosion etc) in order to reap the massive benefits of living in beautiful settings that most of the time are benign. I think that if I were the responsible council, I would prepare risk maps of zones prone to flooding, storm surges, erosion etc and require people living in those zones to acknowlege that they are knowingly taking those risks, and that they should seek insurance to cover their own specific exposures, and also the risks to council infrastructure required to service their needs. In essence, the users should pay for services that they need over and above those delivered to other ratepayers. They get the benefits of living in such beautiful settings. Why should the rest of us have to bail them out when things go wrong?

My third issue is that over the years there have been many unwise developments of pristine coastal areas along the NSW coast that should never have been developed, but preserved as national park for the benefit/use of all Australians. We need some planning changes to preserve what is left.

Readers may have heard of the adage “time and tide wait for no man” and that is the problem facing the owners of property located along much of our coastline. In two words the problem is this: global warming. Whether one likes it or not, global warming is occurring and is increasing. Two of its effects are that it results in (i) melting of polar and other land based ice and (ii) increasingly severe climate events.

Melting of ice is occurring now and the rate of melt is increasing each year, particularly at the Poles where massive ice sheets cover Greenland and West Antarctica. As the ice melts, water flows into the oceans causing sea level to slowly rise. Climate scientists advise that average global sea level will rise by a minimum of at least 1 meter(m) by 2100. Others warn that sea level rise over the next 90 years will be very much higher, not 1 meter but as much as a truly disastrous and frightening 5m.

At present we experience occasional severe climate events such as the thirty year drought affecting the SW of Australia, the massive floods which struck Queensland and Victoria in 2010-11, or Cyclone Yasi which devastated north Queensland in 2011. Climate scientists warn that such events, particularly wind events, will get stronger and more frequent as global warming increases.

Combined, high wind events and rising sea level - even if only 0.5m by 2050 – will cause coastal erosion and, on average, such erosion will extend inland by 100m for every 1m of sea level rise. In other words, any property located within 100m of the present high water mark risks destruction and property located within 200m could risk damage during a storm surge.

Don’t blame the messenger for this bad news – blame global warming and its effects on sea level and severe climate. As sure as eggs is eggs, global warming is occurring, will continue to rise and will have the effects described above. How should local government respond to this? It can say … “I don’t believe it”, do nothing and wait and see, it can also take steps to protect affected residents from the effects of global warming or it can warn residents in the danger zone and plan for what in time will occur.

Ignoring the problem is hardly fair to those who are likely to be at risk. Warning them is the very least that a Council can do. Taking steps to protect against coastal erosion is at best delaying the inevitable. It would cost a fortune and in the long run would prove quite ineffective. No matter how much is spent, you can not prevent seal level rising or storm winds blowing. Warning affected property owners and planning ahead is the only sensible alternative.

The latter approach raises the question of who is going to pay for the cost of removing property exposed to danger or pay compensation for property which is lost due to coastal erosion? Is it the responsibility of the owner of property which is located too close to the high water mark or is it the responsibility of everyone in the Council area? Charging all rate-payers is the same as asking them to pay for the effects of global warming, something most of them would feel is unfair and would balk at doing.

What about State or Federal governments? Should they be asked to cover the cost of coastal erosion, even if the total cost will, over the next 50 years, amount to billions, possibly trillions of dollars, even if it means spending less on public health and education needs? Neither is likely to respond because both are going to be faced with much higher costs – the cost of repairing or re-locating major infrastructure located in coastal areas.

It is not just homes located too close to the beach which are at risk of rising sea level and storm damage. A 1m. sea level rise would destroy sections of coastal roads, railways, airports at places such as Cairns, Sydney and Brisbane, and whole suburbs located on low land to say nothing of beach-front high rise buildings. An even higher sea level rise would cause even greater damage, so great that recovery could take years.

Of course, if climate scientists are as wrong as many assert, there is no danger from rising sea level, no risk to coastal property and we can all rest easy. But can we? To rest easy, we must refuse to believe our thermometers, wind gauges and sea level measurements and deny what we can physically see and what satellites confirm is happening to the polar ice sheets.