Sandy – One year later – Have we learned anything?
October 29, 2012 the world stood stunned as Hurricane Sandy devastated New Jersey and New York. Looking back on this anniversary, have we learned anything? The answer is mixed.
I have had a particular vantage point to this story as my book about sea level rise, storms, and extreme tides was published the week prior to Sandy.
Eerily I described exactly such an event in that location, a story now fairly well known due to my being thrust onto national and international television to explain my “amazing prediction.” (The truth is I consider it just a phenomenal coincidence.)
An anecdotal sampling of what I hear, good and silly:
- The good news is the Sandy seems to have been a wake up call for diverse communities to consider coastal vulnerability. The new discussion about what a ‘rogue storm’ like Sandy could do in unlikely places is a notable and good result.
- Even more interesting is that places like Miami Beach, and more generally South Florida, are now discussing vulnerability to rising sea level, apart from their historical concern about hurricanes. The subject was almost never voiced before Sandy. Now it is on the front page of Florida newspapers (and elsewhere), discussed at Chamber of Commerce meetings, by attorneys considering how to protect clients, and more.
- Dr. Harold Wanless, Chairman of Geosciences at the University of Miami tells me that for thirty years his concerns about rising sea level were ignored in the business community. Since ‘Sandy’ some leaders are soberly asking him “How long do we have?’
- Shifting to the silly level, some of the news reports in the last few days discussed whether Sandy was really a hurricane. This stupid journalism comes from a technical analysis by NOAA looking back at the history of the storm and the warnings. When Sandy actually made landfall it was very close to the 74 mph (64 kts) threshold for a hurricane. Who cares if it was 73 or 75 mph? It was 1,100 miles in diameter, the biggest Atlantic storm in history, with an extreme storm surge. (For more on this, see my blog post https://johnenglander.net/wp/sea-level-rise-blog/super-storm-sandy-described-new-book-high-tide-main-street) If that’s the best understanding and analysis the media can come up with, please find another profession.
- When I have been asked to go up to New Jersey to the hardest hit areas during the last year, I become aware of a more nuanced discussion. Some want the flood zone maps to reflect the higher risk. Others protest that, saying it will increase their cost of insurance and the cost to rebuild at higher elevations, with appropriate drainage. It is a good example of the tough choices we now face.
But what is largely still missing from the discussion are the two key takeaways that Sandy should have us thinking about:
- While storm surge, extreme tides, and the last century of sea level rise all contributed to Sandy’s extreme destruction, there is a key difference. Those factors can align for maximum ocean height extending the damage farther inland as they did with the tragedy a year ago. But storm surge recedes in a day or two, allowing rebuilding on the land, because the land is still there. Sea level rise, on the other hand, does not recede, meaning the land is effectively permanently gone. In fact due to the excess heat now stored in the ocean, the glaciers and two great ice sheets must continue to melt for centuries, raising sea level ever higher.
- Our public policy needs to recognize the above distinction as it has huge importance for policies ranging from flood insurance to compensation and rebuilding. In the US, subsidized coastal flood insurance under the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) now part of FEMA encourages building by providing insurance at below market rates. A recent estimate says that the average Florida homeowner would pay $2,400 more per year without the built-in subsidy. That adds to the risk for those residents and businesses but also creates far greater cost in the future when we provide emergency assistance and try to compensate the victims.
I think we must begin the discussion to better define the limitations of national help for disasters that exceed reasonable insurance, such as tornadoes, earthquakes, tsunamis, or major hurricanes. Those are semi-random events that hit limited locations. We can continue to have a national policy to help such victims if we so choose. But sea level rise is different.
Sea level rise and the accompanying destruction of land is predictable, effectively permanent, and universal, hitting all coastal areas at the same time. There is no possibility of any government compensating all the victims for such loss. There simply is not enough money in the world, not just in the US, but in any country. The sooner we make that distinction and announce a way to establish such a separation, the better that those at risk can assess their risk and adapt. It might be phased in over a decade or two. If we do not do it, there is no question that slowly rising sea levels will absolutely bankrupt us. It will be interesting to see when, or if, the US Congress gets around to considering this long term ultimate financial risk. So far there are too busy with their posturing of the day. This issue will take leadership, something we seem to lack at the moment from our legislature.
This subject and more is discussed in my book, “High Tide On Main Street: Rising Sea Level and the Coming Coastal Crisis.” A second edition has just been published, available on Amazon in print and for Kindle. This new edition has an introduction by Christine Todd Whitman, former New Jersey Governor and EPA Administrator.
We will be having this discussion more and more in the years ahead, not only in the US but globally. If you get your networks and community discussing the above two key points, maybe we can advance this truly critical conversation. Procrastinating on this will make things worse for future generations. We need to begin “Intelligent Adaptation” to rising sea level as soon as possible.