"Some locals like Danny Couch, who became a representative for Save the Lighthouse, advocated for the idea of building a solid concrete wall around the lighthouse. But Pilkey had maps and diagrams showing how sea walls are actually counter-productive and often lead to accelerated erosion. Then one day Pilkey met an engineer named Dave Fischetti, who suggested a novel compromise: instead of building a sea wall or letting the lighthouse fall into the ocean, why not move it? Even though the lighthouse was 200 feet tall and weighed 4,800 tons — engineers had moved bigger structures. And this presented an opportunity, to test something that planners call “managed retreat.” The idea is that, as sea levels rise, we won’t be able to defend every coast with a giant wall. Instead we’re going to have to make plans to abandon certain areas and make choices about what to move out of the way. Pilkey thought that if Buxton could be convinced to move this big lighthouse, it might show that managed retreat is feasible."
No shit sparky. It's kind of like saying, you are likely going to die or spend a large time at hospital if a ball joint fails on the expressway, when you are going 70 MPH.
I am sure in a few years, New York will be installing $100 million steam plants and anhydrous ammonia chiller lines on the state ski slopes and probably providing aid for private resorts. Oh, and don't forget the cost of running natural gas lines to remote locations to fuel the boilers.
That said, I wonder if that is constitutional to build giant steam plants and run miles of chiller lines in forest preserve, despite the constitutional amendment permitting the state-operated ski resorts.
"At the current rate of melting, the world's seas will be at least 2 feet higher by the end of the century compared to today."
"The idea that cities are leading on climate change is applauded over and over and over. There’s just one problem. It's not actually happening. Retrofit programs for buildings and homes aren't delivering results. Power distribution remains rooted in century-old thinking and technology. And those cities that claim to be on track to go "100 percent renewable"? Not even close."
"The truth is that cities have done little to contribute to recent declines in carbon pollution. Renewable portfolio standards have spurred tons of new renewable generation, but states adopt those, not cities. Transportation-related CO2 is down in many cities, but that's largely the result of improved national fuel-efficiency standards. And urban areas did nothing to create cheap natural gas, which, by displacing coal, has been the leading driver of reduced emissions."