Growth Collides With Rising Seas in Charleston
- Reference: 0179118736
- News link: https://news.slashdot.org/story/25/09/10/0123249/growth-collides-with-rising-seas-in-charleston
- Source link:
Meanwhile, developers have received approval for thousands of new homes in flood-prone areas, including Long Savannah's 4,500 units and Cainhoy's 9,000-home development on filled wetlands. Charleston's sea level rose 13 inches over the past century and faces another four-foot rise by 2100. Climate Central projects 8,000 residents and 4,700 homes will face annual flooding risk by 2050. The Bridge Pointe neighborhood already underwent FEMA buyouts after successive floods, while coastal South Carolina zip codes report among the nation's highest insurance non-renewal rates.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/sep/09/charleston-rising-seas
Its also sinking (Score:1)
Half that is the land sinking yet they continue to build more.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you know how fast the land is sinking and or why it is sinking?
Re: (Score:3)
For Charleston, this year's change is 3.44mm.
However, that includes both sea level rise and land shrinkage (drying / compacting).
Re: (Score:2)
It's easier to just assume you're right about everything and avoid trying to understand facts and evidence.
Re: (Score:2)
Not sure what you are replying to here.
Re: (Score:1)
Did you expect something other than garbage from The Guardian? You'll always be dissapointed if you do.
News for nerds? (Score:2)
Did Climate Central grind out their flooding projections on a Beowulf cluster or something?
Re: (Score:2)
"As man-made climate change causes sea-levels to rise, wealthy build seawall to protect themselves while leaving poor to drown outside" is about as cyberpunk as it gets. Do nerds not do cyberpunk anymore, now that we're living it?
WHy? (Score:1)
Why are they building a sea wall? What makes them think climate change is real?
If it's not real, as the governor keeps saying, then no sea wall is needed. If climate change is real, then everyone should get one.
You can't have it both ways. Unless you're being deliberately racist.
Re: (Score:2)
Is there another reason why only the poor, non white communities are not being covered by the seawall? is it just a coincidence that the rich white people are being protected?
Re: (Score:2)
Because the value of the property doesn't justify the expense? That'd be my first guess.
Re: (Score:2)
Here I thought a city was supposed to look after it residents. Property values, too - to the extent that those valuations benefit residents.
It would be more accurate to say the value of the residents don't justify the expense.
Re: (Score:3)
Preventing the land from flooding would do wonders for property values.
Re: (Score:2)
Is there some racist reason in South Carolina that poor people can't move to Appalachia on the other side of the fall line?
Anticipated Sea Level Rise (Score:2)
The article states "Charleston's sea level rose 13 inches over the past century and faces another four-foot rise by 2100." The current rate of sea level increase is about [1]4.62 mm (0.182 in)/yr [wikipedia.org] based on satellite data. If sea levels continues to rise at that rate, the total rise by 2100 would be 0.35 meters (13 inches), but the rate has been increasing so we should expect more than 0.35 meters. The IPCC has predicted a global sea level rise between 0.38 meters to 0.77 meters (1.24 to 2.53 feet). (See
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise
Re: (Score:2)
35 ft (10 m) of sea level rise could breach the sill that separates the Sea of Cortez from the Imperial and Coachella valleys. Hundreds of thousands of acres of highly fertile land would be submerged. It'd be like a mini-Mediterranean event.
Re: (Score:2)
Mediterranean resorts do quite well, as I remember
Hold on now... (Score:2)
We all know this 'climate change' is a hoax.
They should save a ton of money and do this stupid wall for just the poors. (The rich know this is just another socialist plot to steal the their money.)
Subsidence (Score:2)
Just to be clear: this is an area affected by severe subsidence.
No sea wall, no mortgage (Score:2)
Any financial institution issuing a mortgage on properties not protected by the sea wall need to be prosecuted for blatant misuse of their shareholders' money. Given that, no new properties should be being built that are in danger.
Beyond that: we face a major issue which nobody is facing up to...
Re: No sea wall, no mortgage (Score:2)
that's kind of the pickle the poor neighborhoods are in. Their house really isn't worth much because when they sell, the new people won't be able to get insuance. Building a seawall around those neighborhoods that are uninsurable give mixed signals. A no win situation all around.
As far as the new development is concerned, the city is probably more interested in revenue today then worrying about tomorrow's problem.
Re: (Score:3)
Wouldn't it be better to relocate the people rather than build the sea wall, and just depopulate Charleston which is no longer viable as a city?
Re: (Score:2)
It's hard for us to sit here and judge the risk of each development given future plans. It could work out so long as insurance is allowed to do its thing, and price in the risk. This could result in spending extra to build structures resistant to flooding, or could result in building only cheaper smaller structures with unconventionally high insurance rates with the expectation of rebuilding them periodically. Where it goes off the rails is if voters move in and then start complaining that insurance is no
Aka Calaifornia (Score:2)
Where fire insurance has been underwritten by the state for some time.
Re: (Score:2)
Responsible governmental spending would be better directed at buying out the houses in flood prone areas and building more in safer locations. Thats what works well in the midwest with flood prone rivers, that had dump developers build next to. This is on a whole different scale though... At least Miami is more just, the areas near the ocean are the expensive ones, and those higher up and farther away were historically poorer areas.
Re: (Score:2)
Or, gasp, abandoning non-viable coastal cities.
Re: (Score:1)
It's interesting as most mortgages require that the house be insured. And in flood-prone areas, they would want more. It seems that banks will ultimately not give out mortgages because they are likely to lose money. So developers would stop building houses that people cannot get mortgages to buy. The problem should correct itself, but someone is doing something shady. Wierd right?
Re: (Score:2)
So long as it can be insured, why would they care? The bank/lender won't give you a mortgage if the property can't be insured.