Comment by ahnick | Hacker News Reader

Comment by ahnick | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

300+ years? And the biggest risk to the city is environmental activists and the EPA? You must be joking.

The biggest risk is the fact that according to our best estimates by 2050 sea level rise will be another 1.5 feet in that area. (https://sealevel.nasa.gov/ipcc-ar6-sea-level-projection-tool) For an area that is already on average 7 feet below sea level. New Orleans topography is basically a bowl between Lake Pontchartrain and the Gulf of Mexico. Couple that with stronger and more frequent hurricanes and there will be few places left to live in New Orleans and the surrounding area.

People who give other people a false sense of hope is what endangers lives and sets up future generations for devastation. If you really want to help people you need to break the cycle and subsidize relocation costs for those who currently live there that can't afford to move. All these mitigation efforts like restoring the natural coastal barriers may delay some flooding (so sure do it), but it will not prevent the inevitable and it is coming much sooner than 300+ years.

>For an area that is already on average 7 feet below sea level.

There are areas as low as -22' msl. Maybe -25'.

But that's irrelevant, because the edge of the bowl and protection is at a minimum elevation ~+20' msl and up, depending on adjustments for things like modeled wave height.

Whereas New York's highest protection is currently something like +8', and isn't a closed loop.

And what's the elevation of the deepest basement/ subway/ tunnel in NYC? Because I bet it's a lot lower than -22' or -25' msl.

I don’t think NYC is really a counterexample/gotcha to their argument. If the commenter is right that a 1.5ft rise in sea level will cause a lot of damage to New Orleans, surely that line of thinking applies to both places (and all places close to the sea).

>a 1.5ft rise in sea level

It won't, precisely because New Orleans already has many places below sea level. It's got a head start.

It's spent billions of dollars over 100+ years making the outer boundaries water tight, and building the infrastructure to support all of that, including the ability to pump 100% of rainfall out.

To New Orleans, the cost of any sea level rise has essentially already approached the marginal rate.

No where else in the world, with the exception of probably the Netherlands, is better prepared for rising waters, whether it's storm surge or sea level rise.

Everywhere else has to pretty much start from scratch.

... katrina happened though, within the past 100+ years. either they didnt make them water tight, or they planned for situations that arent reality.

It was mostly geotech failures related to the organic material mentioned above, combined with a patchwork system at that point in time.

The post-Katrina improvements have combined the patchwork systems into one.

The improvements should have been made long before Katrina, but the corps of engineers stalled most attempts, and Congress refused to let the corps do anything without direct Congressional funding, which never came. Until Katrina.

And I only use New York City as an example, because of the argument about spending money on investments and infrastructure near sea level.

People aren't currently avoiding New York because of sea level rise. And are spending far greater amounts on business investments there.

Where they are different is that there's a lot of wealth in New York that will put money on mitigating the sea level rise

Will?

New Orleans already has.

If the city survives at 7 feet below sea level, I don't understand what's stopping it from surviving at 8.5 feet.

The buildings aren't getting any taller, in case of an intrusion.

The levees can be raised.

And the buildings are on piles already. Relatively simple to raise, if needed, compared to what other coastal cities will have to do.

With extra stress on the word relatively.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com