In an opinion piece by Orrin H. Pilkey, James B. Duke professor of earth science, emeritus, in Duke University’s Nicholas School of the Environment and Earth Sciences on newsobserver.com, it’s pointed out that dealing with the impact of potential sea level rise is not limited to the UK:

In the United Kingdom, a highly visible societal debate is going on about how the nation will respond to sea level rise. Environment officials recognize that, from the standpoints of engineering feasibility and costs, the entire coast cannot possibly be defended. So the question boils down to what can be preserved in the rising sea level and what will have to be abandoned.

The British government has declared that a number of small villages, especially in East Anglia, Norfolk and Suffolk, will have to be abandoned. For example, the village of Overstrand, a cluster of 135 houses plus several businesses, will be allowed to fall into the sea in this century. Abandonment has also been recommended for 25 square miles of the flat, low-elevation Norfolk “Broads,” along with six villages and five small lakes.

There are no plans for the government to pay those who will lose their houses, although perhaps that wouldn’t be too costly. Homeowner Jane Archer from Happisburgh discovered that for loan purposes, a bank considered her home atop a rapidly eroding sea cliff to be valued at one British pound.

In contrast, planning for the sea level rise along our coast is at a very rudimentary stage. The United States hasn’t come close to the U.K.’s level of recognition of the rising sea level. Just as in Britain, it is certain that we cannot protect all of our coastlines, which include 3,000 miles of ocean shoreline and 35,000 miles of estuary/sound shorelines on the East Coast alone.

Not only have we not begun serious planning for sea level rise, we also continue to take actions that will make any response more difficult.

Read the full article on newsobserver.com