39 inch sea level rise–not a very useful number for policy analysis
Over the last week we have heard a lot about the prediction of the N.C. Coastal Resources Commission’s Science Panel on Coastal Hazards, an effort supported by the NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources. The panel’s prediction? Sea level will rise 1 meter, or 39 inches, along the NC coast by the year 2100. As an economist I cannot offer and expert opinion about the commission’s science, but I hope it is more rigorous than its statistics. The panel’s prediction lacks necessary statistical rigor and is therefore not very useful for serious policy analysis. It makes a prediction but assigns no probability to it other than to say that is is “likely,” while giving no rigorous, i.e., quantitative, definition of what “likely” means. This makes the prediction useless for conducting rigorous economic cost-benefit analysis, which should be the basis for public policy. If you can’t use the prediction in a rigorous sense for determining whether the benefits to society of a particular policy proposal or regulation outweigh the costs then it is not a very good prediction for the purposes that I presume DENR had in mind when commissioning the report, i.e. formulating policy.
We have been hearing a lot this week about the science of all this and who has credentials and who doesn’t, but the fact is that at the end of the day the bottom line question is one of economics not science. Of course the economic analysis must be informed by scientific analysis. Unfortunately the scientific commission did not provide enough information to conduct an informed, rigorous economic assessment. This would require a prediction that is associated with a quantifiable probability statistic.
One comment
Local, National and International media have been criticizing the NC General Assembly, by joking that a Draft NC Law intends to stop Sea Level from rising or accelerating .
Real funny.
Obviously, no one disputes that Sea Level has been rising since the last Ice Age – very slowly; and certainly, if Sea Level Rise (SLR) is or will accelerate rapidly, we need to know about it, and plan for it whatever the cost; but , in short, it seems that the General Assembly want’s actual proof , instead of using an Ouija Board to predict acceleration of Sea Level Rise.
The issue arose because the CRC, Science Panel (SP) said, SL has been rising 18 inches / 100y , and 1 foot of SLR would inundate up to 2 miles of tidelands, and then, using UN guesstimates, jumped to proposing Planning Policy for 39” SLR by 2100.
However, there are Real world concerns with the SP’s science:
- A visual comparison of post 1850’s US Coast Survey surveys of NC tidelands, with recent surveys, don’t show 4 miles ( 150 y @ 18 inches / 100y ), or even 1 mile of inundation.
- The Tide Gage data they used was shown to be suspect.
- Moreover, the SP’s Literature Search, was a one sided selection of Pro AGW and Pro SLR reports, with no other viewpoints presented.
When asked about this, the SP , scientists, and an educational institution have declined to answer the questions, and refused to participate in an Open Public Forum.
Admittedly, I have received a maelstrom of studies on erosion, but none definitively answer the question. Why not ? If the study has been done, it should be easy enough to post a comparative survey showing inundation for everyone to see.
As no one is omniscient, and being responsible to protect the property rights of all the citizens of NC, it looks like the General Assembly is just saying, we need comprehensive verifiable science, before making important public policy decisions.
Bill Price Pine Knoll Shores
Our apologies, you must be registered and logged in to post a comment.