
When will the Netherlands disappear? - alaaf
https://www.politico.eu/article/when-will-the-netherlands-disappear-climate-change/
======
jacquesm
It won't. NL has been preparing quite hard for a rise in sea level and/or
worse storms. The port of IJmuiden is being overhauled, the shoreline defenses
have all been raised, in some places only about 3 ft, in others much more
depending on the likelihood of flooding. A bigger problem is that during an
extended period of high water that the rivers won't be able to drain into the
North Sea and studies are being made on how to deal with that, the 'room for
the river' ("ruimte voor de rivier") plan is one of many ways in which change
can be made. Other options are to use the IJsselmeer as buffer storage and to
vastly increase pumping capacity.

[https://www.ruimtevoorderivier.nl/](https://www.ruimtevoorderivier.nl/)

[https://www.gemalen.nl/gemaal_detail.asp?gem_id=264](https://www.gemalen.nl/gemaal_detail.asp?gem_id=264)

(Photo 4 is particularly interesting, that's one of three such pumps, and this
is an old one and now relatively small, it is one of many such pumps)

The alarmist tone of the article is a bit strange, if there is a place where I
feel safe with respect to water it is here, there is an extensive network of
canals, pumps, monitoring and reserve capacity on just about everything to
deal with water and flooding. Compared to how other countries fare (annual
news from France, Germany, Spain and elsewhere shows extensive damage) we do
pretty good here.

Of course on large time scales there is a real risk and it will cost a small
fortune to deal with all that but with dikes as a well understood mechanism to
keep the see out and one of the wealthiest nations on a per area basis it
would highly surprise me if NL were the worst hit.

Consider another angle: if the problem had not been dealt with successfully in
the past this country would not even exist today.

~~~
AndyMcConachie
I may be biased because I live in the NL and I live slightly below sea level.
But I would be more worried to live on the coast somewhere else that has no
history of dealing with these kinds of problems.

In some sense The Netherlands is the only country on the planet to have the
political structures in place to deal with rising sea waters.

What do people think Florida is going to do? They're already losing their
drinking water and they're still in denial.

And it really is about having social and political structures in place to deal
with problems of this magnitude. The engineering questions are largely
understood. Build pumps, dikes and create flood plains. We shouldn't focus on
the engineering problems. The problem is one of coordination and mass
mobilization of political will, and that already exists here.

~~~
wainstead
> What do people think Florida is going to do? They're already losing their
> drinking water and they're still in denial.

> Build pumps, dikes and create flood plains.

Just want to point out this approach won't work for Florida (and I'm not
implying you said it would). The land in south Florida is porous limestone,
and the water will just pass under any dykes you build.

~~~
suby
Is there a solution that would work for Florida?

~~~
cwbrandsma
Evacuation...or build more homes on stilts. When does Florida become America's
Venice?

~~~
hnarn
> When does Florida become America's Venice?

Quite an amusing comparison considering that Venice is commonly seen as an
international beacon of sophisticated culture and history, while Florida is...
well. I'm not American so I'll leave the rest up to the reader.

~~~
yazan94
/r/FloridaMan is a pretty accurate depiction of how we view Florida. That and
Disney World.

------
tda
Indeed the question is not if, but when the Netherlands will flood due too sea
level rise. Unlike many other nations the Netherlands is managed in a way that
it can potentially handle quite significant (I would say 1-3 meters) in the
next couple of decades if necessary at high _but bearable_ costs.

The cost of retreating to higher parts of the country would easily go into
trillions of euro's, which compared to the +/\- 1 billion euro spent on sea
defense according to the latest "Deltaplan".

Until now most climate models put catastrophic (say 3m+) sea level rise at
hundreds to thousands of years of now so we (I'm Dutch) should be alright.

However, I personally feel that there is a non negligible possibility that all
the current models are wrong because they are more or less extrapolating
current changes and conditions. There are several mechanisms that could cause
runaway sea level rise in shorter timescales, think melting permafrost with
methane, regime change of jet stream, regime change/stop of ocean currents.

And more importantly that sea level rise is IMHO the possibility of extreme
storms hitting the North Sea. Last year we say a few of those
cyclone/hurricanes that usually stay on the other side of the atlantic come
our way. That was highly unusual, and even though Ireland and Portugal are
still a long way from the Netnerlands, if if all of a sudden a super storm
with 300 km/h winds hits us (highest record gust unitl now is only 173 km/h),
then we are sure doomed.

I can't predict the future, but living in the potentially vulnerable west of
the country, I'm glad my parents in law have nice bit of property in the east
at 17m+ sea level. I intend to live another 50 years, a lot can happen in my
lifetime

~~~
jacquesm
That's a lot of ifs! Yes, if the sky falls we'll all wear blue hats. But for
now the indications are that change will be gradual rather than sudden and we
are actively working on this rather than sitting back and waiting to see how
bad things will get (which is the standard in the rest of the developed
world). NL is one of the few places where there is substantial funding _today_
to deal with this.

Level of upheaval that could happen is of course orders of magnitude worse
than what you can reasonably plan for but if such a thing were to come to pass
it will have much larger effects than that NL would end up being a part of the
ocean again. By that time you're looking at 100's of millions of people that
will be displaced and catastrophic events pretty much all over the globe. NL
will be a footnote in that story.

~~~
tda
Just to be clear, I still enjoy and plan on living in the west for a long
time. But there are quite a few theoretically possible regime changes that I
am aware of (and probably even more that I am unaware of) to make me concerned
about it. Any significant regime change (break with historic trends) will
automatically invalidate all models/predictions/assumptions about our safety
levels. Current design criterion is we should be safe for 1/10.000 year
conditions.

And if all goes wrong, you better be in a low population density rich country
that can handle a little warming (thinking of Sweden and Norway in particular)
Better move there before everyone else does ;)

~~~
jacquesm
Sweden and Norway are attractive for many reasons, but I don't think any of
this will happen soon enough to impact my life in a meaningful way. I'm 54, I
haven't exactly been too careful with this body and if I live to 80 it would
highly surprise me.

But my children likely will see this in full force and I sincerely hope that
by then humanity will have come its collective senses.

~~~
tda
I hope you're right, I expect the world to be in a very different place in a
few decades and not for the better. I'm still under 40 so I'm keeping my
options open; even though the chances are probably very low, the effect is
also pretty extreme making the risk (probability * effect) approximately 0 *
inf. I estimate the probability to be somewhat higher than 0, so therefore I
believe the risk is significant.

~~~
jacquesm
> I expect the world to be in a very different place in a few decades and not
> for the better

Given history to date I would say that is a safe assumption when you are
living in a time of prosperity, it is the global equivalent of 'this too shall
pass'. But even if NL will be hit hard I highly doubt it will be hit hardest
or first. We've been vaccinated in a sense in not trusting nature to leave her
boundaries where we'd like them to be, the country is more like a machine than
a static arrangement.

If we stopped pumping water out you'd be living on the lakeside within a few
years, and on the seaside a few years after that.

~~~
tda
Indeed we won't be hit hardest or first, but consider this. Just about the
entire Randstad is in a single "Dijkring" (Dijkring 14). And because a large
part of the Randstad is flooded, if any part of the defense goes, it goes
entirely. And as the Randstad is the economic heart of the country, the
country will not recover. Also because it can't feasibly be evacuated. So
flooding will happen in other places first, but the other places are above sea
level and will get dry again. Or a few meters of coastline is lost. Not the
Randstad, it will be flooded exactly once and stay flooded completely and
forever. Lets just hope it will take a long time before it happens.

~~~
joelbluminator
The only time anything like this came close was a freak storm in 1953 as far
as I know - 2000 dead in the Netherlands (also 200 dead in UK). Since then sea
defenses have been improved by a huge factor, nothing was left to chance. I
just don't see the kind of freak event that can cause this (and why would a
freak storm hit the Randstad and not New York / London / San Francisco ?). If
you're talking about gradual sea level rise doing this, well the current pace
is 3.8 mm rise a year. Even if the rate doubles (is this likely?) we're still
under one meter in 100 years. I wouldn't run away to Sweden just yet but hey
it's a free country! P.S the sea level rise pace around Netherlands is even
lower than the rest of the world currently.

~~~
tda
thing is cat 5 hurricanes happen every year (and are thus not freak storms),
just not here. In the parts of the world where these happen, people tend not
to live below sea level so even poor islands eventually recover after being
hit. Extrapolating form the current climate the probability for cat5 hurricane
winds in NL is about zero, cause the mechanisms that cause these kinds of
storms don't apply here. But as the climate changes, and the seas warm, you
might see the general storm patterns change, and you might get into a
different regime where such storms are possible. Take hurricane Lorenzo, the
easternmost Category 5 Atlantic hurricane on record. What was previously
unthinkable just happened last October. If you extrapolate from this trend
(more frequent, more eastern hurricanes happening in the Atlantic), I think it
looks a lot less unlikely that one of those monster will someday make it to
the North Sea.

Same with sea level rise: the currently observed rate of change is very
manageable, and even a factor 5 higher can probably be managed. But what if we
reach (or have already reached) a tipping point in the climate system that
causes rapid acceleration of sea level rise? The existence of these tipping
points cannot be derived from historical (say last 1000 years) observations,
and therefore one might conclude that they don't exist. I believe such
reasoning is known as the black swan logical fallacy. But from my casual
observations, we are entering uncharted territory now (greenhouse gas levels,
sea temperature, changing weather patters, changing jet stream patterns), so
who knows what will happen.

Last point, look at the temperature 40,7 °C reached just last summer. Until
2018 the highest recorded temperature was 38,4 °C (in 1947). Some say this was
a huge outlier, I think this is the new normal. I would love to know the
probability of this happening taking the weather observations from start of
record until 2018, would be surprised it it in the 1:1.000.000 range.

edit: Of course someone did the math (in Dutch) [https://www.knmi.nl/over-het-
knmi/nieuws/hoe-bijzonder-zijn-...](https://www.knmi.nl/over-het-
knmi/nieuws/hoe-bijzonder-zijn-de-nieuwe-temperatuurrecords)

~~~
radicalbyte
The British Isles form a big protection block for the country from the worst
weather coming form the ocean.

Also, if the sea level rise is caused by ice melting on the North Pole the
rises will be countered considerably by the earth's crust rising due to the
mass being removed from it.

Sea level rises are scary - and are part of the reason I don't live in
Amsterdam / Utrecht / Rotterdam - but that shouldn't be the thing to scare us.

Food shortages and the wars this will fuel will be a problem long before the
sea causes the dykes to fail (and my assumption is that said dykes are part of
what makes The Netherlands almost impossible to defend).

~~~
jacquesm
It's a mixed blessing. They also allow water to pool in the channel because it
can't really flow out fast enough. And contrary to what you say the dikes are
part of the defenses of the country. The Spanish had an interesting experience
to that effect.

------
thdrdt
(I'm Dutch)

My original post: _The strange thing is that all the weight of the ice is
pulling our area down. When all that ice melts our area will be lifted up. So
we won 't notice much difference. Edit: some facts are that the sea level at
the west coast of north America has dropped and the sea level above Australia
has risen. Sea levels are not as 'level' as you might think. By the way: I'm
not saying we should not worry and nothing is going on._

After looking more into it I must say the above is not true. Our area is just
outside the 'dent' of weight of the ice. So our area is likely to go down a
little when the ice melts.

It has more to do with the gravitational force of the ice mass. In our area
the ice is pulling the sea towards it so the sea levels are higher. When this
mass melts the sea levels in our area will go down.

~~~
Grangar
This is the first time I hear about this. Do you have a source for it?

~~~
rb808
There is a big gravity effect with ice sheets attracting water. If/when
Greenland melts, water levels nearby will drop a lot, NW Europe might even
fall too.

[https://sealevel.nasa.gov/understanding-sea-
level/regional-s...](https://sealevel.nasa.gov/understanding-sea-
level/regional-sea-level/ice-mass-loss)

------
blunte
I find it a bit ironic given the MIT climate simulator on HN yesterday - the
biggest impact (in that simulator) to climate change was the land/agriculture
methane.

Right now the Dutch farmers are again harassing the country with their
tractors on public roads, angry about what they feel is undue pressure to
reduce their emissions. Maybe they'll get one or two more generations of
farming as they hasten their own demise.

Meanwhile, since NL has failed significantly to meet EU (nitrogen) emissions
requirements - almost entirely because of mass agriculture - there's a freeze
on building housing, roads, etc. Oh and the country-wide max speed limit will
be limited down to 100kph starting Jan 1 (which I don't mind so terribly, but
many people do mind).

So basically, the commercial farmers are ruining this country (and
contributing to ruining the planet), and being jerks while doing so.

~~~
dtwest
I do not know the details, but it is my understanding that the Netherlands
exports a large amount of its agricultural production. One could say, let's
only produce what we need, and methane production will go down. However, if
that was done, all of the countries that rely on the Netherlands for
agricultural imports would need to increase production or find somewhere else
that would. There is no guarantee that using country level caps will improve
anything.

Unless I'm missing something, maybe it would be better to assign the emission
penalty of a product to the consumer rather than the producer?

~~~
Hercuros
Moving the production to a different country _would_ be a solution, since the
Netherlands is currently producing way more nitrogen per area of land than
other European countries.

Moreover, our nature areas are generally smaller and closer to agriculture.
Therefore, nitrogen output has (had) a lot more impact on nature here than in
other countries.

More information can be found in this news article (Dutch):
[https://nos.nl/artikel/2307260-kan-de-ruime-duitse-
stikstofn...](https://nos.nl/artikel/2307260-kan-de-ruime-duitse-stikstofnorm-
ook-in-nederland.html)

~~~
Udik
> Moving the production to a different country would be a solution, since the
> Netherlands is currently producing way more nitrogen per area of land than
> other European countries.

Isn't this just because it is producing highly efficiently, at least in terms
of land use? If you move the production elsewhere, it will consume the same
amount if nitrogen on a wider area, so with worse impacts on wildlife and
biodiversity.

~~~
Hercuros
No, because the concentration is a big part of the problem. If things were
more spread out, but with the same total amount of nitrogen, there would be
less of an issue (and this is why Germany has less strict rules on nitrogen).

------
adventskalender
Am I the only one who gets angry at stupid "mood setting" in such articles? It
leads with the picture of an abandoned settlement that has turned to
marshland, only to reveal that it was deliberately given over to the sea.

Why should I read on after they wasted my time with that imagery?

As for Netherlands being flooded, I suppose that threat has existed since the
early day of its existence.

~~~
empath75
It wasn’t given back to the sea because they were tired of having all that
extra farmland. They are strategically giving up on some parts to preserve
others.

~~~
adventskalender
Then they should say so in the article. All it says is "The Noordwaard polder
was one of 39 such areas selected for the Dutch government’s “Room for the
River” program, in which land was given back to the water."

Shame on the Dutch government for the euphemism, too, I guess.

Afaik it is nothing new that the sea claims land that was previously settled
on. The destruction of Rungholt in the 14th century is a famous example that
comes to mind.

~~~
mannykannot
The point is that it is an example of an issue that is going to become much
more pressing. Considering a 14th. century event without regard to what has
changed since then (technically, economically and environmentally) is not very
informative.

~~~
adventskalender
Why not? If such things have happened before, it seems dishonest to use such
imagery to conjure a scenario of doom.

Maybe the risk is now higher, more frequent, different, whatever. Fine, then
tell me so, show me the numbers.

I don't want to be manipulated with emotional imagery. I want to be informed.
I don't read the news for entertainment. I mean yeah I do, but I actually want
to read it for information.

~~~
mannykannot
So you want data, but the only datum you offer in support of your assertion
that you are being unreasonably manipulated is the effect of a single storm in
the 14th. century. Meanwhile, other people have been posting much more
pertinent comments on, for example, the non-uniformity of global-warming-
induced sea-level rise.

~~~
adventskalender
No the manipulation is the story about the abandoned settlement. I don't think
you understood my point at all.

The only assertion I made is that land being lost to the sea is not a new or
outlandish thing. For that 14th century is sufficient - and even better in
context of global warming, as there was no such thing in the 14th century.
Also I am not a journalist publishing an article. So I mentioned the first
example I remembered. If I was publishing an article, I would do more
research.

~~~
mannykannot
> ...and even better in context of global warming, as there was no such thing
> in the 14th century.

On the contrary, that means it has little relevance to the resurgent concerns
of the 21st. century. Your position is a form of denial that goes "we don't
have to worry about global-warming induced X, because X occurred before there
was global warming", which is, of course, bogus if global warming is
significantly changing the scale of X.

I get the impression that your feeling of being manipulated is precisely
because you do not get this point. Furthermore, your complaint that the author
did not write the article you wanted to read is of no interest and is not
going to change anything.

------
thesimp
3 out of the top 5 dredging firms are from the Netherlands and one is from
Belgium, right next door.

The Netherlands will be fine. Actually the Netherlands will make bank selling
water management knowledge to others.

~~~
ragebol
Could be, but would it be fair to only keep your feet dry because you/your
country can pay for it?

~~~
macinjosh
Life's not fair. Sorry to break the bad news to you.

~~~
ragebol
Oh, I know. But poor countries flooding will have the additional problem of
creating a lot of refugees looking to keep their feet dry.

------
the-dude
A couple of months ago, one of the guys running our watermanagement (
[https://www.rijkswaterstaat.nl/](https://www.rijkswaterstaat.nl/) ) claimed
The Netherlands would sustain 'multiple meters of sea level rise'.

~~~
blunte
I'm sure the "water shapers" are optimistic given their success thus far. They
have done quite well overall. But catastrophic failures tend to be
combinations of events, events which individually could be handled.

~~~
the-dude
That is pure speculation.

~~~
blunte
Humans have quite a history of trying to keep the sea out of their land, and
that history has plenty of big failures. It all goes well until it doesn't,
and then it's a big deal.

It doesn't require speculation to recognize this pattern, even if we can't
predict the failure events accurately.

~~~
the-dude
Do you have any specific examples of this ? ( I know of the 1953 flood, a
combination of high tide and storm ).

But if there is plenty, I really would want to know.

~~~
yread
Uh, are you asking for examples of flooding?

Consider this: Delta Works and the rest of ocean polders are built to
withstand something like 5m above mean sea level. Katrina caused a storm surge
8.5m above mean sea level.

Granted, North Sea isn't quite like Gulf of Mexico (yet) But there is
absolutely a chance that a storm comes next year that would breach it

~~~
jacquesm
There is a chance that such a storm could happen tomorrow. But the chance is a
very slim one and since the Delta works the rivers have been a much bigger
problem than the see.

The worst possible conditions for Zeeland/Zuid Holland would be springtide,
storm, the initial sea level would be relatively unimportant. The problem is
that the wind drives that water ahead of it and will cause the water to rise
up because it can't flow away fast enough, in part because the channel is
constricted to the South, in part because such storms typically come from the
South West aiming directly at the weak spot in the shore defenses. Hence the
Delta Works and the storm surge protection near Rotterdam (which is an
absolutely amazing work of engineering by the way):

[https://www.google.com/maps/search/stormvloedkering+google+m...](https://www.google.com/maps/search/stormvloedkering+google+maps/@51.9544683,4.1580609,1513m/data=!3m1!1e3)

The scale of that thing might not be readily apparent but think of it as two
Eiffel towers on their side that can move to close off the river.

------
perfunctory
"On the other end of the spectrum is controlled abandonment ... And as soon as
this gets known, as soon as the shit hits the fan, there won’t be any
investments anymore and local economies will collapse"

This seems to be an underappreciated idea. We tend to think of climate
disaster as something in the distant future, but capital flight might cause
havoc much sooner.

------
pocket_titan
I think the tagline is misleading, especially the part that says "Now climate
change is threatening to flood it completely". The example they use (of
Noorderwaard being "given back to the water") is a result of the "Ruimte voor
de Rivier" (Room for the River, verbatim) programme, and the implication is
that these policies are necessary due to sea level rise caused by climate
change. But that's not completely true!

The Netherlands has a very well-protected coast (after the big flood of 1953
the Delta Works were built to prevent coastal flooding from ever happening
again on such a scale), so coastal flooding isn't that big of a threat. And
while it's true that rising sea-levels imply a rise in water-levels in the
rivers too (esp. the "backwater effect" is dangerous), that's mostly a slow
and predictable change - dykes can be raised to deal with it.

The issue is the annual floodings of the rivers; they've been growing in
intensity due to a) more meltwater from the Alps upstream and b) more/heavier
rain, both a consequence of climate change. Another effect climate change has
is subsidence; the country is gradually "sinking", allowing for more land to
be flooded in the case of high river tides.

BUT a big motivation for the programme is also the fact that more and more
people have been moving to areas susceptible to flooding. The Netherlands has
a very high population density, and about 4 million people are currently
living within a river basin, and the programme seeks to protect these people.

So really, I don't think the country will disappear - it has the most
experience in the world in dealing with these problems. The rivers can be
contained, you just won't be able to live right next to them; and reclamation
of the entire country is unlikely imo. Especially if the other countries
located in the watershed of the Rhine up their game - the Netherlands has
essentially been facing these issues alone due to it being downstream, but
Germany, France, Switzerland, etc. can all help contain the Rhine & reduce
flooding. And hopefully they will!

------
mslot
My feet are currently around 4 meters below sea level in the Netherlands. They
are still dry.

On its own, even worst case sea level rise is unlikely to have meaningful
impact on the Netherlands over the next century, unless we stop maintaining
our water infrastructure.

The real problem is droughts, which could simultaneously pulverize dikes,
cause ground to sink, cut off our water supply, and ruin the farming industry.
When it comes to climate change in the Netherlands, one bad summer is a lot
more dangerous than a century of sea level rise.

------
patall
It may be anectotal but I have seen quite a number of dutch people buying land
here in central Germany. May be related how moving between countries has
increased over the years but then you would also see danish and belgian poeple
but as far as I have seen its surprisingly many dutch. Another expaination
would be population density of course.

------
criddell
When will Florida disappear? As I understand it, no system of dykes and
barriers will work due to the porous ground.

------
hellofunk
> disasters such as the 1953 storm that breached the dikes and flooded almost
> a tenth of Dutch farmland. The disaster killed 1,836 people, destroyed homes
> and drowned tens of thousands of animals.

Wow, never heard about that.

~~~
dredmorbius
It's shaped much Dutch thinking onwater and risk:

[https://invidio.us/watch?v=gY6eio6Eqcg](https://invidio.us/watch?v=gY6eio6Eqcg)

Also affected Britain:

[https://invidio.us/watch?v=vARjm3yHKzY](https://invidio.us/watch?v=vARjm3yHKzY)

------
growlist
NL earns fortunes pumping hydrocarbons, thereby contributing to climate
change, thereby forcing itself to spend fortunes defending against climate
change.

For some reason I'm reminded of Alanis Morissette.

~~~
charliesharding
The ironic song about how she doesn't understand the meaning of irony?

~~~
growlist
Some argue her mistaken take on what's ironic is intentional, and the true
irony of the song.

------
raverbashing
Netherlands has been dealing with flooding even before the US existed. I think
they will be fine.

~~~
simplemts
From the perspective of an American living in the Netherlands for several
years now...

The Dutch are light years ahead in their Water management from the US, and far
ahead of any other developed nation. The Dutch have a separate tax for Water
to ensure money is there to prioritize this need, the citizens/children are
all educated on the importance of water management (i.e. Indoctrination from
young so EVERY citizen knows how important it is).

Highly recommend everyone watch/read about the dam they built in the North
Sea.

In short, they will be fine. This is a core part of their culture, investment,
and priority.

~~~
Aaargh20318
> The Dutch have a separate tax for Water to ensure money is there to
> prioritize this need

Also, the local government bodies that runs this (the 'waterschappen') form
one of the oldest democratic systems in the world.

> In short, they will be fine. This is a core part of their culture,
> investment, and priority.

It's also one of the things there isn't ever any real political discussion
about, it just never comes up. No one will ever suggest cutting the budget for
this. It's just something we all agree needs to be done so we just do it.

~~~
ragebol
Every time there is elections for the waterboard ("Waterschap"), there is a
very low turnout and talks to just merge them into the provincial governments.
But I guess we'll only know what we miss once it's gone.

------
joshspankit
Ugh. So much text when the headline is a simple question.

Did they give an estimated year?

------
tiku
We will just build bigger dykes.

~~~
macinjosh
Finally, a real solution to climate change. _

~~~
paulddraper
A historically very real and very effective solution to rising sea levels.

------
macinjosh
Who would have thought building a country in a flood zone would be a bad idea?
/s

------
jhoechtl
Clickbait headline. Move on.

------
classicsnoot
I have to imagine soon, given that we are about to pass the third, impassable
deadline for saving the world from climate change (2020).

