
The Dutch Have Solutions to Rising Seas - ehudla
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/06/15/world/europe/climate-change-rotterdam.html
======
apexalpha
It's a good read but... I don't see the whole point about "From a Dutch mind-
set, climate change is not a hypothetical or a drag on the economy, " is a bit
weird.

Climate doesn't matter here. 1/3rd of the country is already under sea level
TODAY. The billions we spend on engineering and developing water defense
structures have no relation to our believes about climate change. We are
ALREADY beneath sea level!

Look at this [https://s-media-cache-
ak0.pinimg.com/originals/5a/75/f8/5a75...](https://s-media-cache-
ak0.pinimg.com/originals/5a/75/f8/5a75f8224f90bd258dd44037a90db43f.gif) Gives
you a perspective.

Hell, we even have our own little Trump, denying Climate change and blaming
all our faults on Moroccans in stead of Mexicans.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geert_Wilders](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geert_Wilders)

Some more reading for those interested:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_control_in_the_Netherlan...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_control_in_the_Netherlands)

~~~
pasta
Climate does matter here!

We are expecting a lot more heavy rain fall and rising rivers. That's also why
we spend billions on inland water management. In our area they are even
discussing "garden pavement taxes".

So I don't agree with you that there is no relation to our believes about
climate change.

~~~
Danieru
Sorry could you explain what a "garden pavement tax" is? It sounds interesting
but googling gave nothing.

~~~
hoosieree
Not European but I'll take a guess. Hope this helps:

In the UK (and maybe elsewhere in Europe) a "garden" is what people in the US
would call a "yard"; an open space near a residence. Often, but not
necessarily covered in grass or plants.

"Garden paving" would mean covering it with something impervious to rain, such
as concrete or asphalt.

So a "garden pavement tax" would be a penalty for people who choose to cover
up soil with an rain-blocking material, to encourage them to use an
alternative which allows the ground to soak up the rain.

As an example, in my town there is a public park in a flood plain, its
driveways are made with "permeable pavers"[1] which are basically thick brick
tiles with holes in them. They allow the rain to go through to the ground
instead of building up and flooding the parking lot.

[1]:
[https://duckduckgo.com/?q=permeable+paver&iax=1&ia=images](https://duckduckgo.com/?q=permeable+paver&iax=1&ia=images)

~~~
utexaspunk
We have similar drainage fees here in Houston, based on the amount of
impervious ground cover on the property. We've had a lot of flash flooding in
the past 20 years because of the growth of neighborhoods and commercial
properties with large parking lots on what used to be prairies on the
perimeter of town. New commercial construction typically has to have catchment
basins, permeable concrete, or other runoff mitigation strategies. There is,
however, a lot of legacy properties which don't handle their runoff, and an
outdated storm sewer system, so we still have problems.

------
avar
Whenever flood control in The Netherlands is discussed, it's worth looking at
this detailed elevation map:

[http://www.floodmap.net/Elevation/CountryElevationMap/?ct=NL](http://www.floodmap.net/Elevation/CountryElevationMap/?ct=NL)

The elevation profile of the entire country is one where the coast is much
higher than sealevel, and then gradually slopes downwards to bits of the
interior that are entirely landlocked, but are say 1 meter below sealevel. In
other words we have pockets of land that are below sealevel, but they're
surrounded by and protected by land that's not.

The facts on the ground are very different from claims being made by a sibling
comment that "we are ALREADY beneath sea level!". This is why the NYT article
is talking about "reservoirs for when the seas and rivers spill over" and "to
let water in, where possible". Managing the water is largely about protecting
these pockets that are below sealevel.

~~~
krageon
Actually looking at this map, I'm still seeing significant flooding without
anything holding water back. When I read your comment I assumed you somehow
provided evidence that worrying about the water/coast is nonsensical, reading
the map I see the opposite.

~~~
avar
Worrying about the water & coast is a very real concern in The Netherlands. I
didn't mean to give the opposite impression.

The intent of my comment is to explain that the mental image many have of The
Netherlands (even some natives are guilty of this) that it's all effectively
under sealevel held up by some above-sealevel walls facing the ocean is false.

Most big population centers are above sealevel, those that aren't are usually
"landlocked" below-sealevel areas, i.e. surrounded by land that's not below
sealevel.

Flooding's still a major concern, but it's as much about ensuring that these
landlocked areas don't turn into big puddles whenever it rains as it is about
holding storm surges from the ocean back.

This is why the top comment in this thread stating that "we are ALREADY
beneath sea level!" is BS. The nominal state of The Netherlands is not to be
under sea level, but just barely above it.

This means that it's vulnerable to heavy rains, storm surges etc. But it also
means that it's no more prepared than most other countries if the ocean were
to rapidly rise and start overflowing & eroding the above-sealevel costal
areas that protect the under-sealevel inland areas from being permanently
flooded.

------
thesimp
One thing I'm thinking about is about much is how money the Dutch (and their
southern neighbors, the Belgians) are going to make once the rise in sea
levels will have a direct impact on wealthy regions.

In the world top 5 of dredging firms 4 are either Dutch or Belgian firms. And
once prime real estate, in for example Florida or the Hamptons, is in direct
danger large amounts of money will change hands to reinforce the coastline.
And those top 5 dredging firms have all the engineering expertise needed.

Moving extremely large amounts of rock & sand like
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palm_Jumeirah](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palm_Jumeirah)
and
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Suez_Canal](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Suez_Canal)
are just warmup exercises for the amount of work that needs to be done in the
next 50 years.

------
curiousgeorgio
The Netherlands has had to deal with flooding for many hundreds of years[1];
it's been a problem _long_ before the industrial revolution that so many point
to as a primary trigger of AGW, so acting like this is a matter of climate
change is just politically-motivated BS, to be honest.

The thing we _should_ learn from this is the fact that whether or not you
subscribe to AGW, the solutions are found in technologies that protect us from
the harsh effects of climate (however they may be caused) rather than naive
attempts to proactively change the course of the climate itself.

Think about it: even the strongest proponents of AGW seem to agree that at
this point, there's very little we can actually do in terms of suppressing or
reversing the trends (people argue that any improvement or slowing is
worthwhile, but that completely ignores economic principles like the law of
diminishing [marginal] returns and opportunity cost).

The truth is, we have _fewer_ climate-related deaths per year now than ever
before. Why is that? It's not a result of cutting down carbon emissions,
that's for sure. Instead, we are simply more adept at living safely in a
variety of climate conditions thanks to technology and industrialization.
Developing countries have seen the greatest improvements as a result of
technology, but we all benefit.

Can we count on people to dramatically change their lifestyles in response to
economically-inferior proposals based on politicized science? Absolutely not
(how has that track record been globally?). What kinds of incentives _can_ we
rely on for changing people's behavior? Answer: clear economic interests[2].
If and when it makes economic sense to deal with climate-related challenges,
the market will incentivize the most practical solutions via innovation. The
Dutch have proven that point (and not just recently).

If you don't believe we need technology to keep us safe from the climate, I
encourage you to pick a random spot on earth and try living there on your own
without any form of modern technology or any of the products of
industrialization. Your struggle - and increased risk of death - would have
been the same (at least in scale) at any point in the earth's history.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netherlands#Floods](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netherlands#Floods)

[2] Referring to natural market-based incentives rather than artificial
government-imposed incentives.

------
skrebbel
This headline is misleading. The Dutch don't have solutions, they have
workarounds.

------
miheermunjal
separate from the content, can we all take a moment to appreciate the NYT
visuals? Definitely a pro to non-paper journalism is the ability to use
complex graphics. Not saying this is their best work but its subtlety great.

------
vectorEQ
bunch of nonsense. people dont cause climate change and they can certainly not
stop it. This means, that you can either try to live under sea level like a
stuborn fool, or relocate to a safer place once the danger increases too much.
Building higher walls will just end up with higher and higher walls... just
piling up shit on shit. a solution to a problem is something that makes it go
away, not hide it behind a wall, wtf.

On another note, all this awsome dutch flood control, totally destroyed the
environment here for a lot of bird types (migratory ones mostly) and a lot of
other animals, so its destroying nature by combating it, like ignorant people
have been doing for centuries now. lets combat nature, good fucking idea. >.>
work with nature ffs, cause you are nature.

tl;dr: 1) a work around is not a solution 2) dont fight what you care about...
take care of it and respect it!

------
RickJWagner
I wonder when the rise will begin to affect ocean-side property prices?

~~~
tda
Actually it won't, as there is relatively little ocean-side property to affect
in the first place. With the exceptions of a few coastal towns like
Scheveningen, property development is illegal along the coast as it would
hinder future coastal protection. Consequently private ownership of coastal
area is also unheard of here. Because there are no buildings on them, the most
cost effective way of improving our coastal defences is relatively easy and
low-tech: just add more sand to the dunes and beaches.

~~~
vanderZwan
And as a side-benefit, we have a beautiful coastline for taking walks or bike
rides.

Michaël Dudok de Witt's _Father and Daughter_ [0] shows this beautifully (and,
incidentally, depicts a polder being reclaimed from the sea over the years)

[0] [https://vimeo.com/48076471](https://vimeo.com/48076471)

------
awful
Prevention costs far less than remediation. But the future business
opportunities; can no longer sell you big cars, big homes, large tracts of
land, but we can sell you clean air, clean water, and keeping the water out of
your domicile. Here's your air filtration/water desal/water pumping bill, so
go to your job.

------
jlebrech
their solution only makes the sea levels higher for everyone else.

how about seasteading instead (sic)?

------
LoSboccacc
Anyone know how much water is 1cm sea rise? Mars needs water and Musk is
interested in footing the bill, even if a mass driver is probably more apt to
the issue than rockets.

~~~
curiousgal
The surface of the earth is 510,082,000 sq. km. The oceans cover ~70.9% of
that, so 510082000 * 0.709 * 0.00001 = 3616.48138 cubic km.?

~~~
maxerickson
That's what I got.

And then 1 cubic km of water is ~1 trillion kg.

~~~
mcv
So rockets aren't going to work. Maybe instead of a space elevator, we need a
space fountain. Pump water up until centrifugal force takes over.

I bet it's going to be spectacular.

~~~
jacquesm
That won't work. You'll need to accelerate each individual molecule of water
to orbital velocity or you'll just be making a lot of rain. Water molecules
are not connected tension wise the same way a space elevators' tether is. Even
ice has a tensile strength that is way too low so the fact that it is going to
be below zero still won't help (might turn your rain into hail or snow
though).

~~~
mcv
My comment was in jest, but if you want to take it seriously, it's not the
tensile strength of water that matters, but that of the tube it's being pumped
through. That would need to be the magically stronger than nanotubes material
that we also need for a space elevator.

If you make the tube narrow enough, you might even take advantage of capillary
action in some way.

~~~
striking
Instead of using the Hyperloop for transportation, let's point it at the sky
and fire water from it.

~~~
nealabq
Call it the Hyperloo. Say "have one on me!" with each flush.

