[cobookman]

If the Netherlands managed to reclaim land through dikes. Why couldn't California do the same in their coastal affluent neighborhoods? California doesn't get bad storms and it rarely gets a hurricanes / tornadoes / tsunamis...etc.

For the bay area...Why not just drain the bay. There was a proposal previously and cost wise it'd easily pay off given the land gains. Heck could easily solve our housing and transit issues

[aeternus]

Draining the bay is probably too extreme, but much of SF is already built on reclaimed land. All of Embarcadero, Mission Bay, Southbeach, even parts of Rincon Hill were underwater in the 1800s: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9d/1858_U.S...

[joelbluminator]

The Nederlands indeed does this and there is no talk of gradual retreat. We are too invested in the current system, retreating means relocating 7 million people and the economic heart of the country. So we built mega walls. No one really knows how much and how fast sea level will rise. The guesstimates vary wildly. So far, the last century sea levels increased very moderately.

[fsiefken]

Hi Joel, there is talk of gradual retreat by the experts. This was published in popular Dutch magazine (and perhaps talked about in talk shows, but I don't watch them), it was also published on the NOS site (the national news). Here is a translation from the VrijNederland page: Rolf Schuttenhelm. De zeespiegelstijging is een groter probleem dan we denken. En Nederland heeft geen plan B. 9 februari 2019.

We need to consider controlled withdrawal in due course,' says polar meteorologist Michiel van den Broeke of the Institute for Marine and Atmospheric Research (IMAU) at Utrecht University. He emphasises that there are great uncertainties when it comes to the loss of ice in Antarctica, for example. This is even smaller now than in Greenland, but the ice loss has tripled in the past ten years. Will this acceleration continue?

Van den Broeke received the support of his Utrecht colleague Roderik van de Wal: 'The enormous long-term effects are usually neglected. There is a strong attitude in the Netherlands that we will solve the problems with adaptation. That's a misconception.

Glaciologist and climate change teacher Michiel Helsen also calls for a social discussion: 'Is living below sea level still responsible? In the long run, it is possible that we will not be able to preserve the western part of the Netherlands. I think it would be useful for society to discuss which parts of the Netherlands we want to defend at what price.'.

Van de Wal: 'If we continue like this, a large part of the Netherlands will have to be abandoned. Moving to Germany should be a topic of discussion. At some point there will be no turning back. And within ten or twenty years, we will be able to conclude that this point has been passed'.

Also see: Heleen Ekker. Kustlijn opgeven en het hogerop zoeken, dat is een plan B bij zeespiegelstijging. 9 februari. https://nos.nl/artikel/2271163-kustlijn-opgeven-en-het-hoger...

And 'Als Nederland onderloopt..' https://www.vn.nl/als-nederland-onderloopt-andere-problemen/

[joelbluminator]

Yes, I know about this. I wasn't accurate: let's say there is no practical talk or any actual government plan for retreat. The real estate market here is hotter than ever. More metros, airports and houses are being planned and built in the Randstad (that's the area that's under sea levels and the most important economic part of the land). Some experts think gradual retreat needs to be thought about, while many others think we can solve it by other means, or simply wait and see to get a feel for the sea level rise pace (which I think is the ideal way. we simply don't know enough yet). I'm taking an unpopular opinion here I guess but I just don't think we know enough to panic... I think the chance the Randstad would be evacuated in the next 50 - 100 years is about similar to the chance San Francisco would be evacuated; close to zero. Too much real estate, infrastructure, and historical treasures lie in these cities (think about Amsterdam for example). Even a massive sea dyke that costs about 80 billion euro, that would become a second coast for the Netherlands and could withhold 2-3 meter sea level rise, will be tried and built before you evacuate a trillion dollar worth of infrastructure.

[_jn]

There are large wildlife preservation efforts in the Bay Area marshlands (particularly near shoreline park) that would be destroyed.

[vanrysss]

They'll be destroyed by rising sea levels eventually anyway.

[cobookman]

Then just damn up the entrance to the bay and control it's water level. Same risk as draining the bay all together.

Either way global warming is going to change the landscape. Might as well attempt something that limits damage

[cjensen]

That's close to literally impossible.

There was an absurd plan to place a dam between Richmond and San Rafael[1]. When it was finally studied, there were two fatal problems with the plan. (1) There is not enough water in Summer, to keep the bay behind the dam full. (2) There is too much water from snowmelt in early spring and the San Joaquin valley would turn into a lake.

Now to the environmental side: the bay is amazingly productive. It also acts as a nursery for the ocean. The damage done to the Pacific Ocean ecosystem would be all out of proportion to the gains of a little bit of land.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reber_Plan

[haroldp]

> Why not just drain the bay.

San Francisco exists at all because there is a bay there.

[brodie]

Why would SF go away without a bay? Do you mean because of tourism?

If anything it seems like SF would grow its boundaries if this happened.

[jacobolus]

Along with LA/Long Beach, Oakland is one of the two major ports on the US west coast. It does tremendous amounts of shipping.

[brodie]

Trains, planes, and automobiles would surely still function?

Is there something inherently better about seafaring ships? Wouldn't the ports just move?

[taurath]

If you drained the bay you’d lose one of the most important ports on the west coast and basically all heavy industry in Northern California

[tomc1985]

The Netherlands drained their below-sea-level land at a time before widespread environmental studies and other sources of outside interference. California is notorious for some-random-group-or-another interfering with building plans because it would destroy the homes of the San Elijo Grey-billed Duck Platypus or whatever

[r3bl]

No, the Netherlands "solved" the problem because they've experienced one flood too many. The more obvious the problem is to an average citizen, the easier it is to gather enough of support to actually tackle it.

This is totally different because it's gradual. Humans aren't good at thinking long-term, so it's more difficult to gather the support for projects that benefit us in the long run. The glaciers are melting, the seas are rising, but a congressman brought a snowball to congress so we don't have to do shit that inconveniences us now for something that benefits us in the long run.

[tomc1985]

They still lacked the kind of environmental-activist interference that plagues California projects; few if none of these groups existed back then or had the ability to manifest any kind of political power