[conflux0]

Yeah that is true and addition to what you said arctic oil reserves would also be more accessible. But I still think that the damages to coastal economies such as the Netherlands from flooding would outweigh the benefits.

My main point though was that the reasoning that the guy was using, a single example of anecdotal evidence, made me a little uncomfortable. Aside from that I think the other points he made were thoughtful.

[slackerIII]

Just out of curiosity, how do you compare those 2 items( Benefits to global trade/oil reserves vs damage to the Netherlands)? Do you have some expertise in the area, or is that just a hunch?

[Retric]

The several orders of magnitude difference between the value of stuff built near sea level vs the cost of global trade suggest one will not pay for the other. But there are more in depth analysis out there.

[slackerIII]

Humanity has frequently built dams/drainage systems for several orders of magnitude less money than the value of the items protected by the dam/ drainage systems.

[Retric]

You need to add in failures, like the flooding of the new york subway system, and Katrina etc. Over time we don't keep things 99.9% safe over 100 years so it's not actually several orders of magnitude cheaper. Which is part of why I suggest you read a real analysis of the costs of sea level rise in 1 foot increments.