Less Argument There

Marshland in Foster City

Finally, a common-sense response to a putative danger of global warming:

Blueprint to battle Bay Area sea-level rise focuses on natural solutions

Why "common sense"? Because making improvements to San Francisco Bay has benefits that appeal to those who don't buy into the entire warming credo, which in 2008 we outlined as follows:

Temperatures are rising worldwide.

This phenomenon is attributable to an increase in “greenhouse gases”.

Greenhouse gases, in particular carbon dioxide, are largely produced by human activity.

Rising temperatures are bad (I guess that’s why everyone goes north for the winter--sorry, couldn't resist).

Therefore, we should overhaul our daily activities, whatever the cost, in order to forestall the catastrophic consequences of global warming.

Every one of the above statements is debatable. However, there are remedies that are worthwhile without necessarily buying into all of these assertions. For example, we can spend limited resources converting to wind and solar power (without adding to the supply of energy), or we can spend the same resources protecting the Bay from floods. Coastal properties can be flooded from melting glaciers caused by global warming, but rising seas can also result from storms and seismic activity.

The study, the San Francisco Bay Shoreline Adaptation Atlas, recommends projects that

would in many cases replace or bury seawalls, rip rap, culverts and other crude fortifications that experts say won’t hold up as the climate warms and water rises.

Hydroelectric dams and replanting forests have value whether or not one believes in all the tenets of global warming. So does protecting the Bay and coastal properties. If we pursued these, we would spend a lot less time arguing and more time accomplishing something.