Seawalls Won't Save Coastal Cities

Currently, many coastal cities are dealing with the worsening problems of frequent floods and rising sea levels.  Researchers believes, by the year 2100, up to sixty percent of coastal cities in the United States will experience chronic, destructive flooding because from climate change.  Unfortunately, the present-day solution of building seawalls to protect cities from these problems isn't working.  Seawalls can fail, collapse, erode or damage marine life and their habitats.  Seawalls also redirect wave energy to neighboring areas, instead of absorbing the wave energy.  This can lead to the destruction of coastal areas that lack a form of protection from ocean water.  As a solution, instead of hard barriers, scientists have developed a permeable concrete.  Permeable concrete allows water to soak into the ground instead of having it pool on top of the concrete.  Scientists also recommend creating "living shorelines", which may include salt marshes, planting mangroves or restoring what originally existed at the site.  Not only will these solutions help save coastal cities from rising sea levels, but they will also help protect cities from heavy rainfall and flooding.  These solutions will help hold existing soil and shorelines in place, while not disturbing marine life.

I believe coastal cities should replace their current seawalls with living shorelines or permeable concrete.  Seawalls are outdated and negatively affect the environment.  These new solutions would be more energy efficient and better for the environment and marine life.  I believe this issue is important because without implementing these "greener" solutions, the United States is in danger of losing many communities on the East and Gulf Coasts.  I think the U.S. needs to make this issue a priority because if coastal cities would become under water faster than predicted, it will be too late to solve the problem.
 
Click here to learn more about the effects of coastal seawalls.  

Comments

  1. I agree with the idea that these alternative solutions are better for the environment, but I am sure they cost more money. That is always the issue--where do we come up with the funds? If funded by the government, society (and those in charge) have to see a benefit that means something to them. More often than not, helping the environment is no seen as meaningful.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Dual-fuel vehicles

Acid Zone in Chesapeake Bay Found