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
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/
Either way global warming is going to change the landscape. Might as well attempt something that limits damage
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.
San Francisco exists at all because there is a bay there.
If anything it seems like SF would grow its boundaries if this happened.
Is there something inherently better about seafaring ships? Wouldn't the ports just move?
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.