It really doesn't need a source. If Venice takes too much water from an aquifer then subsidence is unavoidable. The city is sitting on top of a sponge, after all. This is true for any city that's not built on bedrock (which I believe includes half of Manhattan and Miami. NYC of course draws from the Hudson)
Anyway, as the paper states the subsidence exasperates rising sea levels.
If the claim is that it is the main problem, I think it does need a source, and by reading the abstract it doesn't seem like yours is one.
We will be fine and there are no worries in NL except from climate alarmists.
We are at sea. Rivers come from central Europe.
As I said, nobody worries except climate alarmist and poorly educated people.
Would the earth be static if there were no countries or corporations?
Even if I think of something like a Nozickian world as a starter, with exchangeable money as a transaction facility for transferring information, I immediately think we would see the roaming "tribes" as something akin to corporations.
The North Sea was inhatibed : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doggerland
I end up at https://skepticalscience.com/Past-150000-Years-of-Sea-Level-... ( that's right ) :
"During all episodes of major global ice loss, sea level rise has reached rates of at least 1.2 metres per century (equivalent to 12 mm per year). This is 4 times the current rate of sea level rise."
Not relying on one opinion, I view the XKCD of the sibbling : no sources.
Next hit on DDG : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Past_sea_level :
"Observational and modeling studies of mass loss from glaciers and ice caps indicate a contribution to a sea-level rise of 2 to 4 cm over the 20th century. "
Which is very low.
Would you care to back up your statement?
I'm having a hard time parsing that... Are you suggesting the XKCD graph lacks sources?
In reality though, tides vary significantly, in a periodic fashion, based on various cyclic factors. The Moon is not a fixed distance from the Earth, and the gravity of the Sun (and how it aligns with the Moon's gravity) plays a role as well. The level of "high tide" changes over the course of decades as those cycles overlap and diverge (like constructive and destructive wave interference).
I'm also not suggesting that climate change is the primary driver of the worsening flooding in Venice (geologic subsidence is major culprit there... the city is literally sinking). I was just pointing out that it's silly to claim that climate doesn't influence tides.
The insured doesn't mind paying for a (negative expected value) policy because the peace of mind is worth much more than the premium.
The insurer doesn't mind because they're making many bets across many flood plains.
The insurer is basically making money by charging a small premium to coordinate and ensure different people help each other out when they get unlucky.
As soon as flooding is guaranteed, there is no point of insurance since the premium is equal to the coverage provided.
No matter which approach to ameliorate the cost is taken, I think it's quite valid to be concerned that this cost won't be levied on those that have contributed to the damage.
I'd love it if everyone who was hit by a hurricane was given money to rebuild somewhere safer, but just once.
As an example, Hurricane Katrina hit the Gulf Coast back in 2005, and it was a total disaster. Flooding, of course, was not covered by private insurance (it's been like this for a very long time), only wind, so there was a lot of arguing over whether insurance companies had to cover losses because the storm surge was actually caused by wind, and a lot of damage was solely caused by the hurricane-force Category 5 winds. I'm probably leaving some important details out...
Anyway, the aftermath was that private insurance companies in that area refused to insure wind damage to buildings. It just wasn't worth the risk. So the state (Mississippi) came up with something called the "wind pool" which was government-provided insurance for wind damage. The problem was, it was really expensive. So a lot of people never did rebuild, a lot of people left (or moved farther inland, where the insurance was cheaper), etc.
The bottom line is that enabling stupidity as far as building location only works long-term if it's being subsidized. If insurance reflects the true risk of building in a certain place, then it really limits that kind of activity.
Most of the initial premiums are based on 100 year flood plain maps based on recent years of rain (which may not have been typical), assume that rivers are static objects that do not change course, assume that coastal sand beaches are static and not dynamic.
By letting people stay in places that flood repeatedly and removing the risk for home owners/purchasers, the NFIP incentivizes building and rebuilding in areas that flood. According to this article, there were 37000 homes at the time of writing that had flooded four times and gotten at least 5000 in coverage payout (I could be wrong but last time I checked that is the most I could get in earthquake insurance when I read the annual offer around 2000 from my homeowners insurance). The NFIP is underwriting pretty well off people's lifestyle of living on a beach/river front/bayou. https://www.seattletimes.com/business/flood-insurance-rebuil...
Reasonable insurance is expected cost * probability + enough margin for a small profit + cover bad bets.
The gap between a reasonable rate and the rate paid is a gift paid to homeowners with above average wealth and builders with below average sense.
Since builders can earn more building a home that will be flooded out in 7 years with a higher selling price by virtue of beings water front property but only if the government subsidizes insurance they are directly incentivized to do so.
"The six-bedroom house, which has an indoor swimming pool, sits along the San Jacinto River. It has flooded 22 times since 1979, making it one of the most flood-damaged properties in the country."