Climate change meets realpolitik
We sometimes assume that risk and mitigation are absolutes. We think of risk as something quantifiable and logical and that, by extension, efforts to reduce risk are also logical. However, we forget or ignore research that shows that objective risk, perceived risk, and mitigation are only loosely coupled. Risk perception of the community ultimately determines the effectiveness of mitigation.
Take for example the law under consideration in North Carolina. The state's Coastal Resource Commission recommended planning for a 39 in rise in coastal sea levels by 2100. Business interests, concerned over the effects of this planning on coastal development, have supported a bill that would ignore climate change reports based on scientific studies and use only historical data in determining sea level rise. The catch is that the data is limited to data after 1900 and allows for only linear extrapolation of the data rather than more accurate methods.
Lawmakers in Virginia faced similar opposition in trying to base their planning on scientific evidence by commissioning a study on sea level rise. In this case local Republicans believe that "climate change" and "sea level rise" are liberal buzzwords and were prepared to block any study using those terms. Changing the term "sea level rise" to "recurrent flooding" allowed the study to pass muster without opposition.
Mitigation has always been a hard sell particularly where it comes into opposition with business interests. It's sad to see ideological political opposition to the science on which we base effective mitigation. And what does it say about our politicians' understanding of the issues when a name change is all it takes to remove their opposition?