Here is the intro but you should read the whole thing if you are interested in a brief explanation of sea-level rise science:
The debate in the legislature over the expected sea-level rise along the North Carolina coast over the next century has been presented as a choice between two numbers: eight and 39.
The number would guide local governments as they decide where to permit development in coming decades. If the number is too small, more coastal property could be damaged due to erosion and storm surges. If it’s too large, economic development could be unnecessarily stifled, and insurance rates might soar.
But like so much having to do with climate change, the two numbers aren’t as simple as they seem.
The article goes on to describe the contrasting approaches. On the one hand we have scientists who began with a high historical number for sea level rise (17 inches on the northern coast), used "science" to predict a range of plausible numbers and then took the midpoint for 39 inches (one meter). On the other hand we have politicians and developers who began with a low historical number for sea level rise (southern coast) and assumed that the future will look like the past for 8 inches. The politicians revised their numbers to reflect a range of 8 to 17 inches.
It is a shame that the scientists ended up with a single number since the North Carolina coast differs greatly from North to South. There seem to be two reasons for one number. First, they preferred the northern coast baseline since the data were of higher quality and less affected by human disturbance (my opinion is that this likely overstates southern coast sea-level rise). Second, state government preferred a single number instead of a range that reflects scientific uncertainty.
Let's hope the legislature decides to go with the scientific approach, or, at least rejects the political approach. Andy Keeler makes the point that embracing science doesn't necessarily require strict coastal zoning.