>>6319237You're still left with the fact that many large population centers rely almost entirely on their access to the seas. Cutting them from this access would be a fatal blow to the economy.
Water travel is also important when displaying resources and goods within a country via canals and natural rivers. All this infrastructure would be gone too.
And then you also have the problem that dirt and rock is, on average, less reflective than water, and would therefore increase the impact of the greenhouse effect.
Not to mention the destruction of very fragile habitats lying just under the current sea levels.
Not to mention the fact that lowering the sea levels would also cut vital trade routes, like the numerous straits and canals used for worldwide trade. Expanding those would be an immense task, due to their length extending exponentially as you lower the sea levels.
Honestly, I could do this all day. All the minor advantages you'd get from lowering the sea levels would be immediately offset by much larger and much more pressing issues making this a very unlikely and detrimental project.
