The Legislature and the Abercrombie administration have taken a long-overdue step in addressing the potential effects of climate change on the Hawaiian islands.

Most coastal states have some kind of climate-adaptation strategy. Hawaii’s lack of a comprehensive plan is inexplicable, given that so much of the state’s treasure depends on the very things that climate change could affect.

Hawaii is especially vulnerable to stronger hurricanes, drought, changes in microclimates that can affect endangered species, and saltwater intrusion into the underground aquifers that supply us with fresh water.

Rising sea levels would detrimentally affect the state’s economic lifeblood: tourist resorts, harbors, airports, wastewater treatment plants, as well as the many residential properties hugging the coast.

And sea levels are rising. A 2012 report by the Pacific Islands Regional Climate Assessment, which gathers data on climate indicators affecting Pacific islands, noted that the global mean sea level has been rising by approximately 0.13 inches per year since the 1990s, a rate twice the estimated rate for the 20th century.

It’s a trend the report says is likely to continue, based on thermal expansion and melting land ice associated with global warming.

On Monday, Gov. Neil Abercrombie signed a measure that invests more than $567,000 to figure out how to plan for rising sea levels. The law addresses the problem in two ways: First, it creates an interagency climate adaptation committee tasked with researching and reporting on Hawaii’s vulnerability to sea level rise through 2050. Second, it authorizes the state Office of Planning to develop a plan, based on the committee’s report, to guide policymakers in areas such as land use, development and ocean resources management.

Skeptics may view spending more than a half-million dollars for another government study as an inevitable waste of taxpayer money. Business interests, such as the Hawaii Chamber of Commerce, worry that private entities such as hotel owners could get trapped in a ruinous and unnecessary regulatory vise.

These are legitimate concerns. In order for this climate change initiative to be effective, the committee’s research and reporting must be transparent, thorough and based unflinchingly on the best scientific evidence.

So must the solutions. The work of both the committee and the Office of Planning should be open to public comment and contributions, especially from impartial climate-science experts. Planning for climate change must be based on long-term projections, not on the short-term needs of affected parties.

Most of all, this process needs to be taken seriously. Too many well-intentioned government plan- ning efforts get shelved at the first sign of political inconvenience. Too much is at stake to let that happen this time.