Buying out 60 homes/properties x $100,000/home = $6,000,000
Buying 60 new homes x $60,000/home = $6,000,000
That's $12,000,000.
Moving and relocation costs
The cost has to easily be in the neighborhood of $20,000,000 for shore, DonS.
Or did you never study mathematics?
Because if you had studied mathematics, you would have put what you believe to be the real cost in your PICK comment as part of your counter-point, instead of simply expressing disbelief at the cost.
However, that you were a PICK shows the low editorial standards in place at the NY Times.
Buying 60 new homes x $60,000/home = $6,000,000
That's $12,000,000.
Moving and relocation costs
The cost has to easily be in the neighborhood of $20,000,000 for shore, DonS.
Or did you never study mathematics?
Because if you had studied mathematics, you would have put what you believe to be the real cost in your PICK comment as part of your counter-point, instead of simply expressing disbelief at the cost.
However, that you were a PICK shows the low editorial standards in place at the NY Times.
5
Isle de Jean Charles has become the NY Times' poster child for stories regarding land loss in Louisiana. They have told this same story seemingly countless times, with the narrative geared to tug heartstrings, possibly because of the location's tendency to resemble an outsider's Louisiana fantasy, with photography that is out-and-out "poverty porn." While I am sensitive to the plight of Isle de Jean Charles residents, the Times has ignored similar and even worse circumstances for residents of all of Louisiana's coastal communities, most notably Cameron; Pecan Island; lower Terrebonne and Lafourche parishes; Grand Isle, and lower Plaquemines Parish, plus many others. My attempts to reach out to NY Times writers and photo editors regarding my knowledge such matters has been met with quick dismissals and unanswered emails. What you are seeing in this article shows a very narrow view of the problem; to someone who has actually lived with and lived through the problems Louisiana's coastal erosion presents, this article is narrow in scope, preferring journalistic cliche and exploitation of a situation to garner the necessary sympathy needed to sell newspapers instead of presenting real solutions, which are indeed possible if the political will existed.
27
Some of these comments are unnecessarily mean - e.g., I saw nothing in the article to suggest that the islanders were ready to move until they realized they were not going to personally get the money: those who want to stay want to do so for sentimental reasons, though they may find that impossible soon. Some of the commenters also don't seem to get that this is part of a larger trend around the world, where this type of relocation is already being planned or going on, and that this is a particular situation with a particular solution for relocation of a relatively few people from an island that would be outside areas for planned increased engineered protection (misguided in my opinion).
Another point of the article that seems to be misunderstood is pointing out the difficulties and potential expense of relocating a small community, a particular group of people in this case, as an example of how difficult and expensive (geometric) it will be to relocate larger numbers of people - where do you put thousands, millions of people in terms of housing, services, basic needs when it is happening not little by little but en masse over a short period of time in an already crowded world? Detroit?
Another point of the article that seems to be misunderstood is pointing out the difficulties and potential expense of relocating a small community, a particular group of people in this case, as an example of how difficult and expensive (geometric) it will be to relocate larger numbers of people - where do you put thousands, millions of people in terms of housing, services, basic needs when it is happening not little by little but en masse over a short period of time in an already crowded world? Detroit?
6
Hardly the "first" American climate refugees - coastal Alaskan native communities have been dealing with the same resettlement issues for years and, last time I checked, they were Americans too.
9
Many commenters reference "climate change deniers". I am not sure why because this person does not exist. It is a CAGW created straw man. Nobody denies that climate changes. It has changed constantly since the earth was formed some three billion years ago and will continue to change for the next three billion years. We will have another ice age. We will have periods much warmer than today as we have had many times in the past. A little honesty in your use of language please!
4
It's obvious to most readers that 'climate change deniers' refers to a) people who deny that the climate is changing NOW and RAPIDLY, b) others who deny that climate is changing due to human activity. Plenty of people deny that the climate is changing NOW and RAPIDLY, plenty of others deny that humans have anything to do with it, and plenty of people believe the earth is only thousands of years old and probably that the climate has never changed. Don't forget Senator Inhofe's snowball.
18
BOATS??? anyone thought of houseboats?
5
For millennia millions of people around the world have accepted the fact that things change and what seemed to have been a stable place yesterday may not be tomorrow.
A river delta by definition is unstable no matter what influences this change, may it be artificial dams, riverbeds or climate change.
It makes on wonder why, all of a sudden, this should be any different just because this time it is about a place in the South of the US that has, so far, denied that climate change even exists.
Face it, climate changes have been around for as long as climate exists and it does not matter why it changes, man made or not.
And the results have been here to see for at least as long.
Look at some of the places in Northern Italy where harbours from days gone by now are miles inland or dive beneath the waters of parts of the Black Seas to find lost settlements tens of meters below today's seas levels.
What is wrong in the picture painted here is that these people have, for whatever reason, believed that they have made their home in a place that will not change - despite all evidence to the contrary.
So let them do what hundreds of generations ave done before, move to a different, more secure, location.
But also be realistic about the cause, climate change is and has been a constant in history.
The only thing that changes is the speed at which it occurs.
Prepare for inevitable changes but stop whining about the why, instead learn from it and do better next time.
A river delta by definition is unstable no matter what influences this change, may it be artificial dams, riverbeds or climate change.
It makes on wonder why, all of a sudden, this should be any different just because this time it is about a place in the South of the US that has, so far, denied that climate change even exists.
Face it, climate changes have been around for as long as climate exists and it does not matter why it changes, man made or not.
And the results have been here to see for at least as long.
Look at some of the places in Northern Italy where harbours from days gone by now are miles inland or dive beneath the waters of parts of the Black Seas to find lost settlements tens of meters below today's seas levels.
What is wrong in the picture painted here is that these people have, for whatever reason, believed that they have made their home in a place that will not change - despite all evidence to the contrary.
So let them do what hundreds of generations ave done before, move to a different, more secure, location.
But also be realistic about the cause, climate change is and has been a constant in history.
The only thing that changes is the speed at which it occurs.
Prepare for inevitable changes but stop whining about the why, instead learn from it and do better next time.
6
When Miami is about to turn into Venice, what will we do?
4
What do you propose "we" do and how are you going to pay for it?
Our government, which spends $2+ billion per year to promote fear of impending apocalypse, has relaxed building height restrictions in Miami, allowing construction of two new skyscrapers more than 1,000 feet high.
Florida is an old sea bottom. "Bedrock" is porous limestone, through which freshwater filters southward. Miami sucks that freshwater from wells and dumps wastewater into the ocean to the tune of about 360 million gallons per day. Seawater then moves inland into the depleted aquifer.
Perhaps some of that $2+ billion spend on propaganda should finance solar-powered desalination plants and better sewage treatment so reclaimed water can go into the Everglades instead of into the ocean.
BTW, sea level rise at Miami is about 0.09 in. per year. I doubt you'll still be alive when it becomes Florida's Venice.
Our government, which spends $2+ billion per year to promote fear of impending apocalypse, has relaxed building height restrictions in Miami, allowing construction of two new skyscrapers more than 1,000 feet high.
Florida is an old sea bottom. "Bedrock" is porous limestone, through which freshwater filters southward. Miami sucks that freshwater from wells and dumps wastewater into the ocean to the tune of about 360 million gallons per day. Seawater then moves inland into the depleted aquifer.
Perhaps some of that $2+ billion spend on propaganda should finance solar-powered desalination plants and better sewage treatment so reclaimed water can go into the Everglades instead of into the ocean.
BTW, sea level rise at Miami is about 0.09 in. per year. I doubt you'll still be alive when it becomes Florida's Venice.
3
Haven't people in LA always built below water?
1
The first of many casualties of the government's "Wait and see" attitude. Deniers take note: the people of Oceania, Seychelles, Philippines and Micronesia will be next. The bill will likely top half a trillion dollars.
8
Irate, what has the bill been so far for all the alarm?
Nice to see the NYT talking about the future (and the present). Meanwhile, Brian Rogers, the former communications director for U.S. Senator John McCain, and Jeremy Adler, a regional press secretary for Marc Rubio’s 2016 presidential campaign, spending time and money going after Mark Steyer and Bill McCibbin.
http://www.nationalobserver.com/2016/05/03/news/anti-climate-change-grou...
And where's the story on the 500 million climate refugees who will be departing the MENA region in the coming decades? It's in PHYS. org
http://phys.org/news/2016-05-climate-exodus-middle-east-north-africa.html
http://www.nationalobserver.com/2016/05/03/news/anti-climate-change-grou...
And where's the story on the 500 million climate refugees who will be departing the MENA region in the coming decades? It's in PHYS. org
http://phys.org/news/2016-05-climate-exodus-middle-east-north-africa.html
5
Do not worry the Church of Climatology will be rounding up the deniers so that the science can be settled. Once we have that job accomplished we can once again turn to Global Warming, another existential threat.
$48 million? No way, for what? Some of these people want to stay, let them stay. People that stay, wish them luck, move on. For the people that Need to leave and want to leave, try a bus ticket for each. They must have some where to go, an address. Employment or temporay S.S. and food stamps, but they will have to Do something to make a living. Any one on S.S. retirement, I hope they have family to move in with, poverty seems to run rampant in this situation. Maybe some churches can help relocate some of these people and help them start over on higher ground....
Anywhere below interstate 10 is basiclly a swamp, better to live on a boat. Well I wish them luck, but if they choose to live again and again in the path of hurricanes, FEMA ain't the answer either! And federal money ain't much help if people are not willing to help themselves, and I don't think these people can, or will. After all, look at where they chose to live.
Anywhere below interstate 10 is basiclly a swamp, better to live on a boat. Well I wish them luck, but if they choose to live again and again in the path of hurricanes, FEMA ain't the answer either! And federal money ain't much help if people are not willing to help themselves, and I don't think these people can, or will. After all, look at where they chose to live.
7
But how else can one justify the horrific costs the alarmists are sure to bandy about after they finally tell us the cost of sounding the alarm.
2
The Army Corps of Engineers has made more mistakes than successes. The rivers and oceans are playgrounds for them. As for building on flood plains and beaches, the federal government should not insure homeowners who insist on building there.
11
This puts me in mind of the story evacuation of St Kilda in the outer Hebrides of Scotland in 1930. The locals who had lived an isolated hard life didn't realise how much it would affect them to lose their community by being re-located. They had taken for granted the complex interconnections that they had for generations. To be uprooted and scattered elsewhere they lost a vital part of themselves. I hope that this community gets to stay together.
5
Whether this problem is more geological or climatic this issue of rising sea levels and land loss is affecting the US just as high temperatures and drought have effected the Middle East. Obviously climate is an issue and with examples this striking why are we not doing more to combat the problem itself?
Can we report on the voracious/increasing consumption of meat, clothing and single-use plastic products as if that is also shocking? It should be...
Can we report on the voracious/increasing consumption of meat, clothing and single-use plastic products as if that is also shocking? It should be...
6
Um, can we start with too many people having too many babies?
That is the source of ALL of our environmental 'problems'.
Everything else is mindless pabulum.
That is the source of ALL of our environmental 'problems'.
Everything else is mindless pabulum.
7
Maybe these folks don't want to be resettled from this beautiful location; I know I wouldn't. Sounds like what the federal government did with the Indian tribes in the US in the past. If you don't like the resettlement, too bad; we are going to do it anyway.
3
Much of New Orleans is below sea level: "The average elevation of the city is currently between one and two feet (0.5 m) below sea level, with some portions of the city as high as 20 feet (6 m) at the base of the river levee in Uptown and others as low as 7 feet (2 m) below sea level in the farthest reaches of Eastern New Orleans."
Whatever has been done in the past, building levees and dredging and trucking in thousands of loads of soil, has all been for nothing. A city with a large portion that is below sea level cannot last. Why do we look at the oceans and think we can tame them? Tides ebb and flow, and carry sand and soil with them.
Why do we watch sand carried away by tides and storms, and continue to bring in ton after ton of sand to 'replenish' beaches?
Billions upon billions of tax dollars thrown away to thwart Mother Nature.......but Mother Nature always wins.
We cannot change Mother Nature. We cannot still the tides, we cannot stop the storms.
We can look in the mirror and recognize that we are weaklings against the forces of nature. It's time that we stood up and said we are strong enough to tell our government to stop pouring good money after bad, and to tell our government that we recognize we are no match for the forces of nature.
Enough!
Whatever has been done in the past, building levees and dredging and trucking in thousands of loads of soil, has all been for nothing. A city with a large portion that is below sea level cannot last. Why do we look at the oceans and think we can tame them? Tides ebb and flow, and carry sand and soil with them.
Why do we watch sand carried away by tides and storms, and continue to bring in ton after ton of sand to 'replenish' beaches?
Billions upon billions of tax dollars thrown away to thwart Mother Nature.......but Mother Nature always wins.
We cannot change Mother Nature. We cannot still the tides, we cannot stop the storms.
We can look in the mirror and recognize that we are weaklings against the forces of nature. It's time that we stood up and said we are strong enough to tell our government to stop pouring good money after bad, and to tell our government that we recognize we are no match for the forces of nature.
Enough!
12
Human induced climate change? In the early 70s science was predicting a fossil fueled ice age.
4
Malibu small coastal strip. The rock stars all live in Laurel Canyon, well above the fray.
1
It looks like these folks live in deplorable poverty. So what if we help them out?? What's the big deal !
6
Here's a thought . . let the refugees swap homes with climate change deniers starting first with politician deniers and then working on down from the corporate and religious climate change deniers.
15
Gee, these folks are just the decedents of the original American Natives. I mean we rounded them up and marched them to reservations. Why wouldn't all us unconcerned busy people just tell the government to do the same thing again? I would hope we could find it in our hearts to help them. Whether it should really cost $48 million is a valid question. It will cost more as these folks don't live in subdivisions and work 9-5 jobs. So plan on finding a place where they can continue to live with the land and nature. Don't be so quick to consider them human collateral to cast to the wind. Remember we stole their land in the beginning...
8
I am not commenting on this specific situation in Louisiana one way or another.
People choose to live in dangerous places: river flood zones, tornado alleys, sea level coasts, high wildfire areas, active fault lines, and the like. While we rightly should collectively aid those who choose such risk when disaster strikes, I do not see that it is the responsibility of the nation as a whole to compensate those who have taken untoward risk when their gamble turns against them. It's bad enough our politicians did that with the banks and Wall Street. We should keep in mind, however, that we are not talking about those, such as the downwinders, who were the victims of a specific government policy.
Risk is one area where the market is usually good at apportioning accountability. If you choose something more risky, get insurance and pay accordingly. Does private insurance need to be well regulated? Of course. It is necessary to make certain that the risk pool is appropriate For instance, the relatively poor people in some of the Bay Area flatlands should not have to pay insurance premiums to compensate for the wealthy who live in the higher fire danger hills. But broadly based private insurance it is still the best way to evaluate the financial cost of risk.
If one wants to develope better policies for the future, it is necessary to distinguish between moral and financial accountability, between Monday morning quarterbacking and the actual game situation.
People choose to live in dangerous places: river flood zones, tornado alleys, sea level coasts, high wildfire areas, active fault lines, and the like. While we rightly should collectively aid those who choose such risk when disaster strikes, I do not see that it is the responsibility of the nation as a whole to compensate those who have taken untoward risk when their gamble turns against them. It's bad enough our politicians did that with the banks and Wall Street. We should keep in mind, however, that we are not talking about those, such as the downwinders, who were the victims of a specific government policy.
Risk is one area where the market is usually good at apportioning accountability. If you choose something more risky, get insurance and pay accordingly. Does private insurance need to be well regulated? Of course. It is necessary to make certain that the risk pool is appropriate For instance, the relatively poor people in some of the Bay Area flatlands should not have to pay insurance premiums to compensate for the wealthy who live in the higher fire danger hills. But broadly based private insurance it is still the best way to evaluate the financial cost of risk.
If one wants to develope better policies for the future, it is necessary to distinguish between moral and financial accountability, between Monday morning quarterbacking and the actual game situation.
2
Actually, these people were placed here due to government policy. So I guess you would agree they should be helped?
2
I think your comment that the market is good at apportioning responsibility for risk is applicable in many cases; however, this is not one of them.
Most people, especially those who aren't bourgeois, middle-class, or professional, do not simply decide where to live. History, socioeconomic-reality, cultural folkways, and stratification primarily determine where people live---especially folks like these, whom the land itself essentially inherited (feudal capitalism is not great at apportioning opportunity). It's not like poor folks have the opportunity, resources, mobility, and cultural/financial capital to research, assess, and then relocate to the destination or clime of their enlightened and privileged choosing.
The level of agency you're assigning to these soon-to-be utterly abject refugees betrays a bias implicit in neoliberal thinking that pervades American culture, and has become the go-to explanation and panacea for practically all social, educational, cultural, and economic problems we face today...
Most people, especially those who aren't bourgeois, middle-class, or professional, do not simply decide where to live. History, socioeconomic-reality, cultural folkways, and stratification primarily determine where people live---especially folks like these, whom the land itself essentially inherited (feudal capitalism is not great at apportioning opportunity). It's not like poor folks have the opportunity, resources, mobility, and cultural/financial capital to research, assess, and then relocate to the destination or clime of their enlightened and privileged choosing.
The level of agency you're assigning to these soon-to-be utterly abject refugees betrays a bias implicit in neoliberal thinking that pervades American culture, and has become the go-to explanation and panacea for practically all social, educational, cultural, and economic problems we face today...
6
(Continued from my previous comment)...If it were the Soviet Union, we'd be applying a diametrically opposite, knee-jerk dogma, a square-peg solution for a circular, foundational problem. Either way---Chicago-School Freidmanite, or Moscovite Sovietist---applying the pseudo-sciences of both neoliberal economics and the 18th-century Lockean existential fantasies of how land, labor, and agency are interrelated and function, will do nothing to solve the literally global shift in climate, dislocation, and relocation.
Our radically complex 21st century problems and unresponsive, obsolete political-social systems, coupled with our willfully-uninformed, distracted and apathetic general public will never solve earth-shaking problems like these with a perfunctory, patronizingly flippant assignation of blame upon the poor and beleaguered by an "educated" class (or NYT reader) conjuring up---and then hiding behind---a personification of The Market, our fiscal Deity.
In short, I strenuously disagree with your comment:)
Our radically complex 21st century problems and unresponsive, obsolete political-social systems, coupled with our willfully-uninformed, distracted and apathetic general public will never solve earth-shaking problems like these with a perfunctory, patronizingly flippant assignation of blame upon the poor and beleaguered by an "educated" class (or NYT reader) conjuring up---and then hiding behind---a personification of The Market, our fiscal Deity.
In short, I strenuously disagree with your comment:)
5
Why does it take $48 million to resettle 60 people? Just give each family $100,000 to buy a house elsewhere and save the taxpayers most of that $48 million. Seriously, why?
17
because 100,000 won't buy squat. Need at least quarter of a million dollars for relocation
2
Give them a $65 Greyhound ticket and a $20 McDonald's gift card and call it a day.
I am amazed and appalled by the resentful, angry, dismissive tone of so many of these comments.
For centuries we Americans have raped the lands that we originally stole from the Indian peoples. We strip mine mountaintops, slaughter buffalo, create a dust bowl in the great prairies, drain the water from California's Central Valley, and spend billions in public money to reroute and "tame" the Mississippi to benefit corporate interests. Silt that long rebuilt the islands is now contained, dredged, and removed; lumber interests cut channels through the island in their demand for profit. Oil pumped out of the ground makes the land subside; it and coal scraped from the earth has been burned to provide cheap energy, now impacting our climate with more powerful and frequent hurricanes, floods, droughts, and other calamities.
And a Dallas resident snarkily demands money to relocate to the cooler Rocky Mountains -- just after his state was devastated by flooding whose costs will be reimbursed by all the rest of us. Others snidely demand their relocation money, also no doubt demanding federal disaster aid whenever a fast-moving catastrophe hits near them.
But here, a slow-moving, gradual, multi-faceted but still man-made calamity has destroyed a way of life for some of our poorest citizens, and many of you want to kick them while they're down -- as your forebears did to the Okies in the '30s. The attitude revolting; more so is the Times' picking such comments as worthy of note.
For centuries we Americans have raped the lands that we originally stole from the Indian peoples. We strip mine mountaintops, slaughter buffalo, create a dust bowl in the great prairies, drain the water from California's Central Valley, and spend billions in public money to reroute and "tame" the Mississippi to benefit corporate interests. Silt that long rebuilt the islands is now contained, dredged, and removed; lumber interests cut channels through the island in their demand for profit. Oil pumped out of the ground makes the land subside; it and coal scraped from the earth has been burned to provide cheap energy, now impacting our climate with more powerful and frequent hurricanes, floods, droughts, and other calamities.
And a Dallas resident snarkily demands money to relocate to the cooler Rocky Mountains -- just after his state was devastated by flooding whose costs will be reimbursed by all the rest of us. Others snidely demand their relocation money, also no doubt demanding federal disaster aid whenever a fast-moving catastrophe hits near them.
But here, a slow-moving, gradual, multi-faceted but still man-made calamity has destroyed a way of life for some of our poorest citizens, and many of you want to kick them while they're down -- as your forebears did to the Okies in the '30s. The attitude revolting; more so is the Times' picking such comments as worthy of note.
31
So you do not drive a car, heat and or cool your home from fossil fuels? Your commute to and from work is not based on a fossil fueled vehicle? Public or private. Your house is not made of wood from those evil lumber companies and you don't buy groceries delivered by petrol from California?
4
Why not start the revolution by giving your house and land back to the "original" inhabitants?
2
Wouldn't the first American climate change refugees be the inhabitants of Beringia, chased by rising sea levels 11,000 years ago?
6
some communities of the North Slope of Alaska are already being relocated
4
Yes, the irony being that what is now North America was first populated by humans during periods of severe climate change, whether by boats from Polynesia or from what is now coastal France.
So we can send millions every year to Tornado Alley, but millions to flood plains?
Well, those people can just move themselves; why should taxpayers have to foot the bill?
Honestly, that's the double standard it's come to.
Well, those people can just move themselves; why should taxpayers have to foot the bill?
Honestly, that's the double standard it's come to.
8
People are still moving to South Florida as if there is no problem. Maybe start with that, with educating people that they will just have to move again, that they will lose their homes and home equity in a few more years. Nobody is paying attention now.
8
Many people with money moving to Miami (including from other countries) don't care about the money. They are enjoying the place for as long as they can. The folks who have no resources to move, the long time residents, this is the concern.
4
$48,000,000 to move 60 people calculates to $800,000 for each man woman and child. If that isn't outrageous, what is? Yes the problem is real and the ultimate cost is incalculable. But policy that results in this kind of inefficiency must be resisted.
11
There is no debate over whether climate change is real. The debate is how much human activity contributes to climate change or speeds up climate change. But the residents of Isle de Jean Charles are not the first North American climate refugees. Climate change forced the Anasazi and other ancient North American cultures to migrate. It’s nothing new. Sea levels rise between ice ages as the ice caps melt. Many ancient cities have been submerged since antiquity. Much of ancient Alexandria lies beneath the sea. DNA analysis reveals my ancestors were forced to flee my ancestral homeland at the end of the last ice age, as seawater inundated the area we now call the North Sea. The best way to cope with rising sea levels is probably a gradual retreat from the oceans age.
8
Wonderful writer Lauren Zanolli covered this 2 months ago in the Guardian...
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/mar/15/louisiana-isle-de-jea...
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/mar/15/louisiana-isle-de-jea...
2
Some of this might have happened anyway. Swamps and coastlines tend to change over time anyway. We have not been good stewards to our planetary home. We act as if it's a limitless resource when, like us, it can only stretch things so far. Rather than developing every corner of our country we ought to be looking at preserving spaces like swamps, woodlands, etc. Places that are undeveloped are watersheds, hold soil in plant roots, provide habitat for wild animals, keep insects going, and contribute more than we do to the health of our planet. We've multiplied to the point where the planet is strained to keep supplying us. Even if we are not responsible for all the global warming that is occurring we should still try to take better care of our planet. It's the only home we have.
7
Migration, no matter the cost, is the only viable solution. It does not matter why the flooding is occurring, what matters is that it is likely to continue and there is nothing humankind can do to stop it. The earth is in a constant state of change and the story of mankind is told through the lens of adaptation.
As stated in the article, instead of waiting for a disaster to occur, "plan ahead and provide people with some measure of choice”. Sound advice.
As stated in the article, instead of waiting for a disaster to occur, "plan ahead and provide people with some measure of choice”. Sound advice.
6
John, you are correct that migration is to a certain extent inevitable, but you are incorrect in saying there's nothing we can do.
Part of the constant state of change right now is the warming, and associated sea-level rise, due to our greenhouse gas emissions. In the past, more CO2 led to less polar ice and higher sea levels. There's no reason to expect that more CO2 won't have nature respond the same way just because humans are doing the emitting this time.
So yes, there's a certain amount of sea level rise built in from what we've already done. But it is incorrect to avoid the reality that our actions over the next few decades will make a difference between 6 feet of sea level rise, all the way up to well over 60 feet long term if we just keep burning it all up.
The long-term trend for over 5,000 years appears to have been of cooling, towards the ending of the current interglacial. We've reversed that. But it's not to the benefit of future generations if we spare them from glaciers in Vermont, but instead erase much of Louisiana, Florida, Delaware, Bangladesh, and coastal plains around the world.
Just saying "migration is inevitable" won't be so popular when, say, all the residents of coastal Florida lose the value of homes, roads, businesses when they're eventually forced to move. So we need to reduce emissions, too.
Part of the constant state of change right now is the warming, and associated sea-level rise, due to our greenhouse gas emissions. In the past, more CO2 led to less polar ice and higher sea levels. There's no reason to expect that more CO2 won't have nature respond the same way just because humans are doing the emitting this time.
So yes, there's a certain amount of sea level rise built in from what we've already done. But it is incorrect to avoid the reality that our actions over the next few decades will make a difference between 6 feet of sea level rise, all the way up to well over 60 feet long term if we just keep burning it all up.
The long-term trend for over 5,000 years appears to have been of cooling, towards the ending of the current interglacial. We've reversed that. But it's not to the benefit of future generations if we spare them from glaciers in Vermont, but instead erase much of Louisiana, Florida, Delaware, Bangladesh, and coastal plains around the world.
Just saying "migration is inevitable" won't be so popular when, say, all the residents of coastal Florida lose the value of homes, roads, businesses when they're eventually forced to move. So we need to reduce emissions, too.
2
The inevitability of sea level rise is not popular now. Correlation of CO2 levels to climate does not alter the fact that the surface of the earth and the atmosphere is in a constant state of flux. There are things we can change and things that we can't. There are also things we think we understand, but really do not.
The trick to survival is prepare when you can, but be adaptable to those little random occurrences which are neither foreseeable nor controllable.
The trick to survival is prepare when you can, but be adaptable to those little random occurrences which are neither foreseeable nor controllable.
2
Hmmm, if we interrupted (or reversed) a 5000 year cooling trend, maybe we prevented another ice-house glacial episode. Can't help but think which would be a bigger challenge for contiuned subsistence of 8 billion people. One thing guaranteed not to happen: an unchanging earth.
1
"We always find a way," says Hilton Chaisson. Here's hoping the resettlement program finds a way to honor and learn from that local history, experience, and situational awareness.
1
Why multi-billion dollar profit making oil corporations don't assume this cost and responsibility defies logic.
8
Pure propaganda from the New York Times. It's not climate change, it's subsidence of the land from the drilling in the Gulf. The Times knows this, but choose to lie about it.
7
Dear CW,
Sorry but that seems like pure propaganda. How would drilling on the floor of the Gulf, many hundreds of miles away from these islands, result in their subsidence? How would rising sea levels, caused by human-affected climate change, proven beyond all rational doubt, not have an effect on these low-lying islands?
Sorry but that seems like pure propaganda. How would drilling on the floor of the Gulf, many hundreds of miles away from these islands, result in their subsidence? How would rising sea levels, caused by human-affected climate change, proven beyond all rational doubt, not have an effect on these low-lying islands?
3
Rising sea levels r the problem and indicative of climate change on a major level
3
I see a lot of folks are outraged that $60 million of their tax dollars are being wasted on 48 shiftless individuals who won't pull themselves up by the bootstraps of their waders.
How's this for an alternative? The peninsula's residents get to choose for themselves some nice property from the lands stolen from their ancestors. A parcel that would enable them to sustain the way of life they have traditionally pursued, which would mean it would have to be pretty big. Whoever was currently occupying the land--individuals, farmers, oil companies--would have to get out. After all, they were in possession of stolen property. I guess in this scenario, the government would make payouts to the dislocated property owners, which payouts could be quite substantial.
Maybe the $60 million isn't so bad after all.
How's this for an alternative? The peninsula's residents get to choose for themselves some nice property from the lands stolen from their ancestors. A parcel that would enable them to sustain the way of life they have traditionally pursued, which would mean it would have to be pretty big. Whoever was currently occupying the land--individuals, farmers, oil companies--would have to get out. After all, they were in possession of stolen property. I guess in this scenario, the government would make payouts to the dislocated property owners, which payouts could be quite substantial.
Maybe the $60 million isn't so bad after all.
5
The Biloxi, Chitimacha, and Choctaw all have their own reservations. The Choctaw has 10,000 square miles and one of the nation's more lucrative casinos. The problem is that the Biloxi-Tunica, Chitimacha, and Choctaw don't regard the Biloxi-Chitimacha-Choctaw as tribal members.
5
Swindled person's revenge?
From what I have read, this island was considered uninhabitable swamp land until the 1870s when the state of Louisiana began selling plots to Native Americans who previously could not purchase land. It was originally settled mainly by four families who were all related by marriage. It seems like the road connecting to the mainland was built in the 1950s. As others have remarked, erosion may play the largest part in the land being lost to water. But perhaps it is just a return to what it was 170 or so years ago.
8
The first settler was a Frenchman who arrived in the 1830s. His wife was Choctaw. Most of the residents are actually of mixed ancestry. In Louisiana, the name Bourg usually indicates Acadian ancestry. Sometime called Cajuns, the Acadian were French colonist expelled from Canada by the British in the 1700s.
6
Beautiful writing to convey a problem(s) long in the making. Oil/gas companies and mother nature have synergistically devoured some of the state's inhabitants. No reason on earth why some of the billions of profits derived from Shell, Exxon, BP should be allocated-- in the form of taxes, penalties-- to remedy this criminal/ecological/moral wrong.
3
Most of the manmade damage is caused by the levee system, which protects cities and farmland from flooding. The Mississippi now longer carries land-building silt to the Gulf as it once did.
6
Beyond the impact of levees that William mentioned, there is this thing called geology. Google Mississippi delta lobe switching, and learn how complex and changing the coastal landscape has been, all by itself--no criminality or morality required.
5
How many miles have you driven in your life?
I say tax southern Californians for living their extravagant vehicle-based lifestyle.
The oil companies are simply giving people what they want.
I say tax southern Californians for living their extravagant vehicle-based lifestyle.
The oil companies are simply giving people what they want.
$48M to move 60 people in a state where climate change was adamantly denied by the very people causing it smells like fraud.
5
Don't forget the Army Corp of Engineers altering the Mississippi River and block much of the sediment flow to the delta. I grew up on the same body of water that this article mentions and there is no noticeable rise in the Gulf. Smells like low tide to me....
2
I want to make it clear to the "science" loving liberals that this is not the first time human moved because of climate, becoming climate refuge, or the government spend money moving people. Climate and weather patterns are always changing and so are geographical features.
The Britain was under ice 15,000 years ago, Sahara was a grass plain 6,000 years ago, Santorini was a single island 4,000 years ago, the Yellow River changed its course a dozen times since recorded history, even the Great Dust Bowl was a climate event that lead people fleeting.
Coastal area have always and will continue to be eroded by the sea as that's what the sea does. This is nothing new and not a validation for pseudoscience. Denying climate change is bad, so is pseudoscience from people with liberal arts degree.
The Britain was under ice 15,000 years ago, Sahara was a grass plain 6,000 years ago, Santorini was a single island 4,000 years ago, the Yellow River changed its course a dozen times since recorded history, even the Great Dust Bowl was a climate event that lead people fleeting.
Coastal area have always and will continue to be eroded by the sea as that's what the sea does. This is nothing new and not a validation for pseudoscience. Denying climate change is bad, so is pseudoscience from people with liberal arts degree.
10
Chinese and Indian immigrants have turned our local woods into McMansionville -- and I can't say I blame them.
Having earned fortunes (often at the expense of the air and water of their respective home countries), many packed up their dollars, children and parents, and flew to relatively clean and bucolic Somerset County, New Jersey, among other places.
Having earned fortunes (often at the expense of the air and water of their respective home countries), many packed up their dollars, children and parents, and flew to relatively clean and bucolic Somerset County, New Jersey, among other places.
3
A better title, "How Should We Start Thinking About Rising Sea Levels," would eliminate many of the comments. Comments like "Other people are more deserving," or "48 million to do what?" or "this isn't really due to climate change" or "stupid Republicans," etc.
We need to get out of the weeds and see the big picture, coming soon to a coastline near you. Melting ice, flooding cities, millions of people who need to move, and millions more who would rather die in situ, etc. Isle de Jean Charles is the first teeny tiny baby step to start to figure out, in some systematic way, all the questions which will arise, and will need to be addressed, to begin to build a coherent relocation strategy.
It's not about the money (which does seem excessive), the particular people or a particular solution. It's about determining the right questions to ask. Because someday it won't be 60 people; it will be 60 million. And they won't all be on the coast. How will we help the farmer whose land has turned to dust, or is overrun with new livestock- or crop-destroying bugs? Or the surburbanite in the Midwest who is tired of living through F4-5 tornados? Humanity will be on the move, on a scale not seen since the end of the Ice Age. This is only the beginning.
We need to get out of the weeds and see the big picture, coming soon to a coastline near you. Melting ice, flooding cities, millions of people who need to move, and millions more who would rather die in situ, etc. Isle de Jean Charles is the first teeny tiny baby step to start to figure out, in some systematic way, all the questions which will arise, and will need to be addressed, to begin to build a coherent relocation strategy.
It's not about the money (which does seem excessive), the particular people or a particular solution. It's about determining the right questions to ask. Because someday it won't be 60 people; it will be 60 million. And they won't all be on the coast. How will we help the farmer whose land has turned to dust, or is overrun with new livestock- or crop-destroying bugs? Or the surburbanite in the Midwest who is tired of living through F4-5 tornados? Humanity will be on the move, on a scale not seen since the end of the Ice Age. This is only the beginning.
6
How prescient you are, Alexander Hamilton. Indeed, a Wellesley professor recently observed that if wealthy Europe (and Turkey) can barely absorb 5 million Syrian refugees, what hope does a country like Bangladesh with a population over 100 million have?
Isle de Jean Charles is a test case. South Florida should sit up and take note.
Isle de Jean Charles is a test case. South Florida should sit up and take note.
3
Sea level is rising about 3 mm/year, or 1 foot per century.
This isn't about climate change. This is about a place that never should have been settled at all, and was only settled because long ago desperately poor people would live anywhere they could scratch a living out of the soil or from the sea.
This isn't about climate change. This is about a place that never should have been settled at all, and was only settled because long ago desperately poor people would live anywhere they could scratch a living out of the soil or from the sea.
7
Pay attention taxpayers. This is just the first installment you'll be paying for the real cost to you because of climate change. The cost to move (and protect) the infrastructure all along the coastlines of the US will make the national debt look trivial. And just because you live 200 feet above sea level does not make you immune to having to pay these costs through your taxes. It's gonna' be dollars out of your pocket.
5
And this is happening in Republican Louisiana. An island is sinking and sinking real fast. How can one deny global warming? Ignorance (rather stubbornness) is very expensive. If a small island can cost 48 million dollars for resettlement, how much would it cost to resettle people on the entire planet. That is, if there is land wide enough to relocate 6 billion people!
2
Best comment on here from E. Bergeron: " If you want to fix our erosion problems relocate everyone on the west bank of the Miss. River from the town of Harvey south, then remove the west bank Mississippi River levees. It's a permanent fix THAT WE PAY FOR ONE TIME! Let God (mother nature) do the rest. All of South Louisiana was created by runoff and river flooding. What happens when you stop the river flooding? duh this is so 3rd grade and yet Harvard can't fix it because someone wants to be the hero."
3
How can we spend $48,000,000 to fix a problem that doesn't exist? The New York Times is obviously part of a vast liberal conspiracy that has everyone believing in Climate Change. Everyone except the GOP of course. They are too smart to believe in anything put forward by scientists.
There are well-known reasons for the Mississippi River Delta to subside including flood control and navigation dams along the Mississippi River blocking much of the sediment from the Upper Midwest from reaching the Delta. The way to replenish the Delta in part is to remove all the dams. Maybe, say 50 million people would be impacted if all dams on the Mississippi were removed.
Attribution to climate change for these people's plight requires a belief in climate models to be able to forecast weather in the year 2100. The warming of the world since the last Little Ice Age from the 1700's, is continuing as we speak yet the catastrophe about to befall us all didn't begin until 1979.
The authors and the editor who wrote the headline are to be congratulated upon their doing the best they can with so little information they posses.
Attribution to climate change for these people's plight requires a belief in climate models to be able to forecast weather in the year 2100. The warming of the world since the last Little Ice Age from the 1700's, is continuing as we speak yet the catastrophe about to befall us all didn't begin until 1979.
The authors and the editor who wrote the headline are to be congratulated upon their doing the best they can with so little information they posses.
3
It is a bit misleading to write, "A master plan that is expected to cost tens of billions of dollars envisions a giant wall of levees and flood walls along the coast." While the state's plan does indeed call for more 'hard' flood protection infrastructure, it also makes clear that levees are actually part of the problem and it proposes diverting sediment from the leveed Mississippi River to rebuild land. The plan still sacrifices certain parts of the coast. But the intention is not to create as much of an embattled, fortressed coast as the above quote suggests. http://coastal.la.gov/a-common-vision/2012-coastal-master-plan/
Also, the map used here seems inappropriate for an article focused on the fragilities of living with water. It suggests hard and fast boundaries between the coast and land, when in fact, the coastline is much more fluid. http://www.nola.com/environment/index.ssf/2014/09/should_louisiana_chang...
Also, the map used here seems inappropriate for an article focused on the fragilities of living with water. It suggests hard and fast boundaries between the coast and land, when in fact, the coastline is much more fluid. http://www.nola.com/environment/index.ssf/2014/09/should_louisiana_chang...
1
What will our government do when Malibu is under water?
1
Go to the beaches of Arizona maybe.
1
For those decrying the $48 mil. to move 60 people, I completely agree. But is this a complete surprise? I am not so sure. It has often been said that the solutions to climate change will be more expensive than preventative measures. And here we go.....
1
How fast is the sea actually rising?
Sea level at Grand Isle, LA, has risen at a steady rate of 9mm/year since 1947:
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=8...
But sea level at Pensacola, FL, has risen at a steady rate of 2.25mm/year since 1923:
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=8...
And sea level at Cedar Key, FL, has risen at a steady rate of only 1.97mm/year since 1914:
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=8...
Sure looks like Louisiana islands are sinking a lot faster than than sea level is rising.
But...climate change! Let's look at the skyrocketing high temperatures.
There's no long-term weather record at Grand Isle, but at Houma, an inland town that hasn't changed much since temperature records begin in 1893:
Record high temperature: 104° in 1915.
Hottest summers: 1915, 1902, 1906, 1918, 1917.
Coldest summers: 1894, 1994, 1923, 1992, 1900.
Hmm...better look at Pensacola, where regional airport records begin in 1948:
Record high temperature: 106° in 1980.
Hottest summers: 2011, 1954, 1952, 1990, 1951.
Coldest summers: 1967, 2003, 1965, 1976, 1994.
Oh, wait. That's just weather, not climate. Never mind!
Sea level at Grand Isle, LA, has risen at a steady rate of 9mm/year since 1947:
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=8...
But sea level at Pensacola, FL, has risen at a steady rate of 2.25mm/year since 1923:
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=8...
And sea level at Cedar Key, FL, has risen at a steady rate of only 1.97mm/year since 1914:
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=8...
Sure looks like Louisiana islands are sinking a lot faster than than sea level is rising.
But...climate change! Let's look at the skyrocketing high temperatures.
There's no long-term weather record at Grand Isle, but at Houma, an inland town that hasn't changed much since temperature records begin in 1893:
Record high temperature: 104° in 1915.
Hottest summers: 1915, 1902, 1906, 1918, 1917.
Coldest summers: 1894, 1994, 1923, 1992, 1900.
Hmm...better look at Pensacola, where regional airport records begin in 1948:
Record high temperature: 106° in 1980.
Hottest summers: 2011, 1954, 1952, 1990, 1951.
Coldest summers: 1967, 2003, 1965, 1976, 1994.
Oh, wait. That's just weather, not climate. Never mind!
4
How do you explain melting ice caps? Whatever your explanation, it's happening. Millions of lives and billions of dollars later, who will care if climate change naysayers have it right? We're having to deal with the consequences right now.
2
Does anyone claim climate doesn't change? 18,000 years ago sea level was about 400 feet lower. The water was locked up in ice sheets two miles thick. Don't you learn this stuff in school anymore?
Antarctic sea ice reached a record extent in 2014, and NASA's latest analysis of satellite data shows the Antarctic ice sheet had a net gain of 112 billion tons of ice a year from 1992 to 2001, slowing to 82 billion tons of ice per year between 2003 and 2008. (http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-i...
Yes, the Arctic is losing ice. It was losing ice in 1920. In 1960 it was gaining ice. It does that rather regularly.
1000 years ago, Glacier Bay, Alaska, was a grassy valley, with glacial rivers teeming with salmon. The glaciers suddenly began growing ("faster than a running dog" in Tlingit lore) until the entire valley was filled with ice nearly 4,000 feet thick. Between 1800 and 1920, the glaciers receded 65 miles. The area is still rebounding from the weight of the ice, with sea level there falling more than 1 in. per year. ( http://fairweather.alaska.edu/chris/motyka.pdf )
There is nothing government is proposing to do that will stop climate from changing one way or another. Stoking fear of climate change is a money-and-power grab.
Antarctic sea ice reached a record extent in 2014, and NASA's latest analysis of satellite data shows the Antarctic ice sheet had a net gain of 112 billion tons of ice a year from 1992 to 2001, slowing to 82 billion tons of ice per year between 2003 and 2008. (http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-i...
Yes, the Arctic is losing ice. It was losing ice in 1920. In 1960 it was gaining ice. It does that rather regularly.
1000 years ago, Glacier Bay, Alaska, was a grassy valley, with glacial rivers teeming with salmon. The glaciers suddenly began growing ("faster than a running dog" in Tlingit lore) until the entire valley was filled with ice nearly 4,000 feet thick. Between 1800 and 1920, the glaciers receded 65 miles. The area is still rebounding from the weight of the ice, with sea level there falling more than 1 in. per year. ( http://fairweather.alaska.edu/chris/motyka.pdf )
There is nothing government is proposing to do that will stop climate from changing one way or another. Stoking fear of climate change is a money-and-power grab.
2
I think we can be fairly sure that, this particular island aside, resettlement will become a major Government program sometime in the future. Seems like this is as good a test-case as any. Various ethnic and tribal considerations; people that want to go and those that wish to stay, valuations of land and many other issues to deal with that may not yet be obvious. Might as well learn the ropes and pitfalls and create some guidelines while dealing with 60, rather than wait until it is 60,000 somewhere else. Unusually prescient of the Feds if you ask me...
3
Geology. You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.
The geological underpinning of the case for anthropogenic climate change is rock solid. The geologic evidence for AGW is the single most compelling part of the picture.
The geological underpinning of the case for anthropogenic climate change is rock solid. The geologic evidence for AGW is the single most compelling part of the picture.
4
Inconceivable!!!
As long as we treat Americans who have some Amerindian ancestry as if they are incapable of assimilation and acculturation into U.S. society, they will continue to demand special treatment. Would we pay them $800,000 each to “help” them relocate if their ancestors were Scotch-Irish Americans? Most Americans would relocate for much less.
If someone offered me $800,000 tax free to relocate I would do so in a heartbeat.
Unfortunately, much of that amount, likely at least half, goes to support government bureaucrats who can retire at the age of 50 and live on the dole for the next 30 years.
Unfortunately, much of that amount, likely at least half, goes to support government bureaucrats who can retire at the age of 50 and live on the dole for the next 30 years.
1
To quote this article: "Channels cut by loggers and oil companies eroded much of the island, and decades of flood control efforts have kept once free-flowing rivers from replenishing the wetlands’ sediments. Some of the island was swept away by hurricanes." The problem is not and has not been rising sea-levels due to climate change. The problem was man-made channels and unintended consequences of flood-control efforts that likely saved other places, at the long-term expense of re-sedimentation of Isle de Jean Charles. I am not a climate-change denier, but the climate-change alarmists frequently, if not constantly, use misleading situations to make the problem seem worse than it is.
3
"Channels cut by loggers and oil companies eroded much of the island, and decades of flood control efforts have kept once free-flowing rivers from replenishing the wetlands’ sediments. Some of the island was swept away by hurricanes." Exactly! This has NOTHING to do with "Carbon's Casualties" or "climate change."
2
Quote from the article: "governments are confronting the reality that as human-caused climate change warms the planet."
It is disgraceful that the NY Times continues to spread the lie that climate change is caused by human beings. The fact is that there is zero empirical science supporting this false premise. Climate change is real but it caused by increased radiation from our Sun. That is why it is also taking place on Mercury, Venus and Mars, where there is zero biological activity. Governments cannot do anything to stop or reverse climate change, and that is the truth.
It is disgraceful that the NY Times continues to spread the lie that climate change is caused by human beings. The fact is that there is zero empirical science supporting this false premise. Climate change is real but it caused by increased radiation from our Sun. That is why it is also taking place on Mercury, Venus and Mars, where there is zero biological activity. Governments cannot do anything to stop or reverse climate change, and that is the truth.
2
You miss a major point in the argument. Some may believe the change is not caused by human activity, some believe it is worsened by human activity, some believe it is caused by human activity.
The point: It IS happening. Should we sit on our thumbs and watch millions suffer?
The point: It IS happening. Should we sit on our thumbs and watch millions suffer?
1
The Dust Bowl of the 1930 produced 2.5 million American climate change refugees, but they didn't get hundreds of thousands apiece to pack up and leave.
1
Just because we didn't do anything doesn't mean we shouldn't have done something.
7
no, and John Steinbeck documented what a miserable lot they were in Grapes of Wrath
1
If you are going to relocate People, you need to do it the right and permament way. If you want the community to flourish in the future, you need to give them a head start building some kind of infraestructure and services, school, church, etc...
1
Well, that's a start. Next up, migrating the entire population of southern Florida!
Maybe we should be thinking about doing something else about this?
Maybe we should be thinking about doing something else about this?
1
It's so interesting to me when the New York Times publishes an article about climate change. There are always at least a couple of people in the comment section suggesting overpopulation is the problem and the solution is to make people stop having kids. This is completely untrue. The issue here is not one of population; the issue is over consumption.
This planet could support many more people than it already has if the industrialized nations of the world realized we can't continue to consume in the ways we currently do. Take factory farming, for example. We produce large amounts of corn each year, but instead of it going toward feeding people it goes toward feeding cows and other animals. Cows aren't meant to digest corn, but it's done to be cost effective. Instead of feeding millions of people with the corn we produce, we're feeding the animals being raised to be slaughtered to feed far less people.
So no, this isn't an issue of overpopulation. It's an issue of using what we produce on this planet more sustainably. We can't keep consuming the way we do and expect others just to stop having kids so we can keep doing what we're doing.
This planet could support many more people than it already has if the industrialized nations of the world realized we can't continue to consume in the ways we currently do. Take factory farming, for example. We produce large amounts of corn each year, but instead of it going toward feeding people it goes toward feeding cows and other animals. Cows aren't meant to digest corn, but it's done to be cost effective. Instead of feeding millions of people with the corn we produce, we're feeding the animals being raised to be slaughtered to feed far less people.
So no, this isn't an issue of overpopulation. It's an issue of using what we produce on this planet more sustainably. We can't keep consuming the way we do and expect others just to stop having kids so we can keep doing what we're doing.
2
Actually roughly 40% of the U.S. corn crop is used for ethanol production, and around 36% for animal feed. Pretty much ALL crony capitalism at work, it appears.
1
The problem could be solved easily, if only we went back to being migratory creatures, rather than stationary ones. Maybe the Indians were onto something, years ago.
2
a nomadic way of life wouldnt work when there are 300, 000, 000 people
1
Dear Iver Thompson,
It's a quaint idea but it doesn't work. Being migratory allows no higher technology at all; to produce the computer you're commenting with, a physical factory and mines must be in set locations, and thus people must stay near those areas to work in them. Being migratory is part of what held back the Native Americans' technological advancement, and that allowed the Europeans to roll right over them.
It's a quaint idea but it doesn't work. Being migratory allows no higher technology at all; to produce the computer you're commenting with, a physical factory and mines must be in set locations, and thus people must stay near those areas to work in them. Being migratory is part of what held back the Native Americans' technological advancement, and that allowed the Europeans to roll right over them.
2
Why would we pay anything more than hazmat cleanup, and removal of potential debris?
3
It sure pays to be the beneficiary of someone in Washington's pet political causes. I can think of countless homeless people in NYC who could have used these funds more desperately.
7
About 35 years ago Albert and Marjorie Scardino produced a documentary called "Guale" about life in the South Carolina low country - one of its premises was that development on barrier islands was foolish and pointless because of the seas are constantly carving up the coastline. It was popular with audiences of Public Television. But there was nothing about Global Warming. Now the NYT has a story with the loaded headline "Resettling the First Climate Refugees" - about people who live on mud flats in Southern Louisiana's Mississippi Delta, about as terrestrially unstable a place as there is on our continent.
The story is about $48 million being wasted.
The NYT is shooting itself in its activist foot - the argument for man-made global warming doesn't get any help - indeed, gets weakened - by a report about re-locating people from the oft-flooded bog that is Southern Louisiana.
The story is about $48 million being wasted.
The NYT is shooting itself in its activist foot - the argument for man-made global warming doesn't get any help - indeed, gets weakened - by a report about re-locating people from the oft-flooded bog that is Southern Louisiana.
8
“A $48 million grant for Isle de Jean Charles, La., is the first allocation of federal tax dollars to move an entire community struggling with the effects of climate change bill“
The above is the first sentence of this front page article on the New York Times and to be perfectly honest, I can not bring myself to read anymore. Has the federal government finally gone off its rocker? I have a co-worker with two downs syndrome children and he and his wife can not get a dime from the government for any assistance, but the Feds are tapping a grant to merely MOVE 60 people to a different location. This story and situation is beyond comprehension and common sense.
7
Does this mean that wealthy ocean front homeowners will now get similar buyout treatment from the feds? Do the logging and oil companies that made the channels still exist? Are they American companies? Have they incorporated abroad to avoid taxes? Why are taxpayers the only ones picking up the relocation tab? There is a main road in Southold Town, L.I., NY, that is about to disappear, because the Army Corp of Engineers allowed summer cottage owners to build groins that ate away the public beach, and built up the private beach. How about the feds funding money to undo the damage that was done there?
1
This story misses a critical point - Louisana is sinking due to susidence due to oil and gas production. In fact the Oil industry should be paying the bill. Every governor has kowtowed to Oil and Gas. You cannot stop subsidence, but make the right folks pay for it.
3
Oil and gas withdrawal are unlikely, or a minor contributor to subsidence,,, and I could be wrong about this,,,, science is working on this,, no conclusion as yet,, but,,,
Oil and gas ARE very much the cause of a few thousand miles of canals and submerged pipelines,,, and every foot allows fresh water to drain,, and salt water to enter. 50 foot wide canals become 300 foot wide canals through erosion. The photo running with the article,,, nearly all the open water in the background WAS a canal.
Subsidence, however,,, used to be balanced with the annual flood, and the silt it carried. Silt that no longer comes down the river,,, building up behind every TVA dam,,, and levees that speed water flow NOT into the delta,, but to bypass and out to sea. No new silt is allowed into the delta,,,, no renewal.
This is the result.
Blame, oil companies for canals,,, and the ARMY CORP of ENGINEERS for a thousand dams and 10.000 miles of levees.
Oil and gas ARE very much the cause of a few thousand miles of canals and submerged pipelines,,, and every foot allows fresh water to drain,, and salt water to enter. 50 foot wide canals become 300 foot wide canals through erosion. The photo running with the article,,, nearly all the open water in the background WAS a canal.
Subsidence, however,,, used to be balanced with the annual flood, and the silt it carried. Silt that no longer comes down the river,,, building up behind every TVA dam,,, and levees that speed water flow NOT into the delta,, but to bypass and out to sea. No new silt is allowed into the delta,,,, no renewal.
This is the result.
Blame, oil companies for canals,,, and the ARMY CORP of ENGINEERS for a thousand dams and 10.000 miles of levees.
One final thought - and yet there is bewilderment that people continue to riot in American city streets.
2
I have yet to hear more frightening words, even from Donald Trump, than the following concerning relocating populations due to climate change “'We see this as setting a precedent for the rest of the country, the rest of the world” when those controlling Congress deny its very existence! If it cost
1
If the state wants to learn to do this sort of thing economically, why have they budgeted $48 million to relocate a community of 85 people?
4
Maybe we should not be subsidizing home insurance for people to live in disaster prone areas to begin with.
Live where you like, but don't ask others to pay for it.
Live where you like, but don't ask others to pay for it.
6
"decades of flood control efforts have kept once free-flowing rivers from replenishing the wetlands’ sediments."
You can't have your cake and eat it too. If you alter the natural processes by which this land was created, it's going to diminish. That's not "climate change", that's geomorphology 101. It's much easier to lay blame on others though.
Just tear out all of the flood control apparatus that we decried the Government for not building strongly enough before Katrina, and you'll have the natural Eden you long for. You just won't be able to have a community there because it'll flood all the time.
And while we're on the subject, can we talk about the pollution being dumped into the Gulf via our environmentalist's obsession with ethanol production upstream? Every decision has a consequence.
You can't have your cake and eat it too. If you alter the natural processes by which this land was created, it's going to diminish. That's not "climate change", that's geomorphology 101. It's much easier to lay blame on others though.
Just tear out all of the flood control apparatus that we decried the Government for not building strongly enough before Katrina, and you'll have the natural Eden you long for. You just won't be able to have a community there because it'll flood all the time.
And while we're on the subject, can we talk about the pollution being dumped into the Gulf via our environmentalist's obsession with ethanol production upstream? Every decision has a consequence.
5
If the U.S. Government is willing to spend $48 million dollars to move 60 people, I can do it for half that amount with money left over. If only the Feds would give me the opportunity to show them how it can be done.
5
Even without climate change the Mississippi delta was doomed due to the lack of alluvial deposits as a result of soil conservation practices. The effect of climate change has been well known for over 30 years. The actuarial scientists at the insurance companies have been modeling this scenario for years as evident by rising insurance premiums and state and federal policy concerning insurance and financing these coastal properties. I suppose the FED and the Treasury have factored in the cost of climate change as another one of the unfunded liabilities to which taxpayers are on the hook. I expect that given our national deficit most of the coastal dwellers are or will soon be self financed and self insured. Hopefully the banks will not be over collateralized with notes against the low laying coastal properties. Hopefully the bond rating companies will have learned their lesson from the meltdown in 2007 and correctly rated coastal assets and debt on these properties. Finally, hopefully we elect leaders that can be trusted to enact policy which serves our best long term interests and not their own personal economic gain.
3
I completely agree that the sun and earth go through cycles. It is so dishonest to keep pushing this 'human caused climate change' garbage. It is completely impossible for humans to alter climate on a global scale even if we wanted to. One volcano expels more CO2 in one day than all mankind in a year. The sun emits more heat and energy in one second that all humans since the dawn of time. It is complete arrogance to suggest we caused any change or that we can do anything about it.
4
The volcano CO2 expulsion is off by about two orders of magnitude. When someone writes what you write about volcanoes, you just told us what your sources of information are. And all those sources are dead wrong.
3
Dear JC,
I don't think you have a good grasp of human-affected climate change, no offense. The sun does emit more energy in one second than humans ever have, but the earth absorbs about 0.000000000095% of solar energy (most goes past us, we're not that big). CO2 is not the main driver of the greenhouse effect, it's catalysts like chloroflourocarbons that keep altering the atmosphere for decades without breaking down.
Humans have been affecting earth's climate since the dawn of agriculture and the effect increased tremendously with the industrial age. We're affecting it a great deal today, and while climate changes naturally all the time, this time we are a big part of the change.
I don't think you have a good grasp of human-affected climate change, no offense. The sun does emit more energy in one second than humans ever have, but the earth absorbs about 0.000000000095% of solar energy (most goes past us, we're not that big). CO2 is not the main driver of the greenhouse effect, it's catalysts like chloroflourocarbons that keep altering the atmosphere for decades without breaking down.
Humans have been affecting earth's climate since the dawn of agriculture and the effect increased tremendously with the industrial age. We're affecting it a great deal today, and while climate changes naturally all the time, this time we are a big part of the change.
3
If you think this is appalling just wait (not long) for the removal of everyone who is presently living in New Orleans and South Florida, etc. We have known this is coming for fifty years but were too busy partying to pay attention. This is primarily brought on for the sake of money but when payment comes due there will not be enough money anywhere to pay for it.
14
Oh now what about all those naysayers of climate change? Many more will need to be moved and we all will have to pay. All the lands that people leave should be put into conservation easements and preserved in their natural way. Other places in the world will experience the same problems.
Whenever the Times runs an article on immigration or climate change, the same reactionary crowd make the same kind of insipid comments. When the topic is climate change, they try to cast doubt that the phenomenon is actually occurring. Why, you might ask? Because the solution to climate change, which still barely exists, is to stop using carbon-based fuels -- which will be an economic disaster for coal and petroleum companies and others who depend on their business. But the world economy and humanity will do just fine, thank you. Unprecedented new business will be created by the massive transformation to renewable energy! Stop listening to the special pleading of the Koch-funded deniers of climate change. At least they should take their insipid arguments to a site where they will find a more malleable readership!
2
Zola, we don't deny that there's change, of course the climate is always changing. What we don't believe is that humans are causing it. And why should we, as the only "proof" is provided by futuristic computer climate models and faked data? Of course this situation in Louisiana has less to do with climate change, amd more to do with poor land/water management by oil companies and the government officials whose pockets they line. So climate change, sure I believe it! Man-made, not so much. And your solution? I'll go for it when you show me a production-ready vehicle that can take 200 passengers from San Diego to Honolulu in 6 hours without using jet fuel. Then I'm all aboard!
2
I am conflicted. Yes, native Americans got the short end of the stick, early on. But, if they love their sinking island THAT much maybe we should just let them stay there until EVERYTHING is finally underwater. Give them a grant of money and let them use it as they see fit.
3
No problem: I hear the donald plans to build a great big beautiful seawall...
4
And he's going to make the Gulf of Mexico pay for it. Also the Atlantic and the Pacific, for their sections.
1
A couple thoughts reading the article and then the comments:
1) There should almost be a reading test before you're allowed to leave a comment. Surprising how many people didn't read the article. "For over a century, the American Indians on the island fished, hunted, trapped and farmed" seems to be one point people skipped over. Also, some people missed the part about previous mitigations, etc.
2) I'm both impressed and discouraged by the resiliency of people to feel the whole question is one of liberal/conservative politics. Just like a dog with a bone. I can completely reserve my political leanings, look at the number of extreme weather patterns and remember that we can't control the weather, we can only prepare for it. If we could have controlled it, we would have long ago. Meantimes, who gets hurt if we decrease pollution and mitigate the ozone hole? Take a look at Australia and how damaging sunlight has been for people there. Now how we get there is challenging, but we survived WWII and that was huge in comparison. I mean, rationing, people!
3) I think it's good people have a public place to vent. Back to #1, I just wish they read the article so the comments are a reflection of the article and not JUST a place to vent.
1) There should almost be a reading test before you're allowed to leave a comment. Surprising how many people didn't read the article. "For over a century, the American Indians on the island fished, hunted, trapped and farmed" seems to be one point people skipped over. Also, some people missed the part about previous mitigations, etc.
2) I'm both impressed and discouraged by the resiliency of people to feel the whole question is one of liberal/conservative politics. Just like a dog with a bone. I can completely reserve my political leanings, look at the number of extreme weather patterns and remember that we can't control the weather, we can only prepare for it. If we could have controlled it, we would have long ago. Meantimes, who gets hurt if we decrease pollution and mitigate the ozone hole? Take a look at Australia and how damaging sunlight has been for people there. Now how we get there is challenging, but we survived WWII and that was huge in comparison. I mean, rationing, people!
3) I think it's good people have a public place to vent. Back to #1, I just wish they read the article so the comments are a reflection of the article and not JUST a place to vent.
4
This is such a strange story. It's like sophisticated babysitting services.
6
Something tells me, if we had a Republican president, these folks wouldn't get squat.
6
let them drift into th gulf of mexico, eskimeaux style
2
I think it's worth noting that the climate change deniers are also superchristians. They think God controls the weather and therefore this cannot be a man made phenomenon. I've meet a lot of these people since moving to a red state. In the end, you can't teach children that the earth is 10,000 years old and then wonder why the US is ranked so low in science. You also can't convince the god people that is a human caused issue, or its that its an issue at all.
21
Yet, these are the first people in the FEMA line.
5
I lived in NJ for a few years in one of the so called shore towns. People live on what are basically sandbanks with bridges or causeways across to them very similar to the one in the article.
Does anyone here remember Superstorm Sandy or Hurricane Joaquin and the billions spent rebuilding these ridiculously located towns?
But hey, they're white people living in the Northeast so that's Ok. Right?
Does anyone here remember Superstorm Sandy or Hurricane Joaquin and the billions spent rebuilding these ridiculously located towns?
But hey, they're white people living in the Northeast so that's Ok. Right?
12
a large portion of th se usa, from tx to sc was mostly below seas level for th last 100, 000, 000 years, only emerging in th last 50, 000 years,
5
Honestly, if a person is realistic about it and can detach themselves from the emotions, this is strictly a population issue and that is the sole cause of the problem.
People simply need to stop having children, or stop having children in the economic strata's that cannot afford to have them, support them, feed them, house them. I know that's a very Spocklike answer to a very painful topic, but...the gut level honest answer is: STOP OVERPOPULATING!!!
People simply need to stop having children, or stop having children in the economic strata's that cannot afford to have them, support them, feed them, house them. I know that's a very Spocklike answer to a very painful topic, but...the gut level honest answer is: STOP OVERPOPULATING!!!
10
Good advice your parents should have taken.
5
No, the answer is not stop having children. The answer is stop having stupid children. Smart and educated people need to have more children to plan for the future. The future cannot count on a bunch of high school dropouts to tackle tough issues.
4
Just love all of these climate experts in the comments. Not.
7
Also it occurs to me, there will always be stubborn fools who refuse to move. My suggestion would be, make clear to them that this offer to relocate them at taxpayers' expense is the final offer. If they refuse, no relocation money will be forthcoming once the waves wash over their houses, and no rescue ships will be sent to pluck them off their roofs. We need a lot less people, overpopulation is a major part of the climate change disaster overtaking us. If people want to die on certain patches of land, so be it.
8
That sounds so evolutionary. Why couldn't the powers that be come up with such a perfect solution, rather than acting like they knew what was best? Time always takes care of everything.
1
Dear Iver Thompson,
And indeed it is. Evolution is always a horrible, painful, tragic process, and there is no way of stopping it. 99% of all the species that have ever existed have gone extinct already, and most of human societies (probably around 99% really) have also failed and been eliminated. It's reasonable to be sad about the process but there is no way around it.
And indeed it is. Evolution is always a horrible, painful, tragic process, and there is no way of stopping it. 99% of all the species that have ever existed have gone extinct already, and most of human societies (probably around 99% really) have also failed and been eliminated. It's reasonable to be sad about the process but there is no way around it.
3
Run, don't walk , to the next opportunity to get this going, before someone else finds a good way to spend that money in a different backyard and leave the island residents in the lurch.
In this instance, sooner is better than later - for the sake of Mr. Hilton's 10 children and 26 grandchildren, so that they may have the opportunity to start a new attachment to their new inland home, and spiritually continue to honor those who were before them on the island, without perishing in the process...
In this instance, sooner is better than later - for the sake of Mr. Hilton's 10 children and 26 grandchildren, so that they may have the opportunity to start a new attachment to their new inland home, and spiritually continue to honor those who were before them on the island, without perishing in the process...
4
People choose to live in dangerous places: river flood zones, tornado alleys, sea level coasts, high wildfire areas, active fault lines, and the like. While we rightly should collectively aid those who choose such risk when disaster strikes, I do not see that it is the responsibility of the nation as a whole to bail to compensate those who have taken untoward risk. It's bad enough our politicians did that with the banks and Wall Street. We should keep in mind that we are not talking about those, such as the downwinders, who were the victims of a specific government policy.
Risk is one area where the market is usually good at apportioning accountability. If you choose something more risky, get insurance and pay accordingly. Does private insurance need to be well regulated? Of course. It is necessary to make certain that the risk pool is appropriate For instance, the relatively poor people in some of the Bay Area flatlands should not have to pay insurance premiums to compensate for the wealthy who live in the higher fire danger hills. But broadly based private insurance it is still the best way to evaluate the financial cost of risk.
That said, I am not commenting on this specific situation in Louisiana one way or another.
Risk is one area where the market is usually good at apportioning accountability. If you choose something more risky, get insurance and pay accordingly. Does private insurance need to be well regulated? Of course. It is necessary to make certain that the risk pool is appropriate For instance, the relatively poor people in some of the Bay Area flatlands should not have to pay insurance premiums to compensate for the wealthy who live in the higher fire danger hills. But broadly based private insurance it is still the best way to evaluate the financial cost of risk.
That said, I am not commenting on this specific situation in Louisiana one way or another.
3
They weren't dangerous until the Poles started melting. They were have supposed to have seen that coming? Especially when many of our very own leaders are telling us they're not.
But broadly based private insurance it is still the best way to evaluate the financial cost of risk.
I hope they're not headquartered in low-lying areas, like Oakland, say.
But broadly based private insurance it is still the best way to evaluate the financial cost of risk.
I hope they're not headquartered in low-lying areas, like Oakland, say.
1
The question is whether or not the people that derived the profits due to fossil fuel use bear responsibility for the damage done to people as a result of that use. The people that live on this island are largely blameless.
1
We need to draw a line in the sand, today, to help formulate policy later.
Any state with a Senator that block climate change legislation get zero- nothing- in future federal funds for any damage caused by climate change.
Any state with a Senator that block climate change legislation get zero- nothing- in future federal funds for any damage caused by climate change.
4
Wait!!! Since when does Louisiana believe in climate change.??
2
The most glaring aspect of this story has gone uncovered for the past several months as far as I can tell:
Isle de Jean Charles is located in Louisiana's first congressional district which is represented in Congress by none other than Steve Scalise. Scalise ranks third in Republican House leadership. He is also a noted climate denier. Unlike some deniers who assert that human activity does not contribute to climate change, or that the effects of climate change are overstated (both of which are objectively false), Steve Scalise claims that climate change simply does not exist. It should come as no surprise, therefore, that he is not quoted in any coverage of this story, nor has he released any official statement. What is surprising and, frankly, shameful, is that the press lets him get away with it. Republican leadership is anti-science, even when the proof is literally in their backyard (or that of their constituents). They need to be held accountable.
Isle de Jean Charles is located in Louisiana's first congressional district which is represented in Congress by none other than Steve Scalise. Scalise ranks third in Republican House leadership. He is also a noted climate denier. Unlike some deniers who assert that human activity does not contribute to climate change, or that the effects of climate change are overstated (both of which are objectively false), Steve Scalise claims that climate change simply does not exist. It should come as no surprise, therefore, that he is not quoted in any coverage of this story, nor has he released any official statement. What is surprising and, frankly, shameful, is that the press lets him get away with it. Republican leadership is anti-science, even when the proof is literally in their backyard (or that of their constituents). They need to be held accountable.
11
Somehow the lint the democrats are getting doesn't feel as bad as the trillions we spent on Republican war initiatives. That's where the pockets got cleaned out.
6
This will become more common as time goes by, and it's hard to say when it might end. In a few hundred years, maybe the water levels will stop rising. We don't really know, but for the next century at minimum, people are going to have to steadily abandon the coasts.
I'd feel badly for them, only this is humanity's own fault, and we never really 'own' land to begin with, we just control its use briefly. And these people are the lucky ones, in most countries the government will not be able to help relocate people, except into refugee camps, and a lot of places are too destitute to even do that. In many nations once the floodwaters rise, famine and plague will follow. Many people that lose their homes will not gain new ones.
So these people being relocated should be extremely thankful that they are the lucky few. In a century, our government might not be as able to house people uphill, and we might yet resort to refugee camps.
And of course, if Republicans stay in power too long, our economy will collapse and the effects of climate change will be worsened by their stubborn refusal to accept reality or do anything about it. If we elect Republicans consistently though, we will deserve total destruction; being stupid is often a capital crime.
I'd feel badly for them, only this is humanity's own fault, and we never really 'own' land to begin with, we just control its use briefly. And these people are the lucky ones, in most countries the government will not be able to help relocate people, except into refugee camps, and a lot of places are too destitute to even do that. In many nations once the floodwaters rise, famine and plague will follow. Many people that lose their homes will not gain new ones.
So these people being relocated should be extremely thankful that they are the lucky few. In a century, our government might not be as able to house people uphill, and we might yet resort to refugee camps.
And of course, if Republicans stay in power too long, our economy will collapse and the effects of climate change will be worsened by their stubborn refusal to accept reality or do anything about it. If we elect Republicans consistently though, we will deserve total destruction; being stupid is often a capital crime.
5
In time stories such as these will become part of a romanticized past wherein there was an attempt to soften the impact of climatic change. It will be impossible to sustain this type of financing, and the issue is larger than politics by orders of magnitude.
2
Another CAGW hysteria without any, nada, nil, zero evidence that burning fossil fuels has anything to do with this islands problems. Poor man made land and water management actions, along with nature are causing the water rise at this location. You say this started in 1955. Really. The earth was in the middle of a cooling period in 1955.
Trash skeptics all your want, but while CAGW drones robotically believe the nonsense in this article, the credibilty of thousands of skeptical scientists continues to increase.
Trash skeptics all your want, but while CAGW drones robotically believe the nonsense in this article, the credibilty of thousands of skeptical scientists continues to increase.
7
Can you list the "thousands of skeptical scientists" that you mention? Are any of them climate scientists?
In fact, they do not exist. There are no published climate scientists who deny that burning fossil fuels is causing our climate to change. OK, maybe Richard Lindzen, but he is irrelevant.
In fact, they do not exist. There are no published climate scientists who deny that burning fossil fuels is causing our climate to change. OK, maybe Richard Lindzen, but he is irrelevant.
3
SayNo, US Senate Minority Report on Global Warming or the Oregon Project for starters. Easy google search and credentials are listed. Includes scientists from all disciplines involved in climate reasearch. Just because the NYT, Mother Jones and MSNBC do not report their research due to ideological reasons does not mean these scientists don't exist.
2
If these people have only ever lived off the land, they'll need money for college or to start farms. They need modern skills.
2
And so it begins...
2
About time.
Why not hire the Chinese? They are doing a great job of building islands in the South China Sea.
Linking this to climate change real stretch.
Linking this to climate change real stretch.
7
Dear Markinnj,
The Chinese are doing that for military bases; they have no interest in helping us with humanitarian problems as they care nothing about human suffering.
And the rising water levels are due to climate change, and that's what will wipe out these coastal towns. Not a stretch at all, for those who are aware of physical facts and basic science.
The Chinese are doing that for military bases; they have no interest in helping us with humanitarian problems as they care nothing about human suffering.
And the rising water levels are due to climate change, and that's what will wipe out these coastal towns. Not a stretch at all, for those who are aware of physical facts and basic science.
3
It seems everything today is blamed on climate change. I now live in Nevada and Hillary gave a speech here. She said when her airplane was coming into Las Vegas she noticed snow on the mountains which "we all know is caused by climate change." Mmmmm. Mt Charleston has had for decades a ski resort and has always had significant snow during the winter.
Why did I move to Nevada. I'm waiting for the ice caps to melt and California will sink into the sea. I then will have shore front Nevada property which will be worth millions.
Why did I move to Nevada. I'm waiting for the ice caps to melt and California will sink into the sea. I then will have shore front Nevada property which will be worth millions.
11
Wow. Her lack of understanding of climate change does not bode well...
4
itll take a while for that water to seep over th 14, 000 foot sierra nevada
1
She would not say that snow on a mountain is caused by climate change.
Please provide a citation.
Please provide a citation.
1
Extrapolate this cost and estimate how much it will take to relocate the population of Miami in 50-100 years. We can't afford NOT to end fossil fuel use, ASAP.
3
a major part of genuine efforts to combat excessive C02 should be stopping the cutting down of forest and replanting.
But the Left is absolutely silent on this.
Why?
But the Left is absolutely silent on this.
Why?
2
not i
trees are solid co2
cutting th rain-forests as fast as possible isnt helping
trees are solid co2
cutting th rain-forests as fast as possible isnt helping
Boy those Southern states that hate big government are sure willing to take it's money!
I think the Feds need to help in these climate change times but we do need to be smart about it. When people decide to live near rivers or in flood basins then look for taxpayer bailouts because, surprise, the river floods, we need to insure they are not allowed to use the money to rebuilt in the same place.
They don't share the good part of living where they do but they sure do share the cost of doing so.
This of course, would not apply to the poor who have lived where they live for generations and have no ability to change that. But, once again, they should be moved and resettled and not just given money to prevent or protect their homes from flooding.
I think the Feds need to help in these climate change times but we do need to be smart about it. When people decide to live near rivers or in flood basins then look for taxpayer bailouts because, surprise, the river floods, we need to insure they are not allowed to use the money to rebuilt in the same place.
They don't share the good part of living where they do but they sure do share the cost of doing so.
This of course, would not apply to the poor who have lived where they live for generations and have no ability to change that. But, once again, they should be moved and resettled and not just given money to prevent or protect their homes from flooding.
1
There are some very nice homes about to fall off the Pacific cliffs in California. If relocating these 60 LA native Americans costs $48 million, I shudder to think what bill will be handed to taxpayers for the long rows of million dollar homes sliding or about to slide into the Pacific.
6
th main difference between th pinheads in la and th pinheads in ca is th ones in ca have more money
but theyll still want th govt to pay for their homes dumped in th pacific
but theyll still want th govt to pay for their homes dumped in th pacific
1
Stop calling them refugees, for they have not lost their citizenship. This article describes a group of people that is responding to push and pull factors, out-migrating from Isle de Jean Charles, LA, and in-migrating to higher and drier places.
They are domestic migrants; not refugees.
They are domestic migrants; not refugees.
19
Leave the native American be. If they want to move, they will move to wherever they please. If they want to stay, let them stay. Most of them don't pay tax and they don't ask for federal money either so let them live the way they want.
8
Many climate change deniers say it is too expensive to switch to alternative energies that are less prone to emitting greenhouse gases. This article makes it clear that it is equally expensive to postpone a switch to clean energy.
4
Several years ago the federal government already spent a large sum to move an Alaskan village several miles inland; those native Alaskans were the first internal climate change refugees in the United States. Given that they live a subsistence lifestyle, one could hardly hold them accountable for rising greenhouse gases.
4
This is the most absurd public policy idea I have ever heard of. Forty-eight million dollars to move a few people. It will be far cheaper to solve the underlying problem for everyone. People subject to global warming should just move, especially if they are Republican global warming deniers.
6
Color me a cynic, but why are we bailing out people who refuse to leave land that is essentially at sea level, and sinking too?
If my ancestors lived on land that was prone to erosion and flooding, I would quickly realize that while they did as much as they could with what they had, I have the ability to leave this land and move somewhere that will not put my family's lives in danger. With government support, these people have no excuse not to leave.
Cultural history is a compelling motivator, I understand that. But what quality of life do you have when there is nothing to farm, no animals to hunt, and no infrastructure to travel? There is no economy, there is no society. If they want to stay there fine, but do not expect Uncle Sam to come save you when the next hurricane rolls through.
If my ancestors lived on land that was prone to erosion and flooding, I would quickly realize that while they did as much as they could with what they had, I have the ability to leave this land and move somewhere that will not put my family's lives in danger. With government support, these people have no excuse not to leave.
Cultural history is a compelling motivator, I understand that. But what quality of life do you have when there is nothing to farm, no animals to hunt, and no infrastructure to travel? There is no economy, there is no society. If they want to stay there fine, but do not expect Uncle Sam to come save you when the next hurricane rolls through.
2
Send the bill to the Koch brothers.
3
We're losing small towns and villages - again mostly populated with Native Americans - up at the north end of our country, too. Here's an article about the situation in Alaska.
Video: Disintegrating village of Newtok stages move to new site
http://www.adn.com/video/video-disintegrating-village-newtok-stages-move...
A note about Alaska's former governor - Palin set up a state-level group to address climate change.
"In 2007, she used an administrative order to create an Alaska Climate Change Sub-Cabinet. Her administrative order cites the rapid warming of Alaska and other northern latitude areas and identifies it as a wide-ranging problem for the state.
“Climate change is not just an environmental issue,” the order reads. “It is also a social, cultural, and economic issue important to all Alaskans. As a result of this warming, coastal erosion, thawing permafrost, retreating sea ice, record forest fires, and other changes are affecting, and will continue to affect, the lifestyles and livelihoods of Alaskans,” the executive order says.
The executive order specifically identifies greenhouse gas emissions as the cause of climate change; it touts Alaska natural gas as a “low carbon fuel to help the nation reduce its overall greenhouse gas emissions,” and it directs the group to investigate carbon-trading opportunities for Alaska.
http://www.adn.com/article/20160411/governor-sarah-palin-accepted-climat...
Video: Disintegrating village of Newtok stages move to new site
http://www.adn.com/video/video-disintegrating-village-newtok-stages-move...
A note about Alaska's former governor - Palin set up a state-level group to address climate change.
"In 2007, she used an administrative order to create an Alaska Climate Change Sub-Cabinet. Her administrative order cites the rapid warming of Alaska and other northern latitude areas and identifies it as a wide-ranging problem for the state.
“Climate change is not just an environmental issue,” the order reads. “It is also a social, cultural, and economic issue important to all Alaskans. As a result of this warming, coastal erosion, thawing permafrost, retreating sea ice, record forest fires, and other changes are affecting, and will continue to affect, the lifestyles and livelihoods of Alaskans,” the executive order says.
The executive order specifically identifies greenhouse gas emissions as the cause of climate change; it touts Alaska natural gas as a “low carbon fuel to help the nation reduce its overall greenhouse gas emissions,” and it directs the group to investigate carbon-trading opportunities for Alaska.
http://www.adn.com/article/20160411/governor-sarah-palin-accepted-climat...
2
Just proves she was always a moron. Unless of course she thought detailing that way would bring Uncle Sap with his bundle of taxpayer funded goodies.
It's just another example of how unfortunate it is that the Republican Party made an ideological decision to move towards denying a genuine problem facing us.
John McCain won the Republican nomination in 2008 and up into 2007 was trying, with Joe Lieberman, to implement a nationwide carbon emissions mitigation strategy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_Stewardship_Acts
So in 2008 we had two Republicans on the ticket who had been acknowledging the reality, but nowadays amnesia and worse has set in.
I would really like a reality-based Republican Party to get back to working on real issues. Instead we have a reality TV based approach.
John McCain won the Republican nomination in 2008 and up into 2007 was trying, with Joe Lieberman, to implement a nationwide carbon emissions mitigation strategy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_Stewardship_Acts
So in 2008 we had two Republicans on the ticket who had been acknowledging the reality, but nowadays amnesia and worse has set in.
I would really like a reality-based Republican Party to get back to working on real issues. Instead we have a reality TV based approach.
2
Fix the article title. This is not land lost because of climate change. It is caused by man-made erosion.
48 million dollars or $800 K per person to move from their shacks to a new location? I have a 6 million dollar plan. Offer each person a take it or leave it proposal of $100k to move to a new location.
They can stay and eventually lose out to erosion or take the cash and buy on nice house on more stable LA swamp land.
Problem solved, 42 million dollars saved. 10% commission on savings to me for coming up with the idea!
48 million dollars or $800 K per person to move from their shacks to a new location? I have a 6 million dollar plan. Offer each person a take it or leave it proposal of $100k to move to a new location.
They can stay and eventually lose out to erosion or take the cash and buy on nice house on more stable LA swamp land.
Problem solved, 42 million dollars saved. 10% commission on savings to me for coming up with the idea!
7
It is important that journalists start getting the science right. The desire to link all change to 'climate change' is a lazy one to make. The science is pretty clear: South Louisiana has been undergoing subsidence since the Upper Jurassic . . . that's > 140 million years ago
7
I think it's disingenuous and irresponsible journalism to entitle this article, "Resettling the First American ‘Climate Refugees’ ". The author himself details the cause of the shrinking coastline: "...since 1955, more than 90 percent of the island’s original land mass has washed away. Channels cut by loggers and oil companies eroded much of the island, and decades of flood control efforts have kept once free-flowing rivers from replenishing the wetlands’ sediments. Some of the island was swept away by hurricanes." Man made yes, but the result of commerce and government water management policies, NOT climate change. Shame on you, New York Times.
8
48 million to move 60 people, count me in. We have idiots in control. People living in trailers in a substance existence will now be wealthy 1%er's
5
This is a small fraction of the price that South Louisianans have paid over the last century to provide energy and chemicals to America, from which all Americans benefited. But some--the oil and gas companies and politicians--benefited more than others. Global warming is only a part of the problem. The federal and state governments and the energy companies destroyed or allowed the destruction of what was an Eden; they should pay at least part of the cost to restore it and/or relocate displaced families.
7
The government is using my tax dollars to relocate people, who chose to build their homes coastal mudflats. This is precisely why the federal government is losing its legitimacy.
And we're sure that the coastal changes are due to climate change? The journalist presumably believes that the pre-industrial world was static.
A big storm came through yesterday. We never had big storms before climate change. I think the government should pay my insurance deductible. Lunacy.
And we're sure that the coastal changes are due to climate change? The journalist presumably believes that the pre-industrial world was static.
A big storm came through yesterday. We never had big storms before climate change. I think the government should pay my insurance deductible. Lunacy.
8
Well the government is using MY tax dollars too, and I am fine with it--so who is right and gets to decide?
1
Wow. A hundred years ago those were wetlands, yes, but they weren't sinking. You live in Connecticut? I grew up in S. Louisiana and recently moved to east TX. I bet you're and expert on Louisiana Native American and Acadian culture. Your comment is asinine.
2
More taxpayer money spent to help people who are living where nobody should be living. Coastal communities and the people who inhabit them are fully aware that the ocean rises and falls during hurricanes and due to the cyclical whims of nature. Are U.S. taxpayers going to bail out each and every person who decides to build a house which is eventually going to be inundated by storm flooding or cyclically changing climate?
2
It isn't just climate change causing all this land loss. The oil and gas industry has run rampant all over the delta, channelizing it. The Army Corps of Engineers has done its part to keep silt from washing into the delta.
Actually, from a ecology point of view, the entire state of Louisiana is a disaster. The state's been run by the petrochemical industry for decades. They couldn't care less about ecology.
Actually, from a ecology point of view, the entire state of Louisiana is a disaster. The state's been run by the petrochemical industry for decades. They couldn't care less about ecology.
4
So each individual gets $800,000.00??????
Jesh, so they won the lottery.
A home in middle America can go from 10k to 450K (and that’s a palace), and each individual gets 800k? where are you moving them? SoHo?
Wow, just buy a foreclosed home, gift it to them, plus a car and some cash and that would cost a ton less than 800K per person.
By the way, if you work full time and pay taxes, you get no part of this 800K free money, you get the bill and have to pay for it.
What’s wrong with this picture
Jesh, so they won the lottery.
A home in middle America can go from 10k to 450K (and that’s a palace), and each individual gets 800k? where are you moving them? SoHo?
Wow, just buy a foreclosed home, gift it to them, plus a car and some cash and that would cost a ton less than 800K per person.
By the way, if you work full time and pay taxes, you get no part of this 800K free money, you get the bill and have to pay for it.
What’s wrong with this picture
6
Time for a quick visit to the Florida Keys! Before they, too, disappear beneath the waves.
http://phys.org/news/2015-12-florida-keys-property-seep.html
http://phys.org/news/2015-12-florida-keys-property-seep.html
1
I see that a number of right-wingers are arguing that it's just tough luck that drove a group of poor people and native Americans onto an isolated strip of land, that trashed the environment around them, and that blew so much carbon into the atmosphere that their island's marginal livability is collapsing.
By the way, did any of you happen to notice that the effort to move them started in 2002? Was that during the first Obama Admin, you figure?
By the way, did any of you happen to notice that the effort to move them started in 2002? Was that during the first Obama Admin, you figure?
5
From Miami: Inland sumpland desecration: five acres filled and elevated without a place for the stormwater to go. Area floods!
Desperate for Drainage Village of Pinecrest Breaches Aquifer, 900 Homes on Well Water — One travesty begets another in South Florida — Village Digs into Aquifer for Stormwater Relief — Adds Fouling Drinking Water to Litany of Environmental Blunders
For full story, documented with startling images, visit: Pinecrest Floods
http://pinecrestfloods.blogspot.com/ Also, Pinecrest Bans Sumpland.
http://pinecrestbanssumpland.blogspot.com/
Desperate for Drainage Village of Pinecrest Breaches Aquifer, 900 Homes on Well Water — One travesty begets another in South Florida — Village Digs into Aquifer for Stormwater Relief — Adds Fouling Drinking Water to Litany of Environmental Blunders
For full story, documented with startling images, visit: Pinecrest Floods
http://pinecrestfloods.blogspot.com/ Also, Pinecrest Bans Sumpland.
http://pinecrestbanssumpland.blogspot.com/
2
Climate change! Climate change!
1
Moving to Houston in '79 from NC yet still having relatives in NC, over the past 35+ years, I've traveled I-10 & 12 trough Louisiana far too many times; southern Louisiana is all swamp/salty marsh.
The 3rd longest bridge in the country is a segment of Interstate-10 in Louisiana (18.2 miles) - The Atchafalaya Basin Bridge is a pair of parallel bridges in the U.S. state of Louisiana between Baton Rouge and Lafayette which carries Interstate 10 over the Atchafalaya Basin. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atchafalaya_Basin_Bridge
As the population grew in Louisiana, building stronger levees, dams and drainage systems became a necessity. Take New Orleans for example, there are five levees that mostly protect a city that has parts that are up 6.5' below sea level up to a maximum 20' above sea level. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Orleans
With or without climate change, SOME common sense MUST be employed. We're all responsible for this.
Before the industrial revolution followed by the baby boomer generation, times were more simple/antiquated, pardon the terminology.
The 3rd longest bridge in the country is a segment of Interstate-10 in Louisiana (18.2 miles) - The Atchafalaya Basin Bridge is a pair of parallel bridges in the U.S. state of Louisiana between Baton Rouge and Lafayette which carries Interstate 10 over the Atchafalaya Basin. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atchafalaya_Basin_Bridge
As the population grew in Louisiana, building stronger levees, dams and drainage systems became a necessity. Take New Orleans for example, there are five levees that mostly protect a city that has parts that are up 6.5' below sea level up to a maximum 20' above sea level. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Orleans
With or without climate change, SOME common sense MUST be employed. We're all responsible for this.
Before the industrial revolution followed by the baby boomer generation, times were more simple/antiquated, pardon the terminology.
3
The sky is falling. The sky is falling. This administration doles out nonsense at the same rate they waste taxpayer money.
7
Do you not believe in climate change? They you have no understanding of reality and your opinion is pointless.
1
Congradulations hard working American taxpayer your pockets have been picked again by the democrat scam !
4
canaries in the coal mine. or rather: canaries in the coal combustion climate change environment.
3
Forty-eight million dollars. Sixty Families. All in the politically correct interest of saving the world from climate change, when the real problem here is simply an impoverished group of people incapable of taking responsibility for their own lives. I bet I know where most of the $48 mil wound up. This is exactly why we must limit the power of insipid and corrupt politicians.
7
When do we as taxpayers stop pouring money into Louisiana? It's, frankly, a money pit...and there won't be any return on it in the next 3 lifetimes.
6
Please NYT, be intellectually honest. Report how much the Gulf has risen in inches versus how much this island has subsided in inches. The thrusts of your article should have been the malfeasance of the government to (1) allocate almost $1M per person to move people, and (2) misuse of funds that were appropriated to counter the effects of rising oceans due to climate change.
7
Is the NYTimes serious? They are supporting this waste of millions/billions claiming the residents are 'climate refugees?!!!'
This is called the Mississippi Delta and has long been under water. It was populated knowing so, with demands of tax money to create levies so that people could build MORE homes in the water. This is not climate change, this is a bad decision. NO ONE SHOULD BE LIVING HERE - and I for one do not approve moving these people. Next you'll want me to move millionaires living on the side of the mountain in LA so that they have a view - you know those 'climate refugees' that build on the side of an unstable mountain with dirt fill and on a fault as well?
This is what give climate change a bad name, this is why people suspect the government and do not trust the 'climate' research. Shame on you, but mostly, shame on Washington DC.
NO!
This is called the Mississippi Delta and has long been under water. It was populated knowing so, with demands of tax money to create levies so that people could build MORE homes in the water. This is not climate change, this is a bad decision. NO ONE SHOULD BE LIVING HERE - and I for one do not approve moving these people. Next you'll want me to move millionaires living on the side of the mountain in LA so that they have a view - you know those 'climate refugees' that build on the side of an unstable mountain with dirt fill and on a fault as well?
This is what give climate change a bad name, this is why people suspect the government and do not trust the 'climate' research. Shame on you, but mostly, shame on Washington DC.
NO!
9
48 Million Dollars.
Oh, this is the government waste I keep hearing about.
This kind of spending is wrong for so many reasons.
$48 million can help a lot more than 60 Americans, we have to become smarter and spend money for the greatest good.
Oh, this is the government waste I keep hearing about.
This kind of spending is wrong for so many reasons.
$48 million can help a lot more than 60 Americans, we have to become smarter and spend money for the greatest good.
6
These photo's are indeed breathtaking not only for their genuine depiction of rural LA coastal isolation but also for their shocking exposure of the true poverty these sparsely located residents have come to know. The scene of little Amiya sitting in the foreground on her rickety dock with her pet kitty looking on warily at the camera is haunting. One cannot help but be emotionally transformed to a period of time not really so long ago when having so little, materially, was far more the norm than not, but then we weren't staring down a timed double barrel shotgun called anthropomorphic (human induced) climate and oceanic disruption. These residents (natives, not immigrants) most certainly deserve our consideration in helping resettle, and I am sorely disappointed with the arrogant tone of too many commentors here who look down their noses at these hard-scrabble families and then dismiss them as somehow unworthy of the most basic of assistance.
The problem is who will have gained from that terrifically over-calculated $43,000,000 sum windfall, since we all know it won't go into the hands of these residents. That is the real story here...
The problem is who will have gained from that terrifically over-calculated $43,000,000 sum windfall, since we all know it won't go into the hands of these residents. That is the real story here...
11
I think most people don't dismiss the residents as "unworthy of the most basic assistance." Basic assistance, yes, but $48 million to relocate 60 people? Many commenters have already proposed a bunch of more cost-effective ways to give these people a realistic fresh start, if they want it.
1
It is always possible to quibble. The big picture is more like this:
"The Future is Happening Now"
"Each month as I write these dispatches, I shake my head in disbelief at the rapidity at which anthropogenic climate disruption (ACD) is occurring. It's as though each month I think, "It can't possibly keep happening at this incredible pace."
"But it does.
"By late April, the Mauna Loa Observatory, which monitors atmospheric carbon dioxide, recorded an incredible daily reading: 409.3 parts per million. That is a range of atmospheric carbon dioxide content that this planet has not seen for the last 15 million years, and 2016 is poised to see these levels only continue to increase."
http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/35860-as-climate-disruption-advances-...
"The Future is Happening Now"
"Each month as I write these dispatches, I shake my head in disbelief at the rapidity at which anthropogenic climate disruption (ACD) is occurring. It's as though each month I think, "It can't possibly keep happening at this incredible pace."
"But it does.
"By late April, the Mauna Loa Observatory, which monitors atmospheric carbon dioxide, recorded an incredible daily reading: 409.3 parts per million. That is a range of atmospheric carbon dioxide content that this planet has not seen for the last 15 million years, and 2016 is poised to see these levels only continue to increase."
http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/35860-as-climate-disruption-advances-...
2
Give the residents the new choice as tough as it may be. To those who want to die on the family plot, make certain they understand that when they end up under water, no more assistance.
19
"when they end up under water" i doubt if they care. duh!
I wonder where Kivialina, Alaska stood in all this competition? They are about to wash out to sea for the same reason.
6
As mentioned below: land subsidence anyone?
Not at all the same as climate change. Sea levels have risen perhaps a millimeter or two. Not a big deal.
The money would be much better spent on combatting climate change, not on handouts to people who live in a de facto flood plain.
Not at all the same as climate change. Sea levels have risen perhaps a millimeter or two. Not a big deal.
The money would be much better spent on combatting climate change, not on handouts to people who live in a de facto flood plain.
2
Sea levels have risen 4 to 8 inches in the last century and the rate is accelerating continuously. In the next 50 to 100 years, levels will be several yards higher. As usual, people who claim climate change is no big deal have no understanding of climate change, sea levels, science, or common sense.
The sky is falling! The sky is falling!
What a waste of money.
What a waste of money.
4
It is so refreshing to see that so many folk that comment here see right through this obvious propaganda. Proves that many actually understand science.
2
I believe drastic action needs to be take to combat climate change, but I believe this article is a bit misleading. The problem requiring resettlement isn't mainly caused by climate change or rising absolute sea levels but by rising "relative" sea levels--which are predominantly caused by the sinking or subsidence of the land mass.
So for instance, the NOAA says that Key West is showing a relative sea level rise of about 2.25 mm per year compared to 9.25 mm in this part of the Gulf, the huge discrepancy being due to the fact that Key West isn't sinking very much at all.
In any event, if these kind of expenditures are establishing a model of federal action to resettle coastal populations, we will be bankrupt. We should scrap this plan. I'd announce an alternative approach to encourage voluntary resettlement: the feds will buy the land for FMV now but after the community repeatedly floods in 20 years, the feds will then take the useless land by eminent domain for $50 an acre.
So for instance, the NOAA says that Key West is showing a relative sea level rise of about 2.25 mm per year compared to 9.25 mm in this part of the Gulf, the huge discrepancy being due to the fact that Key West isn't sinking very much at all.
In any event, if these kind of expenditures are establishing a model of federal action to resettle coastal populations, we will be bankrupt. We should scrap this plan. I'd announce an alternative approach to encourage voluntary resettlement: the feds will buy the land for FMV now but after the community repeatedly floods in 20 years, the feds will then take the useless land by eminent domain for $50 an acre.
2
48 million?????
60 × $100,000 = 6 million. Write a check for 100,000 to each household and let them decide whether to move, where to move, buffalo or not, or stay and drown.
Thus is nuts.
60 × $100,000 = 6 million. Write a check for 100,000 to each household and let them decide whether to move, where to move, buffalo or not, or stay and drown.
Thus is nuts.
3
When do we start planning and saving money to move New York City, New Orleans, Miami and all coastal development? Miami will be covered in a decade or two and forty feet of sea rise will cover much of coastal development and most current Port Facilities. Since we are unwilling to address the causes of climate change we need to start putting a trillion a year into an adaptation fund.
4
I'm sure it isn't so completely simple as just "buying them a little house and a truck".....yet, Midwestern/northern Rust Belt small towns are dying from a lack of population. Maybe it is simple: a nice 3 bedroom house in a good little town with a main street, lots of farmland around, hunting, fishing, can be had for about $125,000. These climate refugees could choose from literally thousands of towns, and all of their tribe could be accommodated in one place. What is needed is a national registry/exchange that could pair up towns that want residents with those who need a new place to live. Go north, young man.
12
Louisiana politicians don't believe in global warming and do everything in their power to worsen the problem, especially by promoting the fossil fuels industry.
When the place starts to literally sink, the rest of taxpayers have to pick up the bill for relocating this people?
When the place starts to literally sink, the rest of taxpayers have to pick up the bill for relocating this people?
7
Three comments:
1. Do the math. $48MM for 60 people = $800,000 per person. $800,000 times 50MM U.S. climate refugees between now and 2050 = $40,000,000,000 (yep, that's $40 TRILLION) -- to be added to the $40 TRILLION public debt that Trump will leave us as of Jan. 2021 or his impeachment/conviction date, whichever comes earlier.
2. Where to move the refugees? Use the $40 trillion to start rebuilding, repopulating and reinvigorating Detroit, Cleveland, etc. Fix the currently blighted neighborhoods instead of building from scratch.
3. Well-heeled refugees (such as from the soon-to-be inundated areas like South Beach and Battery Park City) should relocate NOW. Where?Northern Canada, which (a) will have a temperate climate in 20 years, and (b) will lie outside the nuclear radiation-fallout zone of the Trump-sponsored World War III, which is currently scheduled to take place in September 2017, after Trump breaks the Iran de-nuclearization agreement, and after he nuclear arms Saudi Arabia, South Korea and Japan.
1. Do the math. $48MM for 60 people = $800,000 per person. $800,000 times 50MM U.S. climate refugees between now and 2050 = $40,000,000,000 (yep, that's $40 TRILLION) -- to be added to the $40 TRILLION public debt that Trump will leave us as of Jan. 2021 or his impeachment/conviction date, whichever comes earlier.
2. Where to move the refugees? Use the $40 trillion to start rebuilding, repopulating and reinvigorating Detroit, Cleveland, etc. Fix the currently blighted neighborhoods instead of building from scratch.
3. Well-heeled refugees (such as from the soon-to-be inundated areas like South Beach and Battery Park City) should relocate NOW. Where?Northern Canada, which (a) will have a temperate climate in 20 years, and (b) will lie outside the nuclear radiation-fallout zone of the Trump-sponsored World War III, which is currently scheduled to take place in September 2017, after Trump breaks the Iran de-nuclearization agreement, and after he nuclear arms Saudi Arabia, South Korea and Japan.
11
One may hope that gradually as the extent of the rebellion of nature to our massive exploitation and dumping becomes ever more clear, that we can stop arguing and find a way to deal with this escalating issue. This is hundreds of thousands at first, then millions, then billions of people. The middle east exodus reflects the hardships of food supply, exacerbated by conflict and exploitation, as does Africa, or Bangladesh, or elsewhere.
We'll have to do better than spending a million dollars per person. We have a long history of either fighting each other or working together, both to extremes and in the middle.
The sixth extinction, well under way, is becoming more obvious by the day. Many of our modern conveniences and products of marketing have not been around for long, but we have come to take them for granted. Instead of using more toxic products and throwing things away faster and faster, we could stop letting advertisers and political manipulators lead us by the nose, and consider what is of real value.
Yes, weather is complicated, and subsidence is a complicated story. But the overall picture is becoming devastatingly obvious and there are solutions. Please stop sneering at kumbayah and appreciate the benefits of acting like the family of humankind we are.
We'll have to do better than spending a million dollars per person. We have a long history of either fighting each other or working together, both to extremes and in the middle.
The sixth extinction, well under way, is becoming more obvious by the day. Many of our modern conveniences and products of marketing have not been around for long, but we have come to take them for granted. Instead of using more toxic products and throwing things away faster and faster, we could stop letting advertisers and political manipulators lead us by the nose, and consider what is of real value.
Yes, weather is complicated, and subsidence is a complicated story. But the overall picture is becoming devastatingly obvious and there are solutions. Please stop sneering at kumbayah and appreciate the benefits of acting like the family of humankind we are.
5
I agree with some of the other comments that this may not be totally "climate change" related devastation in the way we define that today, but a huge portion of the problem was exacerbated by greedy men. Probably mostly white greedy men. The bane of most of the world's existence... But I digress.
I'm not romanticizing this way of life, but I understand the deep ties to land and personal history. I get the desire to have your descendants know about living off the land as you and your ancestors have. I also get that it is very hard for native people to trust the government in any form.
If you have never been to Louisiana - especially the watery edges - you cannot fathom the complete uniqueness of the people, the place, the history. This necessary change breaks my heart. I hope a solution is found that does not look like taking Katrina refugees and sending them to Salt Lake City.
I'm not romanticizing this way of life, but I understand the deep ties to land and personal history. I get the desire to have your descendants know about living off the land as you and your ancestors have. I also get that it is very hard for native people to trust the government in any form.
If you have never been to Louisiana - especially the watery edges - you cannot fathom the complete uniqueness of the people, the place, the history. This necessary change breaks my heart. I hope a solution is found that does not look like taking Katrina refugees and sending them to Salt Lake City.
38
Yes, "greedy white men" taking care of their greedy white wives and greedy white children. they also are to blame. they are the beneficiaries of the "good" intentions of the greedy white men. (or so they tell themselves, anyway)
1
Maybe even a "greedy white woman.?" I wouldn't want you on a jury. Your bigotry comes through loud and clear.
2
Your statement, "Probably mostly white greedy men. The bane of most of the world's existence..." is a racist slur. You are assigning guilt based on the color of skin? How did you come by this incredible knowledge of an entire race (greedy or otherwise)?
1
Climate Refugees is a very complex global issue. I directed a film in 2010 where we documented the collision between over population, limited resources and a shifting climate, the results Climate Refugees or as the UN titled them in 2011, Environmentally Induced Migrants. The documentary is titled Climate Refugees, I would recommend anyone who is interested in this complex issue to watch. Louisiana is not allow in trying to litigation, mitigation and adaption to our changing world. The cost that we found around the world is similar to numbers quoted in this article. There are entire countries that are currently seeking to relocate. It really all about water, to much in some areas, to little in others. The numbers of climate refugees that are being quoted in the very near future is a national security issue and extremely costly.
2
Last week or so ExxonMobil lamented the huge fall in profit last quarter to $1.8 billion dollars. "Crash to lowest level since 1999" is the headline. I'm just using them for an example, and hey, profit is the name of the game so no fault there.
After someone figures out how on earth it costs $48 million to move 60 people maybe we could get some oil companies to help foot the bill, at least on the justification of environmental damage remediation.
The 48M is only 2.6% of the of the worst profit in 17 years of one quarter of one oil company.
Maybe Donald can take a look. I'm sure Trump Tower wont sink.
After someone figures out how on earth it costs $48 million to move 60 people maybe we could get some oil companies to help foot the bill, at least on the justification of environmental damage remediation.
The 48M is only 2.6% of the of the worst profit in 17 years of one quarter of one oil company.
Maybe Donald can take a look. I'm sure Trump Tower wont sink.
Having grown up in Houston, I've known about subsidence since a child. In the '60's, there was an entire subdivision moved in the Beaumont, TX area because ground water had been pumped from the area for decades causing the area to sink a substantial amount. Also, a public park near what became the NASA campus was filled and rebuilt a total of three times in the same time frame.
Houston finally stopped using ground water sometime in the '60's or '70's to
remedy the problem.
Pumping ground water and oil from a generally low lying are will generate the same results nearly every time. Claiming this is the result of climate change is probably dumb.
Houston finally stopped using ground water sometime in the '60's or '70's to
remedy the problem.
Pumping ground water and oil from a generally low lying are will generate the same results nearly every time. Claiming this is the result of climate change is probably dumb.
7
Sure, except this is the result of climate change. Just because you don't understand climate change, sea level rise, or similar factors, doesn't make other people dumb.
Please don't use the term climate change refugees. It offends conservatives who think climate change is an actual plot to derail capitalism. Most of all don't write a story about Native Americans, some people get a tint of guilt and accuse you of favoritism. And besides, why should the country spend that much money trying to think ahead of a possible disaster when it can be given to local governments to build a stadium for the profits of some wheeler dealer's football team?
All that aside, thanks for the article. It sheds light on some of the problems we might be facing in the future: Hey Superman's father didn't put him on that rocket ship to earth to simply be a refugee. He did it because no one paid any attention until it was too late. Oh, but wait---that was just a story....
All that aside, thanks for the article. It sheds light on some of the problems we might be facing in the future: Hey Superman's father didn't put him on that rocket ship to earth to simply be a refugee. He did it because no one paid any attention until it was too late. Oh, but wait---that was just a story....
5
Why is the federal government not doing the same for Native Americans living on the impoverished reservations of Montana, Wyoming, South and North Dakota, etc.? There are no jobs there and people on these reservations should be classified as economic refugees. They should be able to access funds to move to other places in the US if they so desire. Why is the impact of climate change more urgent than the lack of economic opportunities?
1
People began moving to the isle in the 1830s. The first permanent resident a Frenchman who brought his wife, who was Choctaw. The Biloxi-Chitimacha-Choctaw are not a federally recognized tribe. The Chitimacha are a federally recognized tribe and live on the Chitimacha Reservation near Charenton, Louisiana. The Choctaw are one of the larger federally recognized tribes. The Choctaw Nation covers 10,864 square miles in Oklahoma. The Biloxi merged with the Tunica and were federally recognized in 1981. Today they are called the Tunica-Biloxi Indian Tribe and share a small reservation in Avoyelles Parish, Louisiana. If the Biloxi-Chitimacha-Choctaw really were Native American, they could relocate to their tribal reservations. But it’s doubtful that the Biloxi, Chitimacha, or Choctaw would recognize the Biloxi-Chitimacha-Choctaw as Native Americans. Like most Americans, they have mixed ancestry.
2
Since when are delta islets supposed to remain the same? They always changed...
How would you subsidizing some rich fellow's Tesla help these people (because that's what it's all really about)?
"... confronting the REALITY ... that rising sea levels ... COULD ..."
It's not a reality till it happens. It did not happen. Sea levels are rising at the same rate since the time of Napoleon, 200 years ago, completely unaffected by industrial emissions
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_global_station.htm?s...
The last 11 years showed the FEWEST hurricanes cat3 or more landing in recorded history. NONE.
So how are these climate refugees?
Remember, as leading climate fighter Senator Sheldon Whitehouse told the poor of the whole world,
"climate action need not be painful, trade your Mercedes for a Tesla"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6_nOklZ43g
How would you subsidizing some rich fellow's Tesla help these people (because that's what it's all really about)?
"... confronting the REALITY ... that rising sea levels ... COULD ..."
It's not a reality till it happens. It did not happen. Sea levels are rising at the same rate since the time of Napoleon, 200 years ago, completely unaffected by industrial emissions
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_global_station.htm?s...
The last 11 years showed the FEWEST hurricanes cat3 or more landing in recorded history. NONE.
So how are these climate refugees?
Remember, as leading climate fighter Senator Sheldon Whitehouse told the poor of the whole world,
"climate action need not be painful, trade your Mercedes for a Tesla"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6_nOklZ43g
4
hmmm. Try cyclonic activity not making landfall on the US east coast. So typical to ignore the rest of the world. As to sea level rise, this is just plain wrong.
http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/
"A recent study says we can expect the oceans to rise between 2.5 and 6.5 feet (0.8 and 2 meters) by 2100, enough to swamp many of the cities along the U.S. East Coast. More dire estimates, including a complete meltdown of the Greenland ice sheet, push sea level rise to 23 feet (7 meters), enough to submerge London." (from:
http://ocean.nationalgeographic.com/ocean/critical-issues-sea-level-rise/
http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/
"A recent study says we can expect the oceans to rise between 2.5 and 6.5 feet (0.8 and 2 meters) by 2100, enough to swamp many of the cities along the U.S. East Coast. More dire estimates, including a complete meltdown of the Greenland ice sheet, push sea level rise to 23 feet (7 meters), enough to submerge London." (from:
http://ocean.nationalgeographic.com/ocean/critical-issues-sea-level-rise/
3
Ah Ha, the real reason for the Climate Change hysteria, more Government money taken from Me and Given to the Slurpers at the Public Trough. Additionally, it gives Big Democrat Government control over us of the unwashed masses.
4
You'll be screaming loud enough for your own bail out when the taps run dry in Arizona. Unwashed indeed.
1
for 60 people, 48 million. For 25000 Syrian refugees?
2
$800K a person; $3.2M for a family of four. None of the homes seen in this article would appear to justify that kind of money. Their new homes must be one hell of an upgrade.
1
I wonder whether a new architecture, something between buildings and boats, might allow these people to stay in place? We can redefine our relationship to the water. Rather than retreating, there should be a potential for a lifestyle…economic, cultural, social, etc.… that can be found as the water rise. Surely, technological innovation can bring subsistence farmers and fishermen a new life on the water, perhaps a better life?
28
Interesting comment.
I'm an architect with lifelong interest in the vast array of traditional, low-tech architectural solutions humanity has developed for all different kinds of climatic and cultural conditions.
There are many places on Earth that have developed the kind of architecture you describe, many communities that practically live over water.
Kashmir has an ancient tradition of living on houseboats.
The ancient parts of Shanghai are rather live Venice, with buildings half in the water and people moving around by boat.
Too many others to list!
We are limited only by our imaginations (and budgets). But the American construction industry is very slow to change.
I'm an architect with lifelong interest in the vast array of traditional, low-tech architectural solutions humanity has developed for all different kinds of climatic and cultural conditions.
There are many places on Earth that have developed the kind of architecture you describe, many communities that practically live over water.
Kashmir has an ancient tradition of living on houseboats.
The ancient parts of Shanghai are rather live Venice, with buildings half in the water and people moving around by boat.
Too many others to list!
We are limited only by our imaginations (and budgets). But the American construction industry is very slow to change.
4
I too am confused by the $48 million. I'd love to see the line item budget for the project. One thought occurs to me. There are some government owned lands in Louisana. Most are forest service or fish and wildlife service lands. As those lands were likely stolen from Native Americans in the first place, why not establish communities there? At least the land would be free and hunting and fishing could still be a source of income.
I hate the idea of general development for profit on federal lands. Those yahoos in Nevada are a prime example of the abuse of this notion. This is an exception in my mind.
Although the land it self would ber "free", the building of an infrasturcture; power, water, sewer, transportation and so forth, would have to be paid. Housing should be provided either directly by the government or via government purchase of the "land" left and lost to the changing landscape.
But for these purposes, a potental relocation spot for climate refugees, especially Native Americans forced out of previous habitats, it makes sense to me. I'm sure there are reasons not to do it, (far from jobs) but to me, for now, this seems like a viable alternative.
Also: to the climate deniers et al: it doesn't matter whether the problem is caused by natural climate change, geology, or industry. It is happening and it is no fault of the people there. So we should all help, and the most efficient way to do that is through government action.
I hate the idea of general development for profit on federal lands. Those yahoos in Nevada are a prime example of the abuse of this notion. This is an exception in my mind.
Although the land it self would ber "free", the building of an infrasturcture; power, water, sewer, transportation and so forth, would have to be paid. Housing should be provided either directly by the government or via government purchase of the "land" left and lost to the changing landscape.
But for these purposes, a potental relocation spot for climate refugees, especially Native Americans forced out of previous habitats, it makes sense to me. I'm sure there are reasons not to do it, (far from jobs) but to me, for now, this seems like a viable alternative.
Also: to the climate deniers et al: it doesn't matter whether the problem is caused by natural climate change, geology, or industry. It is happening and it is no fault of the people there. So we should all help, and the most efficient way to do that is through government action.
2
Is there a reason no one writing this piece thought to mention that the situation sounds EXACTLY like "Beasts of the Southern Wild," which won an Academy Award and has been seen by millions of people?
4
Those islands have been sinking for millennia as the weight of alluvial deposits squeeze out the water, their soil refreshed and built up by the annual floods. Then channelization of the Mississippi and flood control stopped that, and they began to disappear. A couple of inches rise in sea level was only a minor factor. Even worse, the Mississippi channel is so high from silting that if it ever breaks through, as it almost did at the Old River control structure, it'll be a major disaster for the United States.
What is needed is a re-engineering of the entire Mississippi delta flow pattern to let communities live with flooding without having the land disappearing from under them and without losing their livelihood from farming, fishing and shipping. Trying to blame it on global warming just blows the problem up so big there will never be a solution in time to save them.
What is needed is a re-engineering of the entire Mississippi delta flow pattern to let communities live with flooding without having the land disappearing from under them and without losing their livelihood from farming, fishing and shipping. Trying to blame it on global warming just blows the problem up so big there will never be a solution in time to save them.
5
$48M seems like an awful lot to move 60 people who seem to be living in shacks. Where are they moving - San Francisco?
9
NOTE: The Parfait family has been living in a trailer since 2008. Kanye West had some choice words for President Bush for similar issues. Does Obama "not care about" these people? It's been EIGHT YEARS and they're still in a trailer. Where is the outrage? They should have been relocated a looooong time ago. The global warming spin isn't the issue. The issue is that these people live in squalor while we're worried about granting illegal immigrants amnesty, and letting more immigrants in. Legal Americans should come first. Every time.
4
Hey, there is a corporate upside to this climate change and disappearance of barrier islands. I live on one in central Florida. The local dark joke is that in a few years, when our island has washed away, Disney in Orlando can be oceanfront and charge even more for tickets.
1
I count 48 structures and a few mobiles. A million bucks for each one? Where do I sign up.
2
There are vast tracts of land in the national forest and parks system. There must be such sites in Louisiana. Couldn't this land be used to resettle the Native American residents of this innundated coastline?
1
The destruction in the delta is caused by a combination of oil extraction and poor river management, not climate change. The relocation of Alaska Narive villages in northwest Alaska is caused by climate change and the loss of protective sea ice. But like Louisiana, our politicians are so tied to the oil industry that they are change deniers, or at least deny the human component of climate change.
4
This is Beasts of the Southern Wild come to life. It is just a taste of the complexity and the cost that comes when human interaction with the nonhuman world gets too destructive. Science is telling us that the most aggressive methods we use - "hardening" the infrastructure, paving wetlands with impervious material, forcing channels where we want them, and on and on - are likely to do far more harm than good.
And the markers of success for subsistence living are so different from markers of success for developed economies (having lots of offspring survive and staying in the same place for generations is not so useful in the current age) - oh, it's a recipe for conflict and disaster all right.
Add fossil fuel dependence and government infighting and you've got yourself a very bad situation.
And the markers of success for subsistence living are so different from markers of success for developed economies (having lots of offspring survive and staying in the same place for generations is not so useful in the current age) - oh, it's a recipe for conflict and disaster all right.
Add fossil fuel dependence and government infighting and you've got yourself a very bad situation.
32
Since the total costs related to weather changes come to more than a billion dollars, to help pay for reparations, I suggest a 10% assessment fee paid from the salaries of all in Congress who deny that this is happening.
3
what a beautiful place.
3
Sad these people have to leave their land.
However, a quick calculation shows the absurdity, and waste, of the government efforts. 48 million??? For 60 people?? That comes to $800,000/per person.
Why not simply buy them some small houses (an upgrade from what they're leaving), a new pickup truck or car, hand them the keys to both, and save at least $30 million?
Unconscionable to me that money like this gets thrown around like candy at Halloween.
However, a quick calculation shows the absurdity, and waste, of the government efforts. 48 million??? For 60 people?? That comes to $800,000/per person.
Why not simply buy them some small houses (an upgrade from what they're leaving), a new pickup truck or car, hand them the keys to both, and save at least $30 million?
Unconscionable to me that money like this gets thrown around like candy at Halloween.
7
There is more to life than a small house and a pickup truck. These people are leaving a community which has been, to some extent, self-sustaining. That can't be replaced so easily. What will they do for work? How will they keep their extended families together?
White middle-class people have been reduced to a rather sad state of being where they think all that matters is their material welfare and a degree of illusory security. Poor people — many of them people of color — know that your family. your community, your church and friends are what's important, and the kind of house and car you get to show off are relatively meaningless.
White middle-class people have been reduced to a rather sad state of being where they think all that matters is their material welfare and a degree of illusory security. Poor people — many of them people of color — know that your family. your community, your church and friends are what's important, and the kind of house and car you get to show off are relatively meaningless.
3
Nonsensical comment. How does anyone keep their family together? My ancestors left Europe for the U.S. in the 17th century and not a smidgen of connection exists between us 'now' with anyone back there from 'then'. Should someone have paid for their relocation to the New World because times were tough in Europe?
Your reply to my comment would suggest that we throw yet more money at the 'problem'. Almost all the land in the deep south along river lowlands is a hopeless case in the long run, and Florida is soon to follow. The Bureau of Reclamation is an endless boondoggle of expenditures. Those of us who pay taxes do not have an open-ended obligation to everyone, everywhere, that lives in places that are not fit for long-term sustainable habitation.
As I say, the most humane thing is to be more than generous and then cut the support. People who originally settled these islands did so without roads.
Your reply to my comment would suggest that we throw yet more money at the 'problem'. Almost all the land in the deep south along river lowlands is a hopeless case in the long run, and Florida is soon to follow. The Bureau of Reclamation is an endless boondoggle of expenditures. Those of us who pay taxes do not have an open-ended obligation to everyone, everywhere, that lives in places that are not fit for long-term sustainable habitation.
As I say, the most humane thing is to be more than generous and then cut the support. People who originally settled these islands did so without roads.
1
Are we going to address climate change or just relocate people? It is interesting that resettlement efforts started back in 2002, when Bush was President, which means the Republicans had to be well aware of the problems climate change was beginning to wreak. Now the Republicans are all about science denial and making climate change a political choice. Maybe when the Capitol Building starts sinking into oblivion, some of the obstructionists will find climate religion.
I am truly sorry for the families who have to be relocated, their lives are being devastated. At least there is help from the government, unlike during the Dust Bowl, when families had to relocate on their own.
I am truly sorry for the families who have to be relocated, their lives are being devastated. At least there is help from the government, unlike during the Dust Bowl, when families had to relocate on their own.
2
This is ridiculous. Just because somebody chooses to live in a floodplain doesn't mean taxpayers should be required to pay to resettle them. They can move on their own nickel if they want to.
5
This article shows the absurd way the originators of this project see the world. To spend $48,000,000.00 to move 60 people amounts to $800,000.00 each. It would make more sense to offer to buy the land for a fair price which is near zero and give each person who leaves $50,000.00 as a disaster payment. This is not a new problem. The cliff dwellers in the south west left their dwelling many hundreds of years ago. The Vikings colony in Greenland froze. The climate of earth and the physical earth itself has been in a state of flux for over 4 billion years. Over these 4 billion years continents have broken apart and thousands if not millions of islands have appeared and disappeared. If the global warming crowd are right man will disappear and the earth will cool without his presence and things will start over again. In the mean time the global warming crowd wants to impose taxes on the hard working people of The USA to achieve marginal CO2 emissions from the cleanest environment of any country of its size. The USA has been cleaning up its environment for decades before anybody invented the term global warming. China, India, and many other countries have made little or no efforts to clean up their environment. I propose that we renegotiate all trade agreements with these countries and place an environmental tariff on trade that originates in countries that have dirtier air than the USA.
5
Josh Harner, these photos are beautiful. what lenses are you using?
2
So sorry Josh Haner not Harner.
States with governments in denial there is such a thing as climate change should receive no funding - let their government on the local level figure it outm as they always think the federal government is wasting tax payer money and trying to suppress energy production I am sure they can take care of it on their own with all their smarts.
4
Problem is, the states you describe won't do anything for their people. That's why we have federal services and institutions such as HUD, FEMA, etc.
3
It seems to me that what holds these people in a life of abject poverty, squabbling about how to distribute more largesse than most of us can imagine, is an obsessive attachment to the past that is encourage by our general societal devotion to tribalism of all sorts. I know, I know, they have an iconic Native American commitment to the land, and a way of life, but who doesn't? I'd love to have kept alive the lifestyle I enjoyed growing up in rural Vermont in the 1950s. Hello! It's gone and it's not coming back, and in the meantime I have lived contentedly in four different states, with a wide variety of neighbors. I believe we have institutionalized a different form of repression, in trying to erase historical misdeeds by encouraging the idea of entitlement to a tribal way of life that cannot exist today. As a result, we witness poverty and lack of education that limits human potential. None of us are entitled to live as our ancestors did.
4
$48 mill for 60 people! That's 800,000 per person. Don't you just love the government. Oh, I guess they will disassemble all those historically significant structures and then reassemble them in the new location. Ahhh, now it all makes sense !
1
Oil companies should be footing the bill for this since they have profited so immensely from it.
58
This is a terrible problem affecting many in Louisiana, but this is a political agenda hack headline to associate this with climate change.This has everything to do with the US Army Corps of Engineers and the oil and gas industry changing the Mississippi River delta allowing the sediment to flow into the Gulf of Mexico and not rebuild our marshes. The authors even state in the story that the land is sinking, not the sea rising! The world authority on hurricanes was Dr Bill Gray, who's obituary was just in the NYT. His greater than 50 years of research on hurricanes demonstrated the 30 year cyclical nature of hurricane seasons and no correlation with global warming.
Better information on the real problem than this article is available at mississippiriverdelta.org and lacoast.gov
The authors missed a great opportunity to educate the nation on the real reason that Louisiana is losing a football field of land in the delta every hour.
Better information on the real problem than this article is available at mississippiriverdelta.org and lacoast.gov
The authors missed a great opportunity to educate the nation on the real reason that Louisiana is losing a football field of land in the delta every hour.
1
How can you write an article about this without going into the natural hydrology of the Mississippi Delta? It has always shifted as the river has changed course over the centuries. Land is created from the sentiment flowing down river; when it gets too high, the river finds a lower route. The land choked off from the river sinks back into the Gulf. Basic delta ecosystem (the most significant human contribution affecting communities there has been the Army Corps of Engineers forcing the Mississippi to keep flowing through New Orleans when it would naturally have shifted to a more westerly course). I firmly believe climate change is real but I think we do the science a great disservice when journalists conflate centuries-old natural processes with rising sea levels.
7
Marion McFadden should be impeached for this profligate waste of public funds, and congress should be ousted for letting this happen. The article is biased in favor of wasting public funds, why is that?
3
Federal dollars should be used to assist people subject to unpredictable, sudden, catastrophic events. This island's plight doesn't qualify. Attributing the loss of the island's beach front property to climate change obscures the underlying fact that what's happening to this island has been underway long before anyone was talking in earnest about global warming. Indeed, engineers and scientists in the government and academic community should make some effort to distinguish, and quantify the relative contribution of two related, but analytically distinguishable, causal factors: the loss of beach front due to (1) a rise in sea level and (2) the subsidence of the land itself.
On this island, the residents, according to the article, have witnessed more than 90% of their beach front land mass disappear since 1955. Thus, instead of moving and resettling elsewhere, these islanders for the better part of a century gazed into the Gulf and awaited its inevitable arrival at their doorstep. Admittedly, the disappearance of a way of life is no small matter, and it is certainly not the fault of the industrious people who have created a life for themselves on this part of the Gulf. That said, what's happening on their island has been happening there and elsewhere along the Gulf Coast for decades. $45 million taxpayer dollars should not be used to offset what has long been foreseeable and inevitable.
On this island, the residents, according to the article, have witnessed more than 90% of their beach front land mass disappear since 1955. Thus, instead of moving and resettling elsewhere, these islanders for the better part of a century gazed into the Gulf and awaited its inevitable arrival at their doorstep. Admittedly, the disappearance of a way of life is no small matter, and it is certainly not the fault of the industrious people who have created a life for themselves on this part of the Gulf. That said, what's happening on their island has been happening there and elsewhere along the Gulf Coast for decades. $45 million taxpayer dollars should not be used to offset what has long been foreseeable and inevitable.
4
i wish i had not read some of the selfish ignorant comments without one shred of empathy. these people never asked for anything yet have been victimized for generations by big timber, big oil, louisiana corrupt-and-proud-of-it politicians and the natural wonders of all-powerful , nature. this last now climate change caused by, big oil , big timber....the united states government has ignored our indians except for it's own needs since the first ship arrived. we owe these citizens some practical help.
10
The website for the tribe that is included in this article is outdated. Here is their website: www.isledejeancharles.com They also have a resettlement website at www.coastalresettlement.org.
4
So whose getting campaign contribution kickbacks on the contracts to move these people at such off the charts costs?
Ah, yes, we'll annually send millions in FEMA handoutsafter tornadoes and hurricanes, but move people out of flood plains using taxpayer dollars?
It's the scourge of our time.
It's the scourge of our time.
1
What a piece of left wing propaganda trash. The first US climate refugees? How about the hundreds of thousands who fled the great plains during the dust bowl of the 30's, or going back even farther - the countless times that Native Americans changed their settlement patterns because of changes in the weather. Just two of about 10,000 examples of why this headline is totally misleading and alarmist. A swamp in a river delta has never been, nor will it ever be, a place for permanent settlement. This article is written like these poor people are victims. The Times is just becoming to politically biased to be intellectually honest about its reporting any longer. If it were it would also work into its narrative that 90% of the money to pay for this type of thing is coming from 10% of the taxpayers in this country and zero percent of it is coming from the bottom 50%.
2
Halfway through the article, we see what is really happening: Delta subsidence caused by compaction of sediments and more importantly in this case, a starvation of sedimentation. Deltas are dynamic systems and require a constant supply of sediments from the rivers that are emptying into the oceans. The Birdfoot delta is the present outlet--much of that coastline is a delta complex and even Birdfoot is suffering from sediment starvation.
Decades of flood control (dams) on the Mississippi and Missouri Rivers has trapped sediment upstream behind dams. Channeling of the delta for commerce has also contributed to erosion, subsidence, and land loss. This has nothing to do with climate, but everything to do with anthropogenic effects on shoreline dynamics. Certainly if and when sea level rises things will get worse, but this has nothing, presently, to do with being "climate change" refugees.
Decades of flood control (dams) on the Mississippi and Missouri Rivers has trapped sediment upstream behind dams. Channeling of the delta for commerce has also contributed to erosion, subsidence, and land loss. This has nothing to do with climate, but everything to do with anthropogenic effects on shoreline dynamics. Certainly if and when sea level rises things will get worse, but this has nothing, presently, to do with being "climate change" refugees.
5
We pay for people to re-locate from cities and towns ravaged or destroyed by tornadoes.
How is this any different?
How is this any different?
7
Those people tend to recognize that tornadoes actually exist. In this case, Louisiana is run by politicians, in the pockets of the oil industry, who maintain that global warming is a hoax. Not sure it is my obligation to bail them out.
Army Corps of Engineeers has done more damage here than climate change
4
I live not far from where this is all taking place. What sucks is we will spend the 48 million and no one will leave the island. They have already said so and the reason behind it is they thought they themselves would get the money. Now that they know it's a relocation by the Gov. they are vowing to stay.
The real truth is complicated. If you want to fix our erosion problems relocate everyone on the west bank of the Miss. River from the town of Harvey south, then remove the west bank Mississippi River levees. It's a permanent fix THAT WE PAY FOR ONE TIME! Let God (mother nature) do the rest. All of South Louisiana was created by runoff and river flooding. What happens when you stop the river flooding? duh this is so 3rd grade and yet Harvard can't fix it because someone wants to be the hero.
The real truth is complicated. If you want to fix our erosion problems relocate everyone on the west bank of the Miss. River from the town of Harvey south, then remove the west bank Mississippi River levees. It's a permanent fix THAT WE PAY FOR ONE TIME! Let God (mother nature) do the rest. All of South Louisiana was created by runoff and river flooding. What happens when you stop the river flooding? duh this is so 3rd grade and yet Harvard can't fix it because someone wants to be the hero.
74
From a native New Orleanian:
Logical, even if it lets the oil companies off the hook for the damage done by dredging and canals and the state for inherent stupidity and greed...
Logical, even if it lets the oil companies off the hook for the damage done by dredging and canals and the state for inherent stupidity and greed...
Plenty of people, Harvard or otherwise, realize that the 'flood control' that seemed to make so much sense over 50 years ago, has caused problems downstream. I'd be all for letting the river return to doing its thing (ditto for the everglades), but that means forcibly relocating a much larger number of people and industries, which is politically unfeasible, or, slowly buying up the land which would take a long time and be expensive, or provide incentives to move, which only some would take and again be expensive. As for the island people, they will eventually move as living on the island becomes more and more difficult and impractical.
How do you prove it is human caused climate change? So please tell us what caused similar climate change about 1000 years ago.
1
Sad that the word "propaganda" always has a negative connotation. Perhaps The Times is trying to motivate by painting a grim picture with human costs. Regardless of the cause, people are being affected. How any of us can look at the faces of other human beings who are suffering and not want to act is beyond me.
My guess is that the critics of this spending would be happy to receive similar funds if their life was threatened, whether from subsidence, rising sea levels tied to climate change, the caldera under Yellowstone going supernova, etc.
If we don't come together, to battle climate change and all of the other existential threats we face, we are doomed (morally, if nothing else). What defines us as a species but our ability to be empathetic, compassionate, and loving?
I know, I know. Just another bleeding heart liberal (without a gun) that ought to see and accept the cold, hard reality of our world. Perhaps. But it's not the world I want to accept or the world I want to leave to my children.
My guess is that the critics of this spending would be happy to receive similar funds if their life was threatened, whether from subsidence, rising sea levels tied to climate change, the caldera under Yellowstone going supernova, etc.
If we don't come together, to battle climate change and all of the other existential threats we face, we are doomed (morally, if nothing else). What defines us as a species but our ability to be empathetic, compassionate, and loving?
I know, I know. Just another bleeding heart liberal (without a gun) that ought to see and accept the cold, hard reality of our world. Perhaps. But it's not the world I want to accept or the world I want to leave to my children.
2
Abject nonsense. Did MMGW cause the formation of the Hawaiian islands? Or the destruction of others? Did it cause Pangaea to break up? No. This is leftist propaganda, and silly at that. Belonging as part of a lie is more important to most people than standing for the truth.
1
And in a hundred years when Science proves that climate change is not impacted by man will current taxpayer's heirs be able to claim restitution for this money give-away?
2
Those who are braying about the granting $48 million to move 60 families missed this:
"Between 50 million and 200 million people — mainly subsistence farmers and fishermen — could be displaced by 2050 because of climate change, according to estimates by the United Nations University Institute for Environment and Human Security and the International Organization for Migration."
In other words, the money is being used to begin building an infrastructure to be pioneered by 60 families. Millions of others will join them in 30 years.
That's what happens when scientific inquiry is sneered and scorned, and when education becomes commodified and evangelized.
"Between 50 million and 200 million people — mainly subsistence farmers and fishermen — could be displaced by 2050 because of climate change, according to estimates by the United Nations University Institute for Environment and Human Security and the International Organization for Migration."
In other words, the money is being used to begin building an infrastructure to be pioneered by 60 families. Millions of others will join them in 30 years.
That's what happens when scientific inquiry is sneered and scorned, and when education becomes commodified and evangelized.
8
I do not understand why this is thought to have something to do with climate change which may have raised sea level a few inches. It has been known for decades that inundation in this area is do to canal construction in the marsh and land subsidence. In addition, flood control on the Mississippi has prevented silt laden flooding of the marsh that builds up the marsh and created the delta in the first place.
5
Yes. Another example of hysterical environmental reporting which has little basis in fact.
1
>little basis in fact
How do you that, Dmj?
Honestly, if you're going to try to pass yourself off as more expert on these matters than the scientific community at large, you could at least provide details for your claims.
How do you that, Dmj?
Honestly, if you're going to try to pass yourself off as more expert on these matters than the scientific community at large, you could at least provide details for your claims.
1
Nonsense. Don't these people realize 'climate change' is a hoax. Just ask any republican in congress.
These rising water levels must be figments of their imagination.
These rising water levels must be figments of their imagination.
1
48 million - 60 people moved per your article. That works out to 800,000 thousand per person.
The concept of community support has gone crazy.
It baffles me how our government can throw money at subsets of the population while others suck it up and lose everything without federal support.
Whether it is millions to move a few, billions for a futile effort to preserve shoreline that is going to disappear no matter what we do, or millions per individual family in the New York tragedy; the pork barrel has to stop.
The rest of us can't afford you.
The concept of community support has gone crazy.
It baffles me how our government can throw money at subsets of the population while others suck it up and lose everything without federal support.
Whether it is millions to move a few, billions for a futile effort to preserve shoreline that is going to disappear no matter what we do, or millions per individual family in the New York tragedy; the pork barrel has to stop.
The rest of us can't afford you.
54
Betting they will see a whole lot less than your calculated $800K per person. I saw guys who worked fighting a federally-funded Oregon fire take much more than a paycheck home. ...I bet not even five million will make it to those Isle de Jean Charles people past Louisiana's coffers. Just sayin'.
Yes, this level of government spending has gotten utterly ridiculous. If the average taxpayer pays in $5634 in federal income taxes, this dollar amount is the equivalent to 14,000 citizen's total tax outlays - to move 60 people??
I'd call this at least the 2nd resetting of US climate change victims. The first group were those restyled following Katrina.
4
It seems that some climate change deniers have questioned whether the changes in the community described in this article are due to climate change or to geologic or "routine" Mother Nature developments. Now, I'm a firm believer in human-induced climate change, but the question is nonetheless a valid one, especially as the article has observed that changes have been taking place over the past 60 years, when, presumably, the region suffered from "routine" storms, soil erosion, etc.
It also raises the question of what is a "valid" (sorry for all the quotes, but they seem necessary under the circumstances) reason for relocation due to climate change rather than for other, more routine, causes. For example, a flood plain is a flood plain is a flood plain, and if you live in one you're gonna get flooded, climate change or not. I can envision situations where people become just so darned exhausted from the flooding that they call on government support to move "due to climate change."
It is unfortunate that we as a nation can't have this very adult discussion because an entire political party and its adherents deny reality.
It also raises the question of what is a "valid" (sorry for all the quotes, but they seem necessary under the circumstances) reason for relocation due to climate change rather than for other, more routine, causes. For example, a flood plain is a flood plain is a flood plain, and if you live in one you're gonna get flooded, climate change or not. I can envision situations where people become just so darned exhausted from the flooding that they call on government support to move "due to climate change."
It is unfortunate that we as a nation can't have this very adult discussion because an entire political party and its adherents deny reality.
3
The house that fills with up to a foot of mud during storms (see photo) has people living there? That is America? Wow! People, you need to think and think hard. Is that the freedom that people in America speak of? You have a sick society.
9
With all due respect, have you been to your own country’s territories? I took a motorcycle trip from AK, where the living conditions where rustic but generally good through the Yukon Territory and the outer reaches of British Columbia. Living conditions for many in the Yukon and BC were abysmal, especially the native peoples of Canada, scores of which panhandle for living whenever you enter any town with a sizable population. Now your economy is taking a nosedive…why? Because your country has prospered as a consequence of fossil fuel development, a leading cause of the very climate disaster causing climate change. America has its faults to spare for sure, but look to your own house first before you start criticizing ours please. I love Canada, but I hate the sniping from a country that can feel secure under America’s security umbrella and whose primary export has been oil.
2
It's called freedom of choice. Where to live, and what to do with your life. What would you propose? Maybe forcing these people to move to government housing?
1
It seems that the Canadian definition of freedom is some sort of nanny state, that comes out and inspects everyone's floor to make sure they do not flood. In the US we think of that not as a freedom, but as an intrusion. And apparently our concept of freedom is spending $24 million to move 60 people to solid ground. I think I like our definition of freedom better than yours.
1
Operative sentences here: "...since 1955, more than 90 percent of the island’s original land mass has washed away. Channels cut by loggers and oil companies eroded much of the island, and decades of flood control efforts have kept once free-flowing rivers from replenishing the wetlands’ sediments."
Every adult on Isle de Jean can point to a point 1000 yds off in the blue water and say, "My uncle, my grandmother had a place there on a little rise of land fifty years ago."
It was not always "a spit of waterlogged land."
There was a chance a one time to include Isle de Jean in the Army Corps' Morganza-to-the-Gulf levee -- a boondoggle which has swelled from a cost in 2006 of $900 million to nearly $13 billion today -- and which is supposed to provide hurricane protection to over 90 percent of the residents in Terrebonne and Lafourche parishes.
"There are a few people left out, unfortunately." (Jerome Zeringue, dir. project, NYT 6/19/06)
Most of whom are the Biloxi-Chitimacha on Isle de Jean.
What's the project status of that levee system?
"No Federal funds have been appropriated for construction of the Morganza to the Gulf project." (Army Corps update, 2/15)
So what could have been saved for for a small fraction of the original estimated cost had this do-nothing US Congress ever appropriated the funds after Katrina -- heritage, culture, language -- will be lost and dispersed with the aid of a $48 million grant from HUD. Your tax dollars hard at work.
Every adult on Isle de Jean can point to a point 1000 yds off in the blue water and say, "My uncle, my grandmother had a place there on a little rise of land fifty years ago."
It was not always "a spit of waterlogged land."
There was a chance a one time to include Isle de Jean in the Army Corps' Morganza-to-the-Gulf levee -- a boondoggle which has swelled from a cost in 2006 of $900 million to nearly $13 billion today -- and which is supposed to provide hurricane protection to over 90 percent of the residents in Terrebonne and Lafourche parishes.
"There are a few people left out, unfortunately." (Jerome Zeringue, dir. project, NYT 6/19/06)
Most of whom are the Biloxi-Chitimacha on Isle de Jean.
What's the project status of that levee system?
"No Federal funds have been appropriated for construction of the Morganza to the Gulf project." (Army Corps update, 2/15)
So what could have been saved for for a small fraction of the original estimated cost had this do-nothing US Congress ever appropriated the funds after Katrina -- heritage, culture, language -- will be lost and dispersed with the aid of a $48 million grant from HUD. Your tax dollars hard at work.
6
When the flooding gets to be an issue, it will be interesting to estimate the governments budget to relocate lower Manhattan as well the other low-lying areas of NYC.
2
Especially the subways, power grid, steam pipes, water mains, etc., etc.
Painting this as a story about "climate change" is a departure from journalistic honesty, probably done to repaint the basic story with a political cast.
Over the decades, many communities have benefitted from federal programs to address the need for relocation due to endemic geographic problems.
Over the decades, many communities have benefitted from federal programs to address the need for relocation due to endemic geographic problems.
2
But HUD itself, which is giving out the grants, describes the problem as climate change. The purpose of the money is to increase resilience in the face of climate change. Nobody is "painting" this story.
2
Another taxpayer funded giveaway premised on liberal theories brought to you by the Democratic party.
5
you will deny climate change until you are knee deep in water. Welcome to your future.
4
So, where'd you conservatives put all the WMD you found in Iraq?
I mean the stockpiles of weaponized anthrax must have taken up a ton of room...not to mention the tobs of yellow cake.
So, where'd you out them?
Right next to the MISSION ACCOMPLISHED banner on Scooter Libby Drive or Dick Cheney Boulevard?
I mean the stockpiles of weaponized anthrax must have taken up a ton of room...not to mention the tobs of yellow cake.
So, where'd you out them?
Right next to the MISSION ACCOMPLISHED banner on Scooter Libby Drive or Dick Cheney Boulevard?
1
and yet our society won't hold industry responsible for what it has done--and continues to do--to our single home. We are so addicted to stuff, we will let the world's marketing departments sell us our ruin.
5
I really wish things were different, in that humans didn't destroy the Earth without any remorse. This is the only place we have to live, and we destroyed it. In a way, and I wonder this all the time, would the Earth have been better off without humans ever evolving and coming to be?
3
Perhaps it is time to bring in the Dutch who know something about reclaiming land from the sea and managing it thereafter.
As with other refugees, these refugees can not go home again, but given the opportunity they may be able to find an opportunity to create a new world and maintain some community. As we often forget the United States was settled by providing free land (other people's land) to refugees economic and cultural. We have large parcels,of government land which might be developed to sustain a population of new pioneers armed with the benefit of our better understanding of climate, sustainable agriculture, and alternative energy sources.
As with other refugees, these refugees can not go home again, but given the opportunity they may be able to find an opportunity to create a new world and maintain some community. As we often forget the United States was settled by providing free land (other people's land) to refugees economic and cultural. We have large parcels,of government land which might be developed to sustain a population of new pioneers armed with the benefit of our better understanding of climate, sustainable agriculture, and alternative energy sources.
18
Do the oil companies and loggers bear any financial responsibility for this? As others have noted, the Louisiana situation is complex, however it is clear that the channels cut for resource extraction have contributed mightily to the problem and those who benefit from the channels should be held accountable.
4
Okay, okay, everybody relax. The whole climate change thing is just a scheme to wean the world's population off of the present form of fossil fuel dependency. Because it's systematically less costly to distribute energy by wire than it is by tanker truck, duh. Therefore the ability to affect the energy market will be less influenced by those possessed of the greatest cache of natural resources but by those who have the technology to most efficiently allocate the energy commodity. Within thirty years that'll be the blanket buzz term: energy commodity. You'll see. (ding ding) There's the bell! Back to the fiction-friction bickering for everyone who didn't....
2
If the flooding and related problems have been occurring for almost 100 years, it's probably not climate change.
6
Actually, other communities have relocated to escape extreme weather before most of us connected weather disasters with climate change. Among them are Soldiers Grove, WI., and Valmeyer, IL. Valmeyer relocated and rebuilt on higher ground after the 1993 Mississippi River flood. Soldiers Grove moved its entire business district to higher ground in the early 1980s to escape flooding from the Kickapoo River. The village rebuilt as a solar community. Back then, they called it common sense. Today they call it climate adaptation and mitigation. Both communities learned valuable lessons about the sociology and psychology of moving people out of harm's way -- lessons that might help others escape weather disasters while keeping their communities intact.
2
Looks like homes we saw in rural Cambodia.
5
Wow, that looks like Fire Island. I can't wait till the Hamptons waterfront mansions start to float. Where will they all go for the summer then ?
6
Regardless of climate change, one looks at the photo of the dilapidated house of Amiya Brunet (3) and wonders, "is this really America?" It looks like some hovel in the poorest of countries. What a shame! Upon all of us.
98
Dilapidated houses are hardly limited to coastal Louisiana, either.
1
I thought the same....
How about we go back to the Army Corps of engineers and their creation of levees all up and down the Mississippi and the effect it's had on sediment flow in the river. Add to this the digging of channels and other construction adventures and what you have is a completely man made problem, not a climatic one. To blame this on climate change is to ignore the root cause of most of our problems today...government ineptitude.
Keep telling the big freaking lie over and over again and eventually people will believe it....
Keep telling the big freaking lie over and over again and eventually people will believe it....
4
I'm glad these people are getting help, whatever the fund is called. But I did notice that most of the damage that caused the island to wash away was attributed to recent human activity (cutting channels, nearby dredging, etc.), with the "remaining" damage attributed to future "climate change."
But wouldn't those activitgies have caused the damage and flooding with or without "climate change"? And another poster has pointed out that the entire Delta is sinking, caused by silt buildup.
But wouldn't those activitgies have caused the damage and flooding with or without "climate change"? And another poster has pointed out that the entire Delta is sinking, caused by silt buildup.
3
This article is an egregious example of liberal excess on several levels. On the one hand, it reports that $48 million will be spent to resettle 60 people. The average home price in Louisiana is about $150K; go ahead and do the math. On the other hand, after clearly stating the causes of the island sinking, the author tries to lay the blame on climate change. People (some of them, anyway) see through this nonsense and they are tired of being fed a steady diet of it by liberal politicians. Not hard to figure out Trump's appeal, is it?
5
The first 'climate change' refugees in the U.S.? Hardly. History records at least one Louisiana barrier island that had to be abandoned in the mid-Nineteenth Century due to flooding from tropical storms and hurricanes. A resort location, too. But that's the way storms track in the Gulf of Mexico - due to its shape, it acts basically as a 'roach motel' for tropical systems. They get in, but they don't get out - without hitting land. And this was well before we even had internal combustion engines.
That's what happens when people insist on building on barrier islands that, sooner or later, are guaranteed to get hit by storms. Regardless of their 'carbon footprints'.
That's what happens when people insist on building on barrier islands that, sooner or later, are guaranteed to get hit by storms. Regardless of their 'carbon footprints'.
2
I've been reading some pretty hard-hearted comments here. These folks are pretty poor. Many of them have lived on the land for generations. They are not "deciding" to live in a flood plain--the flood plain has come to live with them.
The idea that they should be given cash to find somewhere else to live is ludicrous. These are not money-conscious Americans in the usual sense--they're not watching HGTV and thinking about the nice lanai they could have if only they had the money. Handing them a wad of bills and telling them to move is a simplistic solution.
Please read the part about how many of these folks live off the land--a life they have lived for generations. Money isn't everything to them. Three hundred years ago these folks would have simply moved on to drier land nearby. Guess what: drier land nearby is not available because it, too, is disappearing and, if not disappearing, is owned by somebody else, probably oil companies.
The $48,000,000 is just an allocation. The funds will be used as necessary to buy land and build infrastructure for these folks. The idea here is to figure out how to move poor communities as cheaply, and humanely, as possible because this problem is not going away. This is a global problem, not just a Mississippi Delta problem.
Also, worrying about Fire Island, Miami Beach, Montauk, Back Bay Boston, etc.? Those are affluent areas. This article concerns relocating poor people with no resources, again, a global problem.
The idea that they should be given cash to find somewhere else to live is ludicrous. These are not money-conscious Americans in the usual sense--they're not watching HGTV and thinking about the nice lanai they could have if only they had the money. Handing them a wad of bills and telling them to move is a simplistic solution.
Please read the part about how many of these folks live off the land--a life they have lived for generations. Money isn't everything to them. Three hundred years ago these folks would have simply moved on to drier land nearby. Guess what: drier land nearby is not available because it, too, is disappearing and, if not disappearing, is owned by somebody else, probably oil companies.
The $48,000,000 is just an allocation. The funds will be used as necessary to buy land and build infrastructure for these folks. The idea here is to figure out how to move poor communities as cheaply, and humanely, as possible because this problem is not going away. This is a global problem, not just a Mississippi Delta problem.
Also, worrying about Fire Island, Miami Beach, Montauk, Back Bay Boston, etc.? Those are affluent areas. This article concerns relocating poor people with no resources, again, a global problem.
This fraud, waste and abuse program created by politicians and lobbyists makes tax avoidance a moral responsibility for all of us hardworking, responsible folks in an effort restore our self respect!
1
What a quandary. Are there any other native tribes along the coast that might take in these native Americans? Like this community most old settlements along the southern coast are isolated and insular. If any of us were displaced in this way we would be angry and fearful. But native Americans have always had the bad end of the stick in our society. They have never been integrated into our society and have never wanted to be. What to do with people who need to move, but will lose their culture in the moving. But actually besides climate change our almost obsessive desire for property near the ocean has been causing this problem for many decades.
1
Amazing, a quick look using Google Earth shows about 50 homes so that works out to be $960,000 per home relocation. You could obviously buy all of these people brand-new homes for about $200,000 each in Louisiana so where does the other $38m go?
6
Where do you think the money goes? Graft and corruption, brought to you by the federal government.
1
Is it really climate change or is the land sinking? Subsidence and erosion are common in low lying wetlands. That's what is happening in parts of Miami Beach and Norfolk VA. I'm not a climate change denier but trying to scare people into thinking that coastal subsidence is something else is misleading.
2
What's missing in this report? The State. No plan no nothing from the State? Must not be any abortion clinics in the area.
In Florida, where Miami is flooding at high tide you can't even talk about it on a State level. Like it's not really happening.
One thing that we're good at and know how to do is planning. We've done it pretty well for decades but I don't think anybody's doing any planning. I guess it'll all be left to the Fed to take care of the mess. And then everybody will bitch about that.
In Florida, where Miami is flooding at high tide you can't even talk about it on a State level. Like it's not really happening.
One thing that we're good at and know how to do is planning. We've done it pretty well for decades but I don't think anybody's doing any planning. I guess it'll all be left to the Fed to take care of the mess. And then everybody will bitch about that.
1
The first? The entire town of Gays Mills, Wisconsin was moved after 2 consecutive 500-year floods hit in 2007 and 2008.
5
These unfortunates deserve nothing more than any other public aid (welfare) recipients. The problem has been coming a long time, and they just accepted impending victimhood. History is alive, and fortunes change in every lifetime, regardless of human action or nature--there is nothing new here, and nothing that merits my tax dollars. These folks' luck--to be able to exist uneducated, unmotivated, unemployable--has run out, and it really too bad. Rewarding their sloth at $800k apiece is very stupid. $800 apiece for U-hauls is more like it. Good luck, God bless, sink or swim, it's up to you!
3
The Isle de Jean Charles residents are not the first American climate change refugees. The Dust Bowl drought of the 1930s drove 2.5 million Americans off the Grant Plains, but they mostly fended for themselves. A plan to move only about 60 people should be not hard to pull off, and it certainly shouldn’t cost $48 million—a whopping $800,000 a person—just because some have Native American ancestry. The Biloxi-Chitimacha-Choctaw are not a federally recognized tribe. (The settlement was founded by a Frenchman who brought his Choctaw wife to the isle.) They are a group of people who—like most Americans—have mixed ancestry, and there is no reason to treat them differently than any other Americans. Why not offer each family $154,000, the median of homes in Louisiana? Why do so many Americans think Americans with Native American ancestry are incapable of looking out for themselves?
4
All well and good, and I am glad there's the acceptance of the oncoming climate change catastrophe. But as a taxpayer, I would also appreciate an itemized invoice of this expense, so I know how this $48 million was spent.
4
I guess the science is in.
1
We can fight over the cause of the problem, and I can appreciate the intent of the grant — to solve the problem; but neither the cause nor the intent matter here. The role of government in this particular matter, and all similar matters to come, matters. I would think it would be reasonable and more than generous if the government were to write each household a check to cover some of the cost associated with relocation, and then eliminate all public services to the island. I don't think it is reasonable for the government to move/build entire communities, nor do I think it is reasonable to support/subsidize the residents who choose to remain. And if it is reasonable, if that is the role of government, then where were the resilience grants when hundreds (of thousands) of communities were underwater in 2008? I bet a fraction of 800K per person — like 80K per household, would have rescued thousands of homeowners and communities.
1
I would love to see how $48,000,000 was reached. Given the way programs like this are executed my guess is that the 60 residents will be lucky to see $480 after all the bureaucrats, planners, contractors etc take their pieces off the top. If the corps of engineers is involved triple the cost.
3
And so it begins...
This is just the "tip" of the fast melting iceberg.
I am glad I will not live more than another 20 years.
The "Apocalypse" will happen, but I will miss it.
Edward Abbey: "Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of a cancer."
But it's the only ideology left standing.
I am glad I will not live more than another 20 years.
The "Apocalypse" will happen, but I will miss it.
Edward Abbey: "Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of a cancer."
But it's the only ideology left standing.
1
Rather than putting another bandaid on the problem (and we all know they loosen and fall off in water), it's time to take a serious look at the projected impact and make a realistic plan. No, not everyone will like it. But creating miles of walls to hold back the seas is like the story of the little boy sticking his finger in the hold in the dyke to hold back the flood, especially as storms and floods worsen with alarming regularity. I have a business on the Oregon coast, oceanfront vacation rentals for which I pay heavy yearly flood insurance premiums: http://vacationrentalsmanzanita.com We're in the process of purchasing an additional house, and just received a quote for a yearly flood insurance premium on the new house for over $14,000. Per year. For a two bedroom, one bathroom house, 780 sq. ft. My point is about all the other local residents, hardworking long time residents of the Oregon coast who support coastal tourism, and work in construction, restaurants, shops, schools, etc. First, most couldn't afford a $14,000 premium per year, and second, if there's massive wide scale flooding on most of the coastal US, where will all these people go? Congress may very well sit with blinders, spending their time bickering and earmarking money to pork belly projects which up their popularity in their home districts, but who will step up and make the tough decisions needed to address this imminent problem?
36
Don't buy the house if you can't afford it!
1
Is there a breakdown of the $48 million? How much money would actually reach the families? Anyone who has been through a corporate relocation knows that the compensation amounts to what would buy a similar home in the new area, but these families are being displaced from a lovely natural area, so that has to be taken into consideration. On the other hand, it looks as if they live in shacks, and, in one instance, a trailer, albeit one that has replaced a home that was destroyed in a natural disaster. The new homes would have to be nicer than those and would naturally be valued at more than their replacement cost. Still, the amount proposed sets a precedent that will be hard to follow. The family history on the land is not meaningless, but many families, including white families, have been displaced from their ancestral homelands or regions by adverse events outside of their control.
3
I hope Hilton Chaisson buys scuba gear for his his 26 grandchildren who he wants to stay on his sinking plot for their lifetimes. Reality deniers seem to be everywhere. Perhaps that is how our species got to where it's at.
3
I agree with E. Fleck from Roanoke. It is hardly a money grab. It sounds like these families are part of the reservation system. A system our government started, and I feel the government is obligated to continue to help these individuals. Unfortunately, it doesn't sound like the logging and oil companies were held responsible for their part in destroying the island and once again our most vulnerable citizens are victims to their exploits.
4
I believe you will find that the water is not rising but the marsh land is settling. It is a sad situation but they will move when their feet get wet.
9
48 million dollars to relocate 60 people is not a sustainable plan. It would be more cost effective to grant each family $500,000 for them to relocate themselves, and they would probably be more satisfied with the outcome.
8
Huh? $48M to move 60 people? How about the feds or local government writes a check anywhere from $50 - $150K to each head of household depending on the size of the family and call it a relocation package. The families would have a year to find employment, a house/apartment etc. somewhere else.
Yes, it's sad that you are leaving everything you know, but consider yourselves super lucky as other poor people in places that aren't experiencing climate change meltdown won't receive a $100K check from the gov't to move....
Yes, it's sad that you are leaving everything you know, but consider yourselves super lucky as other poor people in places that aren't experiencing climate change meltdown won't receive a $100K check from the gov't to move....
4
Hate to break it to all the climate change believers, but this has more to do with the erosion and loss of the wetland because of the oil companies drilling in the marsh dating back to the 50s. The oil companies came in, dug channels in the marsh, drilled for oil and then left and didn't restore the marsh. That and the invasion of the marsh by nutria - a non-native species which was imported into this country - which eats live plants and contributes to the loss of wetlands.
This will probably get trolled because it's the truth and goes against what global warming believers want you to believe.
This will probably get trolled because it's the truth and goes against what global warming believers want you to believe.
11
You can't see the possibility that any portion whatsoever of the relative sea-level rise is caused by climate change? Do you think this one area is immune to rising seas while other places along the Gulf, those with no drilling or nutria, are subject to actual climate-caused rises in sea levels? If not, what is causing the sea to rise in those other areas?
The subsidence of barrier islands is not caused by climate change but is a well-studied and understood process. It should be illegal to use the money voted for climate change effects to resettle these people.
Also, the article includes a picture of a young man throwing rocks into the water, further accelerating the rise in sea level.
Also, the article includes a picture of a young man throwing rocks into the water, further accelerating the rise in sea level.
2
Wait a minute! Federal (largely "Blue") money to mitigate climate change sent to a state/region of the country famous for anti-science climate change deniers?
I think not.The people of Louisiana can please apply to that fool Inhofe in Oklahoma. He'll explain that it's all a hoax and you don't need any help, especially from Socialists
I think not.The people of Louisiana can please apply to that fool Inhofe in Oklahoma. He'll explain that it's all a hoax and you don't need any help, especially from Socialists
6
The cost is $800,000 per person. Millions for each family. Typical government project.
7
What a disingenuous headline, but appropriate for the article that follows. Even the authors admit this isn't about climate change. It is about dams and levees on the Mississippi that prevent the normal accumulation of sediment that would otherwise occur from replacing that which floods and hurricanes normally wash away. Just because some politician figured out that calling it climate change would make for a better chance to garner funds (almost $1m per person being resettled) to dole out does not make it thus.
This article will be red meat for people skeptical of the motivations of the climate change lobby. And justifiably so. This is a perfect example, in microcosm as the article states, of everything they fear regarding the true political impulses of climate change proponents.
This article will be red meat for people skeptical of the motivations of the climate change lobby. And justifiably so. This is a perfect example, in microcosm as the article states, of everything they fear regarding the true political impulses of climate change proponents.
8
I'm glad to hear that climate change is raising the sea level across the Gulf Coast but leaving this unfortunate area unaffected.
My mother's maternal family lived on Delacroix Island in St. Bernard's Parish near New Orleans. I had the opportunity to spend some time visiting the family there in 2011, five years after Katrina and Rita. Mom spent many years in her youth and much of the family still resides there. The island looked nothing like she described to me growing up.
Unfortunately much of Delacroix Island washed away. Reading this NYT article and what I know of the history of Delacroix Island the erosion preexisting the climate change debate.
It started with redirecting the rivers to stem flooding elewhere and cutting channels through the many islands making up the Delta to shorten transportation to oil rigs and fishing grounds. This has been on going for many decades and though still the hand of man, it is not as much the results of rising oceans as much as the long term erosion caused by powerful people deciding the homes, livelihoods and very lives of less powerful people were expendible.
Unfortunately much of Delacroix Island washed away. Reading this NYT article and what I know of the history of Delacroix Island the erosion preexisting the climate change debate.
It started with redirecting the rivers to stem flooding elewhere and cutting channels through the many islands making up the Delta to shorten transportation to oil rigs and fishing grounds. This has been on going for many decades and though still the hand of man, it is not as much the results of rising oceans as much as the long term erosion caused by powerful people deciding the homes, livelihoods and very lives of less powerful people were expendible.
7
But the GOP promised me there was no climate change! And a pony!
3
For those of you complaining that fossil fuel industries are to blame for this calamity, raising livestock for food is responsible for 50% of global warming emissions*. The best thing that you can do for the environment, right now, is cut down on your consumption of animal products.
No need to wait for newer energy technology or a fat paycheck to afford solar panels. This can happen today and it will have a massive affect.
*see research from the World Watch Institute
No need to wait for newer energy technology or a fat paycheck to afford solar panels. This can happen today and it will have a massive affect.
*see research from the World Watch Institute
2
This may be the most intentionally misleading, completely dishonest article I have ever read in the NY Times. The primary reason for land losses in this part of Louisiana has absolutely nothing to do with climate change, as has been pointed out in comments by Andy T., George Devries Klein, and others. This is a very obvious and well-known fact. How is it possible a major article of this length on this topic in the NY Times fails to even mention that, and attributes the cause of the whole situation to global warming? Well, it is not just an accident, I'm sure of that. NY Times, I am disgusted.
6
Halfway through the article, you get to the "oh, by the way, this is due to human modification of the shoreline and its sediment budget" but that should have been the main story. Except it wasn't.
2
The real story is the cost both social and financial to the people at risk from climate change (which is more than just one island in Louisiana) and the rest of us who will have to pay for it. Wouldn't it be cheaper to pay a carbon tax, one that is revenue neutral, to change the economics of fossil fuels so we can try to blunt the effect of climate change? Yes a carbon tax would be cheaper than trying to relocate Miami or other places which may go under in a few decades. The economics of fossil fuels don't work anymore when the full cost of climate change is calculated but the Republicans are trying to push that cost to the future and that cost will escalate to ever higher catastrophic proportions with every year we delay.
1
So is this happening because the area is sinking or because of climate change? One thing is certain, by calling them "Climate Change" refugees, they will receive more sympathy and taxpayer money.
If taxpayer money is to be used, shouldn't the government at least be able to differentiate between those events caused by climate change and those occurring naturally?
If taxpayer money is to be used, shouldn't the government at least be able to differentiate between those events caused by climate change and those occurring naturally?
9
Is there any way at all the problem could be caused by both land subsidence and rising seas? Any way at all?
How difficult this problem has been made by the assumption that somehow people are entitled to public support for all of their changing circumstances. There is no way this community can be "saved" or preserved in amber. Tides of time often change things making migration essential. That was the early way with native peoples. One need not abandon them to the fate of nature but neither should we pretend that they, the experts or we can design a solution that replicates their current circumstance. Best solution: offer a grant of XXX dollars to each family for a move, their choice of where. If they chose to stay, sign off and let them stay. Let nature take its course.
68
But we are rebuilding NJ after Sandy blew thru- of course it is mainly white people so that's ok! Gotta save all those white folks,and just let those poor indians from LA just wash away, they just eat up our tax money anyway.
Move here with us in Oklahoma. We have two bands that were banished here by Andrew Jackson. Success is the best revenge. The Misssissippi Band or the Jena Band would welcome you!
Will liberals ever learn? Maybe the next thing they will do is rename it "The Climate Change Channel".
4
It's long past time to end all subsidies for those living and building in coastal and riverine flood plains.
9
It's time to end all subsidies to fossil fuel companies, given they're the reason this climate chaos continues to worsen.
They are not climate refugees. They are refugees from corrupt, incompetent, uncaring, 3rd world socialist governments. When the reality of our massive debt and constant unfunded spending and awarding of "grants" catches up with us in a very few years who will pay to resettle us? $20 trillion and counting.
Do liberals ever think about paying the bill for their feel good dreams? Since the last budget "deal" a few months ago our debt has gone up a trillion dollars.
Do liberals ever think about paying the bill for their feel good dreams? Since the last budget "deal" a few months ago our debt has gone up a trillion dollars.
7
Amiya Brunet lives in a mud soaked hut? This is a human child living in a mud soaked hut, in America? These people and the rest of New Orleans' Katrina victims should have been helped long ago. We are a shameful nation, discarding our own.
2
The premise of this article is absurd. The final end of the Mississippi delta is and has always been in constant flux (it's called a delta for a reason!) and has never been suited for permanent human occupation. I feel for the people that are being moved from their homes but really one would have thought that common sense (sedimentary deltas are always changing) would have prompted them to move to higher ground upon reaching adulthood.
7
Same old story. "Privatize the profits, socialize the costs."
Big fossil does it, Big tobacco still does it, the frackers do it, Big-GMO does it.
Big fossil does it, Big tobacco still does it, the frackers do it, Big-GMO does it.
1
The ludicrous part is the idea that a new town needs to be created. Why not give people living on this land the option to move or stay? Then help those who want to move find a new home. It should only take a couple of bureaucrats and a modest amount of money to help families buy a new home in an existing neighborhood on the mainland. Let's not do the money bloat thing with $48 million, most of which would go to line the pockets of those who know how to make that happen.
In the meantime, keep repairing the road so that those who choose to stay can escape before the next big storm hits and washes them away.
In the meantime, keep repairing the road so that those who choose to stay can escape before the next big storm hits and washes them away.
1
From one report that I found shows that this is land use related and not from climate but a typical NYT scare story:
Toll of levees
When Chaisson was born, those wetlands covered, by most estimates, almost 5 million acres.
Since the 1930s, a system of levees built for flood control and an 8,500-mile web of channels and canals carved for "mosquito control," navigation and access to energy production facilities has triggered a cascade of events that have dissolved more than 2,000 square miles - about 1.3 million acres - of land.
Levees denied the Mississippi's deltaic wetlands tens of millions of cubic yards of soil-building and life-giving sediment. Saltwater moved farther and farther inland, killing salt-sensitive vegetation. As the plants died, the soft soil held in place by root systems washed away.
Marsh fell apart. The more open water created, the faster and greater the loss.
Today, estimates place the rate of loss of wetlands in coastal Louisiana at 15 to 35 square miles a year, or more than an acre an hour.
At first, few were aware of the losses, and fewer cared.
"We treated our wetlands as wastelands - unimportant and worthless," said Kerry St. Pe', a 60-year-old native son of Louisiana's coastal wetlands and director of the Barataria-Terrebonne National Estuary Program. "In fact, they are the most valuable and productive ecosystems in the world."
Toll of levees
When Chaisson was born, those wetlands covered, by most estimates, almost 5 million acres.
Since the 1930s, a system of levees built for flood control and an 8,500-mile web of channels and canals carved for "mosquito control," navigation and access to energy production facilities has triggered a cascade of events that have dissolved more than 2,000 square miles - about 1.3 million acres - of land.
Levees denied the Mississippi's deltaic wetlands tens of millions of cubic yards of soil-building and life-giving sediment. Saltwater moved farther and farther inland, killing salt-sensitive vegetation. As the plants died, the soft soil held in place by root systems washed away.
Marsh fell apart. The more open water created, the faster and greater the loss.
Today, estimates place the rate of loss of wetlands in coastal Louisiana at 15 to 35 square miles a year, or more than an acre an hour.
At first, few were aware of the losses, and fewer cared.
"We treated our wetlands as wastelands - unimportant and worthless," said Kerry St. Pe', a 60-year-old native son of Louisiana's coastal wetlands and director of the Barataria-Terrebonne National Estuary Program. "In fact, they are the most valuable and productive ecosystems in the world."
4
What is missing in this article is that we have known about global warming for at least one generation. Yet during all this time, governments, beholden as they are to the fossil fuels industry and to the concept of economic growth at any cost, have been in denial or dragging their feet.
It's about more than installing solar panels: As we refuse to change our way of life, more radical changes will be forced upon us and our children.
The refugee crisis, which is only starting, is just one aspect of what awaits us: Our deliberate failure to act is threatening our very existence as a species.
It's about more than installing solar panels: As we refuse to change our way of life, more radical changes will be forced upon us and our children.
The refugee crisis, which is only starting, is just one aspect of what awaits us: Our deliberate failure to act is threatening our very existence as a species.
2
These are not "climate refugees," they are geoengineering "refuges" and is otherwise agitprop. It does provide a simple reference as to what the UN climate agenda is more about: demographics. It is has little to do with lowering carbon, or other forms of pollution; of incenting alternative energy investment or even civil infrastructure. Readers may appreciate "At War Over Geoengineering," in The Guardian, and "Admirable Accord With Structural Problems," on COP21, in the FT, both by same.
3
It is frustrating to continuously hear the media characterize accelerating sea level rise as anything other than a hypothesis. All evidence points to a linear rate of sea level rise for the last 300 years. Here is The Battery in NYC over the last 170 years. Do you see a line or a curve?
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=...
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=...
2
These people choose to live on a delta that by definition is at risk. They have minimal education, no safety net other than the US government which they expect to save them when it all goes to h**.
3
Activists and politicians needed 'victims' and so they have created some. The idea that erosion and mismanagement of Mississippi River flood control are directly related to "human caused climate change" is absurd. As is spending nearly $1 million per person to move a community when individual grants of at most $100,000 could have dramatically upgraded their living conditions. The political goal here - victims, and alarming costs of action - was to create 'facts' that could justify more intrusive action and emotional responses, not clear thinking of costs, benefits and alternatives.
9
This kind of perfectly encapsulates the alarmism and over reaction of the IPCC over the years. Yes waters are rising and yes the earth is warming - but a lot slower than they would have us believe.
Here is a handful of people having to move. But in the 1990's IPCC reports, it said we were supposed to have 250 MILLION climate refugees by now. Where are they all? The temperatures were also supposed to rise much faster than they actually have.
We need proper context to the problem. It is not as bad as they say, and their predictions have not come to pass.
Here is a handful of people having to move. But in the 1990's IPCC reports, it said we were supposed to have 250 MILLION climate refugees by now. Where are they all? The temperatures were also supposed to rise much faster than they actually have.
We need proper context to the problem. It is not as bad as they say, and their predictions have not come to pass.
8
This is an example of how climate change can be leveraged to derive any government action that government (not society) chooses. Having lived in Louisiana and worked for the army corps of engineers on flood management - these are aluvial land masses; created by sediment and constantly eroding and re-forming
Climate change is a tool given to governments by useful idiots and is the most massive ruse played on all of mankind.
Climate change is a tool given to governments by useful idiots and is the most massive ruse played on all of mankind.
7
Yes, all the scientists are getting rich lying to you, but it's a good thing those poor paupers lobbying for the oil industry are here to defend us.
Climate change is clearly a factor now, but the real story seems more like another chapter (or footnote) in the long saga of the American Indian. Yes, they've been there for generations, but why? You can bet the Choctaw wouldn't have been allowed to settle there if it was considered prime land. I'm betting words like struggle, poverty, and neglect are traditional on this island over the past century, along with fishing, hunting, and farming. (I also doubt pre-Columbian people made permanent residences on such islands; more likely, they were semi-nomadic, using such locations for seasonal hunting/gathering.)
Climate change is a factor now, today, but by my reading, the reason these folks deserve to be relocated (on our dime) is because the spit of land they were allowed to keep has finally washed away, just as they always knew it would.
Climate change is a factor now, today, but by my reading, the reason these folks deserve to be relocated (on our dime) is because the spit of land they were allowed to keep has finally washed away, just as they always knew it would.
105
As a casual skeptic of climate change I approached this article with some trepidation. Have I been wrong in my skepticism? Have the oceans and water levels risen right in front of our eyes and are these people's situation a direct result of my complacency? Am i that arrogant to doubt science in this regard?
But then i read the article....
Here's the problem with the climate changers and why articles like this and more than likely, many more to come are breeding ground for skeptical, thinking humans. Facts matter. Does this article state facts of how much the water level has risen in this region to cause this upheaval? Not that I have found. It does however give vague references to research proving that this is a direct result of manmade global warming. To the contrary, it give a rather plausible and self explanitory explanation for this islands problems, and it doesn't have anything to do with climate change, and everything to do with bad decisions by logging and oil companies as well as natural erosion. ...since 1955 no less.
On top of that, wave a $50 million dollar bill in front of us and see who hustles to get in line.
Are you beginning to see what creates a climate change global warming skeptic? It's articles like this that, on the surface, seem to tout this as evidence of global warming, but in the details gives nothing substantive with a direct connection to it.
I will remain a skeptic.
But then i read the article....
Here's the problem with the climate changers and why articles like this and more than likely, many more to come are breeding ground for skeptical, thinking humans. Facts matter. Does this article state facts of how much the water level has risen in this region to cause this upheaval? Not that I have found. It does however give vague references to research proving that this is a direct result of manmade global warming. To the contrary, it give a rather plausible and self explanitory explanation for this islands problems, and it doesn't have anything to do with climate change, and everything to do with bad decisions by logging and oil companies as well as natural erosion. ...since 1955 no less.
On top of that, wave a $50 million dollar bill in front of us and see who hustles to get in line.
Are you beginning to see what creates a climate change global warming skeptic? It's articles like this that, on the surface, seem to tout this as evidence of global warming, but in the details gives nothing substantive with a direct connection to it.
I will remain a skeptic.
3
A number of links were provided (none of which you troubled yourself to read) as support, and the article described climate change as among several causes for the erosion and salination.
A skeptic is somebody who demands empirical proof, not someone who refuses to look at empirical proof.
A skeptic is somebody who demands empirical proof, not someone who refuses to look at empirical proof.
Put "refugee" in as a descriptor and our government and the NYT can't give the money away fast enough. This is an outrage - $48 million to move 25 families who live in the swamp?
5
The government's response to the sinking of Isle de Jean Charles - and this article - unfortunately demonstrate our off-target, politicized responses to climate change challenges. The bare facts are this community is subsidizing into the sea because it is located in an unstable river delta. Rising sea level due to climate change may be exacerbating this natural process, but only on the order of 5-10%. There are many factors behind the current islanders' inability or unwillingness to move (as their ancestors no doubt did when confronted with the same apparent rising sea levels). The article touches on some - poverty, lack of education, lack of services, lack of economic opportunity - but our government has decided that rather than directly tackle these problems, it's best to spend $800k/per person to relocate a poor, isolated community to another low opportunity, isolated location. This entire program looks like the pet project of a distant bureaucrat wanting to polish their resume by saying they 'did something' about 'climate change'.
1
While I'd be the first to admit that something needs to be done to assist the inhabitants of the disappearing Isle de Jean Charles in moving on with their lives and into new homes, when I first started reading this article and saw that the federal grant for this project was $48 million, I assumed that we were looking at a community of around 500 people. Instead, it is only well into the article that it is revealed that the entire community consists of only 60 people. We can all do the math: that comes out to $800000 per person. Has someone lost their mind? I'm not that familiar with the real estate market in Louisiana, but I would guess that $800000 could buy you a pretty luxurious home, even if these folks are insisting that they need to still live by the water "to preserve their way of life." It's well intended but insane spending like this that gives those of us who are more moderate and/or liberal a bad name in the eyes of conservatives. It also gives them ammunition in their fight against our taking any collective action in the face of human influenced climate change, so those responsible had better succeed with this relocation where hopefully they will have surplus funds left over that can be returned when it is all done.
3
So it begins. There are probably thousands of examples of money wasted on projects like this that weren't actually attributed to "climate change" and human folly in the USA (See "Cadillac Desert") but really were. Hurricane sandy comes to mind.
We better wake up and realize we are not Masters of the Universe before we go broke, drowned or starve, or all three.
We better wake up and realize we are not Masters of the Universe before we go broke, drowned or starve, or all three.
2
"But since 1955, more than 90 percent of the island’s original land mass has washed away. Channels cut by loggers and oil companies eroded much of the island, and decades of flood control efforts have kept once free-flowing rivers from replenishing the wetlands’ sediments". SO GLOBAL WARMING CAUSED IT? LOL
1
The one saving grace in this whole mess is the fact that the very regions where climate change denial is strongest are the very regions that are ground zero for the worst of climate change disasters.
I'm not saying I'm happy that the south will take the brunt of climate change consequences but I am definitely not unhappy.
Their claims that global climate change is a liberal hoax will look less valid when the people claiming it are treading water or digging out after another F-5 tornado rips through their town.
"Irony can be pretty ironic sometimes".
Airplane II: The Sequel (1982)
I'm not saying I'm happy that the south will take the brunt of climate change consequences but I am definitely not unhappy.
Their claims that global climate change is a liberal hoax will look less valid when the people claiming it are treading water or digging out after another F-5 tornado rips through their town.
"Irony can be pretty ironic sometimes".
Airplane II: The Sequel (1982)
5
Multifaceted case here.
Rising oceans
Subsidence of the marshland
Decisions to drain and build flood levies which increase erosion and the underlying subsidence.
Obviously Jindal and the bureaucrats happy o take federal tax money, never turn down manna from above is a human mantra. Money, money money!
The real question is how and why do we choose to spend this amount of money $800,000 per person when we have no funds for places like Flint or retraining coal miners whose mines are outdated and producing a product society can not afford. How have we debated our priorities? Assuming the funds include a buyout of all this land, otherwise the "relocation costs" make no sense. Why do we as taxpayers owe these people a buyout? I could rationalize a training program,technical school, and I dont know 40k each towards new housing, take it or leave it.
This is land that always wasand is marginal, climate change is a modest/small part here. Drainage, iand natural subsidence erosion is much more a part. Why do we buy out people who choose to live in a place humans should not settle?
The people of Flint and Coal miners had issues come to them, these people moved and settled in the issues. Sorry the whole program leaves me cold at best.
Rising oceans
Subsidence of the marshland
Decisions to drain and build flood levies which increase erosion and the underlying subsidence.
Obviously Jindal and the bureaucrats happy o take federal tax money, never turn down manna from above is a human mantra. Money, money money!
The real question is how and why do we choose to spend this amount of money $800,000 per person when we have no funds for places like Flint or retraining coal miners whose mines are outdated and producing a product society can not afford. How have we debated our priorities? Assuming the funds include a buyout of all this land, otherwise the "relocation costs" make no sense. Why do we as taxpayers owe these people a buyout? I could rationalize a training program,technical school, and I dont know 40k each towards new housing, take it or leave it.
This is land that always wasand is marginal, climate change is a modest/small part here. Drainage, iand natural subsidence erosion is much more a part. Why do we buy out people who choose to live in a place humans should not settle?
The people of Flint and Coal miners had issues come to them, these people moved and settled in the issues. Sorry the whole program leaves me cold at best.
5
Federal dollars are doing real good for some sixty citizens who are in trouble.
Please understand, it has been the policies of the state of Louisiana and the drill, drill, drill business of “Big Oil” companies and Congressional flood control mandates placed on the Corps of Engineers that have caused the bayou to sink, grossly exacerbating the Choctaw climate change situation.
Please understand, it has been the policies of the state of Louisiana and the drill, drill, drill business of “Big Oil” companies and Congressional flood control mandates placed on the Corps of Engineers that have caused the bayou to sink, grossly exacerbating the Choctaw climate change situation.
3
Why are we US taxpayers using our hard earned money that we pay in taxes to move these people? They choose to live there . . . and they can choose to leave at their expense.
Once again government run amok. Can't wait for change in Washington - at all levels.
Once again government run amok. Can't wait for change in Washington - at all levels.
8
This article should have been titled; "Places people should never have settled in the first place, that you and I, Mr. and Mrs. Taxpayer, are now going to pay for".
6
People have lived there for generations.
1
Grants? Grants are going to pay for this? Where is the government getting the money for this and many other things? By any measure except for delusional, Rube Goldberg government accounting, this country is bankrupt. Our good deeds and social programs are financed by debt. It now sits at $20 trillion and is quickly growing. Since the last budget "deal" a few months ago it has gone up by a trillion dollars.
Shouldn't a responsible media always ask how the bill for new government programs, "grants" and mandates are going to be specifically paid for? Adults have to pay their bills. Children and imbeciles do not.
In a very short time the service on our national debt will begin to consume all disposable government income and then some, Yet the politicians and media don't mention it or discuss it. How much longer can we inhabit a delusional dream world where we give "grants" out?
"The road to hell is paved with good intentions"
Shouldn't a responsible media always ask how the bill for new government programs, "grants" and mandates are going to be specifically paid for? Adults have to pay their bills. Children and imbeciles do not.
In a very short time the service on our national debt will begin to consume all disposable government income and then some, Yet the politicians and media don't mention it or discuss it. How much longer can we inhabit a delusional dream world where we give "grants" out?
"The road to hell is paved with good intentions"
6
What!? The taxpayers are paying $48 million to move 60 people ($800,000 per person) and they distrust the government? Perhaps we should wait a couple of years until they're a little more trusting... let alone grateful.
4
when are we going to relocate Miami?
3
There is no problem with climate change in Fla. , just ask Rubio.
$800,000 per person, including children, to move?
It would seem that no formal program would be needed. Just allocate the money on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. The two groups obviously want to remain with their extended family members/tribe, but there are probably plenty of landowners elsewhere in Louisiana who would be happy to part with a large chunk of property for the right price, and the new residents could build their own homes and continue as before.
The sheer amount that will be required to resettle all of the projected climate refugees at that rate of compensation is mind-boggling. The taxes paid on gasoline and other fossil fuels now aren't even close to what is needed to repair our crumbling infrastructure; how is this new cost going to be funded?
It would seem that no formal program would be needed. Just allocate the money on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. The two groups obviously want to remain with their extended family members/tribe, but there are probably plenty of landowners elsewhere in Louisiana who would be happy to part with a large chunk of property for the right price, and the new residents could build their own homes and continue as before.
The sheer amount that will be required to resettle all of the projected climate refugees at that rate of compensation is mind-boggling. The taxes paid on gasoline and other fossil fuels now aren't even close to what is needed to repair our crumbling infrastructure; how is this new cost going to be funded?
1
Are you kidding me? You have a bunch of people living on a pencil thin strip of land who you consider refugees, yet it's a-okay to trash all of coal country and leave them for dead.
59
Democrats are trying to get programs to help retrain coal workers. Clinton was in West Virginia yesterday talking to displaced workers about what could be done to help transition to a new economic foundation for that region. The coal industry is over, which is good, but the people have to be taken care of too.
coal country = the walking dead
Funny how everyone loves capitalism until it doesn't go their way.
This is a good idea, we should never pay for continual flooding, now we need some more empoundments to reduce flooding. Now I bet this area has been flooding longer than climate change has been talked about.
2
If current carbon emission trends, abetted by denialist, therefore do-nothing Congressmen, continue, displacements of this nature will prove only the tip of the (melting) iceberg.
1
"But since 1955, more than 90 percent of the island’s original land mass has washed away. Channels cut by loggers and oil companies eroded much of the island, and decades of flood control efforts have kept once free-flowing rivers from replenishing the wetlands’ sediments. Some of the island was swept away by hurricanes."
Isn't this the REAL cause of this situation? The article only goes on in the very next paragraph to SPECULATE that eventually the island will be "inundated as burning fossil fuels melt polar ice sheets." Pure speculation of both cause and effect. I think the climate changers think if they keep saying it often enough, it will become part of the conventional wisdom (or lack thereof.)
Isn't this the REAL cause of this situation? The article only goes on in the very next paragraph to SPECULATE that eventually the island will be "inundated as burning fossil fuels melt polar ice sheets." Pure speculation of both cause and effect. I think the climate changers think if they keep saying it often enough, it will become part of the conventional wisdom (or lack thereof.)
3
Back when I was a newspaper reporter, anyone assigned to write a story about "victims of climate change" in a place as geologically fragile and active as coastal Louisiana would have consulted geologists and other experts on the land in question in the process of their investigation.
Coral Davenport and Campbell Robertson obviously failed to do this. And their editors apparently did not question the assertion that the plight of these people was due to rising sea levels rather than land subsiding as the result of natural forces.
Climate change and its potentially planet-changing effects are real. However poorly-researched articles like this one on the front page of the New York Times give those in the oil, gas and coal industries more fuel for their efforts to convince voters that climate change is all a gigantic liberal hoax.
The reporters and editors also failed to question the $800,000 cost of relocating each Isle resident. (Does it include $800,000 for each child too?)
In the wake of stories like this one, I will have to bring a greater skepticism to each article in the Times.
Once it is lost, the trust of readers is very difficult to regain.
Coral Davenport and Campbell Robertson obviously failed to do this. And their editors apparently did not question the assertion that the plight of these people was due to rising sea levels rather than land subsiding as the result of natural forces.
Climate change and its potentially planet-changing effects are real. However poorly-researched articles like this one on the front page of the New York Times give those in the oil, gas and coal industries more fuel for their efforts to convince voters that climate change is all a gigantic liberal hoax.
The reporters and editors also failed to question the $800,000 cost of relocating each Isle resident. (Does it include $800,000 for each child too?)
In the wake of stories like this one, I will have to bring a greater skepticism to each article in the Times.
Once it is lost, the trust of readers is very difficult to regain.
26
No mention of subsidence or dredge and fill as to contributing factor as to why the communities are in peril. Myoptic piece
4
Do no harm unless it is to prevent a greater harm. The decision to pay to relocate people without addressing the root cause of rising ocean levels will just perpetuate the problem. I am dumbfounded, but should I be? We have initiated and sustained other social and corporate welfare programs for decades that emotionally disable more people than they move off of public assistance. Make no mistake this relocation will not be the last. That's right its not the first community relocated by the taxpayers. We relocated a community that frequently flooded away from the Mississippi River to (hopefully) a safer location.
The consequence of this decision is just the creating of another entitlement program! And you wonder why people support Donald Trump. This newspaper should ask each Presidential candidate what they would do.
The consequence of this decision is just the creating of another entitlement program! And you wonder why people support Donald Trump. This newspaper should ask each Presidential candidate what they would do.
3
48 MILLION to move about 60 people -- and then they wonder why people are turning around and voting for the likes of a Donald Trump.
18
The current Shishmaref population is about 563. The moving cost (2005 figures) is $180 million.
http://www.adn.com/article/20140116/eroding-alaska-village-urges-congres...
If you want to criticize a plan many have spent much time working on, don't just criticize. Please propose your alternative.
http://www.adn.com/article/20140116/eroding-alaska-village-urges-congres...
If you want to criticize a plan many have spent much time working on, don't just criticize. Please propose your alternative.
I feel sorry for these people, but there are many better uses for this money. Louisiana is a state that has derived great wealth from oil and gas, which are big contributors to climate change. It is also a state that has elected not one, but two senators that deny climate change exists. Why are we sending our tax dollars there? Let them take care of their own.
10
Seems like bad land management was the initial troublemaker?!
"Channels cut by loggers and oil companies eroded much of the island, and decades of flood control efforts have kept once free-flowing rivers from replenishing the wetlands’ sediments. "
"Channels cut by loggers and oil companies eroded much of the island, and decades of flood control efforts have kept once free-flowing rivers from replenishing the wetlands’ sediments. "
2
And let the massive transfer of wealth begin! Good to know HUD is involved in this fiasco ( you know HUD,the massive incompetent Federal bureaucracy formerly headed by the esteemed NY Gov.Cuomo that brought us the sub prime mortgage crisis.) to pay $48M to relocate 60 people.$48M will just be a drop in the bucket compared to what it's going to cost when President Obama/Hillary sell us out to the UN and the US tax payer gets to foot the bill for every third world country with a ''climate''grievance.
7
I am from New Orleans and in the 1950s - 60s my family would drive to Grand Isle (South of N.O. on the Gulf of Mexico) many times to fish. It was always an adventure for us city kids. I went 10 years ago with my mother and the land is gone. You just drive on this road with water all around, everything was gone. It's swamp and dilapidated houses and abandoned boats. These pictures really show the destruction of south Louisiana and soon all the coasts.
68
"There's too many men, too many people, making too many problems....and not much love to go around...." Phil Collins
3
Seriously, $800,000 per person? To begin with, no one is preventing anyone from relocating as it is. Stay if you want, move if you want.
Not sure the government needs to spur this along with money at all, but even if so, how about offering, say, $20,000 per family? Some pocket money for a deposit and relocation expenses to another place. I get that these people are desperately poor, and probably need a helping hand to make the move. But $800,000 is not a helping hand, it's a boondoggle.
Not sure the government needs to spur this along with money at all, but even if so, how about offering, say, $20,000 per family? Some pocket money for a deposit and relocation expenses to another place. I get that these people are desperately poor, and probably need a helping hand to make the move. But $800,000 is not a helping hand, it's a boondoggle.
16
Looks like there are 40-50 homes in the photo of the Island. Other photos show old run down homes and mobile homes.
To move these residents and the belonging with a rental truck, and give them similar homes 50 miles north is going to cost $1 million each?
To move these residents and the belonging with a rental truck, and give them similar homes 50 miles north is going to cost $1 million each?
12
Somebody once said, "Americans will be philanthropic, you just have to pay them first." I think it was Chruchill.
1
Bogus headline and bogus thesis.
A large part of the terminal delta land loss is due to the significant ongoing manmade diversion of various Mississippi delta tributaries .
Asa result, certain parts of the delta are no longer being recharged at the same rate as there is reduced inflow of river sediment in those areas. . As natural erosion occurs, water , rather than sediment , has the upper hand in filling the void and thus land is lost.
This simple concept was presented over thirty years ago in a National Geographic article , well before the flawed yet currently in vogue anthropogenic global warming hysteria started.
Cute , attention grabbing headline, yet extremely inaccurate.
A large part of the terminal delta land loss is due to the significant ongoing manmade diversion of various Mississippi delta tributaries .
Asa result, certain parts of the delta are no longer being recharged at the same rate as there is reduced inflow of river sediment in those areas. . As natural erosion occurs, water , rather than sediment , has the upper hand in filling the void and thus land is lost.
This simple concept was presented over thirty years ago in a National Geographic article , well before the flawed yet currently in vogue anthropogenic global warming hysteria started.
Cute , attention grabbing headline, yet extremely inaccurate.
13
IPCC reports show that seas are rising at three millimeters per year and that there is no observed increase in extreme weather. This article contains no evidence that what is happening to Isle de Jean Charles results from climate change.
4
Southern Louisiana was regularly damaged by hurricanes and flooding long before the industrial revolution. The magnitude of the ridiculousness of this project goes way beyond the budgeted $48 million in resettlement funds for seemingly normal flooding in a tidal flood zone. How many millions have the various agencies of the government cost since 2002 when they began discussing moving this enormous community of sixty people?
This project is a good demonstration of exactly what we cannot afford to do on a large scale: Spend over $1 million per person to move people out of an old trailer or shack a few miles.
This project is a good demonstration of exactly what we cannot afford to do on a large scale: Spend over $1 million per person to move people out of an old trailer or shack a few miles.
6
Environmental changes are not just caused by carbon climate change but also human industrial activity. The problems for the island started in 1955 when loggers and oil companies cut channels around the land causing much of the erosion.
Human activity is the main cause of our environmental problems, climate change is just a small part of our problems. Corporations have to be legislated to responsibility and making them pay into a fund that helps people like the residents of Isle de Jean Charles should be part of the penalty for the damage they do.
Human activity is the main cause of our environmental problems, climate change is just a small part of our problems. Corporations have to be legislated to responsibility and making them pay into a fund that helps people like the residents of Isle de Jean Charles should be part of the penalty for the damage they do.
15
It would seem most folks that choose to deny or ignore that the climate is changing and that we're pushing the rate at which it occurs with pollutants and trash and man made materials mucking up the natural systems of our environment simply do not want anything to alter their way of life. "We've always burned coal for our power, we've always had 4 cars in our family, we've always thrown all our trash in one trash container, we've always used this dish washing liquid - works great" etc. etc. One must realize that these statements are not true. We haven't always done any of those things - only in the last few generations. Our planet is no longer as large as it seemed. An oil tanker or oil rig accident can screw things up awful quickly. 1.2 billion vehicles on the road contributes to air pollution as much as factories and less than volcanic activity. Think of it like this... if you've ever kept fish, what happens when you don't keep the tank clean? There are 7.5 billion people on this planet and we've been fouling our tank for long enough.
8
It seems that the real climate deniers are the ones who insist on living anywhere within 200 miles of the ocean.
If they're not moving inland, they're obviously not that worried.
If they're not moving inland, they're obviously not that worried.
8
The US government moved an coastal Alaskan native community some years ago due to climate change effects on the permafrost. I recall just over a 100 people but it cost about $45M.
4
Please tell me where to read that will explain why I, as a taxpayer, should help people re-locate, i.e., why should the Government pay for it? I live in the Midwest and have been reading about climate change for 14 years. It is not sensible to live on the coast in many places. Move/live at your own risk/expense.
17
Well, think about all those people moving into Europe from African and the Middle East. They are moving at their own expense.
You are privileged. Realize it. Then please do something constructive rather than barking at people who are not privileged.
Jeez. We are doomed. Really we are.
You are privileged. Realize it. Then please do something constructive rather than barking at people who are not privileged.
Jeez. We are doomed. Really we are.
I hadn't thought about your point but now I am. Yes, this wasn't sudden and if govt were to intervene it should have been years ago - to require relocation. Perhaps w some subsidy, but to require it nonetheless.
1
And when a tornado flattens your home, or a blizzard cuts off your access to electricity, food, and water, I assume you will refuse government assistance? Live in the Midwest at your own risk.
The people on that island have lived there for many generations. It's not as if they chose it for the ocean views.
The people on that island have lived there for many generations. It's not as if they chose it for the ocean views.
Climate change deniers . . . sigh.
Man and man's actions don't affect the environment? Put one person in a room, and all is well. Put five people in the same room -- same closed environment -- and it starts to get crowded. Put 100 people in the room and . . . well, even a moron can see that something will have to be done to solve the "problem." Apply technology -- open a window? How effective will that be if more people continue to come into the room? Just as humans deny our own mortality, we deny the mortality of the planet. How sad. How selfish that we condemn our children and our grandchildren to a grim fate. :-(
Man and man's actions don't affect the environment? Put one person in a room, and all is well. Put five people in the same room -- same closed environment -- and it starts to get crowded. Put 100 people in the room and . . . well, even a moron can see that something will have to be done to solve the "problem." Apply technology -- open a window? How effective will that be if more people continue to come into the room? Just as humans deny our own mortality, we deny the mortality of the planet. How sad. How selfish that we condemn our children and our grandchildren to a grim fate. :-(
11
This may be off-topic, but I just wanted to point out the really beautiful photos by Josh Haner in this story. Well done!
32
Similarly, I sure hope the humans move their cat and other pets with them.
Taxpayers need to stop subsidizing risky construction. End flood insurance for homes built in oceanfront communities prone to flooding. Building in a river's delta that is continuously eroding, shifting, flooding and subsiding should not earn the owners of property government relocation or flood protection funds.
16
This is not risky construction, those people have been there for generations. As the article says,
since 1955, more than 90 percent of the island’s original land mass has washed away.
since 1955, more than 90 percent of the island’s original land mass has washed away.
I love it! "We're from the government, and we're here to help." The religion of 'climate change' is predicated on a leap-of-faith. ANY change in the environment, it's climate change. It's comically obsurd. I grew up on the ocean, islands shifted and changed almost every storm, never mind after multiple hurricanes. The 'stagnant earth' model, they have in their heads, doesn't exist. For the climate change faithful, I'd like to request some Federal money, for my distant relative Noah's battle with climate change and flooding. And how it has effected our family since. Add interest please :)
8
Dear Matt:
There are many other people in the world who are experiencing the effects of climate change brought by humans using the atmosphere as a garbage dump. We are in the 21st century, which--if we survive as a species--will go down as the century of global/planetary/worldwide ruptures which result in a severe change of state--for the worse.
Your single experience and viewpoint...is single. What happens when the changes you talk about start happening at a much accelerated pace, in many more areas of the world.
Climate change is real. Naysayers are in total denial and want to continue exploitation of the natural world in a variety of ways for short-term gain. We will only survive as a beautiful planet if we understand the dynamical forces at work and how this could result in a permanent tipping of ecologies and the system as a whole into a direction we really do not want to see.
We are an overconnected world; perturbations in the system reverberate wildly and impact everywhere. This is extremely dangerous and we have to come together.
It would help you immensely to start reading about complex adaptive systems. Just get a beginner book--it is very difficult stuff and you need to be great at math to understand it thoroughly. But I think you can. You have enough interest to write a comment. Now do something more so you can help the world, actually.
There are many other people in the world who are experiencing the effects of climate change brought by humans using the atmosphere as a garbage dump. We are in the 21st century, which--if we survive as a species--will go down as the century of global/planetary/worldwide ruptures which result in a severe change of state--for the worse.
Your single experience and viewpoint...is single. What happens when the changes you talk about start happening at a much accelerated pace, in many more areas of the world.
Climate change is real. Naysayers are in total denial and want to continue exploitation of the natural world in a variety of ways for short-term gain. We will only survive as a beautiful planet if we understand the dynamical forces at work and how this could result in a permanent tipping of ecologies and the system as a whole into a direction we really do not want to see.
We are an overconnected world; perturbations in the system reverberate wildly and impact everywhere. This is extremely dangerous and we have to come together.
It would help you immensely to start reading about complex adaptive systems. Just get a beginner book--it is very difficult stuff and you need to be great at math to understand it thoroughly. But I think you can. You have enough interest to write a comment. Now do something more so you can help the world, actually.
While I agree that the earth is constantly evolving I don't think climate change can be discredited outright. Do you not believe that oceans are rising in tandem with ice caps melting and glaciers disappearing?
There's quite a difference between sand shifting in storms and sea level rise.
1
Louisiana is the proverbial canary in the coal mine.
10
This article is obscuring in climate talk the root cause of the problem and why we can justify tax money to help them resettle. As of result of human interference we now have islands that are in the cross hairs of climate changes' rising waters. 1) channels cut by loggers 2) channels cut by oil companies 3) flood control that keeps fresh water from surrounding the islands. These are the root cause of the problem, not climate change itself.
15
48 mill dollars to resettle 60 people that is 3.2 mill to resettle a family of 4. Sorry the price is ridiculous and has to be padded with waste and fraud.
Tide gauges nearby suggest that this area is actually sinking. The problem may thus be geological and not climatic. Given the mass of silt brought down by the Mississippi, this seems not unlikely - large parts of ancient Alexandria are now submerged due to the mass of silt brought down by the Nile
55
While I agree with climate change on some levels this article distorts the facts and combines it with emotions to promote climate. Its almost as an after thought that the isalnd has been losing land mass due to a variety of conditions, not that the sea levels are rising.
$48 million is an absurd amount of money to move so few people. If the federal government really believes this program is a precedent, then fiscal responsibility and management must be acounted for to prevent rampant spending.
$48 million is an absurd amount of money to move so few people. If the federal government really believes this program is a precedent, then fiscal responsibility and management must be acounted for to prevent rampant spending.
3
This article raises a good point that we need a framework for handling relocation. Right now, the electric company and telephones have to rebuild at great cost, no matter how often the infrastructure is destroyed. And that road....
One option is to offer market value plus job retraining plus some transition costs for a 25 year lease for each property. The houses would be removed. At the end of 25 years, there would be no guarantee of rebuild by utilities/roads. The utilities could treat it as a commercial decision the next time the infrastructure is destroyed. For those who chose to stay, the offer would go down by 4%/year as the lease term shortened.
At the end of 25 years, the property could still have value for hunting/fishing and would return to the current owners. Or people could rebuild in a self-sufficient manner (solar, desalination, 4wd/boats for access).
Trying to move a community of poor people (or rich people) intact makes no sense. An exclusionary community with a buffer zone is a fantasy.
One option is to offer market value plus job retraining plus some transition costs for a 25 year lease for each property. The houses would be removed. At the end of 25 years, there would be no guarantee of rebuild by utilities/roads. The utilities could treat it as a commercial decision the next time the infrastructure is destroyed. For those who chose to stay, the offer would go down by 4%/year as the lease term shortened.
At the end of 25 years, the property could still have value for hunting/fishing and would return to the current owners. Or people could rebuild in a self-sufficient manner (solar, desalination, 4wd/boats for access).
Trying to move a community of poor people (or rich people) intact makes no sense. An exclusionary community with a buffer zone is a fantasy.
As carbon continues to spike in our atmosphere, it seems to go unnoticed as a real problem facing humanity. It is playing out to be the biggest debacle in human history that will change the world forever. As I watch our political process unravel and the world consumed with terror, environmental damage and total disregard, I see this slow moving disaster start to unravel in our lifetime. We have been warned by intelligent people with advanced technology who study patterns, but as with human nature we will not act until disasters become commonplace. At this point, there will be little hope of a return to an era where this planet provided a wonderful, sustainable life for billions of people and a diverse environment of wonders yet to be discovered. It is a crystal clear spring day here in beautiful Santa Fe, but I know somewhere in the world, people and their environment are suffering because of climate caused damage.
2
Native Americans deserve any help they receive. I can think of many worst ways for my tax dollars to be spent, i.e.: bailing out bankers as they walk away with obscene bonuses that far exceed this outlay. I am shocked at the negative and nasty comments from some readers. This country belonged to an aboriginal people and it is about time some of them received help. As it stands, I believe the Native American population lives on the ten most toxic dumpsites in the country. So whilst our country spends bazillions on elections and to weapons manufacturers, I hope that these people find peace somewhere other than a mud filled hut.
30
Thank goodness someone sees the obvious. We owe Native Americans everything, and they deserve every penny. Shame on those who call them freeloaders and wanting boondoggles!
Entities that cut channels should be held responsible for some of the burden of relocation by providing land, housing, jobs, and monies to the island residents.
8
"Clawback" .... it should be written into the Constitution.
1
Rich people continue to maintain their homes in endangered coastal areas. Undoubtedly the bulk of the $1 billion is going toward infrastructure upgrades to shore those up, while the poorest and most dispossessed citizens in the country are forced to move. The extent to which these disparities and abuses pile up is making the country unrecognizable.
8
Reminds me when the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) relocated so many people in order to build the dam.
My admittedly off-the-cuff suggestion: when an area becomes uninhabitable the residents should move away. Why is government intervention called for? Things change; we need to adapt or perish. Ask the dinosaurs.
6
Sure, the water's rising in Louisiana like it's always risen, but the most immediate culprits. whose products fueled climate change, have been at the front lines of creating the coastal destruction in Louisiana for decades. Well into the story we read: "Channels cut by loggers and oil companies eroded much of the island, and decades of flood control efforts have kept once free-flowing rivers from replenishing the wetlands’ sediments. Some of the island was swept away by hurricanes." The channels dredged and cut for boats, barges, and pipelines allowed the Gulf water to creep in.
$800,000 per PERSON to move??? So a family of four on this island would receive $3.2 million to move to the mainland? Is this correct?
4
It has gotten too hot in Dallas, Texas and I want to move to the Rocky Mountains. I am waiting for the US Government to send that check today. I want to move this summer.
84
Not funny, I think. To compare the plight of this community with 'wanting to move' because it's too hot? These folks are living in dire physical situations due in large part to activities that we all have profited from.
1
I am not laughing. It is too hot for me in Dallas, Texas due to Man Made Global Warming. I demand the Government pay for my relocation to the Rockies. I was born a man but I am so upset about the Man Made Heat in Dallas, Texas I am going to use the Ladies room as soon as I get to Target.
1
Hey Dude, close your windows.
What's truly amazing is that this is only the beginning. An isolated incident on the LA bayou costs an incredible sum of money to relocate - what happens when Miami, New Orleans, or Manhattan residents have to relocated? Is this the writing on the wall that finally makes state and federal lawmakers authorize a carbon tax and fund resiliency public works on a regional scale? I sure hope so.
We shouldn't be paying for this. Until we can afford to educate and house our own people - other countries should be helped by our dollars.
2
Not only the changing climate will swallow coastal Louisiana, but the Mighty Mississippi, long a target of human hubris will have a last laugh. It will indeed keep on rollin' and not even the Army Corps of Engineers can stop its natural life.
You would think figuring out how the effects of our warmer future would be top of everybody's list, but no, we worry about building a wall to keep out our southern neighbors.
We need big thinkers without political bias, without ego and without a drive for riches. Do they exist?
You would think figuring out how the effects of our warmer future would be top of everybody's list, but no, we worry about building a wall to keep out our southern neighbors.
We need big thinkers without political bias, without ego and without a drive for riches. Do they exist?
4
Here in Miami I see US1 and further east Miami Beach streets flood after a heavy rain in the summer.
Meanwhile high rise projects are still going up on the water or as close as possible.
A developer once told me that he discusses global warming with other developers and builders but absolutely never with home buyers.
Meanwhile high rise projects are still going up on the water or as close as possible.
A developer once told me that he discusses global warming with other developers and builders but absolutely never with home buyers.
5
We know what is causing this. So how about the fossil fuel corporations, and cattle ranchers (to name but a few) foot the bill for this? Perhaps the residents of this community should file a law suit against them? Infant, perhaps they should also file against the Republican party for contributory negligence for their utter denial of climate change and support of all the industries leading to it. This is so horrific, and more so because it is preventable.
This is one small area. Wait till a quarter the world needs to relocate. It will make the Syrian Refugee crisis look like a field trip.
This is one small area. Wait till a quarter the world needs to relocate. It will make the Syrian Refugee crisis look like a field trip.
3
Why are oil, coal, logging companies, automobile companies and their unions, and oil and coal state governments not paying for this directly? Climate change is caused by burning fossil fuels and cutting down forests including clear cutting. With this article show us a map of LA now and before extraction industries went to work on their coast line. Show us a map everyday of the effects of global warming/climate change. When you run an ad for an airline or luxury car or truck, tell us their carbon footprint, and what are the alternatives available that will protect the planet instead of destroy it. In an election year identify the sources of oil/coal political ads, as well as their true agendas. Don't give climate change deniers political or advertising cover to hide under.
3
Water world ?
2
This has absolutely NOTHING to do with so called "climate change"; it has been going on for many generations and is due to agricultural practices.
7
Our country is going to go bankrupt trying to save everyone from rising flood waters. If you think moving 60 people is expensive try Miami or lower Manhattan.
6
so-be has its own cash, if you dont mind
This foundation for Miami Beach’s future is actually a complicated and expensive experiment: As much as $500 million to install 80 pumps and raise roads and seawalls across the city. A first phase appears to be working, at least for now. But just one year into a massive public works project that could take six more, it’s way too soon to say whether and for how long it can keep the staggeringly valuable real estate of an international tourist mecca dry — especially in the face of sea level rise projections that seem to only get scarier with every new analysis.
Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/miami-dade/miami-beach/a...
This foundation for Miami Beach’s future is actually a complicated and expensive experiment: As much as $500 million to install 80 pumps and raise roads and seawalls across the city. A first phase appears to be working, at least for now. But just one year into a massive public works project that could take six more, it’s way too soon to say whether and for how long it can keep the staggeringly valuable real estate of an international tourist mecca dry — especially in the face of sea level rise projections that seem to only get scarier with every new analysis.
Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/miami-dade/miami-beach/a...
1
If these projections come to pass then all of Miami's efforts will amount to holding back the ocean with a broom. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/24/opinion/sunday/lessons-from-underwater...
1
It's terrible to see that how these people are being affected by climate change but it's even more appalling to see the abject poverty in which these people are living. House destroyed in 2008 and living in a trailer that floods, no stove, cooking for a family on a hotplate. THIS IS AMERICA where billionaires and millionaires throw their money at politicians or spend it on multi-million dollar homes, cars, etc and still, we have people living in squalor in rural areas like this as well as in the major cities. Our shame as a people should know no bounds to see that fellow Americans are living like this.
372
To Sherr29,
I felt the same way when I read this article. How is such economic inequality compatible with the supposed values of the wealthiest country in the history of the world? And when those multi-million dollar homes are similarly threatened, their owners will probably be "bailed out".
I felt the same way when I read this article. How is such economic inequality compatible with the supposed values of the wealthiest country in the history of the world? And when those multi-million dollar homes are similarly threatened, their owners will probably be "bailed out".
5
Blame Trump and his fellow capitalists.
1
What have these people done to try to better themselves? They decided to live in this poverty, stay uneducated, live in an extremely rural community away from the rest of the country, all to maintain their way of life. Well their way of life means being poor. So be it.
3
Of course our Nation's first climate refugees would be First Nations peoples. As well as poor people. It's terrible that the most marginalized, or those with less means, in our own wealthy country and around the world, are those who are on the front lines of and are affected by climate change.
Although you could also count the survivors of/those displaced by Hurricane Katrina as climate refugees as well.
Until the world's wealthiest are drowning or being blown away by the increase of storms or seeing their lands/property burned to the ground with the increase of wildfires from climate change, I fear that not enough will be done to address our rapidly, devastatingly, changing climate.
Although you could also count the survivors of/those displaced by Hurricane Katrina as climate refugees as well.
Until the world's wealthiest are drowning or being blown away by the increase of storms or seeing their lands/property burned to the ground with the increase of wildfires from climate change, I fear that not enough will be done to address our rapidly, devastatingly, changing climate.
4
This is an example of government overreach. On the assumption we make it public policy to protect people and terrain from natural/man made disasters then in the case of areas where it's not practical to protect the area, then it would save a whole lot of hassle to just give each person the appropriate amount of money and let them find their own place to move to. Fisher folk can move seashore areas (for a while), and Buffalo Man can go to the Great Plains. It's just not feasible to get agreement as to where to move the community. I'm sorry for your plight, now use your own initiative to figure out what to do.
5
Climate change is going to change American politics when Red State Climate Deniers see much of the Old Confederacy inundated by the ocean.
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2013/09/rising-seas/if-ice-melted-map
Will they still be denying Climate Change when their house is under water?
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2013/09/rising-seas/if-ice-melted-map
Will they still be denying Climate Change when their house is under water?
3
How is it that coastal subsidence can be attributed with such smug certainty to "man-made climate change"?
I understand why it costs $48 million for the government to move 60 people: it has been said that if the Sahara were under Federal control, in 30 years there would be a shortage of sand there.
I understand why it costs $48 million for the government to move 60 people: it has been said that if the Sahara were under Federal control, in 30 years there would be a shortage of sand there.
8
This is the problem with liberals. If termites damage my house until it is ready to collapse is Uncle Sam going to come in and give me $800,000 to move? No. But, if it is "climate change" lets spend millions!
Gimme' a break.
Gimme' a break.
10
Your argument is 100% plausible!
1
Every time the Hamptons many multi-million dollar summer homes wash away we pay millions to put back the sand and rebuild with subsidized flood insurance, this is why they always rebuild, no incentive to do anything else. This is nothing new, it has been going on for many decades. Most of those homeowners are Republican Conservatives. Long Islands two counties are in fact Bastions of Republican support. Can't blame the lefties for this one, sorry.
1
Are you saying that termites and climate change are unrelated? My god, who would have guessed?
1
America is facing a Sophie's choice: to replace an aging infrastructure which has a price tag of around 3 trillion by most estimates and watch much of it disappear as the ocean and environment changes or to bite the bullet today and move people to areas that we know they will survive at least for 200 or 300 years. For example, Miami is already flooding. It is built on limestone with water coming up from underneath as well as over. (Save your comparison to the Netherlands. Two different realities.) There is no known way to secure Miami and that includes the port today. Yet they are still building. My research has shown that we will face around ONE MILLION climate refugees from California Central Valley as the drought continues over decades. This is a 200 year trend. If you look at the rain fall cycle, CA has one good year, four bad years. The good year is never enough and keeps getting less each year. Agriculture is already drying up there. Are we prepared?
In the next six decades we will lose the Port of New Orleans. That means we will lose two of the most important ports in the South: Miami and New Orleans.
Our roads need attention, our bridges need attention, as Flint shows what most of us have been saying for a decade that our water infrastructure needs to be replaced.
The United States needs to act now. This is a global problem not one isolated to Louisana. Save your comments about the cause and the excuses. The cause at this stages bluntly does not matter.
In the next six decades we will lose the Port of New Orleans. That means we will lose two of the most important ports in the South: Miami and New Orleans.
Our roads need attention, our bridges need attention, as Flint shows what most of us have been saying for a decade that our water infrastructure needs to be replaced.
The United States needs to act now. This is a global problem not one isolated to Louisana. Save your comments about the cause and the excuses. The cause at this stages bluntly does not matter.
9
So many climate change views are really rants against climate change deniers. Climate change doesn't stand a chance when so many of its proponents are little more than angry and resentful keyboard warriors, who despise one group (ex., GOP) or another (ex., red states).
To get to a place where climate change is dealt with rationally we will have to get past this group as well.
To get to a place where climate change is dealt with rationally we will have to get past this group as well.
4
This is very critical issue and this phenomena might rise to other islands as well, unless if there is extensive and serious attentions from government. Island residents they have the right to not leave their homes, there are many factors they based on such as jobs, neighborhood and living style and so. Uprightly, minorities in US are suffering from government attentions plus they are confronting climate change solely.
I thought this was caused the the Army Corps of Engineers keeping the Mississippi safe for shipping, which reduces sediment deposits? Did the Times miss this in their Crusade to spread the Holy Word of Climate Change or was that Global Warming ?
5
Hmmm, interesting math problems here. I wonder how much it'll cost to resettle Miami? New York? Shanghai?
4
In trying to frame my thoughts around this problem I can only conclude that the choices people make are more often than not the result of their own actions.
These shacks that the population of this small spit of land, that should never have been built upon to begin with, are substandard housing. The people living in these squalid homes should have been removed from them years ago. The deterioration of these homes didn't start yesterday, it was decades in the making.
Most communities have a Board of Health, where were the social workers when these hovels were falling into disrepair? Where are the men? Don't show me old women and young children.
On top of all that now we have to worry about the displacement of Native Americans and worry about their cultural heritage being lost.
If this is the new norm I suggest we figure out how to raise the bridges and point the way out of the swamps.
These shacks that the population of this small spit of land, that should never have been built upon to begin with, are substandard housing. The people living in these squalid homes should have been removed from them years ago. The deterioration of these homes didn't start yesterday, it was decades in the making.
Most communities have a Board of Health, where were the social workers when these hovels were falling into disrepair? Where are the men? Don't show me old women and young children.
On top of all that now we have to worry about the displacement of Native Americans and worry about their cultural heritage being lost.
If this is the new norm I suggest we figure out how to raise the bridges and point the way out of the swamps.
8
Good article. thank you for writing it, Coral.
1
The people who should read this won't. Which is why our planet is pretty much doomed.
5
What a profound waste of money.
10
From what I read from the article these people are descendants of the native people who hunted and fished and lived a sustainable life for generations. Oil companies helped to erode that sustainable way of life. They are not wealthy 2nd home buyers wanting to save their beach lifestyle. Hardly a money grab.
231
If you dig deep into the history of the native people in this area, you may find that they sustained themselves because they did not reside permanently on marshy islands. They harvested food there when the season was right, but they were wise enough not to try to live there all the time.
3
These discussions are typical why America is a bankrupt nation. The comments are a us against them view. Your comments supports them but others treat them like welfare recipients. This is a universal problem we will face as a nation in the next 60 years. We can not allow ourselves to be divided by class or region or know it all pundits that want to argue the size of the hole in our ship as we sink.
We need to pull together as a people. We have a disaster facing us.
We need to pull together as a people. We have a disaster facing us.
1
Decades ago this was a hotly debated topic in our local news. We couldn't understand why anyone would live on sinking land that was sinking into the ocean. Why people continued to live on land they were told would be nothing but ocean is beyond me. How this is climate change is beyond me. It was a fact of science. The land was sinking period.
10
Darrell. So The southeast coast of Florida is also sinking? Miami is already worried
This is not the first federal relocation. Alaska legislators have earmarked funds in Approps bills to move villages affected by climate change.
2
Huh, I'd have thought Kivalina, Alaska would've been the first. But I suppose they'll be the second.
In the last 100 years the average sea level has risen only 8 inches. That does not seem like enough to cause the flooding. Is it possible there is subsidence caused by pumping out the oil underground?
4
And the rate of rise is rising.
So only 8 inches in 100 years and another 8 inches in the next 100 years. Better soon the coastal areas will be under water.
The land in southern Louisiana has always been fluid, growing and receding on the whims of the Mississippi and Atchafalaya. Efforts to save New Orleans from flooding doomed those downriver from the city, by diverting the natural flow of the rivers. The land is probably sinking, as opposed to any significant rise in sea level, since it's built on a alluvial flood plain. The idea that we commit to maintain a static shore line, in an area where that has never existed, is throwing good money after bad.
24
This article shows how hard it is to move even a small group of residents and maintain community when climate change makes theiir long time home inhabitable. What will we do when a large group of people need to move and what will,it cost?
3
This is complete and total propaganda.
The land is sinking because it's marshland--and water levels are rising because of increasing silt build-up around the delta. This may be due to human activity upstream--but it has nothing to with rising temperatures.
Sea levels are not rising above historical averages. There is no evidence for this.
There is no proof storms are becoming stronger or more numerous--in fact hurricane activity in the Atlantic is well below historical norms in the last 10 years.
Droughts are not more numerous either--they are at about historical levels--but more publicized because one of them happens to be occurring in California--even as it is ending.
Fresh water is not becoming scarce because of climate change--it is over-utilized in some areas because of increased human activities--as we use more fresh water for household use, industry and agriculture.
This article is a lie in its entirety. Shame on the NY Times for allowing such 1-sided propaganda to appear on its pages--without even the slightest attempt at explaining what is really going on here.
I hope I am alive in 20 years--when this climate-change fallacy is exposed for what it is--the largest occurrence of group-think and mass hysteria in human history--all for the purposes of throttling Capitalism--and redistributing its wealth. There will be a record, long and detailed,--so don't think we Conservatives will be too timid to shove it up liberal noses. We will--with glee.
The land is sinking because it's marshland--and water levels are rising because of increasing silt build-up around the delta. This may be due to human activity upstream--but it has nothing to with rising temperatures.
Sea levels are not rising above historical averages. There is no evidence for this.
There is no proof storms are becoming stronger or more numerous--in fact hurricane activity in the Atlantic is well below historical norms in the last 10 years.
Droughts are not more numerous either--they are at about historical levels--but more publicized because one of them happens to be occurring in California--even as it is ending.
Fresh water is not becoming scarce because of climate change--it is over-utilized in some areas because of increased human activities--as we use more fresh water for household use, industry and agriculture.
This article is a lie in its entirety. Shame on the NY Times for allowing such 1-sided propaganda to appear on its pages--without even the slightest attempt at explaining what is really going on here.
I hope I am alive in 20 years--when this climate-change fallacy is exposed for what it is--the largest occurrence of group-think and mass hysteria in human history--all for the purposes of throttling Capitalism--and redistributing its wealth. There will be a record, long and detailed,--so don't think we Conservatives will be too timid to shove it up liberal noses. We will--with glee.
22
If only a response was printable.
1
Really? Kiribati, Tokelau and Tuvalu and the Marshall Islands are among those islands that are almost underwater right now. Are they sinking also? The last 8 years have been the warmest on record. That's a measurable fact. The fabled northwest passage is navigable for the first time in recorded history. And the facts go on and on. You're wrong on just about everything you posted.
1
I hope you are right, and the climate scientists from around the world are wrong. Otherwise, we are in tremendous trouble.
What is it going to cost to move Boston, New York City and Maimi when the go under water in the near future?
Will the Carbon Energy industry oligarchs pay to deal with the damage they are doing to th Climate?
Will the Carbon Energy industry oligarchs pay to deal with the damage they are doing to th Climate?
20
according to the article this has been going on for half a century and yet now they get millions to move because global warming? there are so many better uses for this money what complete boondoggle. these people are not helpless good grief calling them refugees is an insult to actually refugees.
29
This must more of that librul commie plot.....are libruls trucking in water to flood the place???
Or maybe conservative climate deniers have set the nation and world on a disastrous path
Or maybe conservative climate deniers have set the nation and world on a disastrous path
15
Why do left wingers think it is so funny to write what I guess is supposed to the hillbilly spelling "librul"? It's good liberal condescension at its best. The most puzzling thing is that even most liberals pronounce the word that way.
2
no john, the liberals are allowing the Corps of Engineers to keep dredging the channels and preventing flooding, which removes the sediment that rebuilds the delta. This incident is not a global warming catastrophe; this is a river management consequence that we knew about 100 years ago.
2
$48 million to move 60 people is insane. And here most of these people don't want to move, or can't agree on where to move to, or agree on who else could live in the new community. This grant works out to $800,000 per person. This shouldn't be a burden imposed on other taxpayers. These people have known for generations that the island was disappearing. Other people move to new towns and new jobs without the government paying for it. Why should these people get such massive handouts?
51
Wake up. Hurricane Katrina will cost upwards of $200 billion. Who do you think is paying for that?
Because they only knew for a single generation and companies and government are the one who helped destroy their home directly by digging channels through the island and blocking off rivers? How would you feel if the government just built a giant ditch right next to your home and over time it eroded your home's foundation? Although the ones who should foot most of this bill should be the companies that dug those channels...
Also, it's not about whether they want to move or not. The place will be underwater in one more generation. Notice the only people saying they don't want to move out are the older folk. Of course they don't want to move; they'll be dead by the time is underwater.
Also, it's not about whether they want to move or not. The place will be underwater in one more generation. Notice the only people saying they don't want to move out are the older folk. Of course they don't want to move; they'll be dead by the time is underwater.
Another comment below states that there are something like 25 households... That puts the number at over $2 million each household...
Why not move these people to Detroit? Abandoned housing stock is already there... You could renovate these homes for them for much less than that number and no exposure to global warming...
Why not move these people to Detroit? Abandoned housing stock is already there... You could renovate these homes for them for much less than that number and no exposure to global warming...
1
As usual in this fee-for-service world, the government is addressing symptoms, not causes. How it can cost $48 million to move 60 people to higher ground is beyond me, and by the comments it's beyond the ken of anyone reading the article. How much is it going to cost to move all my relatives off Hilton Head Island?
167
people on hilton head will simply call a moving van and drive to higher ground in their bentleys
1
There's a slimmer prospect of finding oil on Hilton Head island, maybe?
Oh, it makes us feel good and the bill just goes on the government credit card. It's not like we are ever going to have to pay the interest on $20 trillion and more in debt. Your children and mine won't be impoverished by it in a few short years.
Living in Lafayette, Louisiana over the next 50 years (if I should be so lucky) should be very interesting. About 30 miles from the coast as the crow flies, projections are that by 2100 Lafayette will constitute the water-line in this part of Louisiana, as the parishes south and east of here are inundated. The crisis is of enormous importance, regardless of the cause (climate change, sediment loss, subsidence). What makes the crisis more of a tragedy is the reluctance of the government of Louisiana to address it in any real and substantial way. We dither, we quibble, we make a speech. Meanwhile, the inexorable advance of the water continues. A lovely future awaits us in South Louisiana.
209
What part of land erosion/flood control damage (no silt) do you equate with rising water? There might be communities out there that have a real problem with climate change. This is not one of them.
1
Govenor Jindal? What was his position on all this during his reign of 8 years as head honcho of trhe state?
Avocats, I'm with you - $48M divided by 60 people is 800 grand a person. Ok, so let's estimate 100K in 'new housing' or rental subsidies - per person - and remember 1/4 are probably children living with parents - to the island people, and maybe 50K each for vocational/educational grants - bc theyll need better education to afford the more $expensive lifestyle on the mainland. That leaves 600K a person for govt employees to grift off of to "run the program". The land has been sinking -er oh that's right it may just be COMPACTING due to normal sediment patterns - and eroding - thanks to the loggers and oilers who dug canals. Can some BP money help with this? 800K relocation charge per person is a bit steep, dontcha think? How 'bout we eliminate the tax subsidies oil companies continue to get each year and put that into a giant relocation fund?
15
It used to be that the prime real estate was located along the coasts. Now it looks like the prime real estate will be much further inland as those who live on the coasts are forced over the coming decades to relocate.
If Syria (and Katrina) is a guide, then climate refugees will relocate to the cities in search of food, lodging, and jobs. We can (and should) spend money on hardening infrastructure. But we also need to spend money to help our cities prepare for the coming influx of refugees so that they do not spiral into anger and despair.
If Syria (and Katrina) is a guide, then climate refugees will relocate to the cities in search of food, lodging, and jobs. We can (and should) spend money on hardening infrastructure. But we also need to spend money to help our cities prepare for the coming influx of refugees so that they do not spiral into anger and despair.
6
Hasn't the Mississippi delta been sinking for about a million years?
9
The comments here on subsidence, as well as the blame placed on channels cut by logging and petroleum industries, sound reasonable and correct. One problem, several causes. Even so, the parallel to the far more ominous impact that rising water from climate change will wreak is not unwarranted. Corps of engineers spending millions already to pile sand in front of the Village of Montauk on eastern Long Island. Miami Beach streets already flooding at high tide when no storm involved. And still one party suing to stop the Clean Power Plan. Society run by adolescent lack of foresight.
24
This is, in microcosm, what is coming soon in macrocosm. And, sadly, the brunt of the cost and pain falls on those least able to afford it. As a society, we have much to answer for.
3
Very few who are doing the damage care about these people....
Southeast Louisiana, aka "The Delta" is more a victim of capitalistic avarice than "global warming" per se. The "case of the sinking Delta" has been reoccuring media folder for decades, long before "global warming" entered from stage left, with the last expose surfacing with Hurricane Katrina.
The capitalistic, profit minded "shipping industry," and related businesses, have influenced hydrological changes throughout the Delta's rivers such that the essential, bayou creating, sediments, that first made, then expanded and, until the 20th century, maintained pretty much all of Louisiana south of I-10, are being swept down and out into the Gulf instead of flooding, which allows the sediments to flow out and replenish the naturally sinking land.
Even if "global warming" effects amount to no more than gas passed in a wind storm, previous hydrological changes in the Delta's rivers will ensure Louisiana will continue having to coup with "climate refugees."
The capitalistic, profit minded "shipping industry," and related businesses, have influenced hydrological changes throughout the Delta's rivers such that the essential, bayou creating, sediments, that first made, then expanded and, until the 20th century, maintained pretty much all of Louisiana south of I-10, are being swept down and out into the Gulf instead of flooding, which allows the sediments to flow out and replenish the naturally sinking land.
Even if "global warming" effects amount to no more than gas passed in a wind storm, previous hydrological changes in the Delta's rivers will ensure Louisiana will continue having to coup with "climate refugees."
10
And this is exactly why they are owed this amount of money to relocate. No American can wash their hands clean of responsibility in encouraging this capitalistic avarice. Every American has directly or indirectly benefited from the drilling for oil, drudging canals for shipping, etc.
Ironically, this article will likely generate the exact opposite effect of what the authors intended due to their sloppy research of the Delta Basin. They've left out keys details about the deltaic cycle, which are multi-causal and include the dynamics of sediment deposition, compaction, subsidence, tidal erosion to name just a few. Instead, they reduce this complex ecosystem to a single headline grabber - Climate Change!
For those of you worried about giving climate-change-deniers more ammunition for their denial, this article unfortunately has done just that.
For those of you worried about giving climate-change-deniers more ammunition for their denial, this article unfortunately has done just that.
21
Wow! Since 1870, the ocean has risen 7.7 inches. That is the cause of this move?
Well, no! Even the writers, in between their diatribe about climate change, recognize this move was forced because of poor land management during the last fifty years.
"But since 1955, more than 90 percent of the island’s original land mass has washed away. Channels cut by loggers and oil companies eroded much of the island, and decades of flood control efforts have kept once free-flowing rivers from replenishing the wetlands’ sediments. Some of the island was swept away by hurricanes."
I am sorry for this community's problems. But this has nothing to do with a rise in ocean levels of 7" during the last 150 years. I am not a climate change 'skeptic', however when journalists and politicians become more and more fanatic about insisting we are in the middle of a disastrous rise in global temperatures (which really haven't gone up in the last twenty years); then someone needs to bring the conversation back to reality.
Is global warming an issue. Of course it is! But exaggerating the issue with articles like this merely make deniers dig their heels in just as they did with Gore's fiasco pseudo science documentary. The truth is bad enough. Try to stick to it rather than sinking to the level of propaganda.
Well, no! Even the writers, in between their diatribe about climate change, recognize this move was forced because of poor land management during the last fifty years.
"But since 1955, more than 90 percent of the island’s original land mass has washed away. Channels cut by loggers and oil companies eroded much of the island, and decades of flood control efforts have kept once free-flowing rivers from replenishing the wetlands’ sediments. Some of the island was swept away by hurricanes."
I am sorry for this community's problems. But this has nothing to do with a rise in ocean levels of 7" during the last 150 years. I am not a climate change 'skeptic', however when journalists and politicians become more and more fanatic about insisting we are in the middle of a disastrous rise in global temperatures (which really haven't gone up in the last twenty years); then someone needs to bring the conversation back to reality.
Is global warming an issue. Of course it is! But exaggerating the issue with articles like this merely make deniers dig their heels in just as they did with Gore's fiasco pseudo science documentary. The truth is bad enough. Try to stick to it rather than sinking to the level of propaganda.
24
Read Jane Mayer's "Dark Money," my friend, and you will learn that it is you who has succumbed to propaganda. It is not your fault. Hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent to cast doubt on legitimate climate science. Would you agree that some of the smartest people work at Google, Apple, Microsoft, and Facebook? Those four companies just issued a joint friend of the court support for the Clean Power Plan because of their conviction that it is time for urgent action on climate change. We ARE in the middle of a disastrous rise in global temperatures. The only disagreement among scientists, at this point, is how bad it will get, and how fast it will get that bad.
2
Global temperatures have indeed increased significantly over the last 20 years, but I suspect you're not really interested. Here's the raw data from which anyone can perform the required analyses:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
On a global scale it is just the tip of the iceberg and a wake up call that this will happen to hundreds of islands that will shrink or disappear due to climate change and millions displaced due to floods and or drought. This will create refugees in their own countries that will dwarf the migrant crisis faced by the Syrian crisis affecting Western Europe. Unless pro.active action is taken to mitigate or minimize impact of climate change the present occupiers of the world will be handing over to posterity the planet in a much worse condition than what they received from their ancestors.
5
Well put. This is a fear that keeps me up at night. Everyone is worried, evenif they don't show it, about Louisiana and Florida, parts of the northeast and others regions as they should. But like you said, what is happening now is a drop in the bucket of a global catastrophe.
So long as there are people in the world who deny the effects of human engineered climate change, no long term solution is possible. As of now, we are all hurtling down the path of sure destruction.
And by the way, people who justly claim that part of Louisiana will sink irrespective of climate change, should be cognizant that large parts of the world that is on terra firma will also get inundated sooner or later due to rising sea levels.
So long as there are people in the world who deny the effects of human engineered climate change, no long term solution is possible. As of now, we are all hurtling down the path of sure destruction.
And by the way, people who justly claim that part of Louisiana will sink irrespective of climate change, should be cognizant that large parts of the world that is on terra firma will also get inundated sooner or later due to rising sea levels.
Sea levels always rise dramatically between ice ages. My own ancestors were driven out of Doggerland—the area between the British Isles and Scandinavia now covered by the North Sea—thousands of years ago. The best solution is to move away from the coast. Sea levels will stop rising when the polar ice caps are completely melted. They will begin dropping when the next ice age begins.
1
It's frustrating to not even see a mention of the peoples displacement that has occurred in Alaska. I recognize they have not been re-settled yet in entireity, but to label this Island in Louisiana as the first without a mention of this happening just as rapidly (or more) in Alaska is wrong.
4
The reason this is happening is that this region is sinking. This has been going on for hundreds of years and will continue to do so. It doesn't change anything, but it is the reason for it. Climate change will not help, it will make it worse, but it is not the cause of this. It would have happened anyway.
14
Boxheater. (?). The sinking has been going on only since we made a channel for the River. Before that time silt replenish the soil.
Not quite the full story. The water saturated land does sink, but is replenished by silt deposition during frequent (oft daily) flooding and soil creation from normal biological action eventually, the land raises high enough and is far enough away to be high and dry.
But flood control ends the flooding and farming leads to soil loss. Canals dug by the evil oil companies and climate change caused by the burning fossil fuels only accelerate the inevitable sinking.
But flood control ends the flooding and farming leads to soil loss. Canals dug by the evil oil companies and climate change caused by the burning fossil fuels only accelerate the inevitable sinking.
1
Are there any events today that aren't attributed to climate change? It's a shame because it feeds into the "alarmist" label.
2
For those who read the article, as opposed to simply the headline, the writers make the causes of land loss in the island clear ("...Since 1955...") They note that climate change will make things worse, and that sea level rise from melting glaciers would put it under water in any case. This place is first because of unique local circumstances. There will be a lot more examples, unfortunately, as the consequences of our actions unfold. Hopefully examples like this will stir us into logical, sensible deeds that make the worst case less likely.
23
I'd argue that these aren't climate change refugees. They are land erosion refugees. Some erosion caused by nature (naturally via hurricanes, flooding, and sediment compaction that occurs on the Mississippi delta- which I never knew about but learned about today), some caused by industry, and some caused by trying to prevent floods (which you'd think was done on purpose for a viable reason by people in that region).
All-in-all, this seems like the first example of misappropriation of "climate refugee" funds.
This portion of the article affirms the aforementioned reasoning: "But since 1955, more than 90 percent of the island’s original land mass has washed away. Channels cut by loggers and oil companies eroded much of the island, and decades of flood control efforts have kept once free-flowing rivers from replenishing the wetlands’ sediments. Some of the island was swept away by hurricanes."
All-in-all, this seems like the first example of misappropriation of "climate refugee" funds.
This portion of the article affirms the aforementioned reasoning: "But since 1955, more than 90 percent of the island’s original land mass has washed away. Channels cut by loggers and oil companies eroded much of the island, and decades of flood control efforts have kept once free-flowing rivers from replenishing the wetlands’ sediments. Some of the island was swept away by hurricanes."
159
Are you saying that sea levels are not rising?
1
You're right about the myriad reasons why these people are being displaced, but wrong to deny that human influence on natural climate change is not a big factor.
Diminishing the role that climate change is playing on this economic tragedy--that's a political response, not a thoughtful analysis of cause and effect. The growing problems caused by accelerating climate change can not be ignored or denied, any more than they could when people ignored or denied that smoking causes long disease. Human impact on the climate is erodes coastlines, contributes to extreme weather patterns that exacerbates soil runoff. Yes, there are natural variations in climate.
Yes, some smokers fail to get lung diseases. But evidence backed by science is indisputable. Quit reading blogs by so called experts; quit absorbing the messages paid for by Exxon Mobile and recited by GOP candidates every time the topic is mentioned.
Diminishing the role that climate change is playing on this economic tragedy--that's a political response, not a thoughtful analysis of cause and effect. The growing problems caused by accelerating climate change can not be ignored or denied, any more than they could when people ignored or denied that smoking causes long disease. Human impact on the climate is erodes coastlines, contributes to extreme weather patterns that exacerbates soil runoff. Yes, there are natural variations in climate.
Yes, some smokers fail to get lung diseases. But evidence backed by science is indisputable. Quit reading blogs by so called experts; quit absorbing the messages paid for by Exxon Mobile and recited by GOP candidates every time the topic is mentioned.
1
Completely agree with Mr. Gadsden. Current climate change effects do not account for what's going on in the Mississippi delta. However, it's no secret that the these natural systems have been extremely badly managed. Millions of acres of mangrove swamps have been eliminated, canals cut thither and yon, dykes & levees constructed, the list goes on. How people thought this would have no effect on a huge area of land just a few feet above sea level is beyond belief. A classic example of short-term gain leading to long-term pain. Humans have never been very good with the long-term picture, probably because "in the long run, we are all dead" (Keynes). Well, it's now the long run and not all of us are dead.
And a memo to Chief Naquin: it's more important for your people to have a decent place to live than to have a buffalo on site. You can't always get what you want.
And a memo to Chief Naquin: it's more important for your people to have a decent place to live than to have a buffalo on site. You can't always get what you want.
1
The article makes egregious statements about the cause of land loss in LA, specifically has been driven by logging, channel building and other man made efforts to divert water. Natural subsidence has also contributed. "Climate Change" has not been a factor, it is being peddled once again as a future and yet unrealized threat.
3
Even though sea levels are indeed rising every where, you still refute scientific fact. Go to any coastal community and observe what's going on - it's hard to deny it when it's right in front of you.
Somehow I'm reminded of War With the Newts by Karel Capek, published in 1936, but now we are the newts.
2
I guess the National Climate Assessment report was just some left wing political scam initiated by the evil brown guy in the White House. After all the self proclaimed experts here disagree with the findings. I guess the rape of the wetlands of Gulf Coast are to blame unless of course one is trying to stop logging or channeling in which case they are insignificant in relation to the natural changes that occur in estuaries. In short apparently there are no human factors involved in the destruction of fragile ecosystems, the displacement of shore dwelling people and it is all just how the lord almighty wants things to be. Yes that must be the ticket...
22
Fortunately, the oil companies will be paying for all this, right? Or are we still subsidizing them?
Some sort of settlement along the lines of what we did with the tobacco companies -- who also covered up evidence that their product was harmful -- seems in order.
Some sort of settlement along the lines of what we did with the tobacco companies -- who also covered up evidence that their product was harmful -- seems in order.
31
You should say a prayer EVERY night that we have oil companies in the US or else you would be at the mercy of Saudi Arabia, Iran, Venezuela, Mexico and Russia for the energy used to keep you with electricity, the gas for your car and the gas for cooking/heating. Wake up bud!
1
Nothing in what the critics here are saying about natural processes causing land subsidence and compaction negates the fact that climate change is adding to these natural processes, adding completely unnatural acceleration in the loss of land to the entire process. Indeed, the observation that natural processes already cause land to subside simply makes it more urgent that humans not add to and exacerbate natural processes, at unnaturally swift rates of change.
35
The Koch brothers and all others who are working to deny the reality of climate change should pay attention. The scarce resources of the Federal government may be increasingly used in the future to mitigate climate change...channeling money from other needs like infrastructure and health care...
7
Just a few years from now the issue will be paying for perhaps 10 million people to relocate from southern Florida as building a several thousand mile long levy to protect the entire cost will be determined to be unrealistic. By then there will be acceptance that next in line will be most of the major cities on the east coast.
12
Ten sons and 26 grandchildren - now we have global warming in a nutshell. I'm really sorry for this community and others like that will be wiped out by climate change. But population growth is also to blame and yet we rarely speak of it as a contributing factor. All of our problems are solvable. Its our consciousness that has to rise here, or the tide will do it for us.
47
Amy, Am going to wager that this entire family has a carbon foot-print 1/10 of yours.
Take a look at the house. Not a lot of timber there. No miles of driveway with a big honking SUV. Not a lot of heating or cooling going on, either. No jets to Europe or Asia. Maybe a little gas to power a boat to fish, cook a meal.
Take a look at the house. Not a lot of timber there. No miles of driveway with a big honking SUV. Not a lot of heating or cooling going on, either. No jets to Europe or Asia. Maybe a little gas to power a boat to fish, cook a meal.
3
My thoughts exactly! Even if the land are were not shrinking, thinking that 10 kids and 26 grandkids can live on a piece of land that is not expanding, let alone fine work, is utterly absurd. Population growth is the elephant in the room, and even this article does not cite it.
So after the loggers, and the oil companies, and climate change caused in large part by human activity conspire to make land vanish, who is paying to resettle the exploding population? Oh, yeh, I forgot.
So after the loggers, and the oil companies, and climate change caused in large part by human activity conspire to make land vanish, who is paying to resettle the exploding population? Oh, yeh, I forgot.
1
I get you win and don't disagree with your message. By the way, I drive a Prius and live in a solar house. We heat it, up here in Maine, on about 3 cords of wood.
I love my swamp but I gotta go, south Louisiana is a lost cause and not just because of climate change...there is seriously no future here for anyone. We bought property in Colorado a couple of years ago and we spend vacations there but we are moving permanently as soon as our child is out of college, she graduates in August.
If those people refuse to move, there is nothing that can be done about that, make them an offer and if they refuse, make them sign a waiver saying that they understand that no more help is coming...ever... and if they want to get out, now is the time.
There are a bunch of those little islands down there and all of them will be under water soon, people just being stubborn are risking other people's lives by wasting time that could be used to save more reasonable people.
If those people refuse to move, there is nothing that can be done about that, make them an offer and if they refuse, make them sign a waiver saying that they understand that no more help is coming...ever... and if they want to get out, now is the time.
There are a bunch of those little islands down there and all of them will be under water soon, people just being stubborn are risking other people's lives by wasting time that could be used to save more reasonable people.
16
So I guess this is how it works: private industry makes a killing (literally) by fighting against change to renewable energy sources and also forestalling that change by paying "scientists" to promote the canard of climate change denial. So then when Climate Change starts to affect the world, which we knew it would, we, the taxpayers, get stuck with the bill. I believe that dirty energy companies, oil, coal, fracking, should be taxed heavily to pay the costs of cleaning up their mess.
25
The same companies that have made a killing creating this mess, will make one cleaning it up. They see opportunity in climate change.
Right on! Nothing short of violent revolution is called for here...
"In January, the Department of Housing and Urban Development announced grants totaling $1 billion in 13 states to help communities adapt to climate change, by building stronger levees, dams and drainage systems."
The total sea rise in the last 50 years is 4 or 5 inches. That is not what has killed the DELTA.
DAMS,, all up and down the Mississippi basin prevent flooding and collect silt.
CANALS,,, thousands of miles of canals Cris-cross the delta for drainage, oil exploration, barge traffic, draining fresh water and admitting salt water.
LEVEES,,, speed the water, silt, and flood down the river and channel it right out to sea. Silt is lost, wasted.
The DELTA is an ecosystem,, dependent up annual floods bringing silt to renew the delta, raise the ground level. Yes, it is anthropogenic effect. The people burn fossil fuel, warm the Earth, and raise the seas.
But the far greater effect of this delta paradise, has been CAUSED by dams,, canals,, and levees. These homes are being lost to exactly what they want to build more of. More will not make it better. More will make it worse.
This article cries out for better science and research by its authors.
The total sea rise in the last 50 years is 4 or 5 inches. That is not what has killed the DELTA.
DAMS,, all up and down the Mississippi basin prevent flooding and collect silt.
CANALS,,, thousands of miles of canals Cris-cross the delta for drainage, oil exploration, barge traffic, draining fresh water and admitting salt water.
LEVEES,,, speed the water, silt, and flood down the river and channel it right out to sea. Silt is lost, wasted.
The DELTA is an ecosystem,, dependent up annual floods bringing silt to renew the delta, raise the ground level. Yes, it is anthropogenic effect. The people burn fossil fuel, warm the Earth, and raise the seas.
But the far greater effect of this delta paradise, has been CAUSED by dams,, canals,, and levees. These homes are being lost to exactly what they want to build more of. More will not make it better. More will make it worse.
This article cries out for better science and research by its authors.
50
That's a reach, since 1955?
1
And so it begins...
5
Sixty people moved at a cost of $48,000,000.
$800,000 per person.
$800,000 buys a lot in on of the poorest states in the confederacy.
Could we please be enlightened as to why it is so expensive to do so?
$800,000 per person.
$800,000 buys a lot in on of the poorest states in the confederacy.
Could we please be enlightened as to why it is so expensive to do so?
46
What's your point with the reference to the confederacy?
2
Wait until all of D.C. has to be resettled. Don't you think contractors like Halliburton are salivating about the profit potential of climate change?
After reading the comments below, it appears that there are multiple factors at work that may be causing this displacement, not simply climate change. But denying climate change exists and/or simply ignoring it are not acceptable either. Somehow the world is going to have to deal with it and we better start planning now. If Washington wasn't so dysfunctional, they should be applying taxes on the producers (gas, coal & oil companies) and consumers to encourage conservation and to make switching to alternate fuels like wind, solar, and tidal power more attractive. Large tax breaks should be given to those who purchase electrical vehicles as well. But of course nothing will be done and I am sure that big fossil fuel will just continue to lobby and bribe our congress until we are all drowning.
9
By selecting an area where the issue isn't rising sea levels, but sinking and eroding land, you feed the climate change skeptics. As mentioned deep into the article, the issues are complex. This article highlights human impact on the delta, but the headline has little to do with it. How do you expect to build a serious discussion on climate change with an article that conflates the issue?
22
The lands along the coast and delta in Louisiana are fragile - as the article explained - for more reasons than sea level change. They are beautiful, but not stable. Left to itself, without locks and levees, the river might have shifted west and changed which regions received silt to keep from sinking away.
There are some pieces of land that seem to have a long history to people, but are only a flash in the pan geologically. Coastal river deltas are one of them.
Sea level change will have an enormous impact on humans; but some places are not long term homes for people even without it.
There are some pieces of land that seem to have a long history to people, but are only a flash in the pan geologically. Coastal river deltas are one of them.
Sea level change will have an enormous impact on humans; but some places are not long term homes for people even without it.
14
This has nothing to do with so-called climate change. It is all about human changes to the river which prevent new land; drilling below which lowers the land, and other human activities mentioned in the article. Seas are rising at most one inch per decade as we emerge from the Little Ice Age.
9
$48 Million to move "only about 60 people" (25 families per wikipedia) from an area which is clearly impoverished. That's $1.9 Million per family, over 36 times the median U.S. household income. I suspect the families themselves will not see much of this money. The amount of money involved seems grossly out of proportion to the problem. Followup stories should follow the money and provide a public accounting.
192
This is insane journalism. No one should have ever settled on a strip of land like this. Shores change all the time; just look at Wildwood NJ vs Ocean City NJ - one is getting sand and one keeps losing sand. You cannot change the path of the earth and what it wants to do. I mean, look at those shacks! move already and go to somewhere with nice houses and schools.
15
We assume you are organizing a New Jersey fund-raiser to pay back the billions in FEMA aid the rest of us paid to help the Jersey shore recover after Katrina, Rita, Wilma.....and I want those folks in Kentucky to ante up for the billions they've received to rebuild roads and homes in low density areas where tornadoes are high frequency events - Come to think of it, Tennessee, Ohio, Missouri, Texas, Carolinas North and South, Illinois, Kansas, Iowa - you all moved to places where mudslides, tornadoes, hurricanes, etc were gonna happen and we helped you. Won't one of you 'crowdfund' a billion to reestablish a community for many generations of marginalized people living on a fragile eco-system that's been sufficiently man-handled over the decades? It would seem we all live in glass houses.
1
You don't know anything about south Louisiana obviously. That used to be much more than a "spit" of land. But years of oil companies cutting their way thru this area led to erosion...mass erosion...of land. The article even states that Louisiana has lost land mass the size of Delaware. Now salt water is intruding as the gulf encroaches, leading to everything dying. Louisiana was warned about this for years, but preferred the easy money that the oil companies provided.
I don't blame the Indians for wanting to stay...that is their ancestral homeland. But most of it is now gone beneath the sea. The same awaits New Orleans unless the state has a real plan to save it. And that will effect much more than 60 families.
I don't blame the Indians for wanting to stay...that is their ancestral homeland. But most of it is now gone beneath the sea. The same awaits New Orleans unless the state has a real plan to save it. And that will effect much more than 60 families.
1
And let them eat cake?
What a colossal waste of money. Everyone knows that "climate change" is a hoax perpetrated by liberal socialists. Ask any Republican member of congress! Spending money to fix such a "problem" is terrible. Imagine how much social good this squandered money could do if it were given to the [very deserving] Koch brothers.
5
Buried in the article is, "decades of flood control efforts have kept once free-flowing rivers from replenishing the wetlands’ sediments. Some of the island was swept away by hurricanes." And then (after flood control by "smart people"), we read, "What little remains will EVENTUALLY be inundated as burning fossil fuels melt polar ice sheets and drive up sea levels".
So what really caused this problem? The approximate impact of various contributors is not discussed. Could it be the authors don't have the data, they just have an opinion or could it be the government screwed up flood control and did not understand the future ramifications of their actions?
So what really caused this problem? The approximate impact of various contributors is not discussed. Could it be the authors don't have the data, they just have an opinion or could it be the government screwed up flood control and did not understand the future ramifications of their actions?
15
Given the regional housing costs, spending $48mm on a move of 60 people seems completely crazy. Simply give every household a voucher for $250k and make it redeemable upon the household's purchase of a property anywhere in the country in a non flood zone area and moves out of their current property (which would be demolished).
13
Alex, keep in mind the importance of maintaining the continuity of this community. How would they all buy homes and land in the same neighborhood if you just cut them each checks for $250,000? This is an American Indian community—about the only thing they have left is each other, and you're suggesting taking even that from them.
2
As the Atlantic rises along the East Coast, the Charles River will flood Boston and Cambridge (and cities further upstream). Where will MIT and Harvard relocate to? Where will the residents of downtown Boston go?
The same questions can be asked of NYC, Miami, Shanghai, London, etc. If you have not watched Earth 2100 (ABC production), it's available on Youtube. How much will we spend to save NYC? A heck of a lot more than $48million.
The same questions can be asked of NYC, Miami, Shanghai, London, etc. If you have not watched Earth 2100 (ABC production), it's available on Youtube. How much will we spend to save NYC? A heck of a lot more than $48million.
14
You might want to consider buying real estate in upstate NY right now, because that's where NYC will be relocated to.
1
What a paradox. The first federal money spent to try to undo damage from climate change goes to the very state that is among the most adamantly in denial of its existence. Incredible.
617
Perhaps states should be required to sign on to support for addressing climate change in order to be eligible to receive such funds.
1
very state that is among the most adamantly in denial of its existence. Incredible.
Whatever gives you that idea? Do you even know anyone from Louisiana? I believe that all those people along the coast believe in climate change.
Whatever gives you that idea? Do you even know anyone from Louisiana? I believe that all those people along the coast believe in climate change.
4
Just one thing: Why put "climate refugees" in quotation marks in the headline? The US Secretary of the Interior presumably didn't put air quotes around those words.
The first of many who will be affected whether they deny climate change or not.
13
The first of many millions to come. But wait, I thought that making the changes necessary to prevent climate change was going to be expensive....
13
This is what a large parts of Florida is going to look like in 10 years.
I fear for my friends that that have moved there. The Polar ice caps
are melting at an alarming speed, So much faster than what was previously predicted. Seeing people react to global warming
brings to mind, the wealthy Jews who lived in Poland in the start of the second world war, denial always brings a tragic outcome. Let us all think of our grandchildren now.
I fear for my friends that that have moved there. The Polar ice caps
are melting at an alarming speed, So much faster than what was previously predicted. Seeing people react to global warming
brings to mind, the wealthy Jews who lived in Poland in the start of the second world war, denial always brings a tragic outcome. Let us all think of our grandchildren now.
13
You mean chicken little was right all along?
2
If y'all would just stay where you are from and not move down here we can probably take care of ourselves. But I guess it is that attitude that attracts migrants from up north to move here.
1
What provisions are being made if/when climate change restores the island to habitability in the future? Will these families retain some type of claim? What role will government and tax-levying play in the event the island is viable once again?
5
When I give my lecture on global warming here in Buffalo I usually start it with a question: how many of those present believe this past warm winter was due to global warming. I then go on to explain about how complicated it is because global warming, has to be superimposed over natural climate patterns such as El Nino. So it may be possible to say this or that was due only to global warming (human-induced change) vs some natural climate changes. If the changes are human-induced we have a chance to ameliorate some of the effects, if its natural change then we can only respond to the changes. No matter the cause, we still have to respond to those changes. Looking at this from a risk management perspective, we need to respond to mitigate these risks. We can't keep sticking our head in the sand. Personally, I believe there is a human-induced component and we can reduce the worst of the effects by reducing fossil fuel use. But, no matter what, we have to respond to the changes. For the sake of our grandkids.
12
Good points and of course nobody can today say what the effect of CO2 is since the models work poorly.
1
Buffalo has so much to gain from a warming climate. and besides the land is rising there from the removal 10,000 years ago of an ice pack a mile deep. It would be a good idea if the people from winner areas, i.e. Buffalo and neighboring Canada begin to subsidize people from loser areas, i.e. Pacific Islands.
This is what happens when you build a town on 1 foot of river sediment. Next thing you know they'll be building a city on major fault lines.
23
Glad to see this story on the front page, but the Times' coverage of climate change is in direct opposition to its coverage of the political campaign. Only one candidate for president has put climate change at the top of his agenda, and it is Bernie Sanders. Nevertheless, today is another in a long string of egregious examples of the Times burying the Sanders campaign. Why don't you cover the new poll showing him within the margin of error of Clinton in Indiana? Why don't you have headlines about the 60 point deficit he has overcome since last spring? Why do you put a headline about fund-raising that looks like doomsday for Sanders when he still holds a historic record for grassroots support? Yes, the Times is part of corporate media trying to manufacture consent. If you want to do something about climate change, you need to give Sanders and his supporters equal time.
28
Can we give Bernie some coverage for lying about HRC's record? If her votes matched his 93% of the time, and she only made money )like dozens of other political, entertainment, literary personalities) speaking at corporate events after she was out of office, how does the 'quid pro quo' charge hold water? And talking about Bernie, why didn't he build the facility to handle VT's low level nuclear waste in VT or Maine? Why did he vote to ship it to a poor Latino neighborhood in W. Texas, even after the residents met with him and begged him not to? Why did his wife get paid $4,900 a year to sit on the Texas Toxic Waste Commission?
1
So often we see people who have to leave a place because it was never really habitable. Often they are marginalized people, pushed there in poverty or as third rate citizens. Often our own misguided development destroys nature's protection. Man-made global warming is causing sea level rise and refugees. Many will be leaving places they never should have been or were forced to inhabit.
36
I say we move every single GOP "climate denier" from Congress and make them live there.
Perhaps when THEY get the daily impact of this undeniable fact floating through their homes, they'll wake up.....but I doubt it (they are republicans, after all).
Perhaps when THEY get the daily impact of this undeniable fact floating through their homes, they'll wake up.....but I doubt it (they are republicans, after all).
22
Isn't La. one of those climate denier red states that wants to get the government off their back? Except of course, when there is a tornado, a fire, a flood, a hurricane, or the ground is collapsing under them.
256
No matter the reason they have to go, whether water rising or land sinking, it is a cultural loss for the US. Nonetheless, why does it cost so much to relocate 60 people?
38
What will happen when Miami, NYC, etc., need to be moved? You all need to start putting away a rainy day fund, as the folks in fly-over country won't want to foot the trillions in bills.
48
Remind those folks in fly-over country not to start whining if the coastal people decide FEMA should stop handing out billions every time a tornado season wipes out their communities, or some major river floods their farmland. And those droughts. Suck it up.
They won't need to be moved, but rather adapted to.
"What will happen when Miami, NYC, etc., need to be moved?"
You will have to ask German Chancellor at that time if there is room?
You will have to ask German Chancellor at that time if there is room?
I am ashamed our Media Govt. and Scientist would assign land subsidence as climate change. This only points out far these people will go to lie to us. Land sinks and land rises. Tell the truth. Land sinking is not climate change.
17
Darrell, you are correct that the majority of "relative" sea-level rise in Louisiana is due to subsidence (caused by a combination of reduced sediment from the Mississippi and oil and gas withdrawal)."Eustatic" or global sea-level rise, due to continental ice loss and warming (and thus expanding) ocean water is around a quarter of the problem in Louisiana. But that doesn't mean global sea-level isn't rising at the fastest rate in the last 600,000 years or that its not a problem, its just not the major problem here. But what's happening in Louisiana is just a prelude to what will be come more common as global sea-level rise accelerates. The National Academy of Science's National Research Council has produced a number of very good studies (they are freely accessible) that lay out both sets of problems.
$48 million to move 60 people who are squabbling between two tribes about who will be allowed to live in the new community. Here's a cheaper solution: give everyone who wants to move a check for $500,000. The rest can stay in their rusting, flooding trailers and stop complaining.
193
$500,000? Why, exactly (I admit that's better than almost a million each!)?
I'm not sure why we should bail them out, but what does the average home in LA cost? Why should they get a lot more than that? I know if I were forced to leave my home by climate change, I'd be really thankful for $100,000! (Go ahead! make me an offer!)
I'm not sure why we should bail them out, but what does the average home in LA cost? Why should they get a lot more than that? I know if I were forced to leave my home by climate change, I'd be really thankful for $100,000! (Go ahead! make me an offer!)
"It is therefore with disappointment that I read of the White House's plans to make this visit part of a tour for your climate change agenda," so climate change denier and LA governor Bobby Jindal to President Obama last August. How disappointed must he be now that the government is spending all that money to save residents of his state.
77
Here in California they have stopped making major repairs on route 1 up the coast. They are not stupid. The time for fighting the deniers - as a way of thinking we are making progress is over. The time is to change economics.
We have to stop growing. No more population growth. No GDP growth. No helicopter money to keep the growth going. We have to live with stagnation, zero or negative population growth, closed borders to immigration.
What is happening in the EU with refugees is nothing compared to what is around the corner.
We have to stop growing. No more population growth. No GDP growth. No helicopter money to keep the growth going. We have to live with stagnation, zero or negative population growth, closed borders to immigration.
What is happening in the EU with refugees is nothing compared to what is around the corner.
68
Yes you have hit the proverbial nail, and that is population control, every world problem hinges on that!
2
Not stagnation - sustainability.
2
Amen to that!
1
Right, but according to Republicans a group of fanatical muslims in the mid-east, not this issue, is the primary security threat to the U.S. Delusional.
As difficult as this is, it is small potatoes compared to the resettlement and upheaval concerns that will challenge the U.S., and the world, in the years to come.
As difficult as this is, it is small potatoes compared to the resettlement and upheaval concerns that will challenge the U.S., and the world, in the years to come.
94
Resettlement should be paid for by the vast climate change denying party of republicans, particularly those that have profited enormously from producing the environmental damage (polluters, fossil fuel producers).
171
How about if it's paid by those who believe it is caused by climate change? Those who believe it is caused by other natural events (ex., basin sinking) could retain their money.
Maybe if those who attribute every single event to climate change had to put their own money where their mouths are, they might be a little more discerning and rational about such claims.
Maybe if those who attribute every single event to climate change had to put their own money where their mouths are, they might be a little more discerning and rational about such claims.
1
How in the world could it possibly cost $48,000,000 to move 60 people?
637
It won't simply be moving families. It will be re-creating communities for people who are mostly poor. Schools, roads, churches, ......Look at that tiny child. You think it's a good idea to give her family a check and suggest they transplant to a suburb?
9
What, $800,000 per person in moving expenses seems unreasonable? Think of it as few million dollars for each family so they don't start suing everyone.
And how much will it cost to move Miami?
1
If the Supremes had not pulled off a coup and stolen the race from Al Gore in 2000 leaving us with Dumb and Dumber, we would not be facing this likely. Instead we got "drill baby drill" and the same morons are still saying the same things. W and Cheney ought to be carrying these people on their backs out of here, but we all know how those two sociopaths felt about New Orleans so these native peoples likely mean even less. Just horrifying and only just beginning.
81
You could equally blame the 94,000 who voted Nader.... sort of like a certain unnamed constituency is planning on doing this election, which could have catastrophic tidal waves that make the damage of the bush years look like a pebble in the vast ocean
3
If you think that's expensive, wait until Palm Beach and all the enclaves of the wealthy up and down the Atlantic coast, come under greater pressure. 48 million is nothing compared to the legal morass that awaits when the wealthy and ultra wealthy start suing the states and Feds.
25
When it becomes Palm Beach time, Donald Trump will get the Mexicans to pay for the sea wall.
5
$48 million? To force people to do something they don't want to do? Every day on this planet, people face challenges that force them to do something radically different. Many times those challenges involve changing geographic locations. The taxpayers typically don't give a dime. Eventually, all the people on this island will be forced to move. But they are all going to come to that conclusion in a differing time frame. Probably a few will stick it out no matter what and die there. And yes, their history will be lost eventually. It's the human condition. We don't learn a thing from history as is readily apparent so no great loss there. Why not let them move in their own time in their own way? Certainly we can lend a hand to help people who are ready to go move to another location, but $48 million? This is the kind of madness that gives government programs a bad name.
23
Okay.
What would you consider a reasonable price to safe guard the lives of your fellow citizens?
What would you consider a reasonable price to safe guard the lives of your fellow citizens?
7
...remember Obama's 'The Life of Julia"?? We're the nanny state now...soup to nuts!!
1
You miss my point, which in the main was: many of these folks are not ready to leave as the situation hasn't reached emergency levels yet. I'm all for educating them as to what's in store in either their lifetimes or the lifetimes of their kids/grandkids. If I were running a government program like this (spending hard-earned tax dollars of fellow citizens), the main emphasis would be on education in terms of what's to come. With the power that education provides, everyone gets to make their own decisions. And I haven't a clue what's reasonable, but when I look at what they're living in now, it shouldn't take a fortune to reproduce similar or better circumstances elsewhere. Then it's up to them to live their lives. We've helped move all of our five kids to different locations, pitched in money for security deposits, etc. But we sure didn't keep up the gravy train, number one because we couldn't afford it, and number two because it would have made them dependent on us. I'm a social liberal, a business owner and a hard-working member of the middle class. And I hate government programs that end up creating dependencies, especially ones that cross generational lines. I'm not poo-pooing the loss of the land and the culture, but this is part of life. Things die. Cultures morph and become other cultures. It's life.
1
With $800,000 available per resident, the simplest solution by far is to hand out the cash, and let these folks do whatever they like with it. Those who insist on staying can build homes raised well above the ground, as they do in the Florida Keys. I'm pretty sure that $800k goes a long way in that part of Louisiana, and that 95% of them would bail out, and find nicer homes elsewhere, on their own.
5
Will we have to pay to move all those who knowingly build pricey shoreline homes in established flood zones as well?
35
We already have been paying for their Army Corps of Engineer created beaches. Since the 1970´s for example Ocean City, NJ has been building beaches at taxpayer expense, New York State was the first to mobilize these efforts. Of course they favor the wealthier areas.
http://edgeeffects.net/building-beaches/
http://edgeeffects.net/building-beaches/
2
We already do because FEMA subsidizes flood insurance.
1
Or build cities on fault lines?
Now multiply this figure ($$) by the future numbers of 'refugees' living in the coastal communities of New Jersey, New York, Delaware, Virginia, north and South Carolina, Grorgia and Florida...and you'll have a better idea about the future we all share.
Forgive me if I've missed it but which candidate has spent any time educating voters in any of these important states about the 'climate refugee' issue during this campaign?
Forgive me if I've missed it but which candidate has spent any time educating voters in any of these important states about the 'climate refugee' issue during this campaign?
47
Yes, you are correct. There is one candidate who actually campaigns for combating climate change, one of many other looming disasters we must eventually face. This paper has endorsed his opponent.
Reviving the coal industry is precisely what we shouldn't be doing, by the way. Nature will solve the problem. Just like cancer stops people from smoking.
Reviving the coal industry is precisely what we shouldn't be doing, by the way. Nature will solve the problem. Just like cancer stops people from smoking.
2
Bernie did name climate change as the major threat to the US - I think it was in the first debate with Hillary
2
Jett,
Clinton has laid out a climate change agenda. She set a goal to produce 33 percent of the nation’s electricity from renewable sources by 2027, up from 7 percent today — a higher goal than the 20 percent that President Obama has called for by 2030.
Clinton has laid out a climate change agenda. She set a goal to produce 33 percent of the nation’s electricity from renewable sources by 2027, up from 7 percent today — a higher goal than the 20 percent that President Obama has called for by 2030.
1
And then why are we wasting all this good sediment that still loads the waters of the Miss. River? We let it dump into the Gulf, instead of channeling it into smaller outlets, flooding and rebuilding the same land that is now subsiding. Sure, it would take a lot of planning and concerted action, but it would work. The Achafalaya River is building new delta land at this very moment.
7
I hope Chief Naquin gets his buffalo. But only if it's a water buffalo.
2
The entire village of Shishmaref was also relocated years ago (in the Bering Sea).
5
I hope they move well inland, or this won't be their last move.
And I hope we start putting aside a gazillion dollars for future resettlements and weather-related disasters, because this unhappy party is just getting started.
And I hope we start putting aside a gazillion dollars for future resettlements and weather-related disasters, because this unhappy party is just getting started.
15
In the article a government official has the following to say:
“We could give the money to the island to build back exactly as before, but we know from the climate data that they will keep getting hit with worse storms and floods, and the taxpayer will keep getting hit with the bill.”
Within another 100 years the same could be true about any one of the barrier islands off the New Jersey and Long Island coasts. But, then again, the folks living there have money, and aren't Native Americans, so the government probably will throw good money after bad to forestall the destruction of those communities
“We could give the money to the island to build back exactly as before, but we know from the climate data that they will keep getting hit with worse storms and floods, and the taxpayer will keep getting hit with the bill.”
Within another 100 years the same could be true about any one of the barrier islands off the New Jersey and Long Island coasts. But, then again, the folks living there have money, and aren't Native Americans, so the government probably will throw good money after bad to forestall the destruction of those communities
198
That's a stupid government official. Climate is not the problem here; living at the end of constantly changing delta is. The money argument is also ridiculous. Have you been to Malibu or 'Sconset recently? No amount of money is saving either location from falling into the sea.
1
The state of NJ already spends millions of dollars pumping sand onto the beaches in the southern part of the state to replenish sand washed away during storms and hurricanes, especially in more affluent areas like Long Beach Island.
1
Population Density == money density == more human lives to throw into the "benefit" side of any cost-benefit analysis.
How much money is the U.S. going to spend on Fire Island? Not only are rising tides and pollution in The Great South Bay from Long Island's dilapidated sewage systems eroding it, unbeknownst to your readers, hundreds of contractors trucks and cars motor back and forth on its beaches every day sliding the island further and further into the ocean. The Army Corps of Engineers efforts will only contribute more to the destruction of an island who's natural defenses have been obliterated by building construction, pollution and vehicular traffic that is more prevalent than taxpayers know.
27
This problems on the Gulf coast of La have been building for decades. Is some of it attributable to climate change, probably so. But you conveniently forget to mention the man made problems that stem from our esteemed Army Corp of Engineers.
50
In 150 years someone will find a reference to this and write a column from the bluffs where New New York or New Baltimore stand above the rising sea. They will read about silt, subsidence, and they will curse us for arguing about causes.
The emergency is here, people. At your door and at mine. Fools fighting in a sinking lifeboat. That is what we all are.
The emergency is here, people. At your door and at mine. Fools fighting in a sinking lifeboat. That is what we all are.
126
Sinking lifeboat??? Now at least you are somewhat reasonable with the 150 years rather than say 10. We can and will adapt, it will be costly. No restrictions on CO2 will make much if any effect, but will be very costly.
1
Let the people sink or move out. This is a very dangerous precedent, and frankly, there is no fathomable explanation for why the American taxpayer gets left holding the bag on this one, and all the next ones, too. This amounts to a cost of about $800,000 per person. Even if it was $8, the "help" is not warranted given all the "warning signs" over time to abandon the area. When it comes time to move New Orleans, maybe then we will understand the full ramifications of a decision like this and call it out for what it is. Ridiculous!
70
Yes, it will be very expensive to move the entire population of Florida to higher ground in a few years.
2
The American taxpayer should pay for because they paid the Corps of Engineers to channel the Mississippi River. Because the American taxpayers let the oil companies cut canals through these habitats to fuel their SUVs. The "warning signs" weren't posted by nature, they were created by government and business policies which led to the destruction of this community. Having lived and worked in southern Louisiana for several years, I can assure you that the American taxpayers and the Congressmen and Senators they elect re far more responsible for this situation than the Native Americans.
5
It certainly seems easy enough, doesn't it? Just pick up and go.
But people would leave jobs and schools, tearing themselves from a community of friends, family, and elders. They'd have to find new jobs, which isn't easy when you have to drive several dozen miles to get to a more populated area to even start that job search, which means taking a half-day or day off from the current job and hoping you don't get fired for not showing up.
Many people do well to keep up with their monthly bills, never mind pulling together a down payment on a house or first and last month's rent, which is commonly required for a lease. Could they take the stove with them? How about the refrigerator? What would that cost? What would it cost to replace these things? This land has been in their families for generations; there will be nothing to sell to get a fresh start elsewhere.
For anyone wondering why it would cost so much to move such a small community, try thinking through the logistics of it. Then remember that a community is not equivalent to its bottom line.
This plan is trying to do is keep the community together, because community is more than a handful of houses; it's an intricate network of relationships and social customs. People in small communities support each other in ways city-dwellers assume will be handled by social services -- they look out for their elderly neighbors and watch each others' children.
Good luck to them all.
But people would leave jobs and schools, tearing themselves from a community of friends, family, and elders. They'd have to find new jobs, which isn't easy when you have to drive several dozen miles to get to a more populated area to even start that job search, which means taking a half-day or day off from the current job and hoping you don't get fired for not showing up.
Many people do well to keep up with their monthly bills, never mind pulling together a down payment on a house or first and last month's rent, which is commonly required for a lease. Could they take the stove with them? How about the refrigerator? What would that cost? What would it cost to replace these things? This land has been in their families for generations; there will be nothing to sell to get a fresh start elsewhere.
For anyone wondering why it would cost so much to move such a small community, try thinking through the logistics of it. Then remember that a community is not equivalent to its bottom line.
This plan is trying to do is keep the community together, because community is more than a handful of houses; it's an intricate network of relationships and social customs. People in small communities support each other in ways city-dwellers assume will be handled by social services -- they look out for their elderly neighbors and watch each others' children.
Good luck to them all.
4
I don't have much sympathy for people who decide to live in a flood plain. And I don't like the idea of government giving money to people that make such bad decisions. The local government there is also at fault for allowing construction of houses where flooding is likely. The zoning laws are partially at fault.
46
Until the Corps of Engineers channeled the Mississippi River into its current straightjacket, the landmass of the delta region in southern Louisiana was regularly replenished with soil-enriched water every year. Salt water intrusion resulting from that loss of seasonal flow has led to the steady erosion of many parishes in Louisiana. Add in the logging cuts and oil pipeline cuts through the islands and marshes which further enabled intrusion and erosion, and you have the loss of habitat -- largely the result of man-made projects -- especially during the offshore oil booms of the 70s and 80s. Coupled with rising sea levels from climate change, this community, and many others like it, will disappear. Your comments reflect your abysmal ignorance of what these Native Americans and many Cajuns are really facing.
10
Thank you.
You don't live in the Back Bay do you?
3
There are roughly 25 families living on this island. I looked it up, since the author purposely left that out. Thats about $2 million per family, which is the real story here. Please stop this madness before it becomes an out-of-control money grab.
272
"since the author purposely left that out"
What's with the paranoia? The article clearly states there are 60 people who will be moved. No, it doesn't mention the number of families these 60 people comprise but what's the difference? Not everything is a conspiracy.
What's with the paranoia? The article clearly states there are 60 people who will be moved. No, it doesn't mention the number of families these 60 people comprise but what's the difference? Not everything is a conspiracy.
11
"But even a plan like this — which would move only about 60 people — has been hard to pull off."
The author didn't leave this out, purposely or otherwise. I wonder why you, and the 35 people who have recommended your comment so far, would think that.
The author didn't leave this out, purposely or otherwise. I wonder why you, and the 35 people who have recommended your comment so far, would think that.
4
Peanuts compared to tax subsidies and legal immunity and other forms of government welfare granted to corporations, especially but not limited to the oil companies.
4
Note to Denialists:
Just because walking and chewing gum at the same time is a challenge for you guys, doesn't mean that The Planet Earth is so constrained.
(That was a "metaphor". Look it up.)
Of course there is uplift and subsidence going on all the time, varying widely with location. Duh. But the net result comes from the interaction of multiple variables at the specific location.
So the question is, would there be increased flooding absent the effects of climate change? The answer is, maybe, but nowhere near as severe.
Sea level is affected locally, for example, by ocean currents (e.g. Gulf Stream). Those are affected by Arctic land ice melting, as well as other phenomena that modulate thermal gradients in the oceans.
Increased flooding results from increased rainfall rates, (in/hr) which follow from warmer temps and more moisture in the atmosphere.
We can observe these things happening, and they are predicted to be a consequence of increased energy in the climate system. The numbers add up, figuratively and literally.
Why would any rational person question this?
Just because walking and chewing gum at the same time is a challenge for you guys, doesn't mean that The Planet Earth is so constrained.
(That was a "metaphor". Look it up.)
Of course there is uplift and subsidence going on all the time, varying widely with location. Duh. But the net result comes from the interaction of multiple variables at the specific location.
So the question is, would there be increased flooding absent the effects of climate change? The answer is, maybe, but nowhere near as severe.
Sea level is affected locally, for example, by ocean currents (e.g. Gulf Stream). Those are affected by Arctic land ice melting, as well as other phenomena that modulate thermal gradients in the oceans.
Increased flooding results from increased rainfall rates, (in/hr) which follow from warmer temps and more moisture in the atmosphere.
We can observe these things happening, and they are predicted to be a consequence of increased energy in the climate system. The numbers add up, figuratively and literally.
Why would any rational person question this?
41
Because, Arty, the fringes of the Louisiana coast are (obviously) not the place to take a stand. Subsidence may vary elsewhere, but on an abandoned lobe of the Mississippi delta, it is certain. Absent any human impact, the land will subside below sea level, even if absolute sea level drops.
I guess nobody's read the geological surveys of the last century, where federal surveyors and geologists noted the loss of land due to upriver activities, and the slope of the gulf (up to 20 miles out) producing currents that were acting to 'pull' the silt out into deeper water.
Humphries book, written over 100 years ago describes the same patterns, which seem to continue today. The authors note that it seems like nothing in an unstable tidal delta is destined to stay the same forever, or for even a few years. Yes, the delta is changing, but what about the countless man made projects and alterations to the river and its tributaries?
Why focus on only one cause, especially the currently politically correct one, at the expense of the other 17 reasons that coastlines constantly change?
Humphries book, written over 100 years ago describes the same patterns, which seem to continue today. The authors note that it seems like nothing in an unstable tidal delta is destined to stay the same forever, or for even a few years. Yes, the delta is changing, but what about the countless man made projects and alterations to the river and its tributaries?
Why focus on only one cause, especially the currently politically correct one, at the expense of the other 17 reasons that coastlines constantly change?
27
"...especially the currently politically correct one,"
No, you have the "politically correct" one. We have the scientifically correct one.
No, you have the "politically correct" one. We have the scientifically correct one.
9
The GOP candidates vying to become leader of the free world are also Climate Change deniers and regard this subject as an International science conspiracy. Perhaps they would like to tour these parts and provide a plausible explanation for the residents about to be displaced. What hope have we got when so called leaders like Cruz spend their time talking about banning transgender women from bathrooms.
204
The fact is that the delta is sinking due to the compression of unconsolidated sediments and the interruption of sediment replenishment. Thus has nothing to do with some mythical rising of the sea. Moreover, the earth has been warming for the last 10,000 years. It is a natural occurrence.
4
Actually most are not climate change deniers. Climate change has been happening since creation. The real issues, if you get deeper than the media hype, is the real causes and the appropriate response. This Isle de Jean Charles is a good example regarding cause. Perhaps it is man made but not so much fossil fuel spewing into the atmosphere but development with unintended consequences. Regarding responses has anyone plotted the difference in result between shutting down all coal plants today and phasing them out over the next 30 years. How much does an action now change where we are in 2050? There are a lot dependencies on coal so prematurely stopping its use has horrendous effect. What will be the differences based on US action to the global climate? If China and India do nothing what effect will the change in the US have? Too much of the response to claimed fossil fuel contribution is driven by folks who just don't like fossil fuels and they are riding the wave on climate change. I think this bothers a lot of folks. Abruptly wiping out industries vs more rational phase out as economically affordable solutions are developed. RT 12 on the NC outer banks gets wiped out 2-3 times a year. Has been going on for years. It is not climate change. It is predictable that there will be storms that wipe it out. Building channels and levies changes the whole ecosystem. We found out that building jetties to prevent beach erosion move the erosion down the coast. Not always as it seems.
3
Neither party is talking about the burden of population growth. Both equally irresponsible on that score.
4
Wait a moment, please.
What about the traditional Inupiat Eskimo community, Kivalina, on the coast of Alaska?
Yes, they did loose the court battle against two dozen giant energy companies in "Kivalina v. ExxonMobil Corporation, et al". However, they and other Indigenous People along the thawing and collapsing Alaskan coast certainly need assistance getting to safer ground.
In spite of apparent inability of many of the commentors here to accept reality, the rapid disintegration of both the permafrost AND the Arctic sea ice are due to Anthropocentric Global Warming and Climate Change.
So is the most significant acidification of the global ocean since the time when amphibians were just beginning to lay eggs on land instead of in the water. That is to say, they were evolving into early reptiles.
What about the traditional Inupiat Eskimo community, Kivalina, on the coast of Alaska?
Yes, they did loose the court battle against two dozen giant energy companies in "Kivalina v. ExxonMobil Corporation, et al". However, they and other Indigenous People along the thawing and collapsing Alaskan coast certainly need assistance getting to safer ground.
In spite of apparent inability of many of the commentors here to accept reality, the rapid disintegration of both the permafrost AND the Arctic sea ice are due to Anthropocentric Global Warming and Climate Change.
So is the most significant acidification of the global ocean since the time when amphibians were just beginning to lay eggs on land instead of in the water. That is to say, they were evolving into early reptiles.
187
"That is to say, they were evolving into early reptiles." Looking closely at Ted Cruz I think some of us are "evolving" more rapidly than others.
1
In addition the compaction mentioned by Andy T., the entire Mississippi Delta is subsiding because well below the surface, a large layer of salt exists. As the sediment load of the Mississippi Delta increases, the salt flows away from that area and the ground sinks (subsides). That added sinking causes the island to fall in elevation giving the appearance of a rise in sea level as well. The rise of sea level along the Mississippi Delta and southern Louisiana is more complicated than the article suggests. Focusing on only one cause of sea level rise is misleading in this case
George Devries Klein, PhD, PG, FGSA
George Devries Klein, PhD, PG, FGSA
421
We're all going to learn more about geology in the upcoming years. Thanks for this information.
5
It doesn't really matter which environmental chicken or egg came first; a small group of people whose ancestors fled to this isle to escape Andrew Jackson's vicious 'Indian Removal' are now losing what little they had left. And the American public therefore owes them a hand to help them out.
12
Agreed.
The NY Times has an agenda and will even lie and distort "facts" in an attempt to push that agenda.
The NY Times has an agenda and will even lie and distort "facts" in an attempt to push that agenda.
4
The build up and subsidence of this area has been going on for ages and has nothing to do with climate change. Canals, extraction and logging may have sped it up, but build up and subsidence in a river delta is a natural phenomena. 1000 years ago the land in question was probably miles from the Gulf of Mexico. 4000 years ago it was at the bottom of the Gulf.
81
Does it make any sense to require Climate Change to be the sole cause of some isolated phenomenon before we can act to restore the lives of its victims? This is pointless quibbling. The catastrophe overtaking coastal Louisiana has everything to do with Climate Change, in combination with the causes and history you cite. The loggers and oil companies should kick in to help pay for the resettlement of the people whose town they have rendered uninhabitable. There will, of course, be quibbling about percentages and further dithering and delays. It falls to the Feds to act because the extractive corporations won't and the most corrupt state government in the USA won't, either. That part is sim[le. The rest is immensely complicated.
That's why they call it "Ecology."
That's why they call it "Ecology."
13
I agree, but speeding the process is still our stupid species' waste of the land. Now everything is biting back. Will we learn in time?
2
I see.
Well many forest fires are natural, should we just let them go unchecked.
Tornados and hurricanes are also natural.
Mr. Republican, should we not help Americans after a hurricane strikes, say, New Orleans...okay, bad example.
Well many forest fires are natural, should we just let them go unchecked.
Tornados and hurricanes are also natural.
Mr. Republican, should we not help Americans after a hurricane strikes, say, New Orleans...okay, bad example.
2
This article fails to mention anything about the fact that this island is located on very recent sediments of the Mississippi Delta, which are actively compacting. This compaction results in a sinking rate of 1/4 inch a year in the New Orleans area and one inch a year in the area of Venice, near the mouth of the river. One can easily see the results of this process at the old Spanish fort south of Venice; only 6-7 feet of the walls are still above ground. To link what's happening here with global warming but not to the simple and well known process of deltaic sediment compaction is unscientific.
251
It should be noted also that the article attributes climate change to the "burning of fossil fuels" while studies by the UN and other leading organizations are finally publishing data on the impact that animal agriculture is having on climate, the destruction of natural habitats (including 95% of the Amazon rainforest), and entire species globally. People have already been displaced and will continue to be until we, as a species, stop consuming animal products.
8
From the news story:
"Channels cut by loggers and oil companies eroded much of the island, and decades of flood control efforts have kept once free-flowing rivers from replenishing the wetlands’ sediments. Some of the island was swept away by hurricanes.
"What little remains will eventually be inundated as burning fossil fuels melt polar ice sheets and drive up sea levels, projected the National Climate Assessment, a report of 13 federal agencies that highlighted the Isle de Jean Charles and its tribal residents as among the nation’s most vulnerable."
my comment:
I.e.... doing it "sooner rather than later" makes sense, now that there is no scientific doubt about the inevitability of coastal flooding around the world. This is as much a necessity for the islanders as it is an opportunity to learn how to manage such man-made disasters as global warming in real time.
"Channels cut by loggers and oil companies eroded much of the island, and decades of flood control efforts have kept once free-flowing rivers from replenishing the wetlands’ sediments. Some of the island was swept away by hurricanes.
"What little remains will eventually be inundated as burning fossil fuels melt polar ice sheets and drive up sea levels, projected the National Climate Assessment, a report of 13 federal agencies that highlighted the Isle de Jean Charles and its tribal residents as among the nation’s most vulnerable."
my comment:
I.e.... doing it "sooner rather than later" makes sense, now that there is no scientific doubt about the inevitability of coastal flooding around the world. This is as much a necessity for the islanders as it is an opportunity to learn how to manage such man-made disasters as global warming in real time.
5
You don't expect science that doesn't affirm climate change to be mentioned here do you? Even the article itself puts more of the blame on industry than it does the usual villain of carbon. This portion of the article say sit all: "But since 1955, more than 90 percent of the island’s original land mass has washed away. Channels cut by loggers and oil companies eroded much of the island, and decades of flood control efforts have kept once free-flowing rivers from replenishing the wetlands’ sediments. Some of the island was swept away by hurricanes." So the climate didn't change. The landscape changed. Never mind that. Lets celebrate tax dollars being allocated to relocation.
2
$48 million to move HOW MANY people?
241
My thoughts exactly. The number was 60, but I'm sure you already knew that.
5
60. And if you were one of them you wouldn't be complaining.
7
Looks like 10 shacks on a strip of land that never should have had settlers.
5
My ♥ goes out to these good people. One day we may all be waterlogged and then the spirit of the massively failed Kevin Costner movie Waterworld will be seen as a prophecy not heeded soon eno-
19
Also, one presidential campaign a prophecy not heeded soon enough, and it's that of Bernie Sanders.
5
Waterworld?! Surely you jest.
1
The masterpiece, Beasts of the Southern Wild, filmed in southwestern Louisiana, is a visceral reminder of how rising waters affect our state, and they many ways we are fighting to stay here.
5
In the 1930's a group of 700 Kiribati citizens moved to relocate to Western Province in Solomon Islands. It is my understanding that those who relocated volunteered to go. I am not sure the situation is comparable except that Kiribati people also rely on fishing primarily. Here is a link to a pdf file that was written recently. http://www.methodist.org.uk/media/1043680/wcr-julia-edwards-ikiribati-so...
6
Any way to accelerate this climate change thingy so we get even MORE SNOW ?
1. 2014-2015: 110.6 inches
2. 1995-1996: 107.6 inches
3. 1993-1994: 96.3 inches
4. 1947-1948: 89.2 inches
5. 2004-2005: 86.6 inches