Fake news like this makes me want to cancel my subscription. I expect more from the NYT. Especially on the front page and under " Science"
10
I'm curious: there was no mention of property on the Pacific Coast. I would assume that's because that property is considered safe than property on the east coast?
But from the Midwest, this all looks ridiculous. There's space here and the cost of living is cheaper than the coasts so come on out.
But from the Midwest, this all looks ridiculous. There's space here and the cost of living is cheaper than the coasts so come on out.
18
I appreciate the elucidation of this complex dilemma. I've pretty much concluded that local responses are all there can be for some time. Collective action would require a consensus that's impossible. Far away from this in Kansas, my family is adamant that the "science" must be ignored to protect the real America from the scientists' agenda. As a scientist, I'm a villain in a story that alleges we liberal scientists lie all the time in order to take control of American lives and bring socialism. Their fight against climate change action is deep, passionate, and life-and-death.
40
An interesting reaction to this series of articles, if you can control your reaction to the regular attacks on science in the Wall Street Journal, is an article with the grabber title: "Shoreline Gentry Are Fake Climate Victims" There we can find out how: "Supposedly elevated sea levels caused by global warming have homeowners and developers worried about the value of their coastal properties."
Unreal how they continue in this kind of obnoxious stupidity - which is well received by their readers: http://www.wsj.com/articles/shoreline-gentry-are-fake-climate-victims-14...
Unreal how they continue in this kind of obnoxious stupidity - which is well received by their readers: http://www.wsj.com/articles/shoreline-gentry-are-fake-climate-victims-14...
14
I for one am glad I finally sold my vacation home in Bluffton SC. It may actually be waterfront property one day, though! Especially given that it's barely a mile from the May River.
Agree that the feds should not offer or subsidize flood insurance, at least for properties directly on the water. Who buys homes directly on the water? People who can afford to take the hit or pay a super premium for flood insurance. Why should the taxpayer pay for a b/millionaire's home if the very real probability of a flood occurs?
Agree that the feds should not offer or subsidize flood insurance, at least for properties directly on the water. Who buys homes directly on the water? People who can afford to take the hit or pay a super premium for flood insurance. Why should the taxpayer pay for a b/millionaire's home if the very real probability of a flood occurs?
24
With all the jabber lately about "fake news," you'd think editors at the Times and other major media outlets would have caught on by now to the tactics of "climate change" alarmists. Hardly a day goes by when we aren't saturated with stories about how this or that disturbing event is due to "climate change."
Sure, sea waters are rising. That's an old story, having nothing to do with CO2 emissions. And they will continue to rise, just as hurricanes will continue to batter coastlines, in Florida, California and many other coastal regions. And yes, this is cause for concern.
But there is NO evidence that sea level rise has been accelerating as so often claimed. Here, for example, is the latest graph of sea level rise from NOAA: http://www.star.nesdis.noaa.gov/sod/lsa/SeaLevelRise/slr/slr_sla_gbl_fre...
Clearly, no sign of overall acceleration since 1992, where the graph begins. And yes, we do see some acceleration since 2014, but that hardly constitutes a trend and may well be a temporary blip.
With all the attention given to "fake new" of late, let's hope our major media outlets will finally catch on to all the "climate change" hype and learn to be more selective when reporting on this topic.
Sure, sea waters are rising. That's an old story, having nothing to do with CO2 emissions. And they will continue to rise, just as hurricanes will continue to batter coastlines, in Florida, California and many other coastal regions. And yes, this is cause for concern.
But there is NO evidence that sea level rise has been accelerating as so often claimed. Here, for example, is the latest graph of sea level rise from NOAA: http://www.star.nesdis.noaa.gov/sod/lsa/SeaLevelRise/slr/slr_sla_gbl_fre...
Clearly, no sign of overall acceleration since 1992, where the graph begins. And yes, we do see some acceleration since 2014, but that hardly constitutes a trend and may well be a temporary blip.
With all the attention given to "fake new" of late, let's hope our major media outlets will finally catch on to all the "climate change" hype and learn to be more selective when reporting on this topic.
5
There are a lot of angry posts here from liberals who will never be able to afford a waterfront property, while casting aspersions upon their real and imagined antagonists.
2
The coming buyout of wealthy landowners coastal properties will make the Tarp bailout look like a 15 cent Diet Coke. Those of us that live on dry land - and aren't wealthy enough to have any power - will be caught holding the bag for the insurance companies, because they are not - not ever - in the business of losing money. Only the middle class takes that burden on for the benefit of society. The storm is coming folks .. and if you think that the rich and powerful are going to be lining up to make sure you're okay ... think again.
24
Building in flood plains or within 10 meters of sea level has always been a bad idea, but Manhattan takes the cake for locating he world's financial center there.
Even worse, SE Asia has a few billion people living in coastal cities that could easily be wiped out by a 100 year storm event.
There is no evidence of rising sea levels, but plenty of evidence to support 100 year storm events, and we can even estimate 1,000 year storm events.
Hurricane Hazel wiped out much of Toronto in 1954, and the possibility of a hurricane in a northern inland city was considered impossible.
Luckily, Hurricane Hazel never hit a coastal city... lol
Even worse, SE Asia has a few billion people living in coastal cities that could easily be wiped out by a 100 year storm event.
There is no evidence of rising sea levels, but plenty of evidence to support 100 year storm events, and we can even estimate 1,000 year storm events.
Hurricane Hazel wiped out much of Toronto in 1954, and the possibility of a hurricane in a northern inland city was considered impossible.
Luckily, Hurricane Hazel never hit a coastal city... lol
5
Pardon my smugness, or insight, as I live 1800 feet from the waters of Long Island Sound and 115 ft. above sea level....I think we're going to be OK.
6
Sea-level rise due to climate change will affect everyone’s children and grandchildren, and not just because everyone’s taxes and/or insurance premiums will pay for both the shortsighted stop-gap measures and idiotic rebuilding, but also for the infrastructure to protect coastal areas and rivers, and the costs of abandonment and relocation down the road… or UP the road, where those measures are impractical or too costly (most). But add to that the rising costs of housing inland as coastal populations shift and power and water/sewage processing plants have to be rebuilt, the taxes for which will drastically reduce or eliminate discretionary spending for all but the wealthy, and the higher cost of food, too, no matter how the drought progresses, as agricultural and grazing lands on higher ground are converted to housing and urban use, and to either desalinate sea water or spend to dig deep wells or lay pipelines for fresh water, as coastal aquifers are contaminated by sea water, which happens before the land submerges.
No fun for the younger and future generations.
Thanks Republicans.
No fun for the younger and future generations.
Thanks Republicans.
23
Come to Springhill, Nova Scotia Canada..800 ft. above sea level! Plus low cost lobster direct from the fishermen!
10
Isn't NYC ocean front property too? New York received $1.5 billion from the federal government after hurricane Sandy. What exactly makes us any different than the folks who live on the coast of Florida? Take a look in the mirror New York, you have more in common with Florida than you think you do.
13
The fact that real estate sharks in Florida are still acting like they are in a feeding frenzy with no regard whatsoever toward sea level rise sends ME the message that there is something very fishy going on. Take a look - does this sound like they are in any way concerned? http://therealdeal.com/miami/2016/11/23/vlad-doronin-adds-to-edgewater-a...
Many buyers are from South America, snatching up property inches away from sea level, or so it seems. What are they thinking, and what insurance company is willing to take the risk?
The cities of Fort Lauderdale and Miami Beach and others are dipping into their own pockets to combat the sea because Tallahassee is refusing to acknowledge reality. Why are individuals allowed to compete for public office when they deny the rudiments of science? Any candidate who refuses to admit to reality should not be allowed to be in a position of power where they hold the future of the planet ransom. That goes for the president too.
In fact, Mr. Trump could really be a tremendous force for the good: He could be a trail blazer in the fight against climate change. Most conservative voters WANT something to be done about it. It's the politicians that aren't paying attention. See here: https://assets.clearpath.org/2016/09/clearpath_survey_report.pdf
Many buyers are from South America, snatching up property inches away from sea level, or so it seems. What are they thinking, and what insurance company is willing to take the risk?
The cities of Fort Lauderdale and Miami Beach and others are dipping into their own pockets to combat the sea because Tallahassee is refusing to acknowledge reality. Why are individuals allowed to compete for public office when they deny the rudiments of science? Any candidate who refuses to admit to reality should not be allowed to be in a position of power where they hold the future of the planet ransom. That goes for the president too.
In fact, Mr. Trump could really be a tremendous force for the good: He could be a trail blazer in the fight against climate change. Most conservative voters WANT something to be done about it. It's the politicians that aren't paying attention. See here: https://assets.clearpath.org/2016/09/clearpath_survey_report.pdf
11
A lot of people here and at the NY Times call for climate action, so as to slow sea level rise. Take $1 trillion, which would pay $100,000 college fees for 10 million youths in the US.
How much would one expect to lower seas, a century from now, if instead of educating them we put the money into environmental rules like the CAFE fuel standard?
Helpfully, the EPA computed. It comes to 1mm expected sea level change.
So if you don't educate 1 million youths to compete with the Chinese, instead of waters rising 1 ft, they would rise 1 ft minus a hairwidth.
Here are the CAFE regulation in the Official Register
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2012-10-15/pdf/2012-21972.pdf
the cost of the regulation is $1 trillion
and in table III-69 on page 62897
the expected effect is 0.1 cm = 1 mm, or 10 hairwidths.
$1 billion also changes climate, according to the same EPA table, by the difference in climate between your heel and toes, if you look north.
Not all people were impressed.
So after that document, the EPA no longer published expected climate effects of its regulations, and said that it will never do it.
The EPA only published expected financial benefits, which are computed by a secret formula. The House voted to make that computation public, but president Obama threatened to veto that request, saying that it is imperative for the EPA benefit computations to remain secret.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/234485-white-house-threaten...
How much would one expect to lower seas, a century from now, if instead of educating them we put the money into environmental rules like the CAFE fuel standard?
Helpfully, the EPA computed. It comes to 1mm expected sea level change.
So if you don't educate 1 million youths to compete with the Chinese, instead of waters rising 1 ft, they would rise 1 ft minus a hairwidth.
Here are the CAFE regulation in the Official Register
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2012-10-15/pdf/2012-21972.pdf
the cost of the regulation is $1 trillion
and in table III-69 on page 62897
the expected effect is 0.1 cm = 1 mm, or 10 hairwidths.
$1 billion also changes climate, according to the same EPA table, by the difference in climate between your heel and toes, if you look north.
Not all people were impressed.
So after that document, the EPA no longer published expected climate effects of its regulations, and said that it will never do it.
The EPA only published expected financial benefits, which are computed by a secret formula. The House voted to make that computation public, but president Obama threatened to veto that request, saying that it is imperative for the EPA benefit computations to remain secret.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/234485-white-house-threaten...
11
Did you calculate the cost of doing nothing? It's much higher than $1 Trillion.
And if you need $1 Trillion, why take it from kids going to college? Why not eliminate a couple of air craft carriers and submarines that are never used?
What we see here are the shifting arguments that always lead back to the same conclusion - burn more fossil fuels. First deny climate change and then when you finally have to admit it's true, claim nothing can be done. Defeatism.
And if you need $1 Trillion, why take it from kids going to college? Why not eliminate a couple of air craft carriers and submarines that are never used?
What we see here are the shifting arguments that always lead back to the same conclusion - burn more fossil fuels. First deny climate change and then when you finally have to admit it's true, claim nothing can be done. Defeatism.
20
I think, Trump is clever enough to recognize also the upcoming huge business chances for the environmental-industries global wide. Geothermic, windpower, solar energy for example ... and much more.
developing only these solutions could make america really great again
developing only these solutions could make america really great again
7
Climate Change will not only deliver sea level rise and coastal flooding but also more frequent micro-bursts and severe rainwater flooding such what Texas experienced in the past year and more recently in inland North Carolina. Much inland flooding. Working class towns far inland are also experiencing both increasing flooding and rising NFIP premiums. FEMA/NFIP need to encourage and recognize (credit) achievable and incremental mitigation strategies (installing flood vents, raising sensitive mechanical features, using water-tolerant materials) and educate the policy holder and the mortgage banks as to the benefits of mitigation. Education and mitigation could diminish losses and lower premiums and aim to keep NFIP premiums affordable in order to bring in policy holders, keep the insurance pool as large as possible, enable the NFIP to become solvent while also factoring increasing risk. Mitigation toward affordable premiums and a larger insurance pool would benefit taxpayers who do not subsidize the NFIP but do contribute to FEMA emergency support funds for disaster victims who do not carry flood insurance. The more homes with NFIP coverage, the fewer taxpayer dollars going toward disaster relief. Please consider non-coastal flooding in this discussion and recognize that countless working/middle class families are facing both greater climate risk and increasing NFIP premiums. The NFIP needs sensible and attainable reform. Blame doesn't really help in this very serious matter.
10
I visited Sullivan's Island with my grandmother over 25 years ago when she was making a visit to her hometown. Their summer place was on the Island. I noted that the Victorian cottage that she thought was her family's was well inland of the modern houses built right on the beach on concrete slabs. And on stilts, as I recall, or at least perhaps raised. I realized then that my grandmother's contemporaries probably knew a few things we do not about sustainability on barrier islands.
18
It's a disgrace that the next president is still denying climate change when the evidence as well as the theory are so clear. He and the rest of the Republican Party have sold their souls to the dirty fossil fuel industry. The tobacco lobby denied and lied about the effects of smoking for years and now Trump and friends are playing the same immoral game.
33
Nobody's talking about the elephant in the room, which is that world population quadrupled between 1800 and 2012 and now is increasing faster than ever while vast land areas are becoming uninhabitable.
If every nation in the world went to a one-child policy today the population explosion would continue for decades. That is because more infants are surviving into adulthood and because as adults they are living more than twice as long on average (to 71) than they did in 1900 (to 31).
If every nation in the world went to a one-child policy today the population explosion would continue for decades. That is because more infants are surviving into adulthood and because as adults they are living more than twice as long on average (to 71) than they did in 1900 (to 31).
29
your arithmetic is incorrect. The population of the world has increased roughly seven-fold since 1900.
5
I live a mile or so to the beach (walking distance for me). I would not like to live any closer. When Sandy hit, the water came in almost 1/2 mile. Only put a house on a beach if you can afford to lose it. And you really shouldn't expect the government to bail you out if you do.
51
I am not sympathetic to waterfront homeowners. We have ample land in the middle of America which can be developed. Further cities like Detroit and Buffalo have seen populations decline. They would welcome some coastal refugees.
23
I can understand why conservatives don't accept abortion rights, marriage equality or gun restrictions. I can't for the life of me fathom why they don't accept climate change, when in many cases they're literally standing in it when their home is flooded. Perhaps it's because, as some scientists have shown, it's possible that the conservative brain is impervious to facts that don't fir their particular narrative. I can't figure out any other explanation. They evidence is there for all to see.
27
I'd look to the petro/coal dollars invested in conservative politicians for the answer to why somehow conservative Americans have taken on global warming denial as a core belief. By the way, everyone suffers from selective perception, not just conservatives. That observation may not make Times commentors happy (on this day when we're all lauding Saint Fidel) but it is nevertheless true
4
Well, it doesn't help the cause at all when the 45th President of the United States is a climate change denier . Just saying.
22
What I see is a lot of WWTT people - what were they thinking when they bought houses at essentially sea level?
I, on the other hand, bought a house in fire, earthquake and landslide country. As Greg Brown said, "there ain't no place away."
I, on the other hand, bought a house in fire, earthquake and landslide country. As Greg Brown said, "there ain't no place away."
14
They were thinking someone else will bail them out and it seems like they're right
6
WWTT = what were they thinking. I had to look it up
5
The Republicans constantly spout the mantra of small government and personal responsibility. Why aren't they pushing for no federal subsidies for flood insurance in coastal areas? After all, it is a personal choice to buy a beachfront home. Oh wait, personal responsibility only for inner city, black and brown people. Silly me.
27
Our number 1 civil and social engineering priority should be incentivizing property owners and businesses in flood-prone areas to relocate asap. I am tired of throwing $ and labor into the wasted charity called "rebuilding" over and over again when we could be using that money and labor to prepare people for the changes that are inevitable. Let's help protect coastal areas so they can become natural flood barriers.
9
Climate change is real, but the flooding cited in this and many other NYT articles is not caused by climate change. In the last 100 years, ocean levels have risen by only a few inches. Coastal flooding is caused by land subsiding on the Atlantic seaboard, the Louisana bayou, Bangladesh and other places around the globe due to mankind's extraction of ground water and drainage canals. While ocean levels have risen by inches, land has subsided by feet in places; in California's Central Vslley, it can be measured in tens of feet due to depletion of the water table.
The NYT does a disservice to their readers and promotes bad science by pushing the narrative that increased flooding experienced today is caused by rising sea levels. Perhaps 50 or 100 years from now, higher sea levels will be the culprit, but it is not truthful to blame today's increased coastal flooding on climate change.
The NYT does a disservice to their readers and promotes bad science by pushing the narrative that increased flooding experienced today is caused by rising sea levels. Perhaps 50 or 100 years from now, higher sea levels will be the culprit, but it is not truthful to blame today's increased coastal flooding on climate change.
10
Why did you set this up so it could not be emailed. Too much pressure from real estate groups? I keep asking this question but never get an answer.
3
You can send out the link, shorten it with Tiny URL. But because the NYT has a Paywall, likely recipients may not be able to read it. Or you can access it by putting the headline into your browser.
2
Living along the water comes with the benefits and risks. If people don't mind getting flooded every year, I suppose it's okay. I don't even mind paying their insurance since it allows me to forget about them while actually supporting their lives. However, investing too much in one physical location seems so silly to me. They are willing to pay so much for their house but not for their entire neighborhood or the whole planet. Insurance allows to rebuild houses again, but it won't bring back your life if you drowned in a bad flood.
4
We have been saddled with beach re-nourishment projects in Florida for forty years or more. Climate change has not been the issue, storm surges have been.
Great beach settings like Naples are not going away!
Great beach settings like Naples are not going away!
5
Almost no one who has paid off there mortgage or owns there house free and clear buys flood insurance here in Key West. It is an overpriced scam, like most things that hv come out of the Obama administration.
And our costal real estate is doing nothing but going up in value. The Wall Street Journal is right to call this article a great example of fake news. Mr Urbian should go back to journalist ethics school.
And our costal real estate is doing nothing but going up in value. The Wall Street Journal is right to call this article a great example of fake news. Mr Urbian should go back to journalist ethics school.
3
If it were truly overpriced, private companies would step in and relive the government of the burden. The fact that none do and that the flood insurance agency is $20 billion in debt, says that the premiums are too low as they are. Your values are going up, nice, but don't make me pay for your flood insurance with Federal subsidies.
11
interesting point of view. somewhat astonishing in fact
1
The assumptions and conclusions of this article were effectively discredited by Holman Jenkins at the WSJ. It's "fake news."
http://www.wsj.com/articles/shoreline-gentry-are-fake-climate-victims-14...
http://www.wsj.com/articles/shoreline-gentry-are-fake-climate-victims-14...
5
The ignorance and stupidity of die hard right leaning Republicans is incomprehensible. I see the signs of climate change in Florida with every passing season. Tides are higher, summer rain showers are heavier. Roads flood more often and the rising levels of Lake Ockeechobee are killing our estuaries. Hurricane's are stronger and their historic paths are now more unpredictable.
But the Midwest and Gulf Coast have seen more weather extremes than other parts of the country. Extreme drought followed by extreme flooding. More tornados with higher intensity. But every time something happens climate wise your always standing there with your hands out. Pull your self up by your own boat straps because this east coast educated "elite" is tired of paying for your own blinding deniability.
https://weather.com/storms/severe/news/flood-fatigue-2015-2016-texas-lou...
But the Midwest and Gulf Coast have seen more weather extremes than other parts of the country. Extreme drought followed by extreme flooding. More tornados with higher intensity. But every time something happens climate wise your always standing there with your hands out. Pull your self up by your own boat straps because this east coast educated "elite" is tired of paying for your own blinding deniability.
https://weather.com/storms/severe/news/flood-fatigue-2015-2016-texas-lou...
5
Very sobering, but the residents of Mauritius, Bangladesh are already under the gun for massive coastal flooding in the next decade or two.and then we have the WSJ in a rebuttal claim this article as fake climate news!! I am afraid under the new regime we are going to get such parties where there at anytime at least two versions of "facts".
15
A Collage course I took in Oregon was on environmental systems, rivers, oceans and lakes. Growing up in an area where the "quick" solution to "flooding" was a dam (which cause problems as well), it was obvious that flooded areas were in the flood plain of the water system. It is a complicated natural system, including wetplains, swamps and other interconnected systems designed by nature.
NO structures should be built in any such systems+homeowner should pay for the damages not others who do not live at these locations (often “private” whereby no one else can enjoy the river/beach).
https://www.americanrivers.org/threats-solutions/restoring-damaged-river...
Floodplains are an integral part of healthy rivers and floods are a natural occurrence on rivers. Small floods are very important to the health of a river and the land around it. They nurture life in and around rivers. The fish, wildlife and plants that live in or along a river, or floodplain, often need floods to survive and reproduce.
http://coastalcare.org/sections/inform/poor-coastal-development/
Developed coasts change natural beach processes. Even a single building alters natural movement of wind which can disrupt sand transport, movement of rainwater runoff, and negatively impact plants and animals. The long history of beach development in Europe and the northeastern United States has resulted in heavy modification of, and in some cases total destruction of, natural beaches.
NO structures should be built in any such systems+homeowner should pay for the damages not others who do not live at these locations (often “private” whereby no one else can enjoy the river/beach).
https://www.americanrivers.org/threats-solutions/restoring-damaged-river...
Floodplains are an integral part of healthy rivers and floods are a natural occurrence on rivers. Small floods are very important to the health of a river and the land around it. They nurture life in and around rivers. The fish, wildlife and plants that live in or along a river, or floodplain, often need floods to survive and reproduce.
http://coastalcare.org/sections/inform/poor-coastal-development/
Developed coasts change natural beach processes. Even a single building alters natural movement of wind which can disrupt sand transport, movement of rainwater runoff, and negatively impact plants and animals. The long history of beach development in Europe and the northeastern United States has resulted in heavy modification of, and in some cases total destruction of, natural beaches.
14
It is hard to believe that in spite of rock solid evidence of human made global warming, politicians ( Trump cabinet ...) can get away with negating this elementary fact : for economical motifs the evidence is ignored, humanity loses precious time and resources. Yes Ronn, building houses on pylons would help, but for how long ? One fact is crucial : the USA, the major polluter besides China- is getting lots of adverse effects from global warming, hopefully this will be a wakeup call. Billions of people in the third world just endure the negative side-effects without economic benefits like the US elite.
10
High valued beach front properties equal high tax evaluations for the town and state. Therefore they dump rocks, sand and anything at all in order to save these usually expensive homes. The trade offs include shortchanging the communities they serve in education, infrastructure, services and other ways. They should instead let these owners pound sand. Expensive coastal restoration 'projects' should not include privately owned beach properties.
12
Four years ago I was in Louisiana talking with oyster growers, I wanted to farm the oysters using newer methods while they wanted to use the same techniques they had used for over 200 years. The old method was failing but they got subsidies so they wouldn't change.
While I was looking at one grower's site he showed me an area where homes had stood just a few years before. They were gone as was the barrier island the homes stood on. The growers were building the bottom of their plots up with crushed concrete as saltwater pushed inland and depths became greater. The oyster drills became more common as sea levels rose.
I had a lot more experience in S Cal, diving one spot for three decades, or more. There's no beach there now, it was washed away.
The problem was complex. In the 80s a pool was built in front of one home above a ten foot seawall. Sand was suspended by waves in front of the seawall and neighbors had to build them too or put in rip rap.
Drought combined with building up the hills above reduced sand flowing to the beach. Now there's a 5 million dollar breakwater in front of homes that once had a beach hundreds of feet wide. It's called "Broad Beach". The seawall was "temporary"...
There isn't even a beach at low tide. Offshore sand smothered habitat that supported lots of animals.
Some homeowners at this spot assaulted beach goers, hired guards to run the off, and behaved very badly, but it wasn't karma that destroyed the beach. It was greed.
While I was looking at one grower's site he showed me an area where homes had stood just a few years before. They were gone as was the barrier island the homes stood on. The growers were building the bottom of their plots up with crushed concrete as saltwater pushed inland and depths became greater. The oyster drills became more common as sea levels rose.
I had a lot more experience in S Cal, diving one spot for three decades, or more. There's no beach there now, it was washed away.
The problem was complex. In the 80s a pool was built in front of one home above a ten foot seawall. Sand was suspended by waves in front of the seawall and neighbors had to build them too or put in rip rap.
Drought combined with building up the hills above reduced sand flowing to the beach. Now there's a 5 million dollar breakwater in front of homes that once had a beach hundreds of feet wide. It's called "Broad Beach". The seawall was "temporary"...
There isn't even a beach at low tide. Offshore sand smothered habitat that supported lots of animals.
Some homeowners at this spot assaulted beach goers, hired guards to run the off, and behaved very badly, but it wasn't karma that destroyed the beach. It was greed.
13
NOAA lists 15 sea tide gauges in Florida. They are very simple: a floater on the sea. Find them all here, at NOAA.
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_states.htm?gid=1238
Their records stretch up to over a century, for Pensacola and Key West.
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=...
(change to stnid=8724580 for Key West)
Rates of rise vary in Florida, between 0.7 and 0.85 ft/century, depending on location.
No location shows any acceleration whatsoever, in spite of a 100 times rise in industrial emissions last century. Please click and check. 5 min suffice for all of them.
The same NOAA site has data all around the world. No long term (>90 yr) gauge anywhere shows any acceleration. Please check. The longest is Brest, France, 210 years.
This is not a matter of opinion. Opinions, including mine, do not matter in modern science. Only consistently measured data, made public, matters.
That is the case above. The data above shows no acceleration anywhere around Florida. And that is all the data we have.
*****
Many people say that various experts, NOAA comments, newspaper articles, etc. say that the sea rise accelerated. But the above is all the data there is. So one can only assume that they have never looked.
*****
Could sea rise rates double tomorrow? Maybe get 100 times bigger? The 18 ft rise in Al Gore’s film? Miami move near Manhattan?
Alas, the data does not tell us. That is between you and your imagination…
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_states.htm?gid=1238
Their records stretch up to over a century, for Pensacola and Key West.
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=...
(change to stnid=8724580 for Key West)
Rates of rise vary in Florida, between 0.7 and 0.85 ft/century, depending on location.
No location shows any acceleration whatsoever, in spite of a 100 times rise in industrial emissions last century. Please click and check. 5 min suffice for all of them.
The same NOAA site has data all around the world. No long term (>90 yr) gauge anywhere shows any acceleration. Please check. The longest is Brest, France, 210 years.
This is not a matter of opinion. Opinions, including mine, do not matter in modern science. Only consistently measured data, made public, matters.
That is the case above. The data above shows no acceleration anywhere around Florida. And that is all the data we have.
*****
Many people say that various experts, NOAA comments, newspaper articles, etc. say that the sea rise accelerated. But the above is all the data there is. So one can only assume that they have never looked.
*****
Could sea rise rates double tomorrow? Maybe get 100 times bigger? The 18 ft rise in Al Gore’s film? Miami move near Manhattan?
Alas, the data does not tell us. That is between you and your imagination…
6
There is unintended benefit to this.
The beaches go back to the people, not the rich elites.
The beaches go back to the people, not the rich elites.
4
Alton street at the edge of South Beach was built in 1980.
UNDER king tide level.
Why? Real estate above flood line in South Beach is VERY expensive. And they needed the street. Streets in Vermont are covered by solid water, aka snow, too, a few days a year, and they still build them.
Every king tide there was a medieval procession, landing on private jets. Progressive politicians from all over the US would take off their shoes, put a lectern in the middle of Alton street, and ready the camera crews. They would then show Americans that they will all be under water unless they spend a trillion as told by the respective politician, in mitigation.
Sea levels grow in Florida by about 2.5mm/year for 100 years at least, unchanged by a 100 fold growth in emissions.
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=...
So in the 25 years since Alton street was built, waters grew by 3 inches, which made the flooding more dramatic.
In October 2014, conveniently before the elections, barefooted politicians were manning lecterns on Alton street, cameras on, waiting for the king tide.
Which, amazingly, DID NOT COME. A few days before, South Beach had installed, without much fuss, $500m worth of pumps.
The locals made endless fun of the barefooted politicians, who lost in a rout. Two years later, in 2016, it got worse.
And now only Obama still thinks that he can stop the waters
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2pZSvq9bto
It was not a winning proposition.
UNDER king tide level.
Why? Real estate above flood line in South Beach is VERY expensive. And they needed the street. Streets in Vermont are covered by solid water, aka snow, too, a few days a year, and they still build them.
Every king tide there was a medieval procession, landing on private jets. Progressive politicians from all over the US would take off their shoes, put a lectern in the middle of Alton street, and ready the camera crews. They would then show Americans that they will all be under water unless they spend a trillion as told by the respective politician, in mitigation.
Sea levels grow in Florida by about 2.5mm/year for 100 years at least, unchanged by a 100 fold growth in emissions.
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=...
So in the 25 years since Alton street was built, waters grew by 3 inches, which made the flooding more dramatic.
In October 2014, conveniently before the elections, barefooted politicians were manning lecterns on Alton street, cameras on, waiting for the king tide.
Which, amazingly, DID NOT COME. A few days before, South Beach had installed, without much fuss, $500m worth of pumps.
The locals made endless fun of the barefooted politicians, who lost in a rout. Two years later, in 2016, it got worse.
And now only Obama still thinks that he can stop the waters
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2pZSvq9bto
It was not a winning proposition.
2
Floridans voted for sinking their homes when they voted for Trump. If they did not realize this, it is their own fault. All the facts were there to be seen - and believed. That is just how life is - too bad.
9
The subsidies (robbing the non-beachfront homeowners) are already in place in Florida.
I am not in a flood zone and very much high and dry, but...my property insurance bill includes an added premium for something called Citizens' Insurance - explained by my policy as a state mandate to "cover major losses by other insurance companies with insufficient reserves".
Why are they allowed to have insufficient reserves? Because the legislature, the Insurance Commissioner, and the governor are all owned by the banks and realtors.
In their own words: "Citizens Property Insurance Corporation was created in 2002 from the merger of two other entities to provide both windstorm coverage and general property insurance for home-owners who could not obtain insurance elsewhere. It was established by the Florida Legislature in Section 627.351(6) of Florida Statutes as a not-for-profit insurer of last resort, headquartered in Tallahassee, Florida, and quickly became the largest insurer in the state"
Yes, it does sound like pooled risk as a means of making affordable coverage - but we the people who live on the hill are the ones paying the bill.
I am not in a flood zone and very much high and dry, but...my property insurance bill includes an added premium for something called Citizens' Insurance - explained by my policy as a state mandate to "cover major losses by other insurance companies with insufficient reserves".
Why are they allowed to have insufficient reserves? Because the legislature, the Insurance Commissioner, and the governor are all owned by the banks and realtors.
In their own words: "Citizens Property Insurance Corporation was created in 2002 from the merger of two other entities to provide both windstorm coverage and general property insurance for home-owners who could not obtain insurance elsewhere. It was established by the Florida Legislature in Section 627.351(6) of Florida Statutes as a not-for-profit insurer of last resort, headquartered in Tallahassee, Florida, and quickly became the largest insurer in the state"
Yes, it does sound like pooled risk as a means of making affordable coverage - but we the people who live on the hill are the ones paying the bill.
14
-----
The day is coming when the owners of these water front houses will not be able to give their homes away.
It may be one of the few times in history where the rich not the poor take it in the seat. But that being overly optimistic for a pessimist like me, the rich will probably find some way for the poor to subsidize and pay for their bad luck.
Such is life in this munching world of woe.
The day is coming when the owners of these water front houses will not be able to give their homes away.
It may be one of the few times in history where the rich not the poor take it in the seat. But that being overly optimistic for a pessimist like me, the rich will probably find some way for the poor to subsidize and pay for their bad luck.
Such is life in this munching world of woe.
11
The poor already pay for the rich. It is called subsidized flood insurance.
5
I mentioned this article to my 60ish sister who lives in a condo in in North Miami right next to the ocean. She said she wasn't worried because she lives on the 15th floor and will be dead before the water reaches that high.
11
How about putting all beach-side housing on elevated pylons, thirty feet high?
No pylons, no insurance?
No pylons, no insurance?
7
@Ronn
How about we end the subsidized insurance welfare program for poor rich coast dwellers.
How about we end the subsidized insurance welfare program for poor rich coast dwellers.
1
How about no insurance period.
2
The older one gets, the more one's knees appreciate a ranch. And they are hideous to look at (the homes, not my knees).
1
I often drive through through northwest Del Mar here in San Diego. The entire area is perhaps 2-3 feet above sea-level with home prices ranging from 3 to 16 million dollars. Many of these homes sit directly on the beach mere feet from high tide.
It's stunning to me that people continue to invest in this real estate; and that prices continue to rise for these properties. It's as if an entire class of ultra-wealthy are oblivious to the threat. Sure, flood insurance may mitigate the immediate risk, but as an owner I'd be more concerned about the value of my property when people stop buying in these areas.
It's stunning to me that people continue to invest in this real estate; and that prices continue to rise for these properties. It's as if an entire class of ultra-wealthy are oblivious to the threat. Sure, flood insurance may mitigate the immediate risk, but as an owner I'd be more concerned about the value of my property when people stop buying in these areas.
27
Well, if suddenly I had 10 billion dollars, even knowing it wasnt going to be around long I might buy a big house on the rocky cliffs of Maine. Never keeping anything of sentimental or other value there, but, just for a short time enjoy the view. But, since I dont figure to win it, or someone to show at my door to hand it to me. Its a pipe dream.
1
Articles like this should make a distinction between beach erosion and climate change. There was never a time when beach erosion did not occur. What makes this a case of "ocean rise" as opposed to ordinary beach erosion? I have to say that I spent most of the summer at a beachfront community and no one was the least concerned about this.
3
And here it is: the "climate has always changed" argument, applied to tides now. Soon there won't be enough sand left for people with these super-sized denial abilities to stick their heads into.
7
It's not complicated. Sea level rise is happening, it is measurable and it will get worse. It results from the melting of terrestrial ice (glaciers and ice caps) and from thermal expansion as the oceans warm. These factors are happening, are measurable and will get worse.
While Florida may be in the throes of denial, and it sounds like some government officials and industry groups are trying to enforce it, this is not at all a Florida-only phenomenon. We have higher and higher king tides here in our little suburban city. While they don't affect too much area, the areas affected have our main thoroughfares (the US 101 freeway and several surface streets), a great number of businesses and parts of our local high school. It doesn't take much imagination to see that property values here in this well-off community will suffer as flooding worsens even though most individual properties will not be flooded. If you can't get home when the roads are under water, your home can't remain as valuable as it once was.
We are at least very aware of the problem and are limiting coast development and are saving and reintroducing coastal wet lands. And parts of the federal government,notably the military, are well-aware of the risks. It is sad to see that in other places denial is the order of the day. But present day deniers won't pay the price - their kids will.
While Florida may be in the throes of denial, and it sounds like some government officials and industry groups are trying to enforce it, this is not at all a Florida-only phenomenon. We have higher and higher king tides here in our little suburban city. While they don't affect too much area, the areas affected have our main thoroughfares (the US 101 freeway and several surface streets), a great number of businesses and parts of our local high school. It doesn't take much imagination to see that property values here in this well-off community will suffer as flooding worsens even though most individual properties will not be flooded. If you can't get home when the roads are under water, your home can't remain as valuable as it once was.
We are at least very aware of the problem and are limiting coast development and are saving and reintroducing coastal wet lands. And parts of the federal government,notably the military, are well-aware of the risks. It is sad to see that in other places denial is the order of the day. But present day deniers won't pay the price - their kids will.
1
If those on "Beach communities" in Florida aren't worried it's because they are in complete denial.
4
This article focuses on the impact of climate change on the real estate market, but there is also the related issue of wetlands protection. Wetlands are important because they protect and improve water quality, provide fish and wildlife habitats, store floodwaters and maintain surface water flow during dry periods. Concern for wetlands seems to have dissipated over the last 30 years, but perhaps the rising waters will help us reappraise the importance of wetlands protection -- even if it means discouraging real estate development in coastal areas. That's another reason to end federal subsidies for flood insurance.
18
Why anybody would buy waterfront real estate now, let alone 10 years ago, is beyond me. The Army Corps of Engineers can only truck in so much sand. Our poor, beleaguered Mother Nature will exact her due.
If there's and ETF for waterfront properties, time to go short!
If there's and ETF for waterfront properties, time to go short!
11
Mother Nature takes that sand, rocks, netting, etc and puts it somewhere else, where SHE wants it. Which satifies me no end.
2
And yet Florida voted for Mr. "Climate Change Is A Hoax" Trump for president. As president, Trump will be in a position to undo some or all of President Obama's achievements in combating climate change. Don't feel bad, Florideans. You aren't the only people Trump boondoggled. Hopefully, we'll wake up in time for Democrats to make inroads into the Congress in 2018. We can only hope.
30
Meanwhile, hundreds of highrise buildings are under construction next to the harbor around the New York City area, all within a few feet of high tide levels. What can real estate developers be thinking?
8
You ask what smart real estate developers must be thinking to build near shore on the East Coast or anywhere. If I were susceptible to the fear mongering climate change consortium, I'd think this a good question. Riddle me this, partner. Do you think the other players know more than you do? As man made climate change has not been proven in any scientific analysis, there is only, as usual, "connect the dots" types of logic.
In the this fear inducing article, there is not one pertinent fact that would keep a real estate developer from investing in shore properties. Since they're not buying what The Times is selling, maybe they can buy at reduced prices those completed projects built before the "oncoming disaster" and walk away a winner.
Where does this piece show factual evidence that sea levels are rising near Miami? Don't hold those cards so close to your vest. Tell Us, so I can get scared too.
In the this fear inducing article, there is not one pertinent fact that would keep a real estate developer from investing in shore properties. Since they're not buying what The Times is selling, maybe they can buy at reduced prices those completed projects built before the "oncoming disaster" and walk away a winner.
Where does this piece show factual evidence that sea levels are rising near Miami? Don't hold those cards so close to your vest. Tell Us, so I can get scared too.
2
Go buy property on the coast in Florida. Tell the government there and in DC that if your house is washed away you want no help, no money, no rescue, cause it wont happen. Oh, just buy fire insurance that will be void if it happens do to water damage. Then fill it with everything that is important to you, every sentimental item, every expensive item, your whole family. Then sit and wait. You will have your "evidence" soon enough, but unless you can swim in rough water for a minimum of 10 miles you wont know it. And all you hold dear (if anything/one) will be gone.
2
The impact of putting billions of tons of carbon into the atmosphere does not just imperil low lying coastal regions of Texas, South Carolina, Florida the mid atlantic. It also changes weather patterns resulting in severe drought. There are 70+ million Americans in the west who depend on significant annual rainfall to fill state and federal reservoirs that put water in the tap and on the crop. Drought, flooding, it can displace sizable populations of Americans. Imagine climate change causing 100 million people from the American West and South to move to the Great Lakes region simply to stay high and dry and have water.
11
"James Murley, Miami-Dade’s chief resilience officer, said it was important to avoid spooking the market since real estate investment produces much of the revenue that pays for these upgrades." Yeah, wouldn't want to "spook the market", they've got to unload a lot of future worthless property...
17
Used to be called fraud at best and stealing at worst. They should be in jail (one nice and close to the coast, with all automation, no guards so there are none to get hurt when the jail sinks.
Areas that used to be full of small homes in Hawaii are now parks, after being destroyed more than once do to Tsunamis. They are ahead in many areas. Its what coastal areas in the rest of the country should do. Other countries should do the same, but, not my business. Some have no choices, they are already basically underwater. Like Bangladesh, and low lying islands in the south pacific. Theres an island country that has bought a big chunk of Austrailia, in the middle, worthless for most anything. They plan to move lock stock and barrel there ASAP. Good thing too as now the islands dont flood just in storms, but, sit about a foot underwater all the time. This was some good thinking outside the box. Or Ocean.
Areas that used to be full of small homes in Hawaii are now parks, after being destroyed more than once do to Tsunamis. They are ahead in many areas. Its what coastal areas in the rest of the country should do. Other countries should do the same, but, not my business. Some have no choices, they are already basically underwater. Like Bangladesh, and low lying islands in the south pacific. Theres an island country that has bought a big chunk of Austrailia, in the middle, worthless for most anything. They plan to move lock stock and barrel there ASAP. Good thing too as now the islands dont flood just in storms, but, sit about a foot underwater all the time. This was some good thinking outside the box. Or Ocean.
2
That was out of the box thinking, but once the island ex-pats get to their outback, they won't have ENOUGH water.
1
For the the record, a lot of homeowners in Florida that live in flood susceptible areas are middle and working class people and young families. They are not all "coastal elites" that live in big houses on the ocean. I live in a town that experienced storm surge flooding from Hurricane Matthew, and many of the homes that were flooded were full with young middle class families and local small business owners. Don't be so quick to judge this by playing the "Trump card".
10
Ultimately it will be working and middle class families who will be the last to leave submerging costal communities because they will be lured there by cheap real estate prices as the end comes near for these communities and they will be the ones to finally loose their investments.
It will be up to local governments planning boards and DPWs to pass regulations to condem endangered properties and ban rebuilding after flooding from coastal storms and remove infrastructure. Neither the Federal nor the State governments have the foresight or the courage to conduct the necessary retreat from low lying coastal areas in an organized fashion. They lack the will to take the necessary action in the face of the inevidably effects of their inability to face climate change. Ultimately they failed when they failed to make the necessary changes to our national energy policy in a timely fashion.
It will be up to local governments planning boards and DPWs to pass regulations to condem endangered properties and ban rebuilding after flooding from coastal storms and remove infrastructure. Neither the Federal nor the State governments have the foresight or the courage to conduct the necessary retreat from low lying coastal areas in an organized fashion. They lack the will to take the necessary action in the face of the inevidably effects of their inability to face climate change. Ultimately they failed when they failed to make the necessary changes to our national energy policy in a timely fashion.
1
I once owned property a block from the ocean in Florida. I had hoped to keep it, but realized I had to sell it a few years ago. It wasn't the onset of climate change that worried me the most. Instead, it was the sheer lack of astuteness and foresight and widespread incompetence at the county and state levels of government that sent me packing. I knew that Florida was particularly ill-equipped to deal with the challenges ahead.
I've been through many a hurricane over the years. The aftermath is usually worse than the storm itself. Poor prioritization, misallocation of emergency resources, lack of adequate preparation, the list goes on and on. And that's just the public sector. Then you start dealing with the insurance industry as it exists in the state of Florida. That's when the full extent of the headache becomes apparent.
Lack of intelligent planning and engineering prowess greatly hinder Florida's chances of being able to do anything innovative or effective about the coming challenges. I've never had second thoughts about selling, but feel badly for those who are destined to remain Floridians as things get worse. I also worry that a disproportionate share of the cost of preserving valuable waterfront property will end up being borne by people living inland who can't afford to underwrite it.
Here's a telling article from the NYT archives:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/25/us/where-sand-is-gold-the-coffers-are-...
I've been through many a hurricane over the years. The aftermath is usually worse than the storm itself. Poor prioritization, misallocation of emergency resources, lack of adequate preparation, the list goes on and on. And that's just the public sector. Then you start dealing with the insurance industry as it exists in the state of Florida. That's when the full extent of the headache becomes apparent.
Lack of intelligent planning and engineering prowess greatly hinder Florida's chances of being able to do anything innovative or effective about the coming challenges. I've never had second thoughts about selling, but feel badly for those who are destined to remain Floridians as things get worse. I also worry that a disproportionate share of the cost of preserving valuable waterfront property will end up being borne by people living inland who can't afford to underwrite it.
Here's a telling article from the NYT archives:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/25/us/where-sand-is-gold-the-coffers-are-...
22
It was for many of the same reasons that my wife and I sold our planned retirement home in the Florida Keys. That and the fact that the pythons were showing up as well. Who knew that those snakes could swim.
3
If you build or buy in areas that are danger of flooding now then you are a climate change denier. The federal government should not underwrite your folly. So I am in favor of grandfathering any reasonable prior flood insurance protections the federal government has offered, since people may have been living in flood-prone areas for decades, and our collective actions have brought about climate change. But I am vigorously opposed to any such federal protection going forward. If private companies want to take on the insurance risk then they, like any foolish future buyers of such real estate, should take it on as their own responsibility.
34
Insurance companies would be foolish to offer such flood insurance owing to the surety of their coming losses.
2
Rich folks tend to own houses on the shore, including condos. maybe, though i doubt it, they will come around to the dangers of climate change if their high dollar homes and real estate investments get swamped, but they haven't come around yet and, since it's politically incorrect to acknowledge climate change, they're unlikely to, regardless of the personal consequences. they are too invested in the lie.
14
This is an area where I wish the free market was completely unfettered--there should have never been subsidies for flood insurance. It's because the federal and state governments subsidized insurance for decades that the true cost and risk were never factored in to lots of pricing of real estate prone to flooding. That radically skewed incentives, which led to complacency and development of hundreds of billions, if not trillions, of dollars in assets since the 1950s in areas where no building should've gone up.
This was bound to come back to bite us big-time, and that time has come. If the free market had not been disturbed, then only those able to bear the risks of building in flood prone regions--the wealthy--would've built there and taken on all the costs if their bets turned wrong. The free market should be slowly reintroduced in the flood insurance markets so that further development comes to a halt and people are incentivized to build their homes in areas where flooding caused by global warming will not occur, like in all the major inland cities of this nation.
This was bound to come back to bite us big-time, and that time has come. If the free market had not been disturbed, then only those able to bear the risks of building in flood prone regions--the wealthy--would've built there and taken on all the costs if their bets turned wrong. The free market should be slowly reintroduced in the flood insurance markets so that further development comes to a halt and people are incentivized to build their homes in areas where flooding caused by global warming will not occur, like in all the major inland cities of this nation.
43
This would be the same free market that created the housing bubble?
While I agree that the cost of flood-zone real estate should not be subsidized by taxpayers, blaming this all on governments is also not the whole solution. Witness the efforts of real estate interests to protect their "right" to misinform (cheat) their customers. And the efforts of the fossil fuel industry to deceive the public into believing this isn't happening.
A more reality-based analysis is needed. The "magic" of the market place alone won't cut it.
While I agree that the cost of flood-zone real estate should not be subsidized by taxpayers, blaming this all on governments is also not the whole solution. Witness the efforts of real estate interests to protect their "right" to misinform (cheat) their customers. And the efforts of the fossil fuel industry to deceive the public into believing this isn't happening.
A more reality-based analysis is needed. The "magic" of the market place alone won't cut it.
5
and it was the liberal democrats that provided the federal subsidies for flood insurance. I agree that the full cost needs to be factored into the true home price. if someone has enough money to purchase a home that close to the water, good for them. but then they need to be fully responsible for the consequences of such a decision. No tears from me when someone's house on a cliff above the ocean falls into the water. what? you mean you bought that house and never even considered that possibility? not to bright eh?
1
My point with my comment is that there is an appropriate time and place for government subsidies (I never said anything about regulations, which I tend to think are necessary in most situations in the marketplace, especially the bubble that led to the 2008 calamity). Subsidizing flood insurance was definitely not needed. The only beneficiaries I can think of who benefited from decades of subsidized flood insurance were the developers, real estate agents and construction firms. The buyers and sellers of said property in aggregate came out with neither gain nor benefit, or with looming and immense losses, as this article makes clear.
2
The government should not be in the flood insurance business. If it got out of the business it would force folks who ignore the risks to reconsider. They would have to find commercially available insurance and the premiums should be high and payable only once. Your home flooded it pays with the proviso you cannot rebuild at that location or any other at high risk for flooding.
34
Coming even sooner is climate change linked to Arctic warming and its effect on the jet stream and other weather patterns: lots of very stagnant weather patterns leading to occasional inundating rains and many long periods of drought, as is presently happening in the southeast.
19
Well, since I've lived in the South for 40 years-- we've had droughts before. We've had heatwaves before. We've had serious rain before.
What will we do with the expanding Antarctic ice mass?
What will we do with the expanding Antarctic ice mass?
3
Nice try
There is net ice loss due to climate change. There is much more rapid global ice loss than gain due to increasing temperatures. If you want to bury your head in the sand as a climate change denier, good luck with that.
There is net ice loss due to climate change. There is much more rapid global ice loss than gain due to increasing temperatures. If you want to bury your head in the sand as a climate change denier, good luck with that.
5
Let's not just focus on the US. The rest of the world is experiencing climate change as well.
2
Raising flood insurance cost will be disaster for many. Southern Louisiana, large parts of Florida, South Carolina, are occupied by low to middle income families. Their homes are modest and have always been in areas of flood risks, but climate change is, of course, accelerating the risk.
How many people here, writing these comments now, understood even 10 years ago what was unfolding? This is, for most people, a new problem to deal with.
Pulling the plug on government-backed flood insurance will hurt many people, destroy neighbors and erode tax bases to the point where recovery is impossible. The coastlines will be lost in time, but we need to manage it as best we can. Our neighbors are in a tough spot but it was our collective inaction which has helped put them there.
How many people here, writing these comments now, understood even 10 years ago what was unfolding? This is, for most people, a new problem to deal with.
Pulling the plug on government-backed flood insurance will hurt many people, destroy neighbors and erode tax bases to the point where recovery is impossible. The coastlines will be lost in time, but we need to manage it as best we can. Our neighbors are in a tough spot but it was our collective inaction which has helped put them there.
10
Al Gore (our previous "loser" who had won the popular vote) had a little movie in 2006 called "An Inconvenient Truth" in which he predicted all of this. He said that the scientists said we had 10 years to clean up our act before things spiraled out of control. The Republican lawmakers who are owned by the fossil fuel industries and who have fought regulation tooth and nail have a crime on their hands of such great magnitude.
34
How do you save a tax base when the town/city is underwater and will remain so?
I knew well before a decade ago what was occuring. But, then weather, climate, and history have always interested me. Even 20 years ago I would not have bought land on a shore. Wouldnt have taken it for free.
Ive been thinking about my home town (on a shore) flooding and how it would look as it happened for 20 years now. I love my home town. Ill miss it. Was a nice place to grow up in. It will end up a group of islands as it has some high steep hills. Not all people have heads stuck in the sand. The most expensive hunk of land in town is the top of the highest hill. High School used to be there. Moved it and put land up for sale, just sat there for years. Then when everyone knew the words Global Warming, and smart ones knew it was real, snap! it sold for more than they could have imagined.
I knew well before a decade ago what was occuring. But, then weather, climate, and history have always interested me. Even 20 years ago I would not have bought land on a shore. Wouldnt have taken it for free.
Ive been thinking about my home town (on a shore) flooding and how it would look as it happened for 20 years now. I love my home town. Ill miss it. Was a nice place to grow up in. It will end up a group of islands as it has some high steep hills. Not all people have heads stuck in the sand. The most expensive hunk of land in town is the top of the highest hill. High School used to be there. Moved it and put land up for sale, just sat there for years. Then when everyone knew the words Global Warming, and smart ones knew it was real, snap! it sold for more than they could have imagined.
1
homeowners are getting weary. geez louise. i am getting a bit tired of always having to bail these home owners out for their damaged homes.
29
Since Donald Trump is such a narcissist, maybe this is the way to get him to care about climate change. He will hope that Mar-a-Lago becomes a national heritage site after his presidency, like Warm Springs Georgia or the Texas White House. If he does not take climate change seriously, it will become a national heritage site like the USS Arizona--underwater.
28
But, with dives into it every day of the year to see all his gold on the walls, slowly peeling off, his million dollar bed looking like a hookers. His other tacky furnishing that he didnt get out for 2 reasons, he ordered the federal government to stop the flooding, and his loyal illegal employees didnt stay to remove the stuff, they grabbed what little they had and ran.
It seems that while coastal Democrats complain they are subsidizing "flyover country" after losing the election, the rest of the country is subsidizing their flood insurance to the tune of thousands of dollars per year. Thanks Obama.
/s
/s
9
When I look at these maps, I see coastlines of mostly red states. That's also where the heaviest impacts are. And, federal government spending on flood damage and insurance is already included in the calculations of federal net contributions and benefits.
25
They are in the Blue areas of the Red states. and the largest development dollars per coastal mile is on t the west coast -- all blue. and flood insurance subsidies are not included in the published calculations of federal net contributions and benefits.
3
Most of the people who can afford to live on the beach are 1%'ers. (Read: Republicans.)
3
Guess what amplifies climate change?
"Free trade" where goods are made in countries with no environmental protections and shipped thousands of miles (burning fuel every inch of the way) to consumers.
Wake Up.
"Free trade" where goods are made in countries with no environmental protections and shipped thousands of miles (burning fuel every inch of the way) to consumers.
Wake Up.
50
I didnt read the whole article, but was curious to see what the real data said.
http://www.zillow.com/homes/for_sale/Oak-Island-NC/40108_rid/globalrelev...
The red dots (houses on sale) are just enveloping the area. It is a concern indeed
http://www.zillow.com/homes/for_sale/Oak-Island-NC/40108_rid/globalrelev...
The red dots (houses on sale) are just enveloping the area. It is a concern indeed
5
I looked at the referenced Zillow map of Oak Island, NC, and was struck not only at the amount of houses for sale but the low prices relative to water-front property,
I live in NC and am disgusted that the taxpayers rebuild NC 12 on the barrier Islands every year, And now a new bridge--Who pays for this nonsense?
I live in NC and am disgusted that the taxpayers rebuild NC 12 on the barrier Islands every year, And now a new bridge--Who pays for this nonsense?
4
This is exactly what should be told to climate change deniers:
"Oh? You deny climate change? Well, put your money where your mouth is and buy some beachfront real estate and see what it's going to be worth in 40 years."
"Oh? You deny climate change? Well, put your money where your mouth is and buy some beachfront real estate and see what it's going to be worth in 40 years."
17
Make climate deniers subsidize federal flood insurance.
7
more like what's it gonna be worth in 7 years???
8
It really makes you wonder about the intelligence of those wealthy enough to purchase beach/ocean front properties. And how did they become so prosperous from that lack of? I look at the people buying waterfront property and think 'idiots'. Doesn't anyone ever look at a flood map anymore before investing a million or two? Who the heck insures them? They get what they deserve but unfortunately expect the rest of us to bail them out with our buckets of tax money when their second or third home washes out to sea.
17
It doesn't matter to the "prosperous types." Like their patron saint, they can just file for bankruptcy if they lose money due to their foolish purchases.
1
The writer points out that they assume at some point the government will subsidize their lack of foresight, while they continue to judge the person making $15-24K in the restaurants, coffee shops, and boat ramps they frequent as being "takers" because they don't have a 401k.
At the pier on Saint Simons Island in Georgia, the salt water line was about ~50 feet from the shore about 10 years ago. I know, as I have walked on the nice little beach there several times. Now the water line is about half way up the access steps leading down to the former little beach. No more beach, unless one wants to pat ones feet on the sand while sitting on the top step of the formerly usable access. I know because I have seen the water level rise steadily over the last few years. Made a believer out of me.
27
Geez Williams, maybe the beach eroded. They do that, you know.
2
First of all, even if one were to concede that--as far as coastlines are concerned--this is all a result of beach erosion, how does that change the essential point of the article, that coastline areas are in for significant issues with flooding and loss of property values? Second, I am married to a geologist who knows more about issues like climate change, so I tend not to argue with him much, since I am not a scientist. There is a reason they call experts experts, and reading a couple of articles or going out in bare feet to check the day's weather is not how one qualifies for the title.
3
There was no scientific prediction about global cooling in the 1980s. Your not so subtle attempt at disinformation is distasteful.
8
You used to be able to simply type in an address at floodsmart.gov and instantaneously be told whether the property was at high, moderate or low risk of flooding, based on the government's flood maps. That feature has disappeared. Now you get referred to the flood maps, presented in a way that's virtually indecipherable to a layperson. Why?
Always important to note that standard homeowners policies do not cover floods.
Always important to note that standard homeowners policies do not cover floods.
28
Thanks for mentioning that last point. Funny how Trump & the guy he's appointed for the environment insist that climate change isn't real,isn't it ?
5
Water is the enemy. If you've ever had so much as a basement flood, you know. Or you should.
People are fools to throw their money at these properties.
And ... don't even get me started on federally sold 'flood insurance.' It's just wrong, and who in the heck ends up subsidizing all these lovely waterfront properties?
Just you and me, the regular folk.
People are fools to throw their money at these properties.
And ... don't even get me started on federally sold 'flood insurance.' It's just wrong, and who in the heck ends up subsidizing all these lovely waterfront properties?
Just you and me, the regular folk.
45
Who cares abandon all of your houses at sea level. You cant keep the ocean out.
3
... Mar A Lago... Lol
6
How many of these folks who are concerned about the effects of climate change have voted GOP beginning in the early 1980s? How many of them also rallied to enact changes to their school's multi- years science classes to include increasingly challenging coursework on climate science and instruction on critical thinking and analysis?
16
Mr. Trump should put his money where his mouth is and buy up all the coastal properties in Florida, then in 15 years or so, he and his family can enjoy the profits from the soaring prices of their properties. They can then thank Mr Ebell and praise themselves for their foresight in choosing such a genius to guide their investment.
20
I live in Miami and what scares me the most about Climate Change is the Air we breathe.
When it comes to real estate,we can find ways to keep them valuable by:
-Government can encourage residents via tax break to retrofit their homes to adapt to rising sea level.
-Encourage new Constructions that take in consideration the rising sea level
-Fund ROD in local universities to come up with more salt water resistant building materials.
-Encourage a new type of architectural design for homes in danger zones. People have been living in house on pilotis for thousand of years.
Venice was built more than 1000 years ago. And I'm sure America the most powerful country in the history of the world can turn the changes that climate change brings into opportunities.
When it comes to real estate,we can find ways to keep them valuable by:
-Government can encourage residents via tax break to retrofit their homes to adapt to rising sea level.
-Encourage new Constructions that take in consideration the rising sea level
-Fund ROD in local universities to come up with more salt water resistant building materials.
-Encourage a new type of architectural design for homes in danger zones. People have been living in house on pilotis for thousand of years.
Venice was built more than 1000 years ago. And I'm sure America the most powerful country in the history of the world can turn the changes that climate change brings into opportunities.
1
Venice is sinking. And you can build the house up but what about roads, sewage, water lines, etc? Irresponsible to build.
9
We bought north of NYC right before Sandy. You better believe we had watched what Hurricane Irene did to all those cute little affordable-ish houses right by the water in Stamford, CT...and passed. People are definitely passing on coastal properties. We bought on high ground, but realize now that the Hudson and New Haven train lines are vulnerable on the coast, and never take the parkways when it rains because they flood and become crazy dangerous. Hello infrastructure investment New York State!
12
What's worrisome is the hundreds of millions thrown into the ocean in coastal communities, to thwart the erosion, when instead it could be spent on education or anything more worthwhile. Tired of seeing this public tax money grifted to save the second (or third) summer homes of the well off.
31
Would flooding of Mar-a-lago penetrate Trump's wooden head?
15
No, he'd just have the government build a wall - with our money. Funny how Republicans complain about "moochers" who don't pay their fair share, while demanding government subsidies for their communities.
The "let's not alarm the markets" folks remind me of a (possibly legendary) story about a seaside town near a volcano. One day, people noticed that the volcano was smoking and rumbling more than normal - and started to flee the town. The harbor got crowded, and a few boats capsized. Determined to quell the panic, the town's mayor and police told everyone that things were fine, nothing to worry about, and to go home. When the volcano erupted a few hours later, the town was destroyed in minutes. Only those who had ignored the reassurances survived.
The "let's not alarm the markets" folks remind me of a (possibly legendary) story about a seaside town near a volcano. One day, people noticed that the volcano was smoking and rumbling more than normal - and started to flee the town. The harbor got crowded, and a few boats capsized. Determined to quell the panic, the town's mayor and police told everyone that things were fine, nothing to worry about, and to go home. When the volcano erupted a few hours later, the town was destroyed in minutes. Only those who had ignored the reassurances survived.
2
-----
Owning a house by the water is going to be like musical chairs, except when the music stops the goal is to not have a chair.
Owning a house by the water is going to be like musical chairs, except when the music stops the goal is to not have a chair.
14
If Trump doesn't believe in Climate Change then he should invest in bench front property in Florida He should put his money where his mouth is.
8
Good thing it's just a hoax! Otherwise this could pose a problem.
38
Climate change? But Mr. Trump says it's a hoax begun by the Chinese. Buy your coastal houses with confidence!
17
In 1980 I spent a few days of vacation for a first time visit to Miami and Miami Beach. The water was ankle deep along most streets and storefronts. I don't know if it was rain or tide - but I do remember that 32 years ago the much ballyhooed alarm was global cooling. Could you all please make up your minds what I should worry about?
7
@lszabolcsi
you might consider worrying about the reliability of your 32-year old memories. because the available evidence shows conclusively that the consensus of scientific thought even back in the 70s was that the planet was warming, not cooling. see Peterson, Connolley, & Fleck - The Myth Of The 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus.pdf, freely available here:
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1
you might consider worrying about the reliability of your 32-year old memories. because the available evidence shows conclusively that the consensus of scientific thought even back in the 70s was that the planet was warming, not cooling. see Peterson, Connolley, & Fleck - The Myth Of The 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus.pdf, freely available here:
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1
30
Almost 20 years ago, we decided to buy property on a rather steep rise a block from the Pacific. When we moved, we bought a house more than 20 feet above sea level, now 4 blocks from the ocean. Why play with fire, or water in this case?
1
I have always wanted a house on the shore. I still miss being near the water but with shorelines and homes threatened I'm glad the better sense of my husband has prevailed and we are high and dry. I don't want the problems of those coastal homeowners to become my problems. Let them pay full flood insurance amounts and no bailouts!
20
I remember when those Congress peeps voted against help for the States affected by Hurricane Sandy. Then tornadoes struck the famous tornado alley, and they were falling over themselves demanding Federal aid for their losses. Congress reminds me of some medieval court with feather bedecked hats and velvet capes. The Republican contingent would be fired from any major corporation for failure to perform. They are unemployable, and will hang on their gerrymandered seats like barnacles on an old ship.
13
A house on shore? Sure, if it's a rental for a couple of weeks of summer vacation. Own one? No thanks.
2
No fear. Trump will build a wall by the ocean and have the whales pay for it.
40
Can someone say if Palm Beach where Mar-a-Lago is has any affects from rising sea levels and tides?
I would say that when that happens, Trump will change his mind.
However, I don't think Trump believed much of what he says and there is a good chance he already believes in global warming.
Somebody let me know when Mexico builds the wall.
I would say that when that happens, Trump will change his mind.
However, I don't think Trump believed much of what he says and there is a good chance he already believes in global warming.
Somebody let me know when Mexico builds the wall.
8
Climate change has exacerbated already high fire danger here in Southern Oregon. A hotter, drier forest with lots of bug kill surrounds many homes. People do fuel mitigation, but we all recognize that the safety of our property depends on plenty of fire fighting resources and public investment in fuel reduction, controlled burns, etc.. You have to wonder if an all-tea party government is just going to let it burn, like Bush let New Orleans drown.
10
Answer is, yes.
7
If logic ruled the world, to include real estate decisions, then there would be no permanent building of any private or commercial structure at least 1 miles from the shore, perferably even more is recommended. As I have stated a few times in the past on this issue, it's only a matter of time before potential seaside buyers start to ask for discounts for buying any beachside property, so risky will become the prospect of having one's home destroyed frequently by storms and surges of rising sea water.
8
Forty-some years ago when I went to the Navy's boot camp in Orlando Florida, I was amazed at how people lived on what's basically a "sandbar". On a good day most of Florida is swampland ; after the very Real Effects of Full-scale Global Warming take effect, it will be an underwater sandbar.
17
I read the comments and I must say: come on people! the fact that DT won by a tiny majority in Florida does not mean that Florida residents deserve to be flooded!
First of all, about half of the votes did go to Clinton.
Second, what about their children, or the older folks or people who are just so misinformed?
Indeed, how many of us are really independent thinkers? You read NTY, they watch Fox News. Most of your friends and family are liberals or perhaps even belong to the elites while they are surrounded by people who think that we are all corrupt.
Third: Aren't some of us actually corrupt? Think a bit about the climate effect of your international vacations or ski trips in the winter.
Trump may be despicable but most of the people whose houses will be flooded deserve compassion, not hate!
First of all, about half of the votes did go to Clinton.
Second, what about their children, or the older folks or people who are just so misinformed?
Indeed, how many of us are really independent thinkers? You read NTY, they watch Fox News. Most of your friends and family are liberals or perhaps even belong to the elites while they are surrounded by people who think that we are all corrupt.
Third: Aren't some of us actually corrupt? Think a bit about the climate effect of your international vacations or ski trips in the winter.
Trump may be despicable but most of the people whose houses will be flooded deserve compassion, not hate!
2
No one deserves to flooded, no matter who they voted for. Unless they have had plenty of warning about inevitable climate change and choose to remain vulnerable and expect to be bailed out even before the flooding begins. And especially if they plan to hang on a couple more years and then try to find a sap to buy their soon-to-be-devalued/worthless waterfront property. That's what I expect Trump's "business plan" is for his waterfront property. Find a saps to buy it before the storm hits the fan. What a guy.
8
Didn't see the difference between Trump and Clinton? He's a Climate Denier. She isn't.
11
I don't wish flooding upon anyone. But I don't wish to commit public resources to people who build or rebuild there now, knowing what we know. Use that money to help people resettle inland.
4
This is the hypocrisy of the Florida Republican Climate denier::
"We believe in small government and despise the less fortunate depending on governmental benefits. Climate change is a hoax and so much liberal claptrap. However, the government has a duty to resand my beach, rebuild my flooded out roads, subsidize my insurances and do everything in its power so I can enjoy my beachfront house ands to do so without raising my taxes or costing me anything extra".
I live in a conservative Florida beach community and will tell that these folks will be the first to demand governmental assistance foe their beaches and homes. Donald Trump is in this vain.
They are so much into climate denial that facts will never matter, UNLESS you give them a taste of their own medicine. STOP governmental programs that aid these beach front homeowners. Let them pay market rates foe flood insurance, let them pay for remand their beaches, and let them face the consequences of their actions.
IT always confounds me that Florida has so many climate change denies. Dying coral reefs, massive algae blooms, 100 year floods occurring every few years, and rising waters everywhere.
Of course this is the state that has voted Rick Scott, Donald Trump and Marc Rubio, so nothing should surprise me.
"We believe in small government and despise the less fortunate depending on governmental benefits. Climate change is a hoax and so much liberal claptrap. However, the government has a duty to resand my beach, rebuild my flooded out roads, subsidize my insurances and do everything in its power so I can enjoy my beachfront house ands to do so without raising my taxes or costing me anything extra".
I live in a conservative Florida beach community and will tell that these folks will be the first to demand governmental assistance foe their beaches and homes. Donald Trump is in this vain.
They are so much into climate denial that facts will never matter, UNLESS you give them a taste of their own medicine. STOP governmental programs that aid these beach front homeowners. Let them pay market rates foe flood insurance, let them pay for remand their beaches, and let them face the consequences of their actions.
IT always confounds me that Florida has so many climate change denies. Dying coral reefs, massive algae blooms, 100 year floods occurring every few years, and rising waters everywhere.
Of course this is the state that has voted Rick Scott, Donald Trump and Marc Rubio, so nothing should surprise me.
83
Perhaps the climate change deniers who are also coastal property owners are kicking the can down the road until a catastrophic event that will give them an excuse to play "victim" and seek government help. Who will remember that they denied the problem and had opportunities to avoid the catastrophe? Everyone will rush to put pacifiers in the mouths of crying, rich babies.
1
Why is this a ticking financial time bomb? The owners and their insurance companies, and federal flood insurance will cover it. If the risk rises, insurance premiums will rise to cover it. By the way, my house is at 900' above sea level.
1
flood insurance does not cover this
4
If you read the article, you'd notice it states that because coastal residents rebelled against a law that required premiums to actually be sufficient to cover loses, many parts of the law were repealed, and the fund is $20 billion in debt. Premiums to dot accurately reflect risk or cost (the non coastal/Miss. River states are subsidizing those in flood areas).
5
'The Don' owns a lot of valuable Florida real estate. He's going to be a climate denier for as long as it takes to either find some suckers to buy those properties, or create some deals to 'wash' some money through that real estate using quid pro quo exchanges for favors.
With 'the Don' staying in business rather than governing, any Feds that aren't under the direct control of a appointed crony are going to be very busy identifying, tracking and documenting the myriad potential corruption vectors in our new Presidential pizza.
With 'the Don' staying in business rather than governing, any Feds that aren't under the direct control of a appointed crony are going to be very busy identifying, tracking and documenting the myriad potential corruption vectors in our new Presidential pizza.
22
It makes sense to not buy in these areas that will continue to be effected by water damage, flooding, storm surges, etc. for years to come. In most of NYC's boroughs, we learned that the Atlantic ocean can surge 10-12 feet from Tropical Storm Sandy (not even a hurricane when it arrived). They should be wary. The other problem is for the current homeowners who have properties they will have to snare someone else into buying in order to save their investment at some point in time or they will lose it. Soon there will be no flood insurance; people will just have properties that will eventually be under water, literally.
Wonder why these real estate conglomerates aren't lobbying the GOP to confront the challenges of climate change? There will not be a bailout for the industry that contributed to its own demise. Stop building homes, hotels, etc. in these area. Build barriers and bring in the dunes. Build a dam like the wall that Trump is planning to build in Mexico. Its water that is going to wash away the shores due to his love for natural shale gas and the injuries that fracking will wreak upon this nation-- and the world.
Profiteers want it all now. Voted for Trump: you lose. Won't lobby him: you lose. Can't get him to see the risk and the threat in climate change and impending global warming. More doom and gloom. Did these realtors vote for their doom at the hands of the world's greatest builder?
We are all in harm's way. Buy in-land if you've any sense at all!
Wonder why these real estate conglomerates aren't lobbying the GOP to confront the challenges of climate change? There will not be a bailout for the industry that contributed to its own demise. Stop building homes, hotels, etc. in these area. Build barriers and bring in the dunes. Build a dam like the wall that Trump is planning to build in Mexico. Its water that is going to wash away the shores due to his love for natural shale gas and the injuries that fracking will wreak upon this nation-- and the world.
Profiteers want it all now. Voted for Trump: you lose. Won't lobby him: you lose. Can't get him to see the risk and the threat in climate change and impending global warming. More doom and gloom. Did these realtors vote for their doom at the hands of the world's greatest builder?
We are all in harm's way. Buy in-land if you've any sense at all!
15
I bought a 75 year old, cheap little beach cottage out on the North Fork of Long Island five years ago. It's up on a bluff, about 60 feet above the sound and across the road from the big new multi-million dollar homes... I'm thinking that in ten or twenty years, I or my kids will probably be the owners of oceanfront property.
9
Until erosion eats at that cliff and you lose it to a landslide.
11
This story reminds me of the tales from the California wildfires. Police and fire department tell people to leave their homes for safer areas--people refuse--say that they understand it is their last chance--they refuse--the fires get to their property and they call 911 and don't understand why no one will help.
12
Did that really happen? I am sincerely curious. There is so much fake news nowadays.......
2
"No one knows whether, when or by how much properties will depreciate, seas will encroach or flood insurance policies will change."
This is probably one of the most reckless statements anyone can make. Sure, no one knows the rate of progression of sea level rise, but it's not a matter of if, but when the eventual awakening will come. The total lack of long-term planning, and the aggressive short-term stance in tackling mother nature, is breathtaking.
Sure, I get it, no one ever wants to admit defeat, but retreat to higher grounds is the only sure thing to get oneself out of harm's way. For the cities, states, and even federal government to continue betting on lucrative revenue from waterfront development and tax dollars, it's absolute negligence. As taxpayer, I categorically refuse to subsidize such short-term thinking, speculation and stupidity through artificially low flood insurance coverage. It's high time that we put a stop to that...although with a real estate developer installing himself in the White House, I highly doubt if commonsense will return any time soon.
This is probably one of the most reckless statements anyone can make. Sure, no one knows the rate of progression of sea level rise, but it's not a matter of if, but when the eventual awakening will come. The total lack of long-term planning, and the aggressive short-term stance in tackling mother nature, is breathtaking.
Sure, I get it, no one ever wants to admit defeat, but retreat to higher grounds is the only sure thing to get oneself out of harm's way. For the cities, states, and even federal government to continue betting on lucrative revenue from waterfront development and tax dollars, it's absolute negligence. As taxpayer, I categorically refuse to subsidize such short-term thinking, speculation and stupidity through artificially low flood insurance coverage. It's high time that we put a stop to that...although with a real estate developer installing himself in the White House, I highly doubt if commonsense will return any time soon.
25
Don't worry, Floridians.
Climate change is a hoax, so says your Republican governor and your Republican president-elect president.
Do you believe them or your lying eyes?
Climate change is a hoax, so says your Republican governor and your Republican president-elect president.
Do you believe them or your lying eyes?
77
It's against the law in Florida to use the words "Climate change" and "Global warming."
8
The government has no business spending taxpayer money to protect the investments of those whose folly caused them to spend millions on property improvements on the shoreline.
If enough property is washed away, maybe we will develop the political will to address the cause, rather than trying to remedy the effects.
If enough property is washed away, maybe we will develop the political will to address the cause, rather than trying to remedy the effects.
52
Precisely, especially when these same private property owners insist that their private property be enjoined from public usage and access. yet these same property owners are the same ones who insist on Federal emergency assistance when the oceans destroy theor private property. New Jersey is famous for its restrictive beaches and beach tag fees to the general public, yet they are the frst ones clamoring for Federal assistance when a hurricane strikes their property.
15
Once those places are uninhabitable they will be where those of us who can't afford decent housing will be living. After all, if we drown no one will miss us.
11
No worries! We'll just built a wall.........oh, never mind........a wall would block the view
5
The median price of houses in Miami has almost doubled in last 5 years.
https://www.trulia.com/real_estate/Miami-Florida/market-trends/
The average price per foot is a very high $183 now.
The NUMBER of houses changing hands is about the same, as the article says, but the VALUE of houses has increased dramatically, especially for properties by the sea.
Sea levels in Florida rise at the same rate, about 0.8ft/century, for the last 100 years
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=...
https://www.trulia.com/real_estate/Miami-Florida/market-trends/
The average price per foot is a very high $183 now.
The NUMBER of houses changing hands is about the same, as the article says, but the VALUE of houses has increased dramatically, especially for properties by the sea.
Sea levels in Florida rise at the same rate, about 0.8ft/century, for the last 100 years
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=...
4
A recent international study about the melting of the western ice sheet in Antarctica has found that a ridge of ice that originally holds the sheet back was resting on the seafloor. Somehow around 1945, the ice barrier was penetrated by warm water which began the process of melting it from behind. It is now gone, and the entire sheet is expected to melt with no way to stop it. This ice sheet alone is big enough (contains enough water) to raise world seal levels by 10 feet.
Coastal real estate owners, and coastal real estate professionals (developers, investors, and sales) will be the last people to publicly accept the idea of global warning. Their lives and property depend on denial (until they find the right sucker to buy their property at current market value.
Coastal real estate owners, and coastal real estate professionals (developers, investors, and sales) will be the last people to publicly accept the idea of global warning. Their lives and property depend on denial (until they find the right sucker to buy their property at current market value.
14
Yet Miami Beach sustains sunny day flooding about once a month now.
Its still a desirable place to live but what happens when sea level rise accelerates?
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/08/us/florida-finds-itself-in-the-eye-of-...
Its still a desirable place to live but what happens when sea level rise accelerates?
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/08/us/florida-finds-itself-in-the-eye-of-...
7
No -There is no need to be alarmist!
"What they found was that local destabilization of the Amundsen Sea region of West Antarctica ultimately causes the entire ice sheet to fall into the ocean over several centuries to several thousands of years, gradually adding 3 meters to global sea levels..."
Note the "over several centuries to several thousands of years". You write as if this could happen any day. That is not to say it's not concerning, but it's not clear what we could do and spreading FUD does not help.
"What they found was that local destabilization of the Amundsen Sea region of West Antarctica ultimately causes the entire ice sheet to fall into the ocean over several centuries to several thousands of years, gradually adding 3 meters to global sea levels..."
Note the "over several centuries to several thousands of years". You write as if this could happen any day. That is not to say it's not concerning, but it's not clear what we could do and spreading FUD does not help.
1
Climate change is real. At this point it doesn't much matter whether you believe its man made or nature made. You can pass it off as just weather, but its effect will have its way with you no matter what you believe.
The truth is that a 10,000 year period of relative stability with regard to climate, and by extension weather, enabled mankind to put down roots, become less hunter/gatherer and more agrarian. Tents became homes, became towns, became cities. And now things change.
Coastal communities are vulnerable. So are those where deserts are encroaching on once fertile lands, so are glacial or snow pack fed rivers, so are places prone to floods, to rains, to tornadoes, blizzards, you name it,
Everyone, no matter where they live will have to adapt to our new reality. What we thought we could foist on our children and grandchildren is now being foisted upon us. Insurance will increasingly not be a viable solution for all the damage caused.
In our relatively stable climate situation up here in Alberta a large portion of the bumper crops we grew this year are lying sodden and now frozen on the earth. We had rains all through the summer and fall. It's our new normal. We no longer put up hay. We put up a kind of grass saurkraut that can be stored wet in long airtight bundles.
We adapt. We are an ingenious species. We just have to get over our resistance to change. Or not and be like lemmings with their own quite marvelous plan. That works too.
We r on our feet.
The truth is that a 10,000 year period of relative stability with regard to climate, and by extension weather, enabled mankind to put down roots, become less hunter/gatherer and more agrarian. Tents became homes, became towns, became cities. And now things change.
Coastal communities are vulnerable. So are those where deserts are encroaching on once fertile lands, so are glacial or snow pack fed rivers, so are places prone to floods, to rains, to tornadoes, blizzards, you name it,
Everyone, no matter where they live will have to adapt to our new reality. What we thought we could foist on our children and grandchildren is now being foisted upon us. Insurance will increasingly not be a viable solution for all the damage caused.
In our relatively stable climate situation up here in Alberta a large portion of the bumper crops we grew this year are lying sodden and now frozen on the earth. We had rains all through the summer and fall. It's our new normal. We no longer put up hay. We put up a kind of grass saurkraut that can be stored wet in long airtight bundles.
We adapt. We are an ingenious species. We just have to get over our resistance to change. Or not and be like lemmings with their own quite marvelous plan. That works too.
We r on our feet.
16
You are correct in stating that we will adapt. Adaptation will create winner and losers. But the change of climate is likely to be fast. In such an environment there will be war and slaughter. Just imagine for example 100 Million people in Bangladesh trying to move north. I hope you see the calamity created. (Hey, we even want a wall for people coming to the USA and are willing to work).
You may claim that this is not your concern and you have every right not to be concerned. But in a global interconnected world the described event will impact you and me.
You may claim that this is not your concern and you have every right not to be concerned. But in a global interconnected world the described event will impact you and me.
6
We're on our feet, but when the folks in power, and the folks with money begin to run for exits en mass, a lot of innocent folks could get trampled.
It may even be that this last election was more about saving them, than about saving us. The mass exit from taking responsibility for the damage, and for any remedies that might help to save us, may have already begun. The 'business culture' (and it's direct beneficiaries) that have long advocated "free market pollution of the air, sea, and land', are very people who benefited the most from the 'global warming' that we now face. With the help of a pay-for-play government, they've pocketed the excess profits that might have gone to offsetting the long term effects of pollution. They in the form Trump and a Republican Congress, and soon to be ideological Republican court
It may even be that this last election was more about saving them, than about saving us. The mass exit from taking responsibility for the damage, and for any remedies that might help to save us, may have already begun. The 'business culture' (and it's direct beneficiaries) that have long advocated "free market pollution of the air, sea, and land', are very people who benefited the most from the 'global warming' that we now face. With the help of a pay-for-play government, they've pocketed the excess profits that might have gone to offsetting the long term effects of pollution. They in the form Trump and a Republican Congress, and soon to be ideological Republican court
6
@jzu, I am very concerned about everyone in the coming calamity.
I have been writing about the need for global cooperation in the face of the coming 'challenges' of climate change for years now. Most of it, I have to say, falling on deaf ears because most people are fairly complacent when it comes to other people's problems.
The short sighted nature of our concern for the environment is evident every time the subject comes up. We can't do anything that jeopardizes jobs is the wailing mantra. And yet, all it takes to change that paradigm is to embrace the new job opportunities afforded by the new reality. Germany is a perfect example of a modern country which has successfully transitioned to the new normal. Why are we lagging so far behind?
As you say, there will be winners and losers in the coming crisis, and we will be affected by all of it. We already are. The underlying fear of what we are all facing is impacting us on a deeper level than we care to acknowledge, even now. It's not a coincidence that a man like Trump who promises to make things great again would rise to power in this environment of denial. It's almost like the childish belief in Santa Claus, except as the saying goes, "We are the ones we have been waiting for."
No, this is going to be tough for everyone, but my tenet stands. As a species we will adapt. Some of us will survive through innovation and luck. Others will not. We must do what we can to help where we can and have compassion for each other.
I have been writing about the need for global cooperation in the face of the coming 'challenges' of climate change for years now. Most of it, I have to say, falling on deaf ears because most people are fairly complacent when it comes to other people's problems.
The short sighted nature of our concern for the environment is evident every time the subject comes up. We can't do anything that jeopardizes jobs is the wailing mantra. And yet, all it takes to change that paradigm is to embrace the new job opportunities afforded by the new reality. Germany is a perfect example of a modern country which has successfully transitioned to the new normal. Why are we lagging so far behind?
As you say, there will be winners and losers in the coming crisis, and we will be affected by all of it. We already are. The underlying fear of what we are all facing is impacting us on a deeper level than we care to acknowledge, even now. It's not a coincidence that a man like Trump who promises to make things great again would rise to power in this environment of denial. It's almost like the childish belief in Santa Claus, except as the saying goes, "We are the ones we have been waiting for."
No, this is going to be tough for everyone, but my tenet stands. As a species we will adapt. Some of us will survive through innovation and luck. Others will not. We must do what we can to help where we can and have compassion for each other.
4
This is a graph of the last 400,000 years of the very close relationship between CO2, temperature, and sea level (kudos to johnenglander.net). When CO2 goes up 100 ppm, sea level responds by going up 100m (330 feet). This is a hard-wired relationship that is very obvious from inspecting the last 400,000 years. In the last century, CO2 has gone up another 100 ppm. It's effect is logarithmic, however, so Scientists 'only' expect another 75 feet of sea level rise (eventually). So, at today's 400ppm, we should expect the first 6 feet to occur in the next century, and the last 6 feet to occur about 500 years from now. But the FULL 75 feet is coming, whatever we do now (short of geoengineering). http://www.johnenglander.net/wp/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/420-kyr-graph...
3
Amazing that with all the CO2 rise, seas rise at the SAME rate as 210 years ago, in the time of George Washington, at 0.5 - 0.8 ft/century.
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_global_station.htm?s...
When do you expect the sea levels to start rising 10 times faster (to give a 6ft rise next century)?
Tomorrow? Next week?
Next January 20th?
Any explanation for why nothing happened so far?
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_global_station.htm?s...
When do you expect the sea levels to start rising 10 times faster (to give a 6ft rise next century)?
Tomorrow? Next week?
Next January 20th?
Any explanation for why nothing happened so far?
1
I knew I should have payed more attention in algebra cuz that math is confusing.
3
Actually, the sea levels are rising faster than expected and on the high end of IPCC projections. Sea levels were decreasing from the Medieval warm period until the start of the industrial revolution. Since that time, sea levels have risen very fast...actually about 10 times faster than any time in the last 8000 years or so.
The following link shows how recent warming has changed sea levels. What is a bit difficult for many to understand is that a 3-3.5 mm/year sea level rise is very fast. If current trends and projections continue, a one meter sea level rise could occur by the end of the 21st century. That would be similar to the level rise rate as the planet emerged from the last ice age.
http://users.clas.ufl.edu/mbinford/geo2200/Literature_for_links/Jevrejev...
The following link shows how recent warming has changed sea levels. What is a bit difficult for many to understand is that a 3-3.5 mm/year sea level rise is very fast. If current trends and projections continue, a one meter sea level rise could occur by the end of the 21st century. That would be similar to the level rise rate as the planet emerged from the last ice age.
http://users.clas.ufl.edu/mbinford/geo2200/Literature_for_links/Jevrejev...
2
If you purchase property on a flood plaIn or on the coast, then you should be prepared for the natural disasters that can occur in these areas. And the insurance should reflect the risks.
Expecting the government to bail us out for our stupidity is ridiculous.
Caveat emptor!
Expecting the government to bail us out for our stupidity is ridiculous.
Caveat emptor!
27
Congress should have passed the law requiring flood insurance premiums to reflect the true risk of coastal living. Why should the rebellion of coastal homeowners have carried the day? If these people want to construct their homes practically at the beach, they should pay the necessary insurance premiums. Of course in the event of a storm surge or king tide, these homeowners will expect the government to bail them out.
26
States on the coast pay more attention to the developers and resort industries than to other residents. Time and again state assemblies/legislatures are swayed by the political donations from these industries when attempts to pass sensible legislation are made.
In Maryland sand is regularly pumped to maintain the remnants of beaches for the benefit of Ocean City, MD and the summertime beachgoers, and federal taxes pay for this folly. Just one example of our refusal to deal with reality.
In Maryland sand is regularly pumped to maintain the remnants of beaches for the benefit of Ocean City, MD and the summertime beachgoers, and federal taxes pay for this folly. Just one example of our refusal to deal with reality.
6
I've got some ocean front property I'd like to interest Mr. Trump with. After all, global warming is a liberal hoax, according to our new leader.
17
Actually Mr Trump said it was a Chinese hoax to make US business 'noncompetitive'. He claimed the liberals were so stupid they believed it, but it wasn't their hoax.
3
Seriously, developers need to do some soul searching when it comes to building in these areas. Insurers should charge the appropriate amount to cover people, and if it's pricey, who cares? But I'd get those tiles installed before you sell!
2
It is the local, state and Federal governments who must start ti insist on restricting any development near the waters edge or proximity.
3
Maybe President Trump will have his throne carried down the shore and he can re-create the legend of King Canute and learn that he can't stop the sea by his command!
11
That's not quite the Canute story.
Canute grew quite tired of his fawning followers and their child-like belief in his omnipotence. To show them he was not all powerful he herded them to the shore, and commanded the waves retreat. The waves did not, obviously.
He was quite wise. Your newly crowned — not elected — president will not show such wisdom, but will bathe in his idolators' praise.
Canute grew quite tired of his fawning followers and their child-like belief in his omnipotence. To show them he was not all powerful he herded them to the shore, and commanded the waves retreat. The waves did not, obviously.
He was quite wise. Your newly crowned — not elected — president will not show such wisdom, but will bathe in his idolators' praise.
13
Cute. Get over it. You lost
3
No, we all lost. Get back to me in a year when you realize it too.
6
The flood insurance system has a probability approaching unity to collapse due to sea level rise and global warming. The losses will exceed available funding. As sea level rise accelerates property damage will inevitably drain the system's reserves to zero
We know that denialists in Congress will A) balk at spending tax dollars to keep bailing out the broken system and B) they will prevent any legislation passing to handle an organized migration to higher land.
Premiums for flood insurance, already rising rapidly, will skyrocket and that will cause coastal over-development to slow and halt. In a couple of decades coastal home owners will be unable to get insurance or refinance or sell. Wise homeowners will sell early and move and some of those whose homes are insured will take the money and move. Late adapters will be stuck with the bill and will simply lose their homes to rising waters and storms, they will perforce relocate taking the loss.
We know that denialists in Congress will A) balk at spending tax dollars to keep bailing out the broken system and B) they will prevent any legislation passing to handle an organized migration to higher land.
Premiums for flood insurance, already rising rapidly, will skyrocket and that will cause coastal over-development to slow and halt. In a couple of decades coastal home owners will be unable to get insurance or refinance or sell. Wise homeowners will sell early and move and some of those whose homes are insured will take the money and move. Late adapters will be stuck with the bill and will simply lose their homes to rising waters and storms, they will perforce relocate taking the loss.
2
Coastal residents in our southern states should be given a 4% discount on snorkels. All other federal assistance will need pass my desk.
15
Manhattan will be swamped long before Florida sinks.
1
Nothing to worry about, really. Everyone will be bailed out by the government when their property values--or the properties themselves--disappear. Or at least the rich people will be. I am looking forward to paying for that.
11
The city planners in South Florida are STILL only talking about actual problems coming 100 years from now. The next cooling cycle may have kicked in by then.
2
Actually, the inevitable cooling may be temporarily put off by the warming. The best news of all is that through the process we may learn to regulate the temperature of the climate, not to the degree, but to the point of sustaining human civilization for longer than would have otherwise been possible.
......not that I want to thank all of those folks made fortunes by their "free right" to pollute, just that there could be an upside.
......not that I want to thank all of those folks made fortunes by their "free right" to pollute, just that there could be an upside.
If they are willing to take a loss then let them. There must not be any subsidy for their insurance, however, they must pay the full cost of the policy!
9
Billionaires who live a few miles from me on the coast, simply do not care. $10MM or $20MM for a coastal house is just another example of their disposable privilege. If, years from now, they have to buy a different house (if they have not died from old age by then) they just will. Being in a no-income tax state they saved that much money by avoiding NY, NJ, MI or MN taxes to pay for that house many times over.
19
Middle- and low-income citizens have long been squeezed out of attractive coastal areas, like the Carolinas and Florida coasts, by unabated foreign investment, allowed even by aliens who are not eligible to live full-time in the U.S. This affect upon all forms of housing costs in these regions has been ignored by the government for the same reasons politicians who make the laws have favored the wealthy over what’s best for the nation and most of its people in every other area of cost-based opportunity. As climate change increasingly factors into the housing equation, the wealthy will move upland and the rest, who can’t afford flexibility, will lose.
It will be good and partially address the problem if the government does stop subsidizing flood insurance premiums in the highest-risk, waterfront and near-water properties, as it is just another gilded entitlement which not only unduly benefits the wealthy, but also encourages development in areas that should never be built upon, and should only be done at the builders’ risk and cost, not protected by a government subsidy which adds to the burden of the middle class and poor to pay for it with the many forms of taxation for which they have no loopholes to jump through.
It will be good and partially address the problem if the government does stop subsidizing flood insurance premiums in the highest-risk, waterfront and near-water properties, as it is just another gilded entitlement which not only unduly benefits the wealthy, but also encourages development in areas that should never be built upon, and should only be done at the builders’ risk and cost, not protected by a government subsidy which adds to the burden of the middle class and poor to pay for it with the many forms of taxation for which they have no loopholes to jump through.
15
When Mar-a-Lago floods out, we'll make popcorn and grab a seat. Although, knowing the fraudster-in-chief, he will have sold it by then to some unwitting dupe.
19
........or duped us using a bogus sale to wash one favor with another. The press should keep an eagle eye on buyers and potential buyers even if a 'stacked' government justice department won't.
1
hey hey. there is no climate change. trump was just elected. that proves it.
12
Yup, no climate change, Right on!..just insurance change, which gets wider attention...Dang!
2
Trump has a major conflict of interest in that he's a real estate developer and owner of several South Florida properties. No wonder he's denying climate change! What do you want to bet he makes federal funds readily available to flooded Florida homeowners? Why should climate change deniers have to pay when there's an inexhaustible source of funds readily available courtesy of American taxpayers? (One more big reason Trump should be required to divest his business interests while in office.)
22
Putting assets in a blind trust will be enough. Reportedly, that didn't keep Mr. Obama's investments in gun and ammo manufacturers from earning spectacular returns.
What blind trust; the one his three kids run; while asking for security clearance. Pigs will fly first. Even if they don't get it; the man cannot function without sharing with them; and in fact cannot even commit to living in the WH full time.
8
He's pretty much delegated the Presidency to Pence, and is working full time on Trump family business. Pence buffers him from the quid, but not the pro quo.
The only blind trust that will work with this crew is a blind trust that's run by an honest broker with the right and funding necessary to certify transactions. The dilemma is that ALL of the government oversight possibilities are nullified by the fact that Trump appoints them.
The only blind trust that will work with this crew is a blind trust that's run by an honest broker with the right and funding necessary to certify transactions. The dilemma is that ALL of the government oversight possibilities are nullified by the fact that Trump appoints them.
2
If your wealthy enough to own ocean front property, you won't need government help to relocate and you should be given a deadline, beyond which there is no relief for you. If you want to stay while the ocean rises 1"/ 5-7 years, go for it, but just don't cry out for help as the water rises around you. Blurp, blurp, blurp!
15
Smart folks will try to get the government to pay for remedial solutions for sea rise, or just sell out while the getting is good. Many would not even miss the money, and could elect to ride out the lifespan of the asset.
But global warming isn't all about sea rise, it's also about the flora and fauna, and the species migration/extinction that will come along with climate change.
Those changes could much more subtle yet much more lethal to habitation, food production, and the availability of potable water.
But global warming isn't all about sea rise, it's also about the flora and fauna, and the species migration/extinction that will come along with climate change.
Those changes could much more subtle yet much more lethal to habitation, food production, and the availability of potable water.
2
We build castles in sand, literally. The federal government incentivizes building where we shouldn't by underwriting flood insurance so the US taxpayers fot the bill for up to 250k when a house that shouldn't be built where it is gets washed away.
They rebuild, and 5 years later it happens again. Why are we destroying the natural barrier that protects inland infrastructure from storms so that the rich can have 2nd and 3rd homes?
They rebuild, and 5 years later it happens again. Why are we destroying the natural barrier that protects inland infrastructure from storms so that the rich can have 2nd and 3rd homes?
15
Climate change is certainly making flooding/beach erosion more intense, but let's not kid ourselves. Many of the areas mentioned in the article have ALWAYS been unstable and subject to erosion and flooding. Barrier islands naturally move, after all. People have been pointlessly fighting the sea with jetties and sea walls for generations. To now say that all of the risks of irrationally building expensive homes on unstable ground are due to "climate change" is just a further way to argue for socializing risks of private choices. You want to live right on the ocean, great. Do that. But please don't ask me to subsidize your choices, or pay the freight when the inevitable bill comes due, because of "climate change" or any other reason. No one is subsidizing my housing choices.
7
This is a lot of hand wringing over (what should be) nothing. It should be put into the category of buyer beware. If the oceans come up and destroy coastal property so be it. This has been slowly happening for the last 50 years and is now on our doorstep.
The problem should not be pushed back to the taxpayers. Of course it will be - but it should not. These owners should pay more money to insure their properties and take on this risk. If they loose the entire value of their investment then the lender and owner absorb the loss.
The problem should not be pushed back to the taxpayers. Of course it will be - but it should not. These owners should pay more money to insure their properties and take on this risk. If they loose the entire value of their investment then the lender and owner absorb the loss.
13
My goodness, what a daft analysis this is, so devoid of empathy.
1
It is a very good thing that young Ben never had to deal with real human troubles during the Great Depression when people starved, when one cent too few meant you walked home.
2
It is amazing some folks, usually on the left wing, think that is we just do certain stuff they are pushing, climate and environmental change will stop and things will stay the way they are.
After all, aren't things the way they are now the way they are supposed to be?
Don't worry that the end of the last ice age about 14,000 years ago, with no human inputs, caused massive glaciers in North America and Eurasia to recede and ocean levels to go up by hundreds of feet. And if you study further, you can find many cases of massive climate and environmental change not affected by humans - its continuous! But change your light bulbs, ride a bike and live in an apartment, and all will be well, right?
And BTW, look in vain for their plan that will actually REDUCE global temperatures - but if we can make it go up, down should be just as easy!
After all, aren't things the way they are now the way they are supposed to be?
Don't worry that the end of the last ice age about 14,000 years ago, with no human inputs, caused massive glaciers in North America and Eurasia to recede and ocean levels to go up by hundreds of feet. And if you study further, you can find many cases of massive climate and environmental change not affected by humans - its continuous! But change your light bulbs, ride a bike and live in an apartment, and all will be well, right?
And BTW, look in vain for their plan that will actually REDUCE global temperatures - but if we can make it go up, down should be just as easy!
5
And that diatribe satisfies your conscience against doing absolutely nothing, correct?
You got any kids?
You got any kids?
6
What's the point of your comment. It's unrelated to the article. The point is at certain home owners or buyers are ignoring reality, or expect a government bailout. And our republican federal government is encouraging his belief. If insurance premiums are too high, then so is the risk!
14
The changes you write about, the prior shifts in climate, occurred gradually over eons due to non-human forces such as the changes in the earth's axis, its eccentric orbit & solar out put among other geophysical events that still occurred more slowly than those precipitated by human activity such as current agricultural & industrial practices. The problem that current voices of climate doom have often made involves predicting regarding future events that have been easy to ridicule (Think of the attacks made against the alarms Albert Gore proferred in his film.) Be that as it may, your belief, as suggested in your last sentence, in an easy technological fix to the future problem ignores the current rancor permeating all political discussion. The more alarming issue for us to reflect upon is that since the dawn of life on this planet, despite the proliferation of multitudinous species, the ultimate fate of species is extinction. I know neither you nor I will witness the extinction of Homo sapiens, but I wonder if the last of our kind will have any more awareness of their fate than our original kin had about what they were beginning. You & I live at a critical point in human history. With our current fund of knowledge we should do a better job of arriving at the best way for us to inhabit this planet than our current political leaders (here & worldwide) have. Have a nice day!
8
Putting your head in the sand won't save you down the road. Get out while you can.
6
I do not understand why the government is in flood insurance or for that matter, any hazard insurance. If people want to live in areas subjected to mother nature's harsher side, then they should be responsible for the insurance. If no company is willing to offer insurance, then the perspective homeowner is free to take the risk but will suffer the cost in the event of a natural disaster. It should not be the responsibility of tax payers to subsidize the risk of private homeowners, regardless of their economic circumstances.
17
Federal flood insurance was invented and continues to be supported by the Real estate interests. These are the same interests that are opposed to disclosing realistic risks which would destroy the sea shore home market.
The real profit reason is that after a flood, these interests can build and develop the same lots over and over again for even higher costs.
The fix is to employ science and engineering-based risk and value propositions.
In my home town of New Orleans, these interests, and the local governments they own, have done every thing in their power to underplay real risks to home owners. That's nothing short of fraud.
The real profit reason is that after a flood, these interests can build and develop the same lots over and over again for even higher costs.
The fix is to employ science and engineering-based risk and value propositions.
In my home town of New Orleans, these interests, and the local governments they own, have done every thing in their power to underplay real risks to home owners. That's nothing short of fraud.
5
You don't understand why? Well, insurance company, real-estate and builders' associations hire lobbyists to get lawmakers to pass laws providing the subsidies because these wealthy-backed special interests recognize that it benefits their bottom line if the high-priced properties they provide have the buyers' risk costs absorbed by the poor schleps who pay their share and more of taxes yet don't have the picture on how they're being raked over by the politicians and the wealthy and therefore don't vote, or don't vote correctly.
The political parties are equally to blame, but more so the Republicans, and this abuse will continue until progressives who won't put party and special interests above the national interest are elected into office, and those progressives won't be Republicans either.
The political parties are equally to blame, but more so the Republicans, and this abuse will continue until progressives who won't put party and special interests above the national interest are elected into office, and those progressives won't be Republicans either.
3
Oh, I forgot to mention that the special interests and their lobbyists also contribute to the campaigns of state and federal legislators in the areas where flood insurance is needed to defray the cost of inordinate risks for buyers, which is more affecting on their influence than lobbying.
It's expensive to build ocean front homes and business' in the US so only the wealthy can afford to do it. I imagine FEMA with our tax dollars will bail these zillionaires out when their homes flood. Bend over America and no they will not take you out to dinner before or after they have their way with you.
12
I actually live on South Beach.Since November 11th I have become much less worried about rising seas. Seriously I worry more that Radical Islamists,Fundamentalist Christians and Orthodox Jewish Zealots will clash and bring us all the Rapture .
4
How amusing (I was born at Mt. Sinai Hospital in 58 and have visited Israel and Egypt in the past). There is a much higher probability of you dying from crime (esp. FL) than anything included in your rapture list. You even have a higher chance of dying from all the chemicals stored in your body because the GOP has not allowed the EPA, FDA, and US Dept of Ag employees to do their job for decades (way more to come now that business reg. will be done). Good luck!
4
Glad that I'm a sailor. Funny watching the safe back up systems of sumps to battle Mother Nature be arm wrestled into submission yet still they build. Here in Santa Cruz California the recent new developments all sandbagged for the season, I guess they assumed those sumps would work.
2
Trump isn't a climate change "skeptic", he's a climate change denier. Stop already with the euphemisms. And because sea level rise, in Trump's alternate reality, is not climate change related, Trump and his cronies are going to bail millionaire waterfront property owners out (Trump being one of them), as if his tax cuts aren't already going to benefit the 1% enough.
33
Why do we keep building on flood plains and near bodies of water? I can understand impoverished citizens of poor and underdeveloped nations building houses in deltas because they have no or very limited choices, but continental US?
8
people have always lived near water. it's a major means of transport.
1
It is only in the last 150 years or so, post industrial revolution, that we have built by the open water. Yes, there was some building near harbors, but otherwise our ancestors saw little value in land that was exposed to storms and whose salt air made crops difficult to grow. EG, though my town was settled in 1644, my seaside village didn't get its first house until 1849, and that house was at least 100 years from the water. By 1900, however, there were lots of houses crowded together right by the shore.
3
"After strong objections from real estate companies, which threatened to stop providing data, his firm took down its web page that integrated real estate listings with plot-by-plot information about the risks of floods, hurricanes, wildfires and other natural hazards."
And you've elected a real estate as President. Another massively consequential issue that cannot wait for sane heads to prevail.
And you've elected a real estate as President. Another massively consequential issue that cannot wait for sane heads to prevail.
13
The climate denying, Trump voting, red states deserve coastal flooding. Bring it on!
5
What goes around comes around.I take some satisfaction in knowing that the property owners most threatened by climate change are overwhelmingly members of the same party denying it exists. Bring on the fossil fuel expansion!
16
I am reading this while looking at the Gulf of Mexico in a beach front rental house on Cape San Blas Florida. While this area does have a fairly high natural dune, with vegetation to hold it in place, I would not bet on it being above water in 50-60 years. And yet, there is new construction going up all around it. And this state helped put a science denier in charge of the very program that is trying to keep the worst form happening. This area is basically a wide sandbar, beautiful but not sustainable for humans to live on in the new era of ever rising seas. They have just been really lucky for a few decades in not getting a Katrina sized storm to hit it directly. I don't know why anyone would own a home here or other coastal areas. Nice to visit for now but I would not want to pay the insurance.....wait a minute....I guess I am paying for it with my tax dollars going for flood insurance subsidies. Time to get rid of this practice, you take on the risk, you pay the price.
21
Now that Democrats are largely a "coastal party", maybe this will all work out to the greater good.
5
most of the affected states voted for trump
3
The true indicators that climate change is not a hoax are these: (1) the ice caps and glaciers are rapidly melting; (2) animals are migrating to areas further north in the northern hemisphere; (3) microbes are showing up in places they never appeared before; and (4) Republicans are no longer buying properties in coastal areas.
12
it's okay. Chris Christie (NYT favorite ((sarcasm)) wanted to build dunes to protect inland homeowners and the wealthy homeowners and town of Margate, NJ fought him every step of the way because they didn't want their precious views blocked. No more insurance. Self insure. You're a grownup and you clean up your own mess.
10
I have heard from people in the insurance industry that they are pulling out of these sectors of the market for home insurance - the first call I would be making would be to the local insurance broker to find out exactly where they are still providing insurance coverage. I would guess that they have or will be mapping the risk with great care
6
What really gets me is that you just KNOW that those at low elevations who voted for climate change denier Donald Trump, as a proponent of "small government," those are the very people who will be at the front of the line demanding that the government bail them out when their homes are washed away. Short-sighted thinking in every way possible. And those of us trying to look at the long term will nonetheless have to foot the bill thanks to the electoral college being weighted against educated urban people who actually bother to understand what is happening in and to our world.
20
The 'boat people' in the Philippines have lived on the water for eons. In fact, they prefer this way of life. For the right price, they might be willing to purchase US coastal property. US immigration refugee policy could be offered to the boat people to expedite the resettlement. Also, the boat people are fervent supporters of climate change.
2
The critical item is getting the taxpayer out of the insurance business. We have had enough of sending our taxpayer dollars to those who would build in harms way. As to the head in the sand Republicans, you got what you wanted in the White House and Congress. The first things we want dismantled are federal flood insurance and FEMA. Let the states be responsible for their own and stop making the rest of us taxpayers support your stupidity. Take some personal responsibility for once in your lives.
29
I think the intent of real estate developers and the bankers that enable them is clear: make as much money as they can building now, while creating a problem so huge that the government will have no choice but to step in and bail them out. It worked in 2008, and it will work here, too.
18
That picture of Oak Island, N.C. shows us people are crazy enough to build homes in a swampland. Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae should've liquidated their loan portfolio, and gotten out of mortgage business after 2008. They are encouraging lenders to take big risks on the backs of taxpayers. When will they learn?
15
Coastal areas have been defiled by allowing home construction too close to the water. Bulkheads and backfilling of wetlands have created an ecological nightmare that reveals itself with "Sandy" events. As a taxpayer, I do not want to subsidize defiant sea side home owners through either flood insurance or beach erosion repair. If you choose to live there, you need to pay your own way or get out of the way.
FEMA does not publicize storm and wind damage data in order to protect wealthy property owners and is too influenced by the National Real Estate Association. Meanwhile, we are all paying to keep New Orleans dry and funding mammoth levee projects which are doomed to failure. Witness Katrina which is still being paid for. Your stockbroker is selling you bonds laden with tranches of monetized mortgages on waterfront properties. Shades of 2007.
FEMA does not publicize storm and wind damage data in order to protect wealthy property owners and is too influenced by the National Real Estate Association. Meanwhile, we are all paying to keep New Orleans dry and funding mammoth levee projects which are doomed to failure. Witness Katrina which is still being paid for. Your stockbroker is selling you bonds laden with tranches of monetized mortgages on waterfront properties. Shades of 2007.
22
Sea levels are a good dilation thermometer.
They show that we are in a global warming period for more than two centuries
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_global_station.htm?s...
(check any long term station there)
with warming at the same rate, even though industrial emissions increased by a factor of 1000.
The EPA used its own models to conclude, in its car efficiency regulations, that a trillion spent on those regulations would affect sea levels by 1 mm 100 years later, say instead of a foot sea levels would rise by a foot minus 1 mm.
President Obama promised to slow sea rise
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2pZSvq9bto
He is still working on it.
They show that we are in a global warming period for more than two centuries
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_global_station.htm?s...
(check any long term station there)
with warming at the same rate, even though industrial emissions increased by a factor of 1000.
The EPA used its own models to conclude, in its car efficiency regulations, that a trillion spent on those regulations would affect sea levels by 1 mm 100 years later, say instead of a foot sea levels would rise by a foot minus 1 mm.
President Obama promised to slow sea rise
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2pZSvq9bto
He is still working on it.
5
He promised to slow it and voters have just promised to speed it up!
3
Notice that a rise of 1000 times in emissions levels had no effect so far on sea rise rate.
If you have $1 trillion idling around, you can try to give it away and see whether it will change sea levels by 1 mm a century, as the EPA predicted.
If you have $1 trillion idling around, you can try to give it away and see whether it will change sea levels by 1 mm a century, as the EPA predicted.
Darien, do you even know the difference between a mm, .039" and a meter, 39"?
1
For decades, climate scientists have predicted that, as global temperatures rose, the side effects would include deeper droughts, more intense flooding, and more ferocious storms. The details of these forecasts are immensely complicated, but the underlying science is pretty simple. Warm air can hold more moisture. This means that there is greater evaporation. It also means that there is more water, and hence more energy available to the system.”
– Elizabeth Kolbert in The New Yorker
Science -by definition- is never cast in concrete. Every "truth" is actually at any time a hypothesis ready to be disproven. However, over the years, the data has pointed to overall global warming. Scientists have abstracted consequences which to some extent we are already seeing in the atmosphere, the oceans and habitat disruption. Back to the topic: it's hard to imagine the GOP (or a Democratic) Congress enacting a hardship remedy, particularly on the backs of their big donors. If the past is prologue, Washington will kick the can down the road, wait 'til the crisis is upon us, and the only alternative will then be to stick the taxpayer with the cost.
– Elizabeth Kolbert in The New Yorker
Science -by definition- is never cast in concrete. Every "truth" is actually at any time a hypothesis ready to be disproven. However, over the years, the data has pointed to overall global warming. Scientists have abstracted consequences which to some extent we are already seeing in the atmosphere, the oceans and habitat disruption. Back to the topic: it's hard to imagine the GOP (or a Democratic) Congress enacting a hardship remedy, particularly on the backs of their big donors. If the past is prologue, Washington will kick the can down the road, wait 'til the crisis is upon us, and the only alternative will then be to stick the taxpayer with the cost.
7
Just wait till he pulls out of the Paris Agreement...
Computer scientists suggest the USA election might have been hacked just enough to turn the vote in outlier areas of swing states. Americans voted against trump by more than 2 million votes. This is unprecedented in 140 years! Take action now since trump is already selling out America!
Sign the petition! “VerifiedVoting.org is a non-partisan non-profit organization that advocates for legislation and regulation that promotes accuracy, transparency and verifiability of elections.”
https://www.change.org/p/demand-an-audit-of-the-2016-presidential-election
Computer scientists suggest the USA election might have been hacked just enough to turn the vote in outlier areas of swing states. Americans voted against trump by more than 2 million votes. This is unprecedented in 140 years! Take action now since trump is already selling out America!
Sign the petition! “VerifiedVoting.org is a non-partisan non-profit organization that advocates for legislation and regulation that promotes accuracy, transparency and verifiability of elections.”
https://www.change.org/p/demand-an-audit-of-the-2016-presidential-election
12
Your headline is slightly misleading, should read "Perils of Climate Change WILL Swamp Coastal Real Estate". There is no realistic scenario where the world will not get significant sea level rise due to global warming and the USA has been and continues to be a significant contributor to that.
9
"...It pains me to think my children and grandchildren may not be able to enjoy it,” he said, adding that his flood insurance is now about $400 more per month than it was when he moved there in 2013..."
Hurricane Sandy was in 2012, yet people bought houses 50 feet from the Atlantic Ocean in 2013?
And are upset that their taxpayer-subsidy flood insurance increased by $5000 a year, which is still tens of thousands below what the private market would offer, assuming they would offer any insurance?
Let these fools pay for their own folly!
Hurricane Sandy was in 2012, yet people bought houses 50 feet from the Atlantic Ocean in 2013?
And are upset that their taxpayer-subsidy flood insurance increased by $5000 a year, which is still tens of thousands below what the private market would offer, assuming they would offer any insurance?
Let these fools pay for their own folly!
15
I love your comments section and comment often.
BUT, you do several things to make me unhappy. Part of commenting is vanity; I like to see reader responses to my comments. Yet over the past couple of years, I find it increasingly difficult to find my own comment.
Yes, you send me a "link" to my email, which is supposed to lead me to my comment. But this seldom works. The link is dysfunctional at least 60% of the time. This causes me to not-bother to comment.
Here's a suggestion: make all comments searchable within the NYT site by the commenter's user name, taking me to all my comments according to date and article. There'd be an extra benefit--searches would also allow me to follow the past-comments of my fellow users, some of whom are really amusing or useful.
So the comments are just fine right now. But NYT is aggravating its customer base unnecessarily. You could do better.
thanks for asking.
BUT, you do several things to make me unhappy. Part of commenting is vanity; I like to see reader responses to my comments. Yet over the past couple of years, I find it increasingly difficult to find my own comment.
Yes, you send me a "link" to my email, which is supposed to lead me to my comment. But this seldom works. The link is dysfunctional at least 60% of the time. This causes me to not-bother to comment.
Here's a suggestion: make all comments searchable within the NYT site by the commenter's user name, taking me to all my comments according to date and article. There'd be an extra benefit--searches would also allow me to follow the past-comments of my fellow users, some of whom are really amusing or useful.
So the comments are just fine right now. But NYT is aggravating its customer base unnecessarily. You could do better.
thanks for asking.
8
they did this previously and stopped it several years ago.
Desiderata for Global Warmers: "God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change." Like China.
2
The photo used in this article I know well and coupled with the article's alarming headline, it's misleading to say the least. The house with the pool used to belong to my brother-in-law. The photo was taken during the onset of hurricane that passed by the Charleston, SC area two years ago. By not mentioning that, it leaves the unsuspecting reader with the idea that sea levels have risen so high that these beach-side homes may be under water in no time. The truth is that on Isle of Palms, beach erosion is not the result of rising seas, but rather the shifting of sand bars off the coast. You see, the beaches are barrier islands that sift and slide in the surf. This causes constant reshaping of the beach-scape in the area. On Isle of Palms today, the beaches are smaller because of this, not because of rising seas. The photo for this story was taken at a moment when the beaches were at their smallest and during the onset of a hurricane. Now you know the whole story, dear reader.
10
My immediate thought was that the photo was taken during a hurricane.
4
Nicholas, when did he sell?
My schadenfreud meter is rising.
As a native of, and returnee to, the mountains of western NC, I remember when my neighbors and I were charged higher premiums for property insurance to help keep the cost down for beachfront homeowners who didn't like having to pay the full freight for their coverage. Finally, after a number of contentious years, the state insurance commissioner -- a Democrat, naturally -- pushed the state to change the rules so that flood and storm insurance on the the coast reflected its true cost. And the rest of us finally caught a break.
To all the wealthy mcmansion owners who have pushed out long-time owners of small beachfront cottages over the past 30 or 40 years, I have two words (well, one hyphenated word):
Boo-hoo.
As a native of, and returnee to, the mountains of western NC, I remember when my neighbors and I were charged higher premiums for property insurance to help keep the cost down for beachfront homeowners who didn't like having to pay the full freight for their coverage. Finally, after a number of contentious years, the state insurance commissioner -- a Democrat, naturally -- pushed the state to change the rules so that flood and storm insurance on the the coast reflected its true cost. And the rest of us finally caught a break.
To all the wealthy mcmansion owners who have pushed out long-time owners of small beachfront cottages over the past 30 or 40 years, I have two words (well, one hyphenated word):
Boo-hoo.
28
This is not a political issue, although it has been made into one by those with a stake in yester-year's economy. The future belongs to those who can evolve; those who can't will perish. This goes for individuals, corporate individuals as well as whole countries. Survival is NOT guaranteed.
The prudent will take heed, and act accordingly. The foolish may well perish, individually as well as nationally. The parable of Joseph and Pharoah, seven fat cows and seven lean cows, comes to mind, as well as the later parable of the seven wise virgins, who kept their lamps trimmed. Biblical allusions aside, it does behoove us to carefully consider what's happening on our globe, and how it will affect our future. The sea is inexorable, and ALWAYS wins.
The prudent will take heed, and act accordingly. The foolish may well perish, individually as well as nationally. The parable of Joseph and Pharoah, seven fat cows and seven lean cows, comes to mind, as well as the later parable of the seven wise virgins, who kept their lamps trimmed. Biblical allusions aside, it does behoove us to carefully consider what's happening on our globe, and how it will affect our future. The sea is inexorable, and ALWAYS wins.
6
Lots of comments here blaming those folks who live along the coast. These commenters have the misconception that all people in flood zones are wealthy. In Pinellas County, Fl where I reside most of the properties in jeopardy of flooding are not ocean front but moderate homes owned by middle-class Americans with mortgages and expenses just like everyone else in the nation.
Think for a second about all the weather extremes we’ve been experiencing over the past few years. Record temperatures, record droughts, record rainfall, overflowing rivers and streams, fires, tornadoes, and the list goes on. How long do you think before the insurance companies raise the fire insurance rates on those living in CA. or the flood rates on those along river banks, or wind insurance rates in the central plains?
We are all in this together and instead of pointing fingers at coastal dwellers every finger should be pointed at those who refuse to acknowledge that anything out of the ordinary is occurring.
Think for a second about all the weather extremes we’ve been experiencing over the past few years. Record temperatures, record droughts, record rainfall, overflowing rivers and streams, fires, tornadoes, and the list goes on. How long do you think before the insurance companies raise the fire insurance rates on those living in CA. or the flood rates on those along river banks, or wind insurance rates in the central plains?
We are all in this together and instead of pointing fingers at coastal dwellers every finger should be pointed at those who refuse to acknowledge that anything out of the ordinary is occurring.
4
Sorry -- for those who are not familiar Pinellas Co. is Clearwater/St. Petersburg. It's a low peninsula on the west side of Tampa Bay.
This is one of the most vulnerable places in the USA to hurricanes and hurricane storm surge -- all of the greater Tampa Bay Area is.
We 'are all in this together' as far as global warming is concerned; but no ... we are not all in this together as far as sea-level rise.
This is one of the most vulnerable places in the USA to hurricanes and hurricane storm surge -- all of the greater Tampa Bay Area is.
We 'are all in this together' as far as global warming is concerned; but no ... we are not all in this together as far as sea-level rise.
9
My first hurricane was Hazel, ca. 1956. We lived 75 yds. from the beach, in Margate, NJ. Also, the March Storm of 1962 was a real monster, tho not a hurricane. Things haven't changed much there, as this dispatch from today shows....
"The federal government has awarded a contract for the construction of dunes and replenishment of beaches... clearing the way for post-Sandy recovery work to begin in Margate and Longport [NJ] before the end of the year, the Christie administration announced Friday.
"The $63 million contract, awarded by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers... covers scheduled construction of berms and dunes in Atlantic City and Ventnor.
"Margate had fought Gov. Christie in court over his plan to use eminent domain to build dunes to help protect... from future storm damage, but a judge ruled in the state's favor in April.
"... project is funded by the $1.2 billion Congress authorized in 2013 ..... in the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy."
* * *
Fill it, and it will wash away in due course, King Canute. That was the basis of Margate's feud with the state and Feds, a waste of taxpayers' money.
"The federal government has awarded a contract for the construction of dunes and replenishment of beaches... clearing the way for post-Sandy recovery work to begin in Margate and Longport [NJ] before the end of the year, the Christie administration announced Friday.
"The $63 million contract, awarded by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers... covers scheduled construction of berms and dunes in Atlantic City and Ventnor.
"Margate had fought Gov. Christie in court over his plan to use eminent domain to build dunes to help protect... from future storm damage, but a judge ruled in the state's favor in April.
"... project is funded by the $1.2 billion Congress authorized in 2013 ..... in the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy."
* * *
Fill it, and it will wash away in due course, King Canute. That was the basis of Margate's feud with the state and Feds, a waste of taxpayers' money.
7
Seashore properties particularly susceptible to hurricanes have long been overvalued and under-insured. A single, strong hurricane can do far more financial damage in a short time than a big rain event inland. County tax appraisers have been complicit in supporting an overvalued market, to collect revenues that are desired for infrastructure improvements or to offset their ineffectual appraisal of commercial properties. They will -often- deny the market price risk associated with properties located in designated flood plains. For example, in Austin TX the chief appraiser, Marya Crigler, argues vehemently against flood plain impairment to property value in many central neighborhoods. This only serves to give buyers false reassurance. It's high time the financial risk of owning these properties were reflected in their true market value by allowing -coastal- flood insurance programs to adjust rates separately from inland flood insurance programs. Most recently, inland policy buyers have been subsidizing coastal policy holders through the NFIP. Ultimately, only those who can bear the financial risk will, or should, own private residences in areas vulnerable to hurricanes, king tides, or rising sea levels.
7
Isn't it interesting that the president-elect publicly dismissed climate change as a hoax, but privately ordered a high seawall built around his prized Scottish golf course? Actions speak louder than words.
Climate change is already redefining property values, but what few understand is that it is changing geographic boundaries as well. The Aral Sea is gone (although mapmakers put it in out of habit) and residents have left the now-arid countryside for more friendly climes. Coastlines are being worn away by higher, more powerful tides; Chesapeake Bay is changing shape, and its many islands are being washed away by rising waters. This is forcing more evacuations, and millions in lost property. To date, however, state and local officials have been reacting to these problems on a case-by-case basis rather than as part of a global problem.
The president-elect stands to preside over the "Atlantis Effect", wherein the entire world watches climate change redraw international boundaries. And when the submerged nations of Micronesia, Seychelles, Caribbean, and Malta come knocking on doors asking for shelter it's going to be difficult for anyone to say, "Climate change is a hoax." Especially when it has already begun.
Climate change is already redefining property values, but what few understand is that it is changing geographic boundaries as well. The Aral Sea is gone (although mapmakers put it in out of habit) and residents have left the now-arid countryside for more friendly climes. Coastlines are being worn away by higher, more powerful tides; Chesapeake Bay is changing shape, and its many islands are being washed away by rising waters. This is forcing more evacuations, and millions in lost property. To date, however, state and local officials have been reacting to these problems on a case-by-case basis rather than as part of a global problem.
The president-elect stands to preside over the "Atlantis Effect", wherein the entire world watches climate change redraw international boundaries. And when the submerged nations of Micronesia, Seychelles, Caribbean, and Malta come knocking on doors asking for shelter it's going to be difficult for anyone to say, "Climate change is a hoax." Especially when it has already begun.
16
There are good aerial photographs of Pacific islands from WWII.
The IPCC AR5 has concluded that in spite of seas rising at about 0.8ft/century, the vast majority of Pacific islands have INCREASED their surface, due to sand accumulation...
The IPCC AR5 has concluded that in spite of seas rising at about 0.8ft/century, the vast majority of Pacific islands have INCREASED their surface, due to sand accumulation...
When I read this yesterday, I was particularly touched by the photographs of the Norfolk houses. Between two giant houses raised high up was a small older house (bigger trees) and I though, poor people, they are working stiffs and can't afford to move or raise their house; they or their families have been there since before all this got so obvious.
This is a national tragedy. Everywhere consequences are multiplying, the working class is getting a rough deal. But if they voted for Trump they were fooling themselves.
To much faith in TV is my diagnosis. A con man says things, but they on the media, so it "must" be true. Advertisers and infotainment are getting ever more seamless.
This is a national tragedy. Everywhere consequences are multiplying, the working class is getting a rough deal. But if they voted for Trump they were fooling themselves.
To much faith in TV is my diagnosis. A con man says things, but they on the media, so it "must" be true. Advertisers and infotainment are getting ever more seamless.
12
@Susan Anderson: "Advertisers and infotainment are getting ever more seamless".
See Tim Wu's "The Attention Merchants".
See Tim Wu's "The Attention Merchants".
1
Norfolk, VA, is sinking, as it is located in the filling of an ancient crater.
http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs49-98/
"This is a national tragedy."
Only if the nation is moving into a crater by the sea.
http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs49-98/
"This is a national tragedy."
Only if the nation is moving into a crater by the sea.
Lots of people are commenting that tax payers shouldn't pay for rising insurance costs because people "choose" to live near the ocean. That may be true in Florida, but it's not true in Hawaii, where large portions of the state are in flood zones. We don't have the ability to "choose" to live away from the ocean. The country needs to do more to combat rising sea levels rather than bickering over who's going to foot the bill when sea levels inevitably rise.
3
Dashboard, you do have the ability to live away from the ocean - just not in Hawaii. Just as other land areas of the US will be abandoned as the oceans rise - Fire Island and lower Manhattan in NY, for example, so will Hawaii be abandoned. There is nothing that the Army Corps of Engineers or any other group can do to stop what is coming. the best advice is to move now, because in 20 years, you will have a lot less financially to make those choices.
6
True, but it's a little unfair for people who don't live near coastlines to say "abandon your jobs and property and move away from the ocean..." People have grown up here their whole lives -- just as we all contributed to global warming, those costs should be spread across the whole country too.
3
That's where you are wrong again. We live on Long Island, another piece of US land being worn away by the ocean and the storms. Why do you think I wrote about Fire Island, the barrier island that has protected our south shore for millennia - but will be gone in our lifetimes? Just because you lived somewhere your "whole lives" does not entitle you - or us - to remain there at others' expense. There isn't enough money in the world to stop climate change, land erosion, beach erosion, flooding, and the loss of habitable land. Pretending that there is - that's delusional. Get ready to leave, make plans, and set up shop on the mainland as fast as you can - again, be warned that if you leave it too late, you will not be able to afford much choice, and will become a refugee in a country that is not currently kind to refugees, homeless or those in any type of need.
How many real estate execs and home owners with interests in coastal property voted for the candidate that blamed climate change on the Chinese and appointed a climate-change denier to head his EPA transition team? How many of them will want the federal government to bail them out?
21
Mostly rich Liberals building in these ecologically sensitive areas.
Then they complain about the big bad Republican polluters.
Then they complain about the big bad Republican polluters.
5
Rich, yes, but where do your get your information that the people buying in these areas are liberals? And one example of big, bad Republican polluters would be the Koch brother. Get informed.
7
Liberals? Hah, down in Delray Beach, FL we have a street that t-bones one of these coastal streets lined with mansions. It is named George Bush Blvd. Get your facts straight!
5
Why is this in the Science section and not Real Estate? Does this have to do with the fact that negative editorial doesn't appear in Real Estate (or Travel or Automobiles), where it might drive away advertisers?
8
Aren't there enough conservative climate change deniers to hold up this market? That says a lot right there that people like Trump and his ilk are not eager to buy up this land right away. It means they don't even really believe their own arguments.
4
They aren't stupid enough to actually vote with their wallet, for the nonsense they say they believe.
The median price of houses in Miami has almost doubled in the last 5 years, indeed.
1
Computer scientists suggest the USA election might have been hacked just enough to turn the vote in outlier areas of swing states. Americans voted against trump by more than 2 million votes. This is unprecedented in 140 years! Take action now since trump is already selling out America!
Sign the petition! “VerifiedVoting.org is a non-partisan non-profit organization that advocates for legislation and regulation that promotes accuracy, transparency and verifiability of elections.”
https://www.change.org/p/demand-an-audit-of-the-2016-presidential-election
Sign the petition! “VerifiedVoting.org is a non-partisan non-profit organization that advocates for legislation and regulation that promotes accuracy, transparency and verifiability of elections.”
https://www.change.org/p/demand-an-audit-of-the-2016-presidential-election
8
It's too late to halt the rising sea monster. Half of the heat that the earth has retained due to increased greenhouse gases still lurks in the oceans, where it will continue to melt polar ice. All we can do now is adapt AND do everything we can to prevent a worst case scenario many centuries from now where this planet may again suffer another mass extinction. The most effective way to reduce emissions and transition to a low carbon economy is with a carbon tax. Yes, a TAX. None of this "cap and trade" nonsense. Make it revenue neutral and rebate all the proceeds to citizens and it will be both acceptable and politically stable, harnessing the economic engine and giving industry the confidence needed to make massive investments. Visit CitizensClimateLobby.org.
7
Seems pretty reasonable to me. You get to choose to believe ocean levels are rising or not. You o not get to choose the consequence or have any expectation of a government bailout. Purchasing property in a high risk area is a high risk purchase. I am becoming more concerned with the concept of another federal buyout for people who buy in these areas. My concept is if you have owned the property since 1980 and rising ocean levels make your personal residence uninhabitable the government buys your property for your purchase price. If you bought the property for rental purposes I suggest you get insurance because you are on your own.
12
Nice idea!
3
“During the past millennia, sea level has never risen nearly as fast as during the last century,” said Stefan Rahmstorf, a physics professor at Potsdam University in Germany. “That was to be expected, since global warming inevitably leads to rising seas.”
OMG, he said global warming! Don't let Trump get hold of this quote. The soon to be crowned "Denier-in--Chief" will start a Tweet Storm that would rival a tsunami.
OMG, he said global warming! Don't let Trump get hold of this quote. The soon to be crowned "Denier-in--Chief" will start a Tweet Storm that would rival a tsunami.
5
"“During the past millennia, sea level has never risen nearly as fast as during the last century,” said Stefan Rahmstorf"
Here are sea levels near Germany, where Rahmstorf lives, from NOAA data.
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_global_station.htm?s...
They rise at THE SAME RATE for 210 years.
Data is all that matters in modern science.
Rahmstorf never checked sea levels. Trump checked.
Here are sea levels near Germany, where Rahmstorf lives, from NOAA data.
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_global_station.htm?s...
They rise at THE SAME RATE for 210 years.
Data is all that matters in modern science.
Rahmstorf never checked sea levels. Trump checked.
2
I think you need to explore your link a bit further. If you click on the link under the graph you are propounding that says "Source date & additional metadata," then click on the link that says "Link to image of larger data plot," you can see that in the period 1875-1900 the annual mean sea level starts arcing upward in a significant way, though I will admit I'm not a statistician. However, I will give you credit for one of the funniest lines I have seen in a long time with "Rahmstorf never checked sea levels. Trump checked." I almost fell off my chair laughing.
3
That small variation is due to multidecadal variation in temps. As you can see, it does not amount to an acceleration. The rise for the last 50 years is smaller than the rise for 50 years 75 years ago...
Trump checked likely because he was annoyed by the wind turbines near his golf course...
Rahmstorf earns his living scaring people.
Trump checked likely because he was annoyed by the wind turbines near his golf course...
Rahmstorf earns his living scaring people.
Didn't Florida get Hurricane Andrew upgraded from category 4 to category 5 so it wouldn't affect building regulations and insurance as much?
3
NOAA says, "No can do, Tallahassee."
4
Why should they be wary? They have managed to socialize their losses and privatize their profits for decades by having taxpayer's subsidize their flood insurance, all because they felt the cost of private insurance was "too high", i.e. accurate for the high risk of living in a flood zone.
22
Sounds like the next "Big Short."
10
The Virginia law explicitly states that the seller of a home is not obligated to inform the buyer that the property is in a high risk flood area. This is State sponsored fraud obviously championed by the real estate industry.
25
Are we really all that dumb or in denial? I grew up at the each and there was nothing better than running up up the street and being on the ocean in less than a minute. I fantasize about retiring to such an environment. But times change. I would never buy real estate on a barrier island ( the Jersey shore, West Hampton area etc.). Its a sucker bet. We should be slowly but surely moving towards letting these areas go natural and serve the purpose that they were intended to serve - barriers. Cabanas and beach clubs, camp grounds and other amenities so we can all enjoy these areas - fine. But to allow full scale habitation is crazy. We need to start thinking like the Dutch.
24
Decades ago, the cost of a plot of high-land in the middle of Long Beach Island was 25% MORE than plot on-the-beach. Locals knew, you would eventually lose your ocean front house. I spent many storms filling sandbags trying to save neighbor's homes only to watch the house crash into the ocean. At the same time, more than 50% of US citizens polled said the environment was a concern. The environmentally vulnerable geographical locations were and are well-known as are these reoccurring cost taxpayers.
In those last 50 years, economic short-term interests have and continue to outmaneuver the common good. The cost to the taxpayers could have paid off the national debt.
In those last 50 years, economic short-term interests have and continue to outmaneuver the common good. The cost to the taxpayers could have paid off the national debt.
17
whoever did the research for this story did a incomplete job. Try researching isostasy and talking to actual scientists who do nothing bit study glaciers, where the water goes when they melt and the affective depression of the sea bed to compensate for it. Then research the words subsidence and oil and gas exploration. Florida and Louisiana are not suffering from rising waters from ice melt; they are subsiding into the sea.
3
Nonsense. There are a range of factors and the scientists are not dumb. You will need much more credible work to claim you know more than the vast majority of experts worldwide over time.
7
What? "Try researching isostasy and talking to actual scientists who do nothing bit study glaciers, where the water goes when they melt and the affective depression of the sea bed to compensate for it." This is nuts!
There is "isostatic rebound." Land that was weighted down with 2+ miles of ice is still floating back up slowly, as the ice has gone away.
The glaciers never reached this far south. And if they had the isostatic rebound would be lifting these areas now.
Some areas are falling due to oil drilling or fresh-water pumping, but that is not the case in Florida.
There is "isostatic rebound." Land that was weighted down with 2+ miles of ice is still floating back up slowly, as the ice has gone away.
The glaciers never reached this far south. And if they had the isostatic rebound would be lifting these areas now.
Some areas are falling due to oil drilling or fresh-water pumping, but that is not the case in Florida.
1
All you tree huggers you must Trust Trump. Global warming is a Chinese hoax... until the waves start lapping the boundaries of Mar-a-Lago at 1100 Ocean Blvd. At that point he would negotiate a deal with the Chinese to call off the hoax or build a wall and make China pay for it.
6
Here is more information for doubters. First, in this paper last Sunday: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/11/20/sunday-review/donald-trump...
The information comes from ClimateCentral, you can find much more about where and how this works.
Elizabeth Kolbert has reported on her factfinding trip to Greenland here: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/10/24/greenland-is-melting
Here are some of the numbers:
"All on its own, the NEGIS has the potential to raise global sea levels by three feet. "
"The Jakobshavn’s catchment area is smaller than the NEGIS’s; still, there’s enough ice in it to raise global sea levels by two feet."
"The Amundsen Sea sector [Antarctica] contains more than two hundred thousand cubic miles of ice, meaning that, if Rignot’s analysis is correct, it will, inevitably, raise global sea levels by four feet."
That adds to 9 feet additional from relatively small areas, in addition to the regular projections. Going back a while to when the earth was last like this:
"At the end of the last ice age, during an event known as meltwater pulse 1A, sea levels rose at the rate of more than a foot a decade. It’s likely that the “floodgates” are already open, and that large sections of Greenland and Antarctica are fated to melt. It’s just the ice in front of us that’s still frozen."
When all the ice has melted, which might take several thousand years, sea levels will be over 200 feet higher than they are now. We hope that will be slow.
The information comes from ClimateCentral, you can find much more about where and how this works.
Elizabeth Kolbert has reported on her factfinding trip to Greenland here: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/10/24/greenland-is-melting
Here are some of the numbers:
"All on its own, the NEGIS has the potential to raise global sea levels by three feet. "
"The Jakobshavn’s catchment area is smaller than the NEGIS’s; still, there’s enough ice in it to raise global sea levels by two feet."
"The Amundsen Sea sector [Antarctica] contains more than two hundred thousand cubic miles of ice, meaning that, if Rignot’s analysis is correct, it will, inevitably, raise global sea levels by four feet."
That adds to 9 feet additional from relatively small areas, in addition to the regular projections. Going back a while to when the earth was last like this:
"At the end of the last ice age, during an event known as meltwater pulse 1A, sea levels rose at the rate of more than a foot a decade. It’s likely that the “floodgates” are already open, and that large sections of Greenland and Antarctica are fated to melt. It’s just the ice in front of us that’s still frozen."
When all the ice has melted, which might take several thousand years, sea levels will be over 200 feet higher than they are now. We hope that will be slow.
7
Your first link is dead.
In the second link, on Greenland, shoes and hair and bones emerge FROM UNDER ICE, as the ice is melting.
That means that it was warmer when they were deposited at the surface of the ice then, than now when many are still covered by ice.
In the second link, on Greenland, shoes and hair and bones emerge FROM UNDER ICE, as the ice is melting.
That means that it was warmer when they were deposited at the surface of the ice then, than now when many are still covered by ice.
2
Florida votes in politicians that won't even allow state workers to say "global warming". They voted for Trump who calls it a Chinese hoax. We should have no pity, at least on Florida.
60
I recall that several years ago the Republican governor of FL discouraged state employees from even the mention of climate change. Didn't that help with the coastal flooding?
30
Taxpayers should NOT underwrite flood insurance. Period. It doesn't matter if the Buyer or Seller is rich or poor, if they believe in climate change or not. They should pay market rates for flood insurance. If flood risk is not disclosed, the Buyer should be able to sue both the Seller and the Realtor. There is no reason for the taxpayer to subsidize the risk. Better to swallow this bitter pill now, as the financial consequences to all (homeowners, community tax bases, and the market that continues to package worthless mortgages for sale) loom like a tsunami.
542
You can't get a mortgage without flood insurance if you are in a flood plain. That being said, areas that were once considered X rating (rare but possible) now face more risk. Often these are the homes of working class people. I disagree that poor people like those affected by Katrina should be left to fend for themselves. The wealthy build on the "private" shorelines of the east coast. Let them self insure as those areas were never X rated, not unless you are talking about very high bluffs and palisades.
Let's not help anyone with anything. Let the people who live in earthquake prone areas, tornado prone areas or drought and wildfire prone areas swallow a bitter pill as well. Why should I help rebuild California when the San Andreas fault breaks loose?
1
Republicans don't really like "the unfettered market" when it stands in the way of them making an extra buck or two.
When I bought my condo on the water in Miami Beach 15 years ago I asked the realtor about sea level rise issues in the coming years and he asked where in the world did I get such an idea? In that short time I have witnessed startling changes. I do not think we are making it to 2050. At least Trump is in the same boat with Mar a Lago. Maybe he should build that wall on our eastern border instead.
14
The core problem with this article is that it bases its arguments and assertions on science, logic, and even unfettered markets. So data will tell us sea levels are rising, land is sinking, exceptional high tides and storm surge increasing. Logic will tell us subsidies encouraging risky behavior are likely to encourage risky behavior and we can be sure markets will respond to true cost unless those true costs are buffered or hidden by artificial factors. Given that many members of the voting public seem to prefer magical, fanciful, or religious explanations rather than science perhaps the message needs to be couched in the following terms:
And it came to pass the Lord saw the carnage people visited on the creatures of the ocean, and the insults they heaped upon the smallest and noblest of His creation, and their disdain and hubris for the Laws he had established to govern the environment he lovingly made to nurture his children. And he grew exceedingly sorrowful when greed replaced prudence, when mocking replaced respect, and when Man sought to impose arrogance above the Laws of Nature the Lord had proclaimed to protect his realm. Then the Lord commanded the seas to rise swallowing the Temples of greed. He commanded the oceans to advance leaving the iniquitous without homes or riches. He raised storms, winds, and floods to overpower the foolish works and childish pretenses of those who ignored or defied him. The Lord cast out sinners for a refusal to see and believe.
And it came to pass the Lord saw the carnage people visited on the creatures of the ocean, and the insults they heaped upon the smallest and noblest of His creation, and their disdain and hubris for the Laws he had established to govern the environment he lovingly made to nurture his children. And he grew exceedingly sorrowful when greed replaced prudence, when mocking replaced respect, and when Man sought to impose arrogance above the Laws of Nature the Lord had proclaimed to protect his realm. Then the Lord commanded the seas to rise swallowing the Temples of greed. He commanded the oceans to advance leaving the iniquitous without homes or riches. He raised storms, winds, and floods to overpower the foolish works and childish pretenses of those who ignored or defied him. The Lord cast out sinners for a refusal to see and believe.
12
Thanks!
http://epistle.us/inspiration/godwillsaveme.html
A terrible storm came into a town and local officials sent out an emergency warning .... to evacuate immediately.
A faithful Christian man heard the warning and decided to stay, saying to himself, “I will trust God and if I am in danger, then God will send a divine miracle to save me.”
The neighbors came by ... “We’re leaving and there is room for you in our car, please come with us!” But the man declined. “I have faith that God will save me.”
As the man stood on his porch watching the water rise ... a man in a canoe ... called to him, “Hurry and come into my canoe, the waters are rising quickly!” ... “No thanks, God will save me.”
The floodwaters rose higher ... A police motorboat came by and saw him at the window. “We will come up and rescue you!” .... “Use your time to save someone else! I have faith that God will save me!”
The flood waters rose higher and higher ...
A helicopter spotted him and dropped a rope ladder. A rescue officer came down the ladder and pleaded .... the man STILL refused, folding his arms tightly to his body. “No thank you! God will save me!”
... the house broke up and the floodwaters swept the man away and he drowned.
... the man stood before God and asked, “I put all of my faith in You. Why didn’t You come and save me?”
And God said, “Son, I sent you a warning. I sent you a car. I sent you a canoe. I sent you a motorboat. I sent you a helicopter. What more were you looking for?”
http://epistle.us/inspiration/godwillsaveme.html
A terrible storm came into a town and local officials sent out an emergency warning .... to evacuate immediately.
A faithful Christian man heard the warning and decided to stay, saying to himself, “I will trust God and if I am in danger, then God will send a divine miracle to save me.”
The neighbors came by ... “We’re leaving and there is room for you in our car, please come with us!” But the man declined. “I have faith that God will save me.”
As the man stood on his porch watching the water rise ... a man in a canoe ... called to him, “Hurry and come into my canoe, the waters are rising quickly!” ... “No thanks, God will save me.”
The floodwaters rose higher ... A police motorboat came by and saw him at the window. “We will come up and rescue you!” .... “Use your time to save someone else! I have faith that God will save me!”
The flood waters rose higher and higher ...
A helicopter spotted him and dropped a rope ladder. A rescue officer came down the ladder and pleaded .... the man STILL refused, folding his arms tightly to his body. “No thank you! God will save me!”
... the house broke up and the floodwaters swept the man away and he drowned.
... the man stood before God and asked, “I put all of my faith in You. Why didn’t You come and save me?”
And God said, “Son, I sent you a warning. I sent you a car. I sent you a canoe. I sent you a motorboat. I sent you a helicopter. What more were you looking for?”
20
HuzzahGuy:"How much has the sea actually risen?"
The sea levels are actually measured by NOAA. Sea gauges are simply floaters at the sea edge, with a long record as the measurements were used by sailors.
The longest record gauge in Florida, in Key West
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=...
shows (in blue) seas rising at THE SAME rate, 0.8ft/century, for the last 100 years, completely unaffected by industrial emissions.
A longer record is in NY City (put stnid=8518750 in the link above)
which shows no change in sea rise rate since the time of Lincoln,
In Europe (put stnid=190-091 in the link above)
no change in rate since the time of George Washington.
(there are differences in the rate between locations, due to Earth crust geological movement.)
It is the same anywhere around the world, as you can check on the NOAA site.
A paper which looks at ALL the data from ALL the 80 or so sea gauges with a record longer than 90 years (record length needed to detect acceleration) finds no effect of industrial emissions, even a slight deceleration.
http://tinyurl.com/jnyemty
***
The median house price in Miami-Dade county rose 8% over the last year, with a rise of 9% in Miami itself, to an average of $183/sqft). The median house price almost doubled in Miami in the last 5 years.
The sea levels are actually measured by NOAA. Sea gauges are simply floaters at the sea edge, with a long record as the measurements were used by sailors.
The longest record gauge in Florida, in Key West
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=...
shows (in blue) seas rising at THE SAME rate, 0.8ft/century, for the last 100 years, completely unaffected by industrial emissions.
A longer record is in NY City (put stnid=8518750 in the link above)
which shows no change in sea rise rate since the time of Lincoln,
In Europe (put stnid=190-091 in the link above)
no change in rate since the time of George Washington.
(there are differences in the rate between locations, due to Earth crust geological movement.)
It is the same anywhere around the world, as you can check on the NOAA site.
A paper which looks at ALL the data from ALL the 80 or so sea gauges with a record longer than 90 years (record length needed to detect acceleration) finds no effect of industrial emissions, even a slight deceleration.
http://tinyurl.com/jnyemty
***
The median house price in Miami-Dade county rose 8% over the last year, with a rise of 9% in Miami itself, to an average of $183/sqft). The median house price almost doubled in Miami in the last 5 years.
6
Ah Darian, always carefully rearranging the facts to suit your prejudices. Why not read the article and observe *all* the data? Darian is an unskeptical "skeptic" who has been busy finding ways to turn scientific findings and data against their true meaning.
Nobody should allow themselves to be misled by the appearance rather than the actuality of information contained here. For example, the tinyurl references a paper by a couple of emeritus fellows: "Journal of Coastal Research, 00(0), 000–000"
A more appropriate publication from JCR might be this review of a book by the Director, Charles W. Finkl:
http://www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-16A-00013.1
"Retreat from a Rising Sea: Hard Choices in an Age of Climate Change"
Here's one about my hometown, and I have photographs that support it:
http://www.jcronline.org/doi/abs/10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-15-00100.1
"The study also depicts the relationships among the multiple datums currently used to measure water levels in Boston. Results of the analysis indicate that in the absence of any new flood barriers, the incidence of minor tidal flooding will increase to about 75 times per year within Boston Harbor with 0.3 m (1 ft) of sea-level rise. .... Tidal flooding due to 1.8 m (6 ft) of sea-level rise will affect approximately 20% of the population and land, as well as housing, public facilities, transportation infrastructure, and hazardous waste sites."
Nobody should allow themselves to be misled by the appearance rather than the actuality of information contained here. For example, the tinyurl references a paper by a couple of emeritus fellows: "Journal of Coastal Research, 00(0), 000–000"
A more appropriate publication from JCR might be this review of a book by the Director, Charles W. Finkl:
http://www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-16A-00013.1
"Retreat from a Rising Sea: Hard Choices in an Age of Climate Change"
Here's one about my hometown, and I have photographs that support it:
http://www.jcronline.org/doi/abs/10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-15-00100.1
"The study also depicts the relationships among the multiple datums currently used to measure water levels in Boston. Results of the analysis indicate that in the absence of any new flood barriers, the incidence of minor tidal flooding will increase to about 75 times per year within Boston Harbor with 0.3 m (1 ft) of sea-level rise. .... Tidal flooding due to 1.8 m (6 ft) of sea-level rise will affect approximately 20% of the population and land, as well as housing, public facilities, transportation infrastructure, and hazardous waste sites."
5
Dr Martin Luther King, Jr is quoted as saying, we can not afford paralysis by analysis. I think that concept fits the current thinking about climate change. Regardless of increasing property values the Federal taxpayers not responsible for subsidizing others insurance,property losses or home purchase and relocation expenses. If states want to subsidize hazard insurance let them do so. Lets stop rewarding risky behavior and investments with bailouts from the federal government.
3
And yet, the very same NOAA, at http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html, doesn't support your conclusion:
"Global sea level has been rising at an increasing rate since the 20th century. Analysis of a global network of tide gauge records shows that sea level has been rising at the rate of about 0.6 inches per decade since 1900. Since 1992, satellite altimeters indicate that the rate of rise has increased to 1.2 inches per decade—a significantly larger rate than at any other time over the last 2000 years. In the next several decades, continued sea level rise and land subsidence will cause tidal flood frequencies to rapidly increase due to typical storm surges and high tides in many coastal regions. "
Did you maybe cherry-pick some tidal gauge locations that supported your convenient conclusion that it's all a hoax?
"Sea level rise at specific locations may be more or less than the global average due to local factors such as land subsidence from natural processes and withdrawal of groundwater and fossil fuels, changes in regional ocean currents, and whether the land is still rebounding from the compressive weight of Ice Age glaciers."
"Global sea level has been rising at an increasing rate since the 20th century. Analysis of a global network of tide gauge records shows that sea level has been rising at the rate of about 0.6 inches per decade since 1900. Since 1992, satellite altimeters indicate that the rate of rise has increased to 1.2 inches per decade—a significantly larger rate than at any other time over the last 2000 years. In the next several decades, continued sea level rise and land subsidence will cause tidal flood frequencies to rapidly increase due to typical storm surges and high tides in many coastal regions. "
Did you maybe cherry-pick some tidal gauge locations that supported your convenient conclusion that it's all a hoax?
"Sea level rise at specific locations may be more or less than the global average due to local factors such as land subsidence from natural processes and withdrawal of groundwater and fossil fuels, changes in regional ocean currents, and whether the land is still rebounding from the compressive weight of Ice Age glaciers."
3
The Donald will build walls for sure.
Not just one but one to protect each of his beach-front properties.
They will be sea walls to protect against the sea level rise from the "phony" global warming. It was recently reported that roughly 90% of the warming so far has gone into the oceans rather than into the air and land. The sea level rise so far is just from the thermal expansion of the water. Wait until the air and land catch up and start adding large amounts of melt-water into the ocean. Donald's walls will go higher.
Not just one but one to protect each of his beach-front properties.
They will be sea walls to protect against the sea level rise from the "phony" global warming. It was recently reported that roughly 90% of the warming so far has gone into the oceans rather than into the air and land. The sea level rise so far is just from the thermal expansion of the water. Wait until the air and land catch up and start adding large amounts of melt-water into the ocean. Donald's walls will go higher.
4
And he is asking all of us to pay for his pleasure.
Build a sea wall and make Atlantis pay for it!
6
Very difficult situation: Tell the truth about rising water imperiling real estate values or withhold the information and wait for federal bailouts when floods destroy property. I will visit the areas or rent but will never buy.
1
No, I respectfully disagree. It is not a difficult situation. The water will win. There is nothing any of us can do about it. the only thing keeping those those properties afloat is other people,,, government mandates and dollars,,greed and dishonesty,,, It is simple. Don't build there.
4
Climate change is going to impact a lot more than real estate, but at this point, to combat it we need to work on more than just climate change - we need to undo the significant damage done to scientific credibility by propagandists who are spreading false information for their own personal gain. I see comments on this thread declaring "CO2 is not a poisonous gas...it is required for plants to grow..." which reveal a gross lack of understanding about what we are facing coupled with talking points provided by the petroleum industry.
"A decades-long assault on science threatens democracy and civic progress in the U.S. and around the world, according to "The War on Science: Who’s Waging It, Why It Matters and What We Can Do about It" (audio edition available from Post Hypnotic Press, 2016), the latest book by Shawn Lawrence Otto. Despite the overwrought title, Otto marshals an astonishingly broad range of facts, trends and history to make his case that “scientific advances in public health, biology and the environment are being resisted or rolled back.”
I find it highly ironic that people, using their smartphones and computers, get online and argue against scientific findings on threads like these, but they do. They see no irony in the fact that their lives are dominated by technologies brought to them by scientific advances, while they deny the validity of science they don't like. Otto provides valuable ideas about we can do to combat this insidious scourge.
"A decades-long assault on science threatens democracy and civic progress in the U.S. and around the world, according to "The War on Science: Who’s Waging It, Why It Matters and What We Can Do about It" (audio edition available from Post Hypnotic Press, 2016), the latest book by Shawn Lawrence Otto. Despite the overwrought title, Otto marshals an astonishingly broad range of facts, trends and history to make his case that “scientific advances in public health, biology and the environment are being resisted or rolled back.”
I find it highly ironic that people, using their smartphones and computers, get online and argue against scientific findings on threads like these, but they do. They see no irony in the fact that their lives are dominated by technologies brought to them by scientific advances, while they deny the validity of science they don't like. Otto provides valuable ideas about we can do to combat this insidious scourge.
16
Guess they don't think this is a Chinese "hoax" unlike Trump.
4
Who picks up the tab for the coming erosion\damage that will naturally occur ( let alone from natural disasters ) ?
Of course, it will be you the taxpayer, either through FEMA or higher taxes because of mismanagement from your local, state and now federal governments that do not believe in climate change.
You may have voted against your own interests and the bill is coming.
Of course, it will be you the taxpayer, either through FEMA or higher taxes because of mismanagement from your local, state and now federal governments that do not believe in climate change.
You may have voted against your own interests and the bill is coming.
21
Readers in MIami, Fla. it isn't just coastal, inland too. See the ghastly images for yourself at:
Pinecrest Floods
https://pinecrestfloods.blogspot.com/
Pinecrest Bans Sumpland
https://pinecrestbanssumpland.blogspot.com/
From article: 'James Murley, Miami-Dade’s chief resilience officer, said it was important to avoid spooking the market since real estate investment produces much of the revenue that pays for these upgrades. This balancing act is especially important in Florida because the state and localities rely heavily on property and sales taxes for funding such projects.'
I met the guy who actually purchased the first of ten sumpland mansions yesterday, Thanksgiving Day — consider we are talking INLAND — he didn't have a clue. The real estate folks sure didn't tell him.
Pinecrest Floods
https://pinecrestfloods.blogspot.com/
Pinecrest Bans Sumpland
https://pinecrestbanssumpland.blogspot.com/
From article: 'James Murley, Miami-Dade’s chief resilience officer, said it was important to avoid spooking the market since real estate investment produces much of the revenue that pays for these upgrades. This balancing act is especially important in Florida because the state and localities rely heavily on property and sales taxes for funding such projects.'
I met the guy who actually purchased the first of ten sumpland mansions yesterday, Thanksgiving Day — consider we are talking INLAND — he didn't have a clue. The real estate folks sure didn't tell him.
14
Apparently, Florida has the unusual distinction of being underpinned by very porous limestone.The seawater comes up from below!
Elizabeth Kolbert's article on the issue is available here:
Miami is Flooding - The New Yorker
www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/12/21/the-siege-of-miami
Elizabeth Kolbert's article on the issue is available here:
Miami is Flooding - The New Yorker
www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/12/21/the-siege-of-miami
4
"Elizabeth Kolbert: Miami is Flooding - The New Yorker"
The place where they checked the actual sea levels, and ignored Kolbert, is Miami. Median house prices rose by 9% in the year since the article. With especially high prices by the sea.
The place where they checked the actual sea levels, and ignored Kolbert, is Miami. Median house prices rose by 9% in the year since the article. With especially high prices by the sea.
2
From the fine article, I can only surmise that the line forming for the Darwin Awards is growing by the millions...
But those canny sellers now who obfuscate the rising waters, aided by real estate salesmen and women, what line are they queuing on?
Oh, yeah, look out for the Caveat Emptor embroidered into the little crests on their real estate blazers...
But those canny sellers now who obfuscate the rising waters, aided by real estate salesmen and women, what line are they queuing on?
Oh, yeah, look out for the Caveat Emptor embroidered into the little crests on their real estate blazers...
7
I love the ocean and nothing could make me happier than to wake up to the sound of the surf and smell of salt air. That said, I am not foolish. I don't have the money to pay for massive flood insurance nor the funds to make repairs. Also, what would I do if a hurricane hits? Do I pay a small fortune (that I don't have and would need to borrow) to stay at a hotel or rental for 3 years until my home and infrastructure are repaired? I bought a house that's 45 minutes driving distance away from the shore, close enough to the beach for me.
8
I do not feel bad. I have lived on Long Island and have seen the constant bailout of the people that live on Fire Island and I see the same bailouts now along the New Jersey shore. Let the rising tide erase these developments so these lands can return the barrier function. I am tired of seeing beach replenishments in New Jersey areas that essentially are private because of their sheer lack of public access like Sea Bright. When developments are lost due to flooding, a rebuild simply should not be permitted.
34
problem is all the tax payers like you and me are going to be forced to foot the bills like it or not
1
My first beach replenishment project experience was in Atlantic City, in 1970, a huge Army Corps of Engineers dredge brought up from Texas, filled in 3/4 mile of beachfront for several weeks. No doubt it all washed away in later years, hurricanes arrived every September from the Caribbean like clockwork.
People who live near water should be charged 100 percent of the actual premium for flood insurance, with no subsidies. Or, even better, no insurance at all. If private insurers think the land is to risky to insure, why should the Feds insure it. The ultimate beneficiaries of the fed flood ins. program are real estate developers. Let them get together and form flood insurance companies, so that their buyers can get mortgages.
313
110% - that includes a surcharge for future FEMA fees.
2
I am definitely not looking at poor people's houses in those photographs. My heart is not bleeding for the house buyers, or real estate agents, or the corrupt insurance companies.
I worry that folks earning $7.35 per hour are required to pick up the tab for the wanna-be Marie Antoinettes and Sheiks of Araby that think they need to live in such ridiculous pretend palaces.
I worry that folks earning $7.35 per hour are required to pick up the tab for the wanna-be Marie Antoinettes and Sheiks of Araby that think they need to live in such ridiculous pretend palaces.
30
Why aren't these new costal homes on piers about 15 feet high. Seems a better idea than sea walls and pumps.
3
That'd be one level up in terms of "forward thinking" of those who consider it vital/prestigious to own oceanfront property. But it's also thinking forward only a decade or two. They /should/ be asking about logistics of maintaining utility connections (power, water and sewer), and the legality of building floating docks to get them in and out of their kitchen doors -- for the not-too-distant future when the shoreline has moved a few hundred feet inland.
3
Because building a house on piers is a red flag to prospective buyers that flooding is a possibility. And it is expensive.
1
Pumps & Wall = the future of Florida until someone comes up with a better idea.
2
Pumping the sea back into the sea?
3
Most of florida cannot be diked: the underlying rock is too porous. The sea just comes up through the rock and thin topsoil.
5
All of our coastal states are being threatened by climate change. For that matter so is our whole nation. The states here along the Pacific take it very seriously. It is not only because of real estate, however. Just as importantly, if not more, is the drastic change occurring as I write this within a whole ecological and environmental system. And it can only get worse if our Republican president-elect and Congress put into action their campaign rhetoric. What I find perplexing is that so many states along the more southern parts of the Atlantic, Florida being an excellent example, voted for Mr. Trump, a person who has no use for the scientific facts pointing to climate change. I'm sure that there were his supporters who do indeed take this seriously. Unfortunately, it was low on their priority scale. Let's hope that those very voters can now start voicing their concerns. We alone on the West Coast can not fight this GOP mind-set alone.
154
Do not trust the real estate agents - they won't tell you about changing flood zone designations. Banks won't give mortgages to these properties at a certain point, and insurers won't issue policies.
Buy inland.
Buy inland.
13
These rich folks should have put some of their money into the Clinton campaign. Trump won't even throw them a life jacket as they go under.
Still not to late to lobby hard for climate issues. Coastal homeowners combat climate change.
Still not to late to lobby hard for climate issues. Coastal homeowners combat climate change.
21
If we had listened to Al Gore and Michael Moore the whole state of Florida would already be under water!
Never mind if the sea level is rising...adapt. The planet was far warmer than today when there were no human inhabitants. .. adapt...don't buy something or live in something that floods if you are worried about it..,adapt. The last thing we need is a federal government program to deal with this. CO2 is not a poisonous gas...it is required for plants to grow...if you are worried plant some trees and adapt...
Never mind if the sea level is rising...adapt. The planet was far warmer than today when there were no human inhabitants. .. adapt...don't buy something or live in something that floods if you are worried about it..,adapt. The last thing we need is a federal government program to deal with this. CO2 is not a poisonous gas...it is required for plants to grow...if you are worried plant some trees and adapt...
4
says the guy planing for his Arizona property to become oceanfront.
4
You are seriously misinformed, but you already knew that...
The first thing about adaptation is to reduce the subsidies for loss on the cost, i.e., seriously reduce federal flood insurance programs. If you want to add some level of fairness, scale the flood insurance to how long the house has been owned by the same person. If the house gets seriously flooded, do not allow rebuilding or refuse further insurance.
The first thing about adaptation is to reduce the subsidies for loss on the cost, i.e., seriously reduce federal flood insurance programs. If you want to add some level of fairness, scale the flood insurance to how long the house has been owned by the same person. If the house gets seriously flooded, do not allow rebuilding or refuse further insurance.
4
Hope you'll remember to "adapt" when Arizona runs out of water.
13
It is astonishingly shortsighted that the health of the real estate industry would be of greater concern than the health of the planet. Talk about myopia.
109
If you want to build in a flood plain,, then do so. Just do NOT bring me the bill to save you afterward.
Our federal Flood insurance has birthed some of the most stupid, idiotic, disgusting ,,,, The flood insurance was originally for many middle class and poor people who lived in areas prone to annual flooding,, along the Mississippi and Ohio Rivers. I am old enough,, I remember annual 'disasters' ,,, so why did they rebuild in the same low areas?
Enter the Federal Flood Insurance programs. Ta Da !! Now wealthy people, and all people, could build with the river view,,, the ocean view,,, and we get to pick up the tab for it.
As to rivers and flooding,, do what the ancient Egyptians did,, farm the low lands and live up on the hill.
And the lovely homes in the photos? The owners should insure them by, and only by, themselves. Then build where ever you wish.
Our federal Flood insurance has birthed some of the most stupid, idiotic, disgusting ,,,, The flood insurance was originally for many middle class and poor people who lived in areas prone to annual flooding,, along the Mississippi and Ohio Rivers. I am old enough,, I remember annual 'disasters' ,,, so why did they rebuild in the same low areas?
Enter the Federal Flood Insurance programs. Ta Da !! Now wealthy people, and all people, could build with the river view,,, the ocean view,,, and we get to pick up the tab for it.
As to rivers and flooding,, do what the ancient Egyptians did,, farm the low lands and live up on the hill.
And the lovely homes in the photos? The owners should insure them by, and only by, themselves. Then build where ever you wish.
38
In the 1970s I worked for the National Park Service Cooperative Research Unit based out of the UMass Amherst. This research unit studied coastal erosion and barrier island migration along the Atlantic in National Seashores. Global climate change and melting of the Arctic, Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets were not as well understood 45 years ago as they are today but even then it was well know that sea levels were rising along the east and gulf coast and that barrier islands were ephemeral and highly dynamic products of post Pleistocene products of wave and tide action. It was perfectly obvious to us that it was utter folly to build permeant homes, hotels and infrastructure on the eroding coast.
The local real estate agents hated it when we gave lectures on our findings and many of the home owners denied what we were saying, demanded government action. Meanwhile other home owners quietly put their properties on the market and headed for higher ground.
Nothing much has changed and the scientific evidence continues to accumulate and become more explicit and yet people still don't care because they are making money on the status quo.
Now we have a real estate developer for POTUS and he has appointed a avowed denier of climate change as head of the EPA.
The environment does not answer to Washington. It does not care if we believe or not, in our lifetimes a king tide will be lapping at the base of the Bull on Wall Street (if it has not been moved inland).
The local real estate agents hated it when we gave lectures on our findings and many of the home owners denied what we were saying, demanded government action. Meanwhile other home owners quietly put their properties on the market and headed for higher ground.
Nothing much has changed and the scientific evidence continues to accumulate and become more explicit and yet people still don't care because they are making money on the status quo.
Now we have a real estate developer for POTUS and he has appointed a avowed denier of climate change as head of the EPA.
The environment does not answer to Washington. It does not care if we believe or not, in our lifetimes a king tide will be lapping at the base of the Bull on Wall Street (if it has not been moved inland).
71
And yet we spent bazillions of federal dollars reconstructing housing and piling sand that does not belong there in places like the Rockaways (the most expensive beach in the country) and Jersey barrier islands where nothing should have been ever built in the first place.
It was in the 1970's and remains today the fact that when it comes to real estate, financial and political interests, (if you will pardon the pun) trump the environmental and climate research all too often. So the coastal plains and the barrier island get rebuilt again and again from Padre Island in Texas to Hampon Beach NH and the same applies to the west coast too form Alaska south.
The fact is that as long as we as a species of primates continue to burn fossil carbon for energy the ice caps, the glaciers and the permafrost will continue to melt ever more quickly and the oceans will continue to rise until people (and the tax payers) wake up and wise up and the real estate interests and the political interests just can't find buyers for ocean bottom property any longer.
The fact is that as long as we as a species of primates continue to burn fossil carbon for energy the ice caps, the glaciers and the permafrost will continue to melt ever more quickly and the oceans will continue to rise until people (and the tax payers) wake up and wise up and the real estate interests and the political interests just can't find buyers for ocean bottom property any longer.
Prior to making the biggest investment of their lives and signing a 30-yr mortgage, home-buying families should consider climate change as part of their due diligence. This article correctly notes this is difficult to do. However, Coastal Risk Consulting is a good resource to help investors consider rising sea levels. Climate.Place assesses community- and household-level exposure to many other climate-related hazards, long-term climate stresses and changing weather patterns. Due diligence also should consider community preparedness, resilient infrastructure, home design and energy efficiency.
However, a true market for climate smart homes is unlikely to emerge until we eliminate . expensive and counter-productive public subsidies that encourage people to invest in hazard-prone properties that will only become riskier with climate change. These "moral hazard" subsidies include the national flood insurance program, wildfire fighting, and beach replenishment, all of which need major reforms.
However, a true market for climate smart homes is unlikely to emerge until we eliminate . expensive and counter-productive public subsidies that encourage people to invest in hazard-prone properties that will only become riskier with climate change. These "moral hazard" subsidies include the national flood insurance program, wildfire fighting, and beach replenishment, all of which need major reforms.
5
I thought it was a hoax by the Chinese?
7
FEMA's only answer is to retreat or reinforce but there are solutions out there:
https://www.thrillist.com/tech/nation/safe-building-system-floating-city...
https://www.thrillist.com/tech/nation/safe-building-system-floating-city...
2
For those of you yearning for a view of the ocean, but not the underwater kind, come to California instead. We have a nice house sitting on a hill six hundred feet above the Pacific, with a panoramic view all the way to Catalina. Of course, there is that earthquake thing...
4
And, that "mudslide" thing. Google "La Conchita mudslide" sometime!
3
James must have had many sleepless nights when oceanfront Laguna Niguel was falling into the ocean, like Pacifica did.
3
We're talking about LITERAL bailouts here. Conservatives and Libertarians surely don't back that kind of government interference in the markets. Moral hazard, moral hazard!
10
Or perhaps, littoral bailouts...
2
When I built a house near a bay on the California coast 26 years ago, I had to sign an acknowledgement from the county that my house (177 feet above mean sea level) could possibly be affected by a seiche (an earthquake-caused wave in an enclosed body of water). The California Coastal Commission and local county governments continue to be way ahead on these issues, because unlike Florida our political leaders believe in science. But, like other commenters here, I expect we'll be expected to pick up the tab for states whose leaders still have their heads in the sand.
53
I'd be more worried about that $500 Billion in unfunded California pension liabilities you'll be seeing tacked onto your tax bill sometime soon.
As for California being "way ahead" in planning I'd ask you to drive the 101 to San Diego sometime and see what great planning really means down here in the Southland. Nobody paying attention believes your "here in California we do things right" nonsense.
As for California being "way ahead" in planning I'd ask you to drive the 101 to San Diego sometime and see what great planning really means down here in the Southland. Nobody paying attention believes your "here in California we do things right" nonsense.
2
CA,
Did you have to take out an insurance rider for this possibility?
Did you have to take out an insurance rider for this possibility?
1
Someone is going to be the last owner of some of theses houses. They will not be able to sell the house and it will not be the wise investment they'd hoped it would be. A huge personal loss.
9
North Carolina, Louisiana and Tennessee have all passed laws restricting planning for rising sea levels. Florida's Gov. Scott has an unwritten policy forbidding government officials from even using the terms "climate change" or "global warming." Are we supposed to feel sympathy for these people when their homes are washed away from more frequent storm surges? It's especially hard for me to feel bad about Florida when they keep re-electing the same politicians who are leading them in this ignorance. But it all pales in comparison to the anger I felt when the Republican congress tried to pass a law prohibiting the Pentagon from taking climate change into account in its planning for future security and operations risks! They felt the $600 billion defense budget didn't allow them to adequately pursue ISIS and plan for climate change at the same time. I don't really care if they want to build a house on a sand bar on the Gulf coast without insurance, but when they do stupid stuff that affects me, my family and the rest of the country, then they have to be stopped.
400
North Carolina, Louisiana and Tennessee in fact mandated that actual rates measured in the last 100 years, which did not change, be used in planning (about 1ft/century)
Rather than imagined or modeled rates, which were 10-100 times bigger.
Rather than imagined or modeled rates, which were 10-100 times bigger.
3
A former friend had a very effective way of dealing with his (ever mounting) bills? He simply threw them in the thrash - if he didn't see them, they did not exist . . . sounds like the GOP mindset in NC, LA, TN, and FL . . . yet they keep getting elected by their citizens
1
Philip says:
"North Carolina, Louisiana and Tennessee have all passed laws restricting planning for rising sea levels."
I say:
Now, just why would Tennessee pass a law restricting planning for rising sea levels when Tennessee is land locked?
"North Carolina, Louisiana and Tennessee have all passed laws restricting planning for rising sea levels."
I say:
Now, just why would Tennessee pass a law restricting planning for rising sea levels when Tennessee is land locked?
1
I surmise that Donald Trump believes that being president is going to stop global warming from happening due to his property ownership in Florida. Wow! Such power has he!
15
Actually, it was president Obama who promised to stop the waters from rising, as they did during the last 200 years
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2pZSvq9bto
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_global_station.htm?s...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2pZSvq9bto
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_global_station.htm?s...
3
Perhaps when the real estate market crashes as a result of the rising sea levels and frequent floods, real estate mogul Trump might finally wrap his head around the concept of climate change.
14
Climate change and rise in oceans are facts even though the fools in the Republican party refuse to believe it. Anyone with eyes open can see it. Some of these Miami homes are going to be underwater in the future whether people believe it or not. It's happening now!
19
Gov Scott can't last forever.
In Florida we must contend with "city fathers". Like in Miami where there are 20 or so highrises on the dockett ready to be built on or very close to the Bay from downtown Miami north through Biscayne Blvd.
In Florida we must contend with "city fathers". Like in Miami where there are 20 or so highrises on the dockett ready to be built on or very close to the Bay from downtown Miami north through Biscayne Blvd.
1
Everything is pretty much unfolding with regards to climate change as people said it would so none of this is surprising to me. I have a shop that it just a few feet above the level where Hurricane Sandy brought floodwater. I'm in a relatively good position but when I see people rebuilding in parts of Staten Island and in the lower areas of the Rockaways I want to ask those people what they could possibly be thinking? Emotions aside there's an excellent chance your new or heavily rebuilt house will be destroyed within another 10 years. Eventually this is a reality the public needs to face or it will become an unfair insurance burden on everyone
176
Residents of Iowa, Ohio, Arizona, etc., should note the following:
"... which plays into an expectation, especially among the wealthiest homeowners, that the government will bail them out if property values crash."
So, the REAL plan is to have you and me, who own $150,000 homes to pay more in taxes to bail out some wealthy homeowners who bought multi-million dollars homes along the beach. Call your reps and senators and let them know how much you're willing to have your taxes increase to pay for some millionaires house.
"... which plays into an expectation, especially among the wealthiest homeowners, that the government will bail them out if property values crash."
So, the REAL plan is to have you and me, who own $150,000 homes to pay more in taxes to bail out some wealthy homeowners who bought multi-million dollars homes along the beach. Call your reps and senators and let them know how much you're willing to have your taxes increase to pay for some millionaires house.
75
Agreed, but then we also need to talk about flooding along the Mississippi, the Red River Valley etc. Coastal residents should no more be paying for the billion dollar Army Corp projects that go to protecting inland flood plains than others should be subsidizing the coasts. While we are at it, lets talk about folks that choose to build in areas that are at high risk of forest fires. Same principle. We put money and firefighters lives on the line for million dollar homes that are built on land that nature intended to be sweet by wild fires cyclically. Do you know how much it costs us all for people to live in water less areas like the Southwest? I'm paying the price of their air conditioning and they want Great Likes water. We all need to get our acts together. And we are going to have to do it TOGETHER, There is not a region of this country that will not be impacted by climate change.
6
It is a greedy mistake to build in a flood plain. It is gonna flood. Duh !
The owner or builder should pay or warranty it. Not me. I built high and dry.
If an area floods repeatedly,, it should not be built on at all. Make it seashore park or farm land. Houses do not belong there.
The owner or builder should pay or warranty it. Not me. I built high and dry.
If an area floods repeatedly,, it should not be built on at all. Make it seashore park or farm land. Houses do not belong there.
35
Insurance premiums should reflect risk. When government interveens to make it "more affordable" people take risks they wouldn't ordinarily consider. It helps when other people are subsidize the risk.
25
Indeed, for home and property insurance...but medical insurance is a different animal.
I wonder how many coastal property owners voted for the anti-climate change candidate, i.e. Donald Trump? How many of them consistently vote at lower levels for Republicans who don't believe in climate change or global warming?
21
Floridians voted for Trump, Marco Rubio for Senate and they have a Republican governor. Coastal property owners tend to be wealthier and vote Republican.
5
Isn't everyone anti-climate change?
Who would want the climate to change?
Who would want the climate to change?
I bet president-elect Trump will get the federal government to build a wall around Mar-a-Lago to keep out the ocean. Or perhaps tax payers will pay to raise his Palm Beach estate many more feet above sea level. It will be after all one of his other White Houses.
6
Human greed and self-delusion are powerful forces, but Nature is even stronger and she's going to win this one. She always does.
52
Since the gop believes climate change is a hoax and will certainly
attempt to dismantle any efforts to combat it, it would be interesting to know how many people affected by rising oceans voted republican this year.
attempt to dismantle any efforts to combat it, it would be interesting to know how many people affected by rising oceans voted republican this year.
16
It's totally cool, because now that Trump is president, the oceans will stop rising. We're going to make China take all that saltwater back AND we're going to make them pay for it!
216
I still remember driving for hours along coastal roads in NC about 35 years ago, hoping to allow my children (from landlocked middle states) to finally walk and frolic on a beach. Every inch of the coast was walled or fenced off as private property. What right do people have to prevent our enjoyment of our finite amount of coastline? And to have the added gall to expect the rest of us, taxpayers, to help cover their losses (through federal subsidized flood insurance) after coastal storms?
Federally-subdidized flood insurance for coastal properties should be eliminated. The old adage "Don't build anything out there that you can't afford to lose" was never truer.
Federally-subdidized flood insurance for coastal properties should be eliminated. The old adage "Don't build anything out there that you can't afford to lose" was never truer.
188
Great anecdote, dee. Instead of traveling to NC 35 years ago, though, you should have brought them to the Northwest. Oregon's coastline has been open to the public since 1967. It's one of the features that makes this state great.
24
"Politicians are more focused on keeping developers calm and reassuring people that technological solutions will save the day, he said, which plays into an expectation, especially among the wealthiest homeowners, that the government will bail them out if property values crash." Wishful thinking (technology, oh, paid for the government) and moral hazard (the government will bail us rich folks out if market values crash). The free-market alternative: let the builders and buyers carry the risk in market-driven insurance premiums (without taxpayer subsidies) and investments (via their property taxes and/or localized fees) for flood-reduction technologies. And if the real estate values crash ... well, no bail outs and no tax deductions for their losses (as the buyers willingly and knowingly bought into the known and avoidable (by not buying) risk, so tough luck). That would be the "true" conservative response. Which we will not see, because it is all a Chinese hoax or scientific conspiracy after all.
26
The same is true of the subprime debacle, which had the Trifecta of foolish buyers, greedy sellers and lenders, and clueless government bureaucrats.
Rinse, wash, repeat.
Rinse, wash, repeat.
3
In many ways this is even larger version of the previous housing implosion. I am reminded of Michael Lewis's book The Big Short, in which he describes, despite glaring evidence to that contrary, how deluded investors continued to buy mortgage backed securities. There is a part of me that wants to know how I can short coastal real estate.
37
Michael Lewis also describes, perhaps not clearly and strongly enough, despite glaring evidence to the contrary, how deluded buyers continued to buy homes they could not afford.
No one is forced to buy a home, especially by the water.
No one is forced to buy a home, especially by the water.
4
This same thought occured to me as I read the article!
2
Jon, I was just thinking the same thing! I watch the film again last night and I was thinking about the scenes where they went down to Floridian to see if there really was a housing bubble. The realtor and mortgage brokers were talking the same way ("no problem. we're just in a little bitty gully right now"). Complete denial of reality. A big housing development with only about 4 houses occupied, with the rest abandoned like the Mary Celeste, and everybody is saying "no problems here". If I had beach front property, I would be looking to sell before everyone else starts and I could still get a good price.
1
No questions in the debates about climate change. This is absurd. The rise in sea level in the next 50 years like the last 50 years like the 50 years before that and before that and before that is about 3 inches. 3 inches. Swell from a storm might be several feet high. You have to protect yourself from the swell. Therefore you are pretechdd from climate change for a good long while. If you don't protect yourself from swell and you lose your home then you are irresponsible and it has nothing to do with climate change.
This constant yellow journalism of scaring people about things that any intelligent person knows are not relevant is making the times irrelevant. Try reporting real news.
This constant yellow journalism of scaring people about things that any intelligent person knows are not relevant is making the times irrelevant. Try reporting real news.
You didn't see the picture of the octupus in the Miami underground parking lot. King tide combined with raising of the roadbeds have meant underground flooding. How high does it have to be before you begin to worry?
3
Houses on the entrance to major ports should have insurance subsidized by the federal government in America.
Your efforts to "educate" people about global warming and start a stampede out of Miami Beach have yet to bear fruit.
On zillow.com I see that Miami Beach real estate sells for about 80% more than it did five years ago. Meanwhile, using Google's search tools, I can see that breathless articles like this one about the impending sinking of Miami Beach are an innovation of just the last two years.
But keep trying, New York Times. Sooner or later, maybe one or another of your fake news fairytales will stick to the wall.
On zillow.com I see that Miami Beach real estate sells for about 80% more than it did five years ago. Meanwhile, using Google's search tools, I can see that breathless articles like this one about the impending sinking of Miami Beach are an innovation of just the last two years.
But keep trying, New York Times. Sooner or later, maybe one or another of your fake news fairytales will stick to the wall.
2
I could send you photos of our flooded streets if you think this is not real.
9
Ted Sternberg, you are the one who appears to prefer fake news fairytales. This article from the NYTimes is well researched and if anything behind the times. They're catching up, telling the truth and shaming ignorance.
6
Is that Alton Street? It was built under king tide level in 1980. And it no longer floods now, due to the pumps.
Physical equilibrium is the closest things we humans will come to finding a true ideal. The ones that are merely spoken are nothing more than abstractions. Once the shorelines stabilize, then the battle can begin again as to who can claim sole access to them.
Why are we going out of our way to protect people who feel they deserve oceanfront / waterfront real estate? Why not just declare these as flood plains, prohibit new development, and nationalize all beaches and waterfront areas as public land for all to enjoy? Seems we're asking everyone in the world to make sacrifices to protect millionaire and billionaire estates they may only use a month out of the year.
53
If property owners want to deny climate change while their real estate goes down the tubes, that's capitalism.
4
If the wall in the lead picture is any indication of attempts to halt the ocean's onslaught it would be best not to build it with a hole in it.
1
To think that Mother Nature differs between left or right wing voters is pure silly nonsense and reflects the thinking of NY Times readers. Put down the cool aid folks. An equal amount of voters are affected from the Hamptons to Miami.
2
The real "deniers" are the people who see the sea rising and don't do anything to accomodate this change. It isn't going to reverse itself. get used to it, because it is the future. stop thinking that it will be reversed, turned back. It won't be.
2
Talk about people not voting their own best interest. Too bad for them.
4
Why oh why is the Federal Government even involved in flood insurance? This is certainly something I want privatized. If you can't purchase it, that's OK.
40
Climate change is a natural occurrence. Its man encroachment in coastal areas that has caused property damage.
3
NYT, I like how you took a much more global problem and focused it into a more common problem that affects our day-to-day lives. When it comes to, 'hey! my house is going to get washed away... why ?'. Otherwise, the numerous effort into reporting climate change are falling into deaf ears. We need more pragmatic approaches like this one in reporting these events compared to just showing Amazon forest is getting chopped down and causing CO2 rise in the atmosphere, icebergs are falling into pieces in Arctic, polar bears are dying because not enough ice.... Who gets that, eh !?
34
Picturesque as it may be we are just going to have to accept that not every place is suitable for habitation.
Visiting and recreation yes, habitation no!
Visiting and recreation yes, habitation no!
16
Isn't it a foregone conclusion that the new administration will push through legislation putting the full cost of flood insurance in coastal areas onto the government (or, more acurrately, all taxpayers, which of course excludes Mr. Trump). How could Congress resist, since people with coastline property tend to be the affluent and politically-connected. Of all the industries Trump would be inclined to protect, real estate would be the one. Don't be surprised when massive seawall projects are on the government's infrastructure project lists.
345
Interesting theory-- but it comes across as pure conjecture.
Massive seawall projects?! So the polluting Chinese will have to pay for these walls just as Mexico will pay for the those border walls? Mr. Trump will negotiate a great settlement, the best ever, to get them to pay for this. Maybe in his first 100 days. He will be sure that his children are not left high and dry--or wait, that they are left high and dry. Good luck to all of us.
I admit: after the last 6 months, I am sooo confused. Please tell me I am not awake.
I admit: after the last 6 months, I am sooo confused. Please tell me I am not awake.
2
Holland has extensive sea walls, and everyone pays for it. It's part of their diverse culture. Holland always has the best ideas, right?
2
If six inches of sea level rise has you concerned, then you have built to close to the water.
22
I would not care what the owners do or have concerns about their insurance. But, the coastal politicians inevitable get the federal gov to pay the restoration costs and the rest of us get stuck with the bill.
They all talk state and individual rights until the bill come due
They all talk state and individual rights until the bill come due
388
Not just 'coastal'. The homeowners on the Mississippi flood plains and in New Orleans do the same thing....privatize the profits, socialize the losses.
4
I grew up in South Florida. My family and friends still live there. They are mostly middle class working folks. I keep warning them about the risks of climate change yet they refuse to move. I worry about my nieces and nephews and their kids. My brother is becoming a grandfather in 2017 and I will be a great-aunt. They are going to have worthless real estate. I assume this will also affect the entire South Florida economy and job opportunities. South Florida may eventually become the new Rust Belt. Until then, it's a beautiful place to live and visit. I guess it's hard for anyone to look beyond that right now.
8
your decedents will not have worthless real estate. that real estate will not exist. the shoreline will move inland not disappear. people who own property that is currently further inland will then see a windfall as they find themselves owners of much more valuable seafront property. things change . there are winners and losers. just as with colder climates where warmer temperatures will mean longer growing seasons. no new rustbelt. it will still be sunny florida. florida will just be a different shape . oh well!
4
When serious sea level rise really hits, don't expect people inland to have a windfall. Once people believe that coastal retreat is serious, there will be many fewer people wanting to buy. Those further seaward that have lost their investment won't be in the mood to buy.
Until the radical Right wing GOP hijacked North Carolina 4 years ago, NC had the nation's first and strictest coastal mangement plan, rules and regulation. All I can say is look out America, our present is your future.
200
"Over the past five years, home sales in flood-prone areas grew about 25 percent less quickly than in counties that do not typically flood..."
So basically, a growing number of people are continuing to buy along the shore at the same time that global warming and rising sea levels become ever more hard to deny -- or ignore. Yet these homebuyers are doing just that. What must they be thinking?
So basically, a growing number of people are continuing to buy along the shore at the same time that global warming and rising sea levels become ever more hard to deny -- or ignore. Yet these homebuyers are doing just that. What must they be thinking?
9
Another NYTimes article today reports that Donald Trump built walls around his Scotland golf resort and sent bills to the neighbors for the cost of their construction. When Mar-a-Lago starts going under-water (crocodiles everywhere will be shedding tears), guess who is going to get billed for that!
76
We vacation in South west Florida and were very surprised to see Trump signs all along affluent oceanfront homes. The Florida governor Rick Scott ia climate change denier, has a home on the waterfront.
At this point I'm not sure what it would take to get the people of South Florida to wake up to the dangers of climate change. They seem very short sighted and naively believe the Republican lrhetoric.
At this point I'm not sure what it would take to get the people of South Florida to wake up to the dangers of climate change. They seem very short sighted and naively believe the Republican lrhetoric.
159
Watch closely what happens when a major hurricane makes landfall along the southern coast of Florida. 20-30 years without a major hurricane, an ageing population, a poorer population, combined land subsidence and sea level rise, soft infrastructure that has not been "tested", official government denial, bigger more expensive houses crowded along the shore, mans destruction of natural dunes and coastal vegetation....
I visited Slidell Louisiana weeks after Katrina. Located many miles inland, 20 miles north of New Orleans the storm surge had exceeded 14 feet, entire sections of the interstate 10 bridge had been lifted and displaced, 300 boats in our marina, a marina built to survive a category 3 hurricane, had all floated off their concrete moorings and piled up as the storm surge pushed them through a funnel formed by the two 4 story apartment complexes that guarded the east and north sides of the marina.
A direct hit on greater Miami will make Slidell look like a child's sand box.
I visited Slidell Louisiana weeks after Katrina. Located many miles inland, 20 miles north of New Orleans the storm surge had exceeded 14 feet, entire sections of the interstate 10 bridge had been lifted and displaced, 300 boats in our marina, a marina built to survive a category 3 hurricane, had all floated off their concrete moorings and piled up as the storm surge pushed them through a funnel formed by the two 4 story apartment complexes that guarded the east and north sides of the marina.
A direct hit on greater Miami will make Slidell look like a child's sand box.
Wrong emphasis. This is more a consequence of coastal overdevelopment, government subsidies and moral hazard than anything else. Rising oceans certainly make matters worse, but anyone who ever built anything on the water's edge has had to contend with shifting shorelines.
5
The GOP, at the behest of the fossil fuels industry, has been telling us for decades that global warming is a hoax. They've rejected sound science from every part of the globe as fraudulent. By appointing a climate-denier as part of his transition team, Trump adds further insult to the gathering injury now unfolding along the coastlines of the world. The very last thing he should do is use our tax dollars to save the beach property of the rich.
205
How will he ever keep Mexicans out of here if he doesn't even believe in the Atlantic Ocean. On the other hand he could build a cyclone fence around Florida and make them pay for it. Floridians who voted for him just might buy that solution!
3
As unfair as it is, that is exactly what will happen- we the people will end up bailing out (pun intended) the wealthy coastal property owners.
3
I've read several articles like this. There's something always missing: How much has the sea actually risen? Is it one inch, 10 inches? Or is the rise never quantified because there's no actual measured increase or it's very, very small? Without an objective measurement of the actual rise all of this article is just anecdotes. And the plural of "anecdote" isn't "data."
3
Here is a quote from National Geograhic: "Core samples, tide gauge readings, and, most recently, satellite measurements tell us that over the past century, the Global Mean Sea Level (GMSL) has risen by 4 to 8 inches (10 to 20 centimeters). However, the annual rate of rise over the past 20 years has been 0.13 inches (3.2 millimeters) a year, roughly twice the average speed of the preceding 80 years."
2
@HuzzahGuy
it's easy enough to find the numbers. (though once you get them, you still have to be able to put them into context.) but if it's measurements you want, you could start with the links below...
http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-chan...
it's easy enough to find the numbers. (though once you get them, you still have to be able to put them into context.) but if it's measurements you want, you could start with the links below...
http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-chan...
6
Denial must be so pleasant.
6
Donald and his EPA leader to be clown will save them.
5
This impending doom has been so obvious for so long that it is hard to have any sympathy at all for those who are thus imperiled; especially since so many of us with less money and more prudence are going to get stuck helping to pay the bill for this foolishness.
52
I am struggling to find a reason to feel sad for someone who occupies a 3,500-square-foot mausoleum scarring what would otherwise be a beautiful coastline. Perhaps the real sadness for the rest of us will come when those home owners pass their mammoth losses to the middle class through failed bank loans bundled up in shady investment packages.
292
So right. They'll find a way for all of us to pay for this.
6
I wish the media would stop referring to Trump and his ilk as "climate skeptics". A skeptic is someone who requires strong evidence before accepting any belief or claim. Since the evidence for man-made climate change is not only strong, but overwhelming, the correct term for Trump is "climate change denialist".
400
Actually climate change liar.
11
Whether it be a lake in Minnesota, a river in Missouri, or the ocean on the coast, the fact is you cannot control nature in the form of water. These folks that were willing to pay, and could afford, the high prices for "the views" deserve what they get. However, I'm sure if they go belly-aching to Congress and Trump, they'll get handouts in the form of paybacks or rich people welfare, just as they've been doing for years. Meanwhile the rest of us suckers have to deal with it and pay higher taxes as a result.
62
Could be worse. They might be asking for new stadiums as well.
1
Countries like the Netherlands addressed this issue over the last hundreds of years. The US will have to do the same. Each part of this much larger country will need a different solution, ranging from levees to seawall to reconstruction to floodgates to abandonment in some places. To me these are best addressed through regional compacts rather than yet another DC bureaucracy. NYT urbanites should remember that many parts of Manhattan are vulnerable to storm surge. Hate and snark at the people with beach property comes back to haunt you when subway tunnels flood like in Sandy.
2
You can't redraw these history-based FEMA maps fast enough.
The ramifications for those living in a coastal flood plain are just starting to be realized--population relocations, infrastructure damage, saline infiltration, agriculture impacts, etc.
If crisis pulls a people together, I hope we realized as a community that this developing crisis has everything to do with us. (Pogo was right--"We have met the enemy and ....".) So let's pull together and face this global reality.
Any actionable thoughts?
The ramifications for those living in a coastal flood plain are just starting to be realized--population relocations, infrastructure damage, saline infiltration, agriculture impacts, etc.
If crisis pulls a people together, I hope we realized as a community that this developing crisis has everything to do with us. (Pogo was right--"We have met the enemy and ....".) So let's pull together and face this global reality.
Any actionable thoughts?
3
Suddenly "global" is a bad word--is the message from rightwing think-tanks.
We could have been stronger together will Hillary Clinton. We will be in
deep crisis now with trickster Trump and his Repub. opportunistic profiteers.
We could have been stronger together will Hillary Clinton. We will be in
deep crisis now with trickster Trump and his Repub. opportunistic profiteers.
8
I wonder if Donald Trump will change his tune on climate change if/when Mar-a-Lago gets flooded.
4
Global warming or not, I don't have much pity for anyone who builds a house near the ocean. Shorelines change naturally and, of course these houses will wash away.
8
I've long thought that what will make deniers sit up and finally take notice, will be the implosion of the insurance market.
25
Can someone at the Times take a look at Trump's coastal properties? I wonder how much would he stand to lose should all his oceanfront real estate become worthless. Maybe we've been fooled thinking that Trump is a climate change denier out of ignorance.
7
George Carlin said he loved it when people's houses were flooded by building too close to the water. Man vs. nature. Nature wins in he long run.
9
Justice Souter's remark holds -- the only threat America faces is that caused by "massive civic ignorance". "Congers", Pogo's wonderful malapropism, rescinds flood-wa laws or omits laws, denies science, and risks billions in damage and mortgage failures because the people who sell and buy homes ignore the tendency of water to seek its level.
Worse, the same shyster-shaped real estate mentality that sold us swamp parcels in FL for $5 in the pre-WWII era now sells million dollar waterside homes without warning how often water visits or how badly.
Ignorance, legislative arrogance, unethical real estate business conduct,
and populist distrust of factuality -- and the 2008 TNT of bundling unexamined mortgages as "securities" place Americans everywhere in huge, "big league" danger. Deregulate, promises Mr. Trump. Trust corporate heads as cabinet officials. Omit references to tides in sales brochures. While insurors raise policy costs a and lower the odds of unmanageable water damages in FL, NC, VA, and elsewhere, Trump prefers to fiddle.
Good luck. Or, more appropriately, Bon Voyage.
Worse, the same shyster-shaped real estate mentality that sold us swamp parcels in FL for $5 in the pre-WWII era now sells million dollar waterside homes without warning how often water visits or how badly.
Ignorance, legislative arrogance, unethical real estate business conduct,
and populist distrust of factuality -- and the 2008 TNT of bundling unexamined mortgages as "securities" place Americans everywhere in huge, "big league" danger. Deregulate, promises Mr. Trump. Trust corporate heads as cabinet officials. Omit references to tides in sales brochures. While insurors raise policy costs a and lower the odds of unmanageable water damages in FL, NC, VA, and elsewhere, Trump prefers to fiddle.
Good luck. Or, more appropriately, Bon Voyage.
36
MAKING MONEY regardless of the cost to others, while selling delusions and flim-flam schemes is what Republicans and their Trump are all about.
12
No federal tax dollars for flood insurance or FEMA relief for waterfront property in Republican-governed states that blocked climate change laws like the Clean Power Plan, and who vote for climate change deniers like Donald Trump. Governors like Rick Scott who does not even allow the words "climate change" to be used in government, and Senators like Marco "I'm not a scientist" Rubio must take personal responsibility for their decision to put their heads in the sand. Florida should be on its own.
183
Head in the sand... no pun intended??
Um, people, hello? This problem has been known about for decades; you can't say you weren't warned. My only concern is that these folks with seaside property don't start expecting some sort of taxpayer funded bailout, especially one prominent owner of a certain Florida property called Mar-a-Lago.
139
He needs an 80 foot flagpole so you can tell where his property USED to be.
I don't understand some people. If Climate change was not real, what do we lose taking precautions? If it is real which I believe it is people will die not heading precautions. Our eyes don't lie melting ice in the artic flooded streets on sunny days. Is it really just about Money? I just don't understand the deneyers.
5
Not only are the beachfront areas flooding more often, but the inland cities such as Houston. Houston has suffered several devastating floods within just the last seven years, and many of the worst hit areas had the most expensive homes. Some neighborhoods flooded twice or more within the same year. Overdevelopment, lack of planning, Texas Tea Party politicians who deny science, the relentless destruction of green space and punishing rains from the moisture laden Gulf have turned Houston into the poster child for climate change denial. I sold my home in Houston because I got tired of having the politicians claim that every time water came in through the doors, it was a 500 year rain event. Well, let me tell you, those 500 year floods were coming every year when I left.
144
"Good information is hard to come by. No one knows whether, when or by how much properties will depreciate, seas will encroach or flood insurance policies will change."
This statement by Mr. Urbina should have led off this article. Instead, the Times buries it in the middle.
No one knows when, whether or by how much.......
This statement by Mr. Urbina should have led off this article. Instead, the Times buries it in the middle.
No one knows when, whether or by how much.......
6
We only know with certainty what the end-state will be.
2
My dad did the legal plat work for Sandbridge, south of Virginia Beach about 55 years or so ago, and got a lot that was third in from the ocean. He told us it would be second in within 50 to 60 years. He was a little off, but not much. The ocean giveth, and the ocean taketh away, and anyone who doesn't look at the history of the lower Atlantic coast before they invest, well, they have more money than they can use wisely.
76
doesn't look like a Chinese hoax to me. .....
232
"James Murley, Miami-Dade’s chief resilience officer, said it was important to avoid spooking the market since real estate investment produces much of the revenue that pays for these upgrades. This balancing act is especially important in Florida because the state and localities rely heavily on property and sales taxes for funding such projects."
So basically you have a market that already recognizes it is doomed in the long-term but we don't want to "spook it" since it is paying for the short-term band-aid solutions to keep the market going. Better that the market begin a slow collapse now so that development can pull back from the coast before it reaches the critical stage. But that's not likely to happen.
So basically you have a market that already recognizes it is doomed in the long-term but we don't want to "spook it" since it is paying for the short-term band-aid solutions to keep the market going. Better that the market begin a slow collapse now so that development can pull back from the coast before it reaches the critical stage. But that's not likely to happen.
155
"Setting up an economic timebomb"?
Come on, Times, really? If prices near coastal zones are lagging-- that's good, that's the economic realities coming into play. People SHOULD think twice about buying in those areas, for a large variety of reasons, and it's normal to have pricing pressure in areas that have become less desirable. The rest of the country is tired of hearing (and paying to compensate) homeowners to bought too close to tide surges, to seaside cliffs, to eroding beaches in places were houses should not have been built.
Just like a leasehold property near expiration, prices will drift downward, but at least people have had decades to make informed financial decisions.
Come on, Times, really? If prices near coastal zones are lagging-- that's good, that's the economic realities coming into play. People SHOULD think twice about buying in those areas, for a large variety of reasons, and it's normal to have pricing pressure in areas that have become less desirable. The rest of the country is tired of hearing (and paying to compensate) homeowners to bought too close to tide surges, to seaside cliffs, to eroding beaches in places were houses should not have been built.
Just like a leasehold property near expiration, prices will drift downward, but at least people have had decades to make informed financial decisions.
47
Ignorance breeds contempt. The politicians in our oil & gas state lie to themselves to keep the industry happy. The dredging for oil pipelines along the coast of Louisiana have caused devastating coastal loss due to salt water intrusion. The BP oil spill has destroyed miles of coastline (and continues) due to the destruction of fragile vegetation from oil and chemicals washing ashore. Maybe the economic impact will incite the people "in charge" to take some action...maybe.
52
Just wondering, how did these coastal counties vote in the last election? Were they aware of the climate change denial of the president elect? Or, was that yet another denial in their quiver.
175
You would have thought Florida would vote for the party trying to address this horror, but no....
24
South east Florida is a strong Democratic area. That's the problem with saying "they get what they deserve for voting..." because almost half the state did not vote for Trump.
I'd like to see Trump's face when he realizes his Mar a Lago is going under.
I'd like to see Trump's face when he realizes his Mar a Lago is going under.
13
Rich people problems...many of the same individuals voting for the climate change deniers.
176
When climate change begins costing everyday republicans real money I imagine they will 'discover' climate change. The republican pols will blame Democrats and set themselves as the saviors. My advice to Dem pols -start hammering now.
416
I am a real estate agent on Cape Cod, MA and our Multiple Listing Service reveals whether a listed property lie in a flood zone. Approximately half of my buyers ask me to avoid anything in a flood zone in my search for property for them-- lowering the value as the sellers must discount the house in order to move it, other buyers are taking on the extra cost of the annual flood premium to enjoy close proximity to the ocean, a river or a marsh. Eventually, everyone on Cape Cod will have oceanfront property.
47
Yes, "everyone will have waterfront property on gorgeous Cape Cod, some with waterfront also on the other three sides, too.
8
And of course the subject and real discussion of climate change hardly came up during the pre-election discussions. The article is the start of many wake up calls that need to be distributed. When I worked in the environmental regulation field of public service the most awakening thing I could say to local officials who were the font line of keeping people from building where they shouldn't was a quote from a northwestern US academic institution: "Building in the floodplain is like pitching a tent on a highway just because there aren't any cars coming". This really makes one think. Coupled with the homeowner who was just flooded out, prior to any concern about climate change, and remarked, "it never used to flood like this before". Regulations prompting sound development patterns have long been needed, even though they were ignored, or looked as communist plots which told people what the could do with their land. Recall how one of the mantra's of the president elect was to eliminate unnecessary regulations. Just look at those impacted from natural and man made contamination and ask yourself if sound science based regulations are needed. The article accurately points out that people tend to look at the short term when it comes to buying or building in areas not suited for sound development. Hang on to your hats, folks.
100
Coastal real estate will eventually become like a game of musical chairs, in which some people end up stuck with expensive coastal property they can't sell. This could happen long before the property is underwater; it just takes a change in the education level of buyers. At that point, I like to think only climate deniers will be buying those properties. Indeed, when I encounter people who claim the planet isn't warming, I now curse them sweetly: "May you acquire shorefront property."
228
To all the Florida Rick Scott/Donald Trump voters: this is your payback. Denial is a long ocean-front stretch of worthless property. Congratulations.
515
Yes, because climate change just started under Trump. Riiiiiiiiiiiiight. How did all the prior Democratic Presidents stem the tide of climate change. Is that crickets I hear chirping?
2
It's a national threat. What do we do as a nation when 30 or 40% of a state disappears? Who houses, feeds, educates, and employs those fools? Who pays to demolish the high rises of Miami Beach, fix the broken utilities lines and roads, airports, and marinas? Who looks after the refuse of our teeming shores? I guess it will be the rest of us. Reconstructing the flooded lands is impossibly expensive We do not have the Netherlands' centuries to build dikes. We will have a few decades to plan and execute. And at least 4 years will be lost -- to an Administration that asks "What are you elitists talking about? Dontcha believe in Exceptionalism and God and the Gospel of Greed?"
We must reply: We are, Trump et cie, talking of life and death, hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars, and millions of dispirited citizens with no place to live, study, recuperate, play, and work. The floods are local, the cost s national.
We must reply: We are, Trump et cie, talking of life and death, hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars, and millions of dispirited citizens with no place to live, study, recuperate, play, and work. The floods are local, the cost s national.
13
Check your facts sir. The Republican Congress has been "Climate Denial Headquarters" for years.
15
Bal Harbor and Palm Beach Trump voters. You put an unqualified fool in office who says climate change is a hoax. As you stand in ankle-deep water, contemplating the rising tide, please think about the cost of your mutual denial of science. Perhaps if you click your heals three times, the tide will roll back.
I hope that you can swim and that zero Blue-State dollars go toward subsidizing your flood insurance. After all, you're a "rugged individual" and wouldn't want tainted, socialist California money supporting your life-style.
I hope that you can swim and that zero Blue-State dollars go toward subsidizing your flood insurance. After all, you're a "rugged individual" and wouldn't want tainted, socialist California money supporting your life-style.
730
We don't want Red State money subsidizing the eco-morons who build on mud flats in the Bay Area. In a major earthquake zone, no less. Brilliant!
2
"You put an unqualified fool in office who says climate change is a hoax."
You'll have to be a little more specific; WHICH unqualified fool who says climate change is a hoax? There are so many to choose from.
You'll have to be a little more specific; WHICH unqualified fool who says climate change is a hoax? There are so many to choose from.
18
Yes, of course its Trumps fault , a man who isn't even in office yet that sea levels are rising, and not the guy who has been in charge for the past 8 years. Makes perfect sense.
But i think you have it backwards. Those southern coastal counties in Florida that are flooding and will continue to flood voted Blue, and you are right, we don't want to subsidize those areas , with Red or Blue money.
But i think you have it backwards. Those southern coastal counties in Florida that are flooding and will continue to flood voted Blue, and you are right, we don't want to subsidize those areas , with Red or Blue money.
3