My roots are in Louisiana, and this makes me incredibly sad. It is such a unique place that has no like, and drives all tourism in the state. Where will tourists celebrate Mardi Gras after it's gone? Baton Rouge?
Sadder, still, to know that nothing will be done. No one will be relocated. Just one day a weather event like a hurricane will happen to destroy the area and it will be labeled derelict with no funds to rebuild. People will be left to fend for themselves.
actually, i think you have it exactly backward. anybody who lives in the areas expected to be affected can move now, starting tomorrow. make a 6 month plan to move. a year. make a three year plan to move. but they won't. then when a disaster does strike, there will be funds made available to help them, but they will complain that it's not enough, that they deserve more, why, look at all the hopes and dreams they poured into the neighborhood as evidenced by the savings, investments, and preparations they have made...
you are preaching helplessness and they're eager to learn it.
Generally I agree, and we’ve known this for a long time but people stay in denial. It’s the same thing in Miami.
Unfortunately though, the solution isn’t that easy.
For one, if you own property there, you’re basically either caught holding a bag with life changing amounts of money lost, or trying to pass it off to another sucker which just feels unethical.
For two, families and communities make it hard for people. Many rely on their friends and family as support systems. Elderly for example, may only have their family taking care of them and their poker night friends are the only ones they have left - if they go somewhere, that system becomes fragmented and people get left behind. Maybe you are the main caretaker of an elderly relative, so you can’t leave them behind, but if they follow you then they lose the rest of their network.
I’m sure there are tons of other reasons but just knowing there’s an imminent threat at some vague point in the future is sometimes not enough for people to willingly go through all of the suffering that I mentioned above, and more that I’m not metioning
Systemically, the problem is that there needs to be a last person, and yet people leaving expect market value for their homes which normally happens by selling to the next person. The last person can currently only get the money if a disaster strikes and insurance pays out. To do it ahead of schedule, insurance would have to pay out sooner, which means there would have to be some kind of government intervention to make it happen.
Maybe the state could make it so the last person is someone who has no plans to ever leave, such as an elderly retiree. It could work like this.
• The state identifies neighborhoods that will need to be abandoned in a few decades and puts them in a program to turn them into retirement communities. A person who owns a home in such an area can sell it normally if they want to anyone who will buy.
• If an elderly retired person is interested in a property in that area they have the option of instead of buying it themselves from the seller having the state buy the property, and they then pay the state. The state gets title to the property and the retiree gets the right to live in it until they die.
• If the retired person wants to leave before they die (or has to leave because they can no longer live on their own or the time has finally come that the property must be abandoned), they are offered free room and board for life at a state managed assisted living community.
• If they left for a reason other than that the property has to be abandoned the state opens it up to another retired elderly person on the same terms. The new person pays what a similar property in a place not under threat would sell for, and they are now set for housing for the rest of their life as long as they stay there or transfer to state managed assistant living.
• To further make these properties attractive to elderly retirees the residents should not have to pay property taxes and utility rates should be capped. Maybe also toss in a free shuttle service to minimize the need for cars so people don't have to leave just because they are no longer able to drive safely.
Louisiana is just the state with a major city closest to the point of it having to be abandoned. There will be more that follow in other states, such as Florida.
I think GP might be using "state" in the common international English definition, e.g. state in the sense of "sovereign state" or "city-state", not "US state". I would agree with you though that any US government actually implementing the idea today is hard to imagine, but I can easily imagine that after 2 other cities suffer a climate-related disaster first, then there will be the political will to bring a program like this to life. It's a creative policy idea, I love the thought that was put into this.
> For one, if you own property there, you’re basically either caught holding a bag with life changing amounts of money lost, or trying to pass it off to another sucker which just feels unethical.
every day you wait this gets worse and I am not sure what is unethical about selling a home. many people have to move (e.g. for work) but if it would put you mind at ease (ethically speaking) you can put a disclaimer on the listing. of course you also have an entire political party followers who believe all this is a hoax so you can put that on the listing too /s (last sentence)
>if you own property there, you’re basically either caught holding a bag with life changing amounts of money lost
but notice people can gain life changing amounts of money by lucking into real estate that soars, but there's no sense of injustice.
if you allow people to take risks and reap the benefits, but shield them from loss, you end up with a subprime mortgage crisis all over again.
if people wanted to be protected from loss they should have to sign up on the front end to risk pool with other people who want to be protected from loss, and together they can protect each other by limiting gains jointly
The people who gain money are mostly gamblers but the people who lose money are mostly people who just wanted a place to live without going bankrupt over it.
Yeah. There's a market. If there are enough buyers for the market to function normally, then there are enough people trying to get in that one more house won't make much difference.
I mean, yes, in your seller's disclosures you should tell the truth, including about the flood risk. If people want to take that, eyes wide open, I'm not sure what's unethical about selling to them.
Also why just flood risk? Is it unethical for me to sell my Condo which is in “up and coming area” which never upped and never came and has a very high crime rate (with/without disclaimer)? My friend lives in another area where schools are as bad as it gets, she is looking to move now, unethical to sell that too (with/without disclaimer)?
The difference is that schools, crime, etc., are all what they are right now. It's there, it's verifiable. Anybody buying in has access to the full information. They can walk around the neighborhood and see for themselves.
The flooding and inevitable destruction of the city is decades away. It's still abstract. Some people might even think it is preventable.
I don't think it's unethical to sell. People have their own motivations. Maybe a buyer just wants it for 5 years, who knows. Probably the risk will get baked into market price. What does need to happen though is the federal government needs to step up, because they're the only ones who can, and guarantee they will buy it for a certain percentage of appraised market value. I would imagine that percentage will decline over time until they declare the city a total loss, after which your property is declared worthless. If they do this now, they can make it possible for people to leave with some semblance of dignity and mitigate hardships.
This is decent advice on an individual level. Despite the fact that you probably can't sell your doomed house for a lot due to the current situation, planning a move is probably a good idea for those who can afford it.
But it's not really a solution on a population level. For one, if everyone sold their house because it'll soon be underwater, who'd they sell their house to? Aquaman? For two, a lot of people just won't be able to afford an expense like that. A large portion of the US lives paycheck to paycheck, and it's not easy to "just save up" a few hundred thousand when that means giving up on basic necessities.
And how exactly will someone do that. Many of the people living in the impacted area are below the poverty line and living paycheck to paycheck at best. How are they supposed to put together funds to relocate. Especially if their property is worth nothing. The minority of people privileged enough to be able to relocate will do that. The majority are stuck.
The “majority” of people aren’t so poor they can’t move over the multi-decade timescale this article is talking about. This country has a huge level of internal migration. 17 million Americans move every year.
Why do people have these blinders where they can’t view any issue except from the perspective of the minority of people who don’t have any resources? Why are so many people moving to places like Florida that are threatened by climate change?
>Why do people have these blinders where they can’t view any issue except from the perspective of the minority of people who don’t have any resources
I believe its because these people are young and repeating what they hear or they are old but have lived an insulated life and assume that people really cannot handle any upset in their life.
It’s not about being unable to view the issue except from that one perspective. It’s about having an aversion to mass suffering, and recognizing that this group will be subject to it.
You’re basically saying, why are you so worried about all of these people who will have their lives destroyed when there are a bunch of other people who will be totally fine? I hope that when it’s put that way, you can see how ridiculous it is.
No, it's an emotional obsession with small percentages of the population that makes it impossible to discuss realistic solutions to problems that affect everyone.
New Orleans is going to be underwater. That problem won't just affect poor people, it will affect everyone. So the first order of business is to encourage anyone who can do so to leave New Orleans to go somewhere that isn't underwater. That's the policy that's going to avoid the greatest amount of harm to the greatest number of people at the lowest cost.
> it's an emotional obsession with small percentages of the population
Ah, right: it's a small percentage of the population, so we should just let them die, "and decrease the surplus population", right?
This kind of callousness is one of the biggest problem with the tech industry today. We learned to think in numbers, and some of us never learned to think about the people behind those numbers.
Yes, there are some kinds of problem where you really have to think about the numbers, and not the people, because if you try to save everyone you will end up saving no one.
This is not one of those.
The people who can move now, without financial hardship, get to make their own choices about when and whether to get out. The people we, as a society, should be thinking about are the people who cannot get out—either without financial ruination, or at all—because they are the ones we as a society must help.
Tragically, given the state of America today, we aren't likely to help them. And many of them are likely to die, whether by drowning when the next Hurricane Katrina inundates New Orleans, or by slow starvation and disease when they and everyone else in their community and support network are left homeless.
But that ignores the mass suffering that pushing people to move will prevent?
It’s not
why are you so worried about all of these people who will have their lives destroyed when there are a bunch of other people who will be totally fine
It’s
Why aren’t you worried about everyone having their life destroyed, if we can encourage people to move it may be challenging for them but it will save their lives.
Because, friend, a lot of people believe climate change is a lib conspiracy theory.
And people bring it up because a lot of folks in New Orleans couldn't afford to flee Katrina and 700 people died. It was kind of an enormous humanitarian disaster. If we don't talk about it, nothing will happen to stop it.
If you’re genuinely that poor, moving is cheap. Abandon the implied worthless property, catch a greyhound out of town. Total cost: bus ticket, a few days of living expenses on the road.
Someone below the poverty line would/should be renting. If they do happen to own dirt, an empty lot is an instant $7K or more in their pocket, perfect starting funds for a rental somewhere else. If they own a place, a minimum $40K covers a year’s expenses to get established elsewhere. Values via Zillow.
> If you’re genuinely that poor, moving is cheap. Abandon the implied worthless property, catch a greyhound out of town.
When you're genuinely poor, your local community is a critical survival tool that can't be discarded. You've spent your whole life building a set of relationships through mutual help. When your car dies and you can't afford to go to a mechanic, you have a friend of a friend who can fix cars who owes you one since you helped replace his fence a few years back. That kind of thing, but every day, in a hundred ways.
Throwing that out to move to a city where you have nothing is a great way to end up homeless.
"Catch a greyhound out of town" is the "Let them eat cake" for the poor and homeless (sorry "unhoused") of New Orleans. Empathy is for the weak, said the oppressor.
If you’re genuinely poor then moving is cheap when viewed by someone who isn’t poor.
Moving as a renter isn’t free. You’ll need to come up with a security deposit and coming up with two months of rent at once is not easy. Your slumlord landlord is going to keep your old one regardless of merit or law, so don’t think you can use that money. Convincing a new landlord that you’re a good risk is also not going to be easy when you’ve just moved and don’t have a job, so you’re looking at spending on a hotel for a while unless you’re lucky enough to know someone well enough to couch surf.
A greyhound to Atlanta is $75. It’s not nothing to someone on a minimum wage/fixed income, but would be attainable within two months by saving about a dollar a day. Keep in mind, that’s the “extreme global poverty” standard for countries like South Sudan.
Sell to whomever - but again, what property do they have if they are so poor they can’t afford a $75 bus ticket with notice?
It’s always a Schrödinger’s poor person who simultaneously has a valuable property that’s also worthless, tied to a job but has 0 income, has a car but can’t travel, and is broke but can’t qualify for the plethora of government benefits they can receive anywhere.
He’s not inspiring me, and he won’t inspire their pitbulls. And by the way, I fulfill all of his Schrödinger’s poor person criteria, except for the first one about property. And I’m far from the only one here.
so, you're talking not about renters but about homeowners, and you're saying housing prices are up everywhere else except they are down in New Orleans? I'm not from NOLA so I'm not going to bone up on prices, but I do doubt what you are saying holds water.
We should have a one-time buyout for flood zones: pay someone enough to buy a median home somewhere similar and turn the land into a nature preserve (let mangroves return to protect Florida coast, etc.). Put a cap on it so we’re not buying new mansions for a few rich people with beach houses but otherwise keep it simple so people aren’t impoverished into becoming a drain on society.
I have no expectation that we’ll be willing to invest in our neighbors, though.
I thought the government should have done this for all the beach houses that were destroyed by hurricane Sandy. Buy people out and prevent a house from being built there ever again.
Either this is ragebait or you're arrogant. Congrats on being a super smart hard worker or whatever you're so proud of. More interested in shitting on people to feel superior than understanding where they're at.
I don’t understand this formulation of “no one will be relocated.” People have agency to move themselves. Maybe not everyone, but if the majority of folks started moving out due to the risk of flooding then that would create a strong impetus for the government to assist poor people in relocating.
Mardi Gras actually originated in Mobile, Alabama; and it is celebrated with big parades and "krewes" all along the Gulf Coast, at least as far as Pensacola, Florida.
> Where will tourists celebrate Mardi Gras after it's gone?
Somewhere above sea level?
People should live wherever they want but is rude to expect others to be responsible for thei expectedly risky flooding, fires, earthquake, hurricane lifestyle.
I would argue lost cities are a story in the margins of the story of the Netherlands. The main story would be a move from building towns on little hills that don't get flooded most of the times to building systems to actively manage water (wind- and steam-powered pumps) and flood defenses (Afsluitdijk, Deltaworks). Netherlands never had as much land as it has now so the balance is definitely on reclaiming rather than losing.
> Where will tourists celebrate Mardi Gras after it's gone?
Mardi Gras is celebrated all along the Gulf Coast, from New Orleans to Pensacola. Go to a parade in Alabama, for example, and every third or fourth person will be from New Orleans - looking to escape the tourist nightmare their city becomes.
"""
“New Orleans is not going to disappear in 10 years or anything like that, but policymakers really should’ve thought about a relocation plan a century ago,” said Dixon
"""
People have seen this coming for a long time. Here's a classic article about the channelization of the Mississippi by John McPhee from 1987: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20636254
Well discussing it was de facto banned on HN for many years (still wouldn't be surprised if this post disappears soon).
Any climate change post that was anything other than "everything is fine because of electric vehicles/solar/wind/etc", especially if it dare suggest that the situation was dire, would quickly get 'flagged' by the vocal minority (but still surprisingly large group of people) on HN who don't want to believe in climate change. Years ago, on different accounts, I would complain about HN's status-quo enforcing censorship logic, only to be boo'd away. This community is, at it's heart, one that has been a part of the process of encouraging climate change.
I stopped complaining when I realized that nobody is seriously interested in tackling climate change (where you have to keep fossil fuels in the ground), so we're going to experience the full consequences of it (and yes, it does pose an existential risk). The annoying part is that people will continue to deny anything is happening no matter how aggressively visible real the impacts are.
At this point there really is no reason to discuss climate change any more, most people really can't deal with the reality of what it represents (even people who think they are 'green').
Discussing climate change has never been banned; this sort of claim is easily disproved by even the most cursory of searches in the box below. Try it.
Here, I’ll say it right now: climate change is real, it has deleterious effects on our world, and we should take collective action to mitigate or even reverse it.
Now, there’s an expectation that commenters conduct themselves appropriately and contribute to the overall well being of this site. If a person misbehaves when discussing this or any topic, that’s when they get spanked.
seems a little strong, but I understand why they say this
> climate change is real, it has deleterious effects on our world, and we should take collective action to mitigate or even reverse it.
plenty of comments on HN to this day will disagree, saying climate change is some anti-progress conspiracy or hasn't been studied enough or won't be that bad, etc etc.
It’s ok to disagree. Disagreement isn’t verboten here. In fact, I’ve been reading the book Unsettled by Stephen E. Koonin which calls into question the consensus on climate change and the author makes some great points.
For me it's similar to having red tests in my build - it causes me a lot of anxiety to see all the breakage. Plus it shows down shipping. So now I just delete them, feel better already.
> “The laws of mathematics are very commendable, but the only law that applies in Australia is the law of Australia,” said Turnbull [the Prime Minster of Australia]
Was he wrong? That sounds like it was about some sort of mandatory-mitm scheme or ban on e2e encryption. Like, yes, you can pretty easily make it impossible for the government to decrypt your bits, but the government can just as easily arrest you for it.
There's a museum in New Orleans that has a Katrina display and it turns out that they did indeed call in Dutch experts to advise them. The Dutch gave them sensible ideas like building low elevation parks that could flood without issue and hold lots of water, instead of concrete spillways and drainage that just moves water fast until it fails catastrophically when inundated. Louisiana being Louisiana, it was all ignored.
The museum convinced me that New Orleans is doomed in so many ways. Everything from the Atchafalaya ORCS to the paving over of wetlands to build the city to the destruction of the Plaquemines marsh lands to the southeast of the city all seem to be maximally unhelpful for preventing storm damage.
The reality is that New Orleans is simply not important enough.
Even the biggest ultra conservative GOP voting redneck will have to admit that America can't survive without NYC which is why it will get it's seawall.
I would be surprised if the USA is even able to plan far enough ahead to put in a sea barrier/gates in time to protect New York City, similar to London. New Orleans? At least the old town is elevated.
“Even if you stopped climate change today, New Orleans’s days are still numbered,” he added. “It will be surrounded by open water, and you can’t keep an island situated below sea level afloat. There’s no amount of money that can do that.”
Type 1 is often an island situated below sea level.
For instance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flevopolder . Island. Surrounded by open water because that's actually a good idea. Below sea level. 400 000 inhabitants. 2 cities, major agriculture, minor airport.
Ever wanted to grab dinner on the sea floor? Visit Almere Center. Though lots of people find it to be a bit boring in person.
Want the same sort of thing in the US? Consider dropping the Jones act. Right now it's illegal to bring the equipment that builds these things into the US.
The Jones act doesn't prohibit anything about bringing ships into the US to construct things. The closest reason I can think of you thinking that is it allows injured sailors to sue for damages. Maybe that equipment leads to a huge number of injuries?
I do think there are plenty of religious people out there who minimize the ill effects of climate change, believing (hope against hope?) that God would never let mankind destroy itself. Good luck with that.
Way too many Americans either don't know or disbelieve that a substantial chunk of the body politic, and now our elected and military leaders, actually literally believe this type of stuff.
IMO any eschatological beliefs whatsoever should be 100% universally disqualifying for any political or military position, no matter what book title or special ancient zombie character they're filed under.
“Leaders” who believe this kind of stuff don’t end up running developed states. It’s the leaders who know how to make use of morons who believe this kinda stuff who do.
I am increasingly pessimistic about the long term future of the US. What are the chances that we will still be one country in a generation or two? Trump might have poured gasoline on the fire, but the federal government has been in decline for years. Congress is completely dysfunctional. The filibuster prevents the senate from doing anything. The president is at war with the civil servants and more interested in grift, punishing percieved enemies and erecting monuments to himself instead actually leading.
Addressing climate change requires massive changes and a lot of political courage. There is none.
There is no legal mechanism left that could correct course at this point. You would need to have a constitutional amendment to drastically reshape government and that's DOA. All that's left is snow decline and eventual dissolution
The absence of a legal mechanism does not imply the absence of a mechanism (or even the absence of a peaceful mechanism.)
While there is a legal process for amending the Constitution which, as you note, is likely intractable in the status quo conditions, Constitutional change—whether peaceful (even if there is the implicit consequence of force if compromise is not reached) or not—historically and globally is often an extralegal process that is retrospectively legalized, rather than a legal process under pre-existing rules.
A sufficient crisis could trigger an Article V convention, which already has a large amount of states pledged to join, but the changes coming out of such a convention probably aren’t going to be good for the public.
Put dikes around it, make channels to collect the seepage, pump water out of channels over the dikes into the sea. Problem solved in the same way the Netherlands has been solving this problem for many centuries.
The pumps can run on solar power with some diesel backups for when the sun doesn't co-operate. As long as the system is kept in good shape and the channels are kept open Miami can lie several meters under sea level without the need for further action. The house I lived in in the Netherlands was at -4.5 m below sea level, it is still standing and will remain doing so if history can be a guide.
Right, for Miami, you might want kwelschermen (or a variant thereof: deep impermeable cutoff walls, doesn't need to be concrete, can be made by clay injection too) , californian style water injection, locks that reject salt water. Different place, different geology, different tools. No place is exactly the same.
Thing is I figure you need some form of water board to manage it. A political entity that's all about "here we are and here we stay". Once they're set up they're pretty reliable (there's one that's still paying interest on a 370-year old bond https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfSIC8jwbQs )
Uhh... "those in the know" are the actuaries and if you were to take away the subsidies provided for homeowners and developers to deny basic mathematical facts, the entire area would be totally unbuildable already.
i work in insure tech, in the E&S space, which is where all of the flood and wind polices gets placed. Actuaries have nothing to do with it --- the cost of hurricane insurance comes from Moody's RMS and Verisk AIR, the only two CAT models the carriers and re-insurance companies use. Actuaries price the non-cat risk.
I say we wait until 2098 to start relocating so that way we can make a summer tent pole about it and pat ourselves on the back for coming together in the nick of time.
One of the authors warned me this paper was coming (I live in New Orleans) but he assured me he still has a house with a mortgage here. As the article says, none of us will be alive to see it.
I'm almost surprised to see these comments unflagged 8-/
What a disaster in progress in Louisiana.
> Since the 1930s, Louisiana has lost 2,000 sq miles of land to coastal erosion, equivalent to the size of Delaware,
Having been born and raised in the mid-atlantic, I empathize.
If the article is read, while replacing every instance of the word "could", with the words "will not", I think it also states a pretty factual assessment of what will happen...
almost like NOAA, had it not been savaged by this current anti-science admin, would be able to lend further credibility here. As it stands, several researchers that I know of, formerly of NOAA, were banging this drum loudly for decades.
My roots are in Louisiana, and this makes me incredibly sad. It is such a unique place that has no like, and drives all tourism in the state. Where will tourists celebrate Mardi Gras after it's gone? Baton Rouge?
Sadder, still, to know that nothing will be done. No one will be relocated. Just one day a weather event like a hurricane will happen to destroy the area and it will be labeled derelict with no funds to rebuild. People will be left to fend for themselves.
>People will be left to fend for themselves
actually, i think you have it exactly backward. anybody who lives in the areas expected to be affected can move now, starting tomorrow. make a 6 month plan to move. a year. make a three year plan to move. but they won't. then when a disaster does strike, there will be funds made available to help them, but they will complain that it's not enough, that they deserve more, why, look at all the hopes and dreams they poured into the neighborhood as evidenced by the savings, investments, and preparations they have made...
you are preaching helplessness and they're eager to learn it.
Generally I agree, and we’ve known this for a long time but people stay in denial. It’s the same thing in Miami.
Unfortunately though, the solution isn’t that easy.
For one, if you own property there, you’re basically either caught holding a bag with life changing amounts of money lost, or trying to pass it off to another sucker which just feels unethical.
For two, families and communities make it hard for people. Many rely on their friends and family as support systems. Elderly for example, may only have their family taking care of them and their poker night friends are the only ones they have left - if they go somewhere, that system becomes fragmented and people get left behind. Maybe you are the main caretaker of an elderly relative, so you can’t leave them behind, but if they follow you then they lose the rest of their network.
I’m sure there are tons of other reasons but just knowing there’s an imminent threat at some vague point in the future is sometimes not enough for people to willingly go through all of the suffering that I mentioned above, and more that I’m not metioning
Systemically, the problem is that there needs to be a last person, and yet people leaving expect market value for their homes which normally happens by selling to the next person. The last person can currently only get the money if a disaster strikes and insurance pays out. To do it ahead of schedule, insurance would have to pay out sooner, which means there would have to be some kind of government intervention to make it happen.
Maybe the state could make it so the last person is someone who has no plans to ever leave, such as an elderly retiree. It could work like this.
• The state identifies neighborhoods that will need to be abandoned in a few decades and puts them in a program to turn them into retirement communities. A person who owns a home in such an area can sell it normally if they want to anyone who will buy.
• If an elderly retired person is interested in a property in that area they have the option of instead of buying it themselves from the seller having the state buy the property, and they then pay the state. The state gets title to the property and the retiree gets the right to live in it until they die.
• If the retired person wants to leave before they die (or has to leave because they can no longer live on their own or the time has finally come that the property must be abandoned), they are offered free room and board for life at a state managed assisted living community.
• If they left for a reason other than that the property has to be abandoned the state opens it up to another retired elderly person on the same terms. The new person pays what a similar property in a place not under threat would sell for, and they are now set for housing for the rest of their life as long as they stay there or transfer to state managed assistant living.
• To further make these properties attractive to elderly retirees the residents should not have to pay property taxes and utility rates should be capped. Maybe also toss in a free shuttle service to minimize the need for cars so people don't have to leave just because they are no longer able to drive safely.
The state in this case is Louisiana.
Louisiana is just the state with a major city closest to the point of it having to be abandoned. There will be more that follow in other states, such as Florida.
I think GP might be using "state" in the common international English definition, e.g. state in the sense of "sovereign state" or "city-state", not "US state". I would agree with you though that any US government actually implementing the idea today is hard to imagine, but I can easily imagine that after 2 other cities suffer a climate-related disaster first, then there will be the political will to bring a program like this to life. It's a creative policy idea, I love the thought that was put into this.
Great idea until we have to save grandpa from Katrina 2.0.
What if you sold your property to a soulless property development investment fund?
> For one, if you own property there, you’re basically either caught holding a bag with life changing amounts of money lost, or trying to pass it off to another sucker which just feels unethical.
every day you wait this gets worse and I am not sure what is unethical about selling a home. many people have to move (e.g. for work) but if it would put you mind at ease (ethically speaking) you can put a disclaimer on the listing. of course you also have an entire political party followers who believe all this is a hoax so you can put that on the listing too /s (last sentence)
>if you own property there, you’re basically either caught holding a bag with life changing amounts of money lost
but notice people can gain life changing amounts of money by lucking into real estate that soars, but there's no sense of injustice.
if you allow people to take risks and reap the benefits, but shield them from loss, you end up with a subprime mortgage crisis all over again.
if people wanted to be protected from loss they should have to sign up on the front end to risk pool with other people who want to be protected from loss, and together they can protect each other by limiting gains jointly
The people who gain money are mostly gamblers but the people who lose money are mostly people who just wanted a place to live without going bankrupt over it.
Yeah. There's a market. If there are enough buyers for the market to function normally, then there are enough people trying to get in that one more house won't make much difference.
I mean, yes, in your seller's disclosures you should tell the truth, including about the flood risk. If people want to take that, eyes wide open, I'm not sure what's unethical about selling to them.
Also why just flood risk? Is it unethical for me to sell my Condo which is in “up and coming area” which never upped and never came and has a very high crime rate (with/without disclaimer)? My friend lives in another area where schools are as bad as it gets, she is looking to move now, unethical to sell that too (with/without disclaimer)?
The difference is that schools, crime, etc., are all what they are right now. It's there, it's verifiable. Anybody buying in has access to the full information. They can walk around the neighborhood and see for themselves.
The flooding and inevitable destruction of the city is decades away. It's still abstract. Some people might even think it is preventable.
I don't think it's unethical to sell. People have their own motivations. Maybe a buyer just wants it for 5 years, who knows. Probably the risk will get baked into market price. What does need to happen though is the federal government needs to step up, because they're the only ones who can, and guarantee they will buy it for a certain percentage of appraised market value. I would imagine that percentage will decline over time until they declare the city a total loss, after which your property is declared worthless. If they do this now, they can make it possible for people to leave with some semblance of dignity and mitigate hardships.
Is it unethical to lie in order to sell something? Yes, yes it is.
This sort of puffery is relatively minor and is thus not tremendously unethical, but it is unethical.
This is decent advice on an individual level. Despite the fact that you probably can't sell your doomed house for a lot due to the current situation, planning a move is probably a good idea for those who can afford it.
But it's not really a solution on a population level. For one, if everyone sold their house because it'll soon be underwater, who'd they sell their house to? Aquaman? For two, a lot of people just won't be able to afford an expense like that. A large portion of the US lives paycheck to paycheck, and it's not easy to "just save up" a few hundred thousand when that means giving up on basic necessities.
And how exactly will someone do that. Many of the people living in the impacted area are below the poverty line and living paycheck to paycheck at best. How are they supposed to put together funds to relocate. Especially if their property is worth nothing. The minority of people privileged enough to be able to relocate will do that. The majority are stuck.
The “majority” of people aren’t so poor they can’t move over the multi-decade timescale this article is talking about. This country has a huge level of internal migration. 17 million Americans move every year.
Why do people have these blinders where they can’t view any issue except from the perspective of the minority of people who don’t have any resources? Why are so many people moving to places like Florida that are threatened by climate change?
>Why do people have these blinders where they can’t view any issue except from the perspective of the minority of people who don’t have any resources
I believe its because these people are young and repeating what they hear or they are old but have lived an insulated life and assume that people really cannot handle any upset in their life.
It’s not about being unable to view the issue except from that one perspective. It’s about having an aversion to mass suffering, and recognizing that this group will be subject to it.
You’re basically saying, why are you so worried about all of these people who will have their lives destroyed when there are a bunch of other people who will be totally fine? I hope that when it’s put that way, you can see how ridiculous it is.
No, it's an emotional obsession with small percentages of the population that makes it impossible to discuss realistic solutions to problems that affect everyone.
New Orleans is going to be underwater. That problem won't just affect poor people, it will affect everyone. So the first order of business is to encourage anyone who can do so to leave New Orleans to go somewhere that isn't underwater. That's the policy that's going to avoid the greatest amount of harm to the greatest number of people at the lowest cost.
> it's an emotional obsession with small percentages of the population
Ah, right: it's a small percentage of the population, so we should just let them die, "and decrease the surplus population", right?
This kind of callousness is one of the biggest problem with the tech industry today. We learned to think in numbers, and some of us never learned to think about the people behind those numbers.
Yes, there are some kinds of problem where you really have to think about the numbers, and not the people, because if you try to save everyone you will end up saving no one.
This is not one of those.
The people who can move now, without financial hardship, get to make their own choices about when and whether to get out. The people we, as a society, should be thinking about are the people who cannot get out—either without financial ruination, or at all—because they are the ones we as a society must help.
Tragically, given the state of America today, we aren't likely to help them. And many of them are likely to die, whether by drowning when the next Hurricane Katrina inundates New Orleans, or by slow starvation and disease when they and everyone else in their community and support network are left homeless.
But that ignores the mass suffering that pushing people to move will prevent?
It’s not why are you so worried about all of these people who will have their lives destroyed when there are a bunch of other people who will be totally fine
It’s Why aren’t you worried about everyone having their life destroyed, if we can encourage people to move it may be challenging for them but it will save their lives.
Because, friend, a lot of people believe climate change is a lib conspiracy theory.
And people bring it up because a lot of folks in New Orleans couldn't afford to flee Katrina and 700 people died. It was kind of an enormous humanitarian disaster. If we don't talk about it, nothing will happen to stop it.
If you’re genuinely that poor, moving is cheap. Abandon the implied worthless property, catch a greyhound out of town. Total cost: bus ticket, a few days of living expenses on the road.
Someone below the poverty line would/should be renting. If they do happen to own dirt, an empty lot is an instant $7K or more in their pocket, perfect starting funds for a rental somewhere else. If they own a place, a minimum $40K covers a year’s expenses to get established elsewhere. Values via Zillow.
> If you’re genuinely that poor, moving is cheap. Abandon the implied worthless property, catch a greyhound out of town.
When you're genuinely poor, your local community is a critical survival tool that can't be discarded. You've spent your whole life building a set of relationships through mutual help. When your car dies and you can't afford to go to a mechanic, you have a friend of a friend who can fix cars who owes you one since you helped replace his fence a few years back. That kind of thing, but every day, in a hundred ways.
Throwing that out to move to a city where you have nothing is a great way to end up homeless.
And by this article, staying in New Orleans is a great way to be poor, lose that network, and still end up homeless and literally underwater again.
Nobody is making them move, but moving out of New Orleans certainly seems like the better play, even if it carries risk.
You are wildly out of touch
"Catch a greyhound out of town" is the "Let them eat cake" for the poor and homeless (sorry "unhoused") of New Orleans. Empathy is for the weak, said the oppressor.
If you’re genuinely poor then moving is cheap when viewed by someone who isn’t poor.
Moving as a renter isn’t free. You’ll need to come up with a security deposit and coming up with two months of rent at once is not easy. Your slumlord landlord is going to keep your old one regardless of merit or law, so don’t think you can use that money. Convincing a new landlord that you’re a good risk is also not going to be easy when you’ve just moved and don’t have a job, so you’re looking at spending on a hotel for a while unless you’re lucky enough to know someone well enough to couch surf.
Move with what money? And go where? If they have property, sell to who, exactly? "Instant" lol.
Gently, you talk like someone who's never even been broke, let alone been poor.
A greyhound to Atlanta is $75. It’s not nothing to someone on a minimum wage/fixed income, but would be attainable within two months by saving about a dollar a day. Keep in mind, that’s the “extreme global poverty” standard for countries like South Sudan.
Sell to whomever - but again, what property do they have if they are so poor they can’t afford a $75 bus ticket with notice?
It’s always a Schrödinger’s poor person who simultaneously has a valuable property that’s also worthless, tied to a job but has 0 income, has a car but can’t travel, and is broke but can’t qualify for the plethora of government benefits they can receive anywhere.
You should go to St Roch or Treme and inspire the locals with your dynamism. You could even bring bootsraps!
He’s not inspiring me, and he won’t inspire their pitbulls. And by the way, I fulfill all of his Schrödinger’s poor person criteria, except for the first one about property. And I’m far from the only one here.
Aquaman is going to have to buy a lot of homes.
No, you are condescendingly proposing individual solutions to a systemic problem.
Have you seen housing prices lately? It's insane for the average person especially if no one will be buying your home and you still have a mortagage
so, you're talking not about renters but about homeowners, and you're saying housing prices are up everywhere else except they are down in New Orleans? I'm not from NOLA so I'm not going to bone up on prices, but I do doubt what you are saying holds water.
why would someone buy buy a house if they think it's literally going to be underwater soon?
You say this but there are still a lot of sales for houses in these areas
Thank you for spelling it out.
They can just sell to Aquaman.
Sell it to who, Ben? Aquaman?
This is why the federal subsidies for flood insurance need to end
We should have a one-time buyout for flood zones: pay someone enough to buy a median home somewhere similar and turn the land into a nature preserve (let mangroves return to protect Florida coast, etc.). Put a cap on it so we’re not buying new mansions for a few rich people with beach houses but otherwise keep it simple so people aren’t impoverished into becoming a drain on society.
I have no expectation that we’ll be willing to invest in our neighbors, though.
I thought the government should have done this for all the beach houses that were destroyed by hurricane Sandy. Buy people out and prevent a house from being built there ever again.
I wonder if there are any good ballpark estimates out there for what this would cost
I like it!
Either this is ragebait or you're arrogant. Congrats on being a super smart hard worker or whatever you're so proud of. More interested in shitting on people to feel superior than understanding where they're at.
> but they won't
Then they will look for someone to blame. The usual scape goats are the government and society.
Nice dog whistle, bud. Just come out and say it instead of dancing around it like a coward.
I don’t understand this formulation of “no one will be relocated.” People have agency to move themselves. Maybe not everyone, but if the majority of folks started moving out due to the risk of flooding then that would create a strong impetus for the government to assist poor people in relocating.
> a strong impetus for the government to assist poor people
Haha. I'm gonna guess you're not American.
Mardi Gras actually originated in Mobile, Alabama; and it is celebrated with big parades and "krewes" all along the Gulf Coast, at least as far as Pensacola, Florida.
Mardi Gras actually existed (and still exists) in Europe before the USA were even founded.
> Where will tourists celebrate Mardi Gras after it's gone?
Somewhere above sea level?
People should live wherever they want but is rude to expect others to be responsible for thei expectedly risky flooding, fires, earthquake, hurricane lifestyle.
That's the story of the Netherlands. Entire cities and even islands have disappeared under the sea. Humans always rebuild.
I would argue lost cities are a story in the margins of the story of the Netherlands. The main story would be a move from building towns on little hills that don't get flooded most of the times to building systems to actively manage water (wind- and steam-powered pumps) and flood defenses (Afsluitdijk, Deltaworks). Netherlands never had as much land as it has now so the balance is definitely on reclaiming rather than losing.
> Where will tourists celebrate Mardi Gras after it's gone?
Mardi Gras is celebrated all along the Gulf Coast, from New Orleans to Pensacola. Go to a parade in Alabama, for example, and every third or fourth person will be from New Orleans - looking to escape the tourist nightmare their city becomes.
In other words, hopefully nowhere ;)
My point is that maybe tourism is a nightmare, but it drives a lot of the economy...something Louisiana can't take for granted.
Every king cake I've ever had was in Shreveport, but you and I both know tourists won't be flying there.
""" “New Orleans is not going to disappear in 10 years or anything like that, but policymakers really should’ve thought about a relocation plan a century ago,” said Dixon """
People have seen this coming for a long time. Here's a classic article about the channelization of the Mississippi by John McPhee from 1987: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20636254
Rather than relocate, we can make discussion of climate change illegal or just tax the blue states to build a sea wall around the entire city
> discussion of climate change illegal
Well discussing it was de facto banned on HN for many years (still wouldn't be surprised if this post disappears soon).
Any climate change post that was anything other than "everything is fine because of electric vehicles/solar/wind/etc", especially if it dare suggest that the situation was dire, would quickly get 'flagged' by the vocal minority (but still surprisingly large group of people) on HN who don't want to believe in climate change. Years ago, on different accounts, I would complain about HN's status-quo enforcing censorship logic, only to be boo'd away. This community is, at it's heart, one that has been a part of the process of encouraging climate change.
I stopped complaining when I realized that nobody is seriously interested in tackling climate change (where you have to keep fossil fuels in the ground), so we're going to experience the full consequences of it (and yes, it does pose an existential risk). The annoying part is that people will continue to deny anything is happening no matter how aggressively visible real the impacts are.
At this point there really is no reason to discuss climate change any more, most people really can't deal with the reality of what it represents (even people who think they are 'green').
Discussing climate change has never been banned; this sort of claim is easily disproved by even the most cursory of searches in the box below. Try it.
Here, I’ll say it right now: climate change is real, it has deleterious effects on our world, and we should take collective action to mitigate or even reverse it.
Now, there’s an expectation that commenters conduct themselves appropriately and contribute to the overall well being of this site. If a person misbehaves when discussing this or any topic, that’s when they get spanked.
> de facto banned
seems a little strong, but I understand why they say this
> climate change is real, it has deleterious effects on our world, and we should take collective action to mitigate or even reverse it.
plenty of comments on HN to this day will disagree, saying climate change is some anti-progress conspiracy or hasn't been studied enough or won't be that bad, etc etc.
It’s ok to disagree. Disagreement isn’t verboten here. In fact, I’ve been reading the book Unsettled by Stephen E. Koonin which calls into question the consensus on climate change and the author makes some great points.
For me it's similar to having red tests in my build - it causes me a lot of anxiety to see all the breakage. Plus it shows down shipping. So now I just delete them, feel better already.
There's precedent:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2140747-laws-of-mathema...
> “The laws of mathematics are very commendable, but the only law that applies in Australia is the law of Australia,” said Turnbull [the Prime Minster of Australia]
Was he wrong? That sounds like it was about some sort of mandatory-mitm scheme or ban on e2e encryption. Like, yes, you can pretty easily make it impossible for the government to decrypt your bits, but the government can just as easily arrest you for it.
He was effectively saying this: https://xkcd.com/538/
> Rather than relocate, we can make discussion of climate change illegal or just tax the blue states to build a sea wall around the entire city
Like in The Netherlands?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta_Works
There's a museum in New Orleans that has a Katrina display and it turns out that they did indeed call in Dutch experts to advise them. The Dutch gave them sensible ideas like building low elevation parks that could flood without issue and hold lots of water, instead of concrete spillways and drainage that just moves water fast until it fails catastrophically when inundated. Louisiana being Louisiana, it was all ignored.
The museum convinced me that New Orleans is doomed in so many ways. Everything from the Atchafalaya ORCS to the paving over of wetlands to build the city to the destruction of the Plaquemines marsh lands to the southeast of the city all seem to be maximally unhelpful for preventing storm damage.
The reality is that New Orleans is simply not important enough.
Even the biggest ultra conservative GOP voting redneck will have to admit that America can't survive without NYC which is why it will get it's seawall.
A bit OT but what about the Netherlands?
I would be surprised if the USA is even able to plan far enough ahead to put in a sea barrier/gates in time to protect New York City, similar to London. New Orleans? At least the old town is elevated.
Be surprised, I guess - https://www.nyc.gov/site/lmcr/progress/battery-coastal-resil...
This project in NYC has been going on for a bit. The difference is LA has a GDP of about $340B+, while NY has a GDP of $2.3T+.
The Whitney museum has a whole system for putting up flood walls around the perimeter, plus the ground floor is just the gift shop.
New York City will be fine. New Orleans is fucked.
For local stuff like this, the US isn't a country, it's 50 countries in a trenchcoat, and Louisiana is very different from New York.
munificent grew up just outside the city IIRC.
Not even old town is safe.
“Even if you stopped climate change today, New Orleans’s days are still numbered,” he added. “It will be surrounded by open water, and you can’t keep an island situated below sea level afloat. There’s no amount of money that can do that.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polder
Type 1 is often an island situated below sea level.
For instance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flevopolder . Island. Surrounded by open water because that's actually a good idea. Below sea level. 400 000 inhabitants. 2 cities, major agriculture, minor airport.
Ever wanted to grab dinner on the sea floor? Visit Almere Center. Though lots of people find it to be a bit boring in person.
Want the same sort of thing in the US? Consider dropping the Jones act. Right now it's illegal to bring the equipment that builds these things into the US.
The Jones act doesn't prohibit anything about bringing ships into the US to construct things. The closest reason I can think of you thinking that is it allows injured sailors to sue for damages. Maybe that equipment leads to a huge number of injuries?
Our long term plan is for Jesus to come back and fix everything.
I wish I was joking...
AFAIK there's no fixing in the plan. They just expect Jesus to take them away and finish breaking everything down so everybody else suffers.
I don't normally interact with people that believe that. But from a distance it looks like the second half is about as important as the first.
I do think there are plenty of religious people out there who minimize the ill effects of climate change, believing (hope against hope?) that God would never let mankind destroy itself. Good luck with that.
Isnt he already running the country now?
No, that's a healer.
And war in the middle east is going to make it happen faster!
Way too many Americans either don't know or disbelieve that a substantial chunk of the body politic, and now our elected and military leaders, actually literally believe this type of stuff.
IMO any eschatological beliefs whatsoever should be 100% universally disqualifying for any political or military position, no matter what book title or special ancient zombie character they're filed under.
“Leaders” who believe this kind of stuff don’t end up running developed states. It’s the leaders who know how to make use of morons who believe this kinda stuff who do.
That's the short term plan, baby! The long term plan is to be the elect who get raptured first.
Exactly, we haven't even bothered or cared to rebuild much of Katrina's damage.
I am increasingly pessimistic about the long term future of the US. What are the chances that we will still be one country in a generation or two? Trump might have poured gasoline on the fire, but the federal government has been in decline for years. Congress is completely dysfunctional. The filibuster prevents the senate from doing anything. The president is at war with the civil servants and more interested in grift, punishing percieved enemies and erecting monuments to himself instead actually leading.
Addressing climate change requires massive changes and a lot of political courage. There is none.
There is no legal mechanism left that could correct course at this point. You would need to have a constitutional amendment to drastically reshape government and that's DOA. All that's left is snow decline and eventual dissolution
The absence of a legal mechanism does not imply the absence of a mechanism (or even the absence of a peaceful mechanism.)
While there is a legal process for amending the Constitution which, as you note, is likely intractable in the status quo conditions, Constitutional change—whether peaceful (even if there is the implicit consequence of force if compromise is not reached) or not—historically and globally is often an extralegal process that is retrospectively legalized, rather than a legal process under pre-existing rules.
A sufficient crisis could trigger an Article V convention, which already has a large amount of states pledged to join, but the changes coming out of such a convention probably aren’t going to be good for the public.
Miami too. The city is build on porous limestone. No amount of levees, seawalls, or dams will save it.
Put dikes around it, make channels to collect the seepage, pump water out of channels over the dikes into the sea. Problem solved in the same way the Netherlands has been solving this problem for many centuries. The pumps can run on solar power with some diesel backups for when the sun doesn't co-operate. As long as the system is kept in good shape and the channels are kept open Miami can lie several meters under sea level without the need for further action. The house I lived in in the Netherlands was at -4.5 m below sea level, it is still standing and will remain doing so if history can be a guide.
Right, for Miami, you might want kwelschermen (or a variant thereof: deep impermeable cutoff walls, doesn't need to be concrete, can be made by clay injection too) , californian style water injection, locks that reject salt water. Different place, different geology, different tools. No place is exactly the same.
Thing is I figure you need some form of water board to manage it. A political entity that's all about "here we are and here we stay". Once they're set up they're pretty reliable (there's one that's still paying interest on a 370-year old bond https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfSIC8jwbQs )
Engineers will find a solution, they always do if there is sufficient motivation.
This is a statement of religious faith, not a statement of fact. Engineering is not magic, it is where physical reality crashes into economic reality.
Yet those in the know keep building there. Weird isn’t it?
They are betting they can sell the bag before the music stops.
Uhh... "those in the know" are the actuaries and if you were to take away the subsidies provided for homeowners and developers to deny basic mathematical facts, the entire area would be totally unbuildable already.
They can still get insurance for flooding?
Yes with the help of US taxpayers.
https://www.floodsmart.gov/
Funny, I thought the USA was paranoid about this kind of socialism. I guess they are on the hook for some big and inevitable payouts.
i work in insure tech, in the E&S space, which is where all of the flood and wind polices gets placed. Actuaries have nothing to do with it --- the cost of hurricane insurance comes from Moody's RMS and Verisk AIR, the only two CAT models the carriers and re-insurance companies use. Actuaries price the non-cat risk.
what are you talking about, miami is actively investing in fixing this problem
https://www.nbcmiami.com/investigations/miami-beach-resilien...
According to Wikipedia, tourism makes up of 40% of the tax revenue in New Orleans.
That could grow even higher if they think of an interesting and unusual solution for sea level rise.
How about a floating city of some kind? Alternatively, go in the other direction and rebuild the city underwater.
The graham hancocks of the future are gonna go nuts finding out about this mythical new orleans
I say we wait until 2098 to start relocating so that way we can make a summer tent pole about it and pat ourselves on the back for coming together in the nick of time.
It’s already below sea level isn’t it?
NOLA is worth saving.
One of the authors warned me this paper was coming (I live in New Orleans) but he assured me he still has a house with a mortgage here. As the article says, none of us will be alive to see it.
I'm almost surprised to see these comments unflagged 8-/
What a disaster in progress in Louisiana.
> Since the 1930s, Louisiana has lost 2,000 sq miles of land to coastal erosion, equivalent to the size of Delaware,
Having been born and raised in the mid-atlantic, I empathize.
If the article is read, while replacing every instance of the word "could", with the words "will not", I think it also states a pretty factual assessment of what will happen...
Finally, Ben Shapiro is going to buy that real estate for a bargain! /s
I was looking for this comment.
New Orleans no longer, would be a fucking tragedy.
"America has only three cities: New York, San Francisco, and New Orleans. Everywhere else is Cleveland"
Miami is not Cleveland, and SF sucks.
Perhaps you misundestand the Tennessee Williams quote. He's not saying that Miami is literally in Ohio, just that is has no character.
Agreed. Miami is in Florida.
stick to software, you have no career in comedy.
That's a bit harsh mate.
Weren't the Maldives supposed to be underwater like 15 years ago? Seems like the sea is rising much slower than models predicted?
No models predicted that.
Plenty of info: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_in_the_Maldives
Of note, most of the country no longer has fresh groundwater, and 50% of the national budget goes to climate mitigation.
Seas are rising faster than climate models predicted:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-026-10196-1
almost like NOAA, had it not been savaged by this current anti-science admin, would be able to lend further credibility here. As it stands, several researchers that I know of, formerly of NOAA, were banging this drum loudly for decades.