I think maybe a better option would be to simply ban new development of disaster-prone land. Looking to build a new house or subdivision? Look elsewhere. And maybe disincentivize rebuilding on the same lot your house used to be on, eg. insurance only pays half if you plan to stay.
But what happens when all those tens of millions of people who can’t get housing in their current state flood into low COL places where we still have good water and forest resources, where drought and major storms are significantly less of a concern, but where people from high cost areas can very easily buy all the cheap houses and land, preventing locals from ever being able to buy ever? I mean even the housing inflation since 2020 alone has priced most people out of ownership in my state, cuz our wages are super low.
Do we start cutting everything down throughout the Midwest to build up the same giant cities the coastal areas have? Do we start pulling all the ground and surface water up to accommodate the populations of California, Florida, Texas, Georgia, etc. that experience fire, flood, earthquake, tornado, or hurricane on a regular basis? Cuz that’s going to lead to drought and fire, too, and then nowhere will be safe/safer.
I don’t think getting people to leave those areas, mass-migration style, is a particularly good option, honestly… it’s just going to cause the problems to move with the huge populations. The only good option long-term is fixing the mess the rich have created. Or rather, forcing them to do it.
It’s now decades too late to choose between climate mitigation and adaptation, we have to do both. This includes that more people will inevitably migrate to more ‘climate-safe’ regions. The challenge is to help that process be more gradual and equitable, which includes some issues you raise. For example development of new homes creates opportunities, including jobs, but older landowners may benefit disproportionally.
This is a global issue, not specific to USA, but given that context, while I also have little sympathy for billionaires with seaside palaces in Florida, such people are few, and it’s also hard to feel sympathy for populations in the midwest who collectively voted for decades for climate-denying politicians who blocked effective policies, even influentially on a global scale.
I think maybe a better option would be to simply ban new development of disaster-prone land. Looking to build a new house or subdivision? Look elsewhere. And maybe disincentivize rebuilding on the same lot your house used to be on, eg. insurance only pays half if you plan to stay.
But what happens when all those tens of millions of people who can’t get housing in their current state flood into low COL places where we still have good water and forest resources, where drought and major storms are significantly less of a concern, but where people from high cost areas can very easily buy all the cheap houses and land, preventing locals from ever being able to buy ever? I mean even the housing inflation since 2020 alone has priced most people out of ownership in my state, cuz our wages are super low.
Do we start cutting everything down throughout the Midwest to build up the same giant cities the coastal areas have? Do we start pulling all the ground and surface water up to accommodate the populations of California, Florida, Texas, Georgia, etc. that experience fire, flood, earthquake, tornado, or hurricane on a regular basis? Cuz that’s going to lead to drought and fire, too, and then nowhere will be safe/safer.
I don’t think getting people to leave those areas, mass-migration style, is a particularly good option, honestly… it’s just going to cause the problems to move with the huge populations. The only good option long-term is fixing the mess the rich have created. Or rather, forcing them to do it.
It’s now decades too late to choose between climate mitigation and adaptation, we have to do both. This includes that more people will inevitably migrate to more ‘climate-safe’ regions. The challenge is to help that process be more gradual and equitable, which includes some issues you raise. For example development of new homes creates opportunities, including jobs, but older landowners may benefit disproportionally.
This is a global issue, not specific to USA, but given that context, while I also have little sympathy for billionaires with seaside palaces in Florida, such people are few, and it’s also hard to feel sympathy for populations in the midwest who collectively voted for decades for climate-denying politicians who blocked effective policies, even influentially on a global scale.