
'We're moving to higher ground': America's era of climate mass migration is here - mjfern
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/sep/24/americas-era-of-climate-mass-migration-is-here
======
tobltobs
It wont help that North Carolina Senate in 2012 voted to prohibit agencies and
towns from using the latest scientific data on sea-level rise in coastal
management decisions.

~~~
kevin_b_er
In another Republican Party controlled state, Florida, they've also forbidden
agencies to talk about climate change, global warming.

The truth will eventually come out by way of reality, but people will suffer
for their greed.

~~~
claydavisss
California hardly has a Republican party at all anymore but produces more
greenhouse gas than any other state.

And before you try to rationalize this with "per capita" arguments....you
don't lose your home or get cancer "per capita"...the absolute numbers matter
and California has higher absolute numbers than any other state.

~~~
rkallos
Texas produces nearly twice as much CO2 as California.

1\.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_carbon_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions)

2\.
[https://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/state/analysis/ima...](https://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/state/analysis/images/figure_1.jpg)

------
travisoneill1
The IPCC high estimate of sea level rise by 2100 is about 0.6m over 80 years.
It's not good, but it's hardly a catastrophe. I take predictions like this
about as seriously as the narrative that global warming is a hoax.

[https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/unfccc/cop19/3_gregory13sbsta.pdf](https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/unfccc/cop19/3_gregory13sbsta.pdf)

~~~
olliej
I’m not sure you actually understand what a 2ft rise means. Ignore all
feedback mechanism (various other commenters have said things about the
conservatism of ipcc) let’s look at it basically:

1\. Go to a beach at high tide. Look at where the water is and add two feet.
For sandy beaches that probably gets you through the dunes.

2\. Look at the beaches at low tide. How much further out is it? Measure the
distance between low and high tide points and see how far inland you get to
see where the ocean gets to.

3\. Go to marshlands - add 2ft to low tide and see if they’re still marshlands
or if they converted to shallow ocean. Similarly check high tide, what
surrounding land would be submerged if you added 2 feet of water.

4\. Consider places near the coast that are lower than the high point of the
beach. Now “spring tides” could get over that point and essentially turn that
land into a swamp.

Finally of course, consider what happens if/when the ocean reaches farm land.
The reason “salting the earth” is a phrase is because high salt content (as
you might get from even short term flooding) kills most plants unless they’ve
specifically evolved for high salt concentrations. Most grains for instance
have not.

This of course ignores special cases like the Netherlands, Venice, etc that
are already having to engineer solutions to a few inches of sea level
increases.

~~~
travisoneill1
I understand what sea level rise means. Pieces of cities and maybe a few whole
cities will need to be torn down and rebuilt elsewhere. Building cities on a
century timescale is not difficult. (How many of the vulnerable houses are
more than 80 years old now?) Building new farms is trivial.

A 2ft rise is catastrophic if it happens in a day but not if it happens over
80 years. The IPCC report shows about a 1ft rise from 1900-2000 which no one
seemed to notice (other than the engineers whose job it is to deal with). I
would expect a 2ft rise this century to be about twice as bad, so not that
bad. The Netherlands is proof that this type of thing can be handled with time
and engineering.

------
spenrose
"the cost of doing this for all at-risk Americans would be eye-watering.
Estimates range from $200,000 to $1m per person to undertake a relocation. If
13 million people do have to move, it seems fantastical to imagine $13tn, or
even a significant fraction of this amount, being spent by governments to ease
the way. “As a country we aren’t set up to deal with slow-moving disasters
like this, so people around the country are on their own,” said Joel Clement,
a former Department of the Interior official who worked on the relocation of
Alaskan towns."

~~~
TangoTrotFox
Sometimes I wonder what in the world people are thinking. Does anybody
actually find this a remotely reasonable estimate? Or even anything completely
short of absolutely ridiculous? I moved, along with my wife, literally half
way around the world for less than $5k. For $200k, you could spend a like 2%
of that on moving costs and then practically retire in many parts of the
world.

In the US the median personal income is around $35k. So you spend let's say
$2000 moving and then you have $198k, or more than what most people will earn
over the next 5 years for what?

~~~
gascan
Things get pretty weird when you start contemplating doing things at this
scale. My father likes to tell of how, supposedly, McDonalds was considering
introducing a new menu item, let's say it was an eggplant burger (I forget).
The first question they had to answer was _does the entire world produce
enough eggplant?_

Also, critically, if due to catastrophe you _abandon_ your $100k home and buy
another $100k home in another place, your move cost $200k.

~~~
AnimalMuppet
> Also, critically, if due to catastrophe you abandon your $100k home and buy
> another $100k home in another place, your move cost $200k.

I don't think that's right. Let's say I "own" a $100k home, and have a $100k
mortgage. I walk away from that house, buy another $100k house with another
$100k mortgage. At the start, I have a $100k asset and a $100k liability, for
a net of zero. After, I have a $100k asset and _two_ $100k liabilities, so I
have lost $100k.

Alternately, let's say I own my $100k house free and clear, and have another
$100 in the bank, for total assets of $200k. I abandon my house (writing the
value down to $0), and buy another house for $100k. Now I still have the $100k
house, but nothing in the bank. My total assets are $100k, so I've lost $100k.

In no scenario have I lost $200k.

~~~
woofyman
> I walk away from that house

The bank sues you for the 100k unless you live in a non recourse state. In
that case, the feds consider that forgiven 100k income and you’ll owe taxes.

>In no scenario have I lost $200k

The median US house price is 200k not 100k.

~~~
AnimalMuppet
> > I walk away from that house

> The bank sues you for the 100k unless you live in a non recourse state. In
> that case, the feds consider that forgiven 100k income and you’ll owe taxes.

My scenario assumed you still owed the $100k. If you live in a non-recourse
state and just walk away, you're probably not going to be able to get a new
mortgage.

> > In no scenario have I lost $200k

> The median US house price is 200k not 100k.

gascan's example was with $100k houses.

------
smileysteve
> Estimates range from $200,000 to $1m per person to undertake a relocation

Meanwhile, Atlanta metro, predicted to take 320,000 people, has brand new
townhomes 30 minutes from the airport for $100k (in Newnan).

~~~
bronco21016
As someone who has spent a decent amount of time living in Atlanta, I’d guess
the prices you’ve found reflect that it’s just not that desirable of an area.
There are plenty of opportunities and all of the amenities of modern life but
Atlanta, and the broader surrounding areas, still have cultural scars from
decades of racism.

Edited for clarity.

~~~
friedman23
> Atlanta, and the broader surrounding areas, still have cultural scars from
> decades of racism. Edited for clarity.

In Atlanta at least there is no such thing. If someone is choosing not to live
in Atlanta due to perceived racism they would be making a mistake.

~~~
smileysteve
The parents is talking about the scars of racism; namely from the highway
riots and continued white flight (unconscious).

Newnan, Palmetto are about the same distance from the city center and Buckhead
as South Forsyth, Canton, yet property sells for 1/3; most likely because
south Atlanta is in some ways a desert.

Are the schools as good as Alpharetta, nope.

------
deskamess
> Prodded to name refuges in the US, researchers will point to Washington and
> Oregon in the Pacific north-west, where temperatures will remain bearable
> and disasters unlikely to strike. Areas close to the Great Lakes and in New
> England are also expected to prove increasingly attractive to those looking
> to move.

The NorthEast could have earthquake issues in the next 50 years. Parts of New
England are much better than other parts. Great Lakes area seems good as do
areas like Atlanta, Nashville, Charlotte, Chicago (technically Great Lake
area), Denver, and Austin.

~~~
WorldMaker
Should also be just in time for the New Madrid fault to start shaking up
everything from Nashville to Chicago to the Great Lakes:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Madrid_Seismic_Zone](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Madrid_Seismic_Zone)

Geologists have also been predicting large earthquake issues in the New Madrid
fault in the next ~20- 50 years.

------
francisofascii
I feel bad for those who keep getting flooded. At the same time, we should be
asking the question, should we as a society allow structures and private
property so close to bodies of water. Flooding is one reason, but the 2nd more
important reason, is people should have public access to our lakes, rivers,
and oceans. There should be a public buffer of land between the water and
private land. Private property should not be flush up against our water
boundaries.

~~~
jdhn
The real question we should be asking instead is whether we should be
backstopping these private properties with government funded insurance. Remove
the backstop of government insurance and the market will quickly solve this
problem.

~~~
pitaj
Exactly. Government subsidies [thing]. [thing] becomes more popular, resulting
in unforeseen consequences. Government must now do [stuff] to fix what [thing]
caused!

------
Regardsyjc
Someone I know recently bought a beautiful beach house in Florida near Cape
Canaveral. I'm too anxious to ask if she is familiar with the climate change
issues in the area since they are almost at sea level and even NASA is
struggling with climate change there.

On the other hand, I hope that where ever these American climate refugees go,
that the cities they go to will have enough infrastructure especially for
water, and if they don't, they can fix it.

------
ThomPete
When reading articles like these I have a rule:

Any article which has the word "could" in there gets put into the speculation
not factual bin.

So when the article starts with:

 _" By the end of this century, sea level rises alone could displace 13m
people."_

we are in the wild speculation category and I know it's not really worth
reading. It might be true but so might many other contradictory claims. Non
the less, articles like these are not written for information but to cater to
a market of people who believe the world is going under tomorrow and love to
dwell in it.

~~~
SlowRobotAhead
Sky is falling porn.

Yes, there is a large market for it, unfortunately these are the people who
yell about "believing in science". Noble goals, but I'm concerned they're
useful idiots in a political game where the real players don't give a crap
about the environment.

------
Theodores
Meanwhile Donald Trump builds his wall...

I don't think the timescales here are realistic. The pace has picked up on
global warming and the feedback loops are in place. Projections for '2065' are
a bit silly. There is also this small problem in that the 'American empire' is
on the decline. Currently the US (and UK) live off the rest of the world via
tax havens, the petro-dollar and militarism. These instruments are not going
to last forever and it is not possible to plot a linear graph of 'sea level
rises' and 'insurance prices'. Everyone in affected areas will be caught out
by 'negative equity' with nobody wanting to buy their property.

~~~
jchanimal
Sad that you are being downvoted when you are describing the relevant macro
trend. Our goal as stewards of civilization has to be to manage through this
transition as peacefully as possible.

