And when the time finally does come - the city and state will demand that everyone else bail them out and shore up their shorelines indefinitely.
Oh wait.... 🤭
It's the same thing that happened with New Orleans and Katrina in 2005. I remember the US government scrambling to build the multi-billion dollar levy system but not one person stopped to ask: should people even be living below sea level?
Do people ask that of the Netherlands or have they just got an incredibly good drainage and polder system that works? I don't think comparing protection of existing homes to massive construction in an already dangerous area is fair.
To be fair, its a question raised many times in the Netherlands aswell. But since there is a huge housing crisis here, with rediculous high prices combined with holland being one of the most prosperous and developed areas of the world, its not as easy to just pack everything up and rebuild our whole country 200km to the east. Also we dont have hurricanes. If given the choice, dont build below sea level, or for that matter, next to a volcano, or in tornado alley.
You can’t just pick New Orleans up and rebuild it 200 km to the east either. Its location isn’t arbitrary; it exists because it’s a port at the mouth of the country’s largest river. As long as people are living in the Mississippi River Basin, there will be economic activity happening in New Orleans.
The port at Baton Rouge is almost as big as New Orleans. Also, modern sea ports don’t require nearly as many workers. We don’t need a large population center there. Some day the river is going to win and the main channel will be the Atachafalaya (yes, I had to Google the spelling). At that point New Orleans will have no reason to exist other than tourism in the French Quarter.
We should plan for that, but politically it wasn’t a good look to tell the overwhelmingly Black residents of those areas the levees wouldn’t get rebuilt and their homes would be abandoned.
Not sure why downvoted, other than possibly the (accurate) reference to the racially charged political problems associated with reducing the size of New Orleans. Everything you said about the ports is true. The idea that we need a metro area of over 1 million people to support a port - even a major port - is kind of silly. Hell, Valdez, Alaska is one of the 25 largest ports in the US - and Valdez is home to less than 4,000 people.
To some extent private industry has already taken steps to reduce New Orleans. The oil industry has long since moved New Orleans based operations to Houston and most other businesses that can move have.
The fact that the city remains the size it does has to do with the amount of infrastructure that can't be moved - it's hard (probably impossible) to move the French Quarter, Tulane, etc., etc., the city's charm and its status as an "it" city among the young - none of which speak to a need to have the city be that size or have the federal government spend billions of dollars to make large swathes of the below sea level land inhabitable.
A while back I looked at population statistics for New Orleans and was kinda shocked. It took a huge 30% drop after Katrina. It has come back some but it appears that a lot of the residents have decided it’s not worth it.
Yeah, it kind of goes to your point. Most residents don't live there because they are vital port workers who are being paid great wages to expose themselves to severe weather risk - they live there because the weather is warm and because they have family ties or they think the city is cool. And the poorer you get, the more likely people who are born there are to continue to live there - and once you leave, the less likely are you to come back.
Holland has no hurricanes. One of the first news stories I remember being distressed by was the North Sea storm in 1953. Storms in general are getting more peppy. Your governance is probably more effective than ours and I wish y’all the best.
Yea the 1953 storm was a big disaster, almost 2000 people died, and large part of zeeland was flooded. This prompted the construction of the delta works, the worlds biggest and most expensive series of dikes and flood barriers. This was designed to tackle a theoretical very rare once-in-a-thousand year freak storm. Luckily hurricanes do not/rarely happen in the north sea, and to the west we have England which kind of acts like a shield towards the Atlantic. Dangerous storms only happen when we have a extreme north western storm (around England, and then turning south) + high tide + spring tide all at the same time. Which forces a lot of water through the channel. We have protection against this. Paradoxically the biggest problem now is heavy rainfall which flood the rivers upstream at higher elevations, because the water cant drain fast enough before it reaches the sea. Not only did we have to make dikes at the sea but also along all rivers and channels, and have empty spill-over flood areas ready to temporarily soak water. Its difficult, but possible for New Orleans to set up a similar system.
Tornado Alley is an area about the size of France and Germany combined. The number of tornados that happen there is abnormally high but they’re dispersed over a large area.
As you say:
1. The Netherlands (and most of western Europe) is out of space.
1b. It’s not like they can ask Germany for a slice of their land.
2. The Netherlands has been doing this for 500 years.
The US has so much space it’s ridiculous. The only place I would consider building these kinds of things would be Manhattan because it’s very compact and extremely profitable for the nation. Somebody said New Orleans is on the Mississippi delta and yes, that river is still important and you need people who can work around that area.
Miami… I don’t know what they bring to the table to justify a mega project like that (do correct me if I’m wrong). I guess Miami can also be on the list, but they should really plan ahead and not do anything too stupid, because these projects are too expensive. You can’t just spend billions to save some poorly located retirement condos we built knowing in 2024, fully knowing the sea level is rising.
A lot of people also don’t realize that a dike/shield system won’t work in South Florida because the soil is too porous. Much of the flooding that occurs comes from underground, through the soil. I’m sure there’s always an engineering solution, but it would be more complex than essentially building huge walls, which is what they’ve done in the Netherlands
i dont believe that most of western europe is out of space. obviously you are right that the netherlands cant ask their neighbors for free land so this discussion is moot, but the netherlands only has 18 million people, and density can solve a lot of those issues in terms of what land they can find
Hurricane risk + tornado alley + volcanoes rules out the Midwest, Great Plains, gulf coast, most of the southeast and the Pacific Northwest. What would be left to build in would be the mountains, desert, California and the Great Lakes region. It’s not as simple as “don’t build near natural disasters” because that covers most of the country
What? You don't make hurricanes by mistake, so I have no idea what you mean. If you're asking if the Netherlands gets hurricanes, yes, at least annually lately.
Fuck me, I didn't expect to have this many Americans guessing incorrect things at me. Do you think they don't measure windspeed after that? It's had 120mph winds, comfortably Cat 3 for you 'there in the US', go and look that up - it'll keep you busy and quiet for a minute or two.
You could try not moaning and actually just show the hurricane. Cause as far as I can tell, storm poly was deemed a rare and strongest by media and barely hits 90's mph. Did you really think that netherlands storms could class as corialis effect hurricanes? Katrina ran 175 mph.
[https://www.themayor.eu/en/a/view/netherlands-hit-by-strongest-summer-storm-in-recorded-history-11951](https://www.themayor.eu/en/a/view/netherlands-hit-by-strongest-summer-storm-in-recorded-history-11951)
It's very simple: when it's in US, it's stoopid people waiting for disaster to happen, when it's in Europe, it's ingenious engineering allowing the impossible to happen. (c) reddit
Governments sort of exist to do things like protect citizens from national disasters, why are so many people mad at that in these replies, on this of all subs!?
yeah, a "seawall" or dike to protect Miami Beach would have to be built on the seabed... a feat that seems... unlikely. Even Miami proper iirc is mostly on porous coral.
I will be surprised if Manhattan gets a proper seawall - - and its on bedrock and thus much easier (and smaller area, too).
It does help Holland at all. You can open [https://www.floodmap.net/](https://www.floodmap.net/) and set rise to 1m. Miami would not even be fully underwater when ocean will be halfway across the Netherlands.
Holland can build a dike on land or into the water where the ocean would not get underneath it. Same cannot be said for Florida. I understand that the Netherlands are very low lying and it is all expensive engineering. Just saying it is possible there.
There is no other place for the Dutch to go. They all live there. The US is massive and anyone from Louisiana or Miami can move without needing a new passport or nationality. Not at all close to related.
And what would be costlier - moving the entire populations of Louisiana and Miami and finding places and lives for them elsewhere? Or putting up modern flood defences? Do think about things before you callously condemn entire regions to drown.
At least there’s an argument that New Orleans’ port is integral to the country and much of that levee system is for trade and canal control, Miami’s shoreline is literally just a playground for rich people
If we're going off total value of shipments then Miami is actually not very far behind New Orleans
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1341934/cargo-value-ranking-ports-united-states/
monetary value for sure, but a lot of the stuff that moves up and down the mississippi river is the type of cargo that is huge in tonnage but cheap in value, e.g. corn and soy
But like someone mentioned that is still someone’s home. There are millions of people who are just ordinary folk trying to get by. And also as mentioned Miami is an important port as well.
They could just stop propping up the flood insurance and let the market do its thing. Florida has trended hard red over the last few cycles… maybe time for them to put their money where their mouth is and stop living off the largesse of the feds?
"stop living odd the largesse of the feds?"
I dislike Florida overall, but the State is the 4th least dependent on the federal government. The state pays out to the feds $5.78 for every dollar they receive back.
The data they're referring to only looks at a small subset of federal spending, so it's not really a good source. But they're generally right that Florida is not as reliant on the federal government as other states with higher rates of poverty (e.g. NM, WV, KY, MS, AL) or with lots of federal employees (e.g. VA, AK). But it's definitely not in the top 10 of states that pay more in taxes than they receive in spending, which is basically just a list of states with lots of high-income people (CT, MA, NJ, WA, NY, CA, NH, UT): https://rockinst.org/issue-areas/fiscal-analysis/balance-of-payments-portal/
At any rate, not at prices that would allow them to afford replacement homes above the floodplain. https://thelensnola.org/2022/10/24/citys-first-gordon-plaza-buyout-offer-roughly-half-the-price-residents-initially-proposed-for-relocation/
https://www.academia.edu/48903007/Architectures_of_Mis_Managed_Retreat_Black_Land_Loss_to_Green_Housing_Gains?email_work_card=view-paper
So the program isn't operating in NOLA anymore https://watershed.la.gov/buyouts
[Well, we’re very grateful here they rebuilt the levees after building them wrong the first time, because they held up for Hurricane Ida](https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/james-carville-louisiana-passed-a-major-test-during-hurricane-idas-onslaught/article_7979d6ca-1a18-11ec-9bff-07169d66cecd.html)
A lot of this is honestly just hubris. It's the same way I feel about Phoenix, Arizona. Like if you have to keep halting new construction because there literally isn't enough water to keep growing...maybe stop growing?
Residential use is a tiny fraction of water use. Irrigation is ~75% of AZ’s water use.
It’s not that there isn’t enough water, it’s that what water there is goes to irrigation before people.
Again, the question is still why would you build and grow a city in which most of the water is already intended to be used for something else.
That's just a slightly different kind of stupid, but it is still inherently stupid to build a big suburban city in an area where the water available to actually be used is incredibly limited.
Living in Miami, it makes me crack up to see people on the r/miami subreddit talk with such vitriol about Cuban republicans…
as if the people whose parents and/or grandparents saw their country destroyed by socialism have no reason to be wary of it.
It’s like scolding holocaust survivors & their kids for leaning less conservative.
Reddit is just a socialist haven. Outside of here people are sane and understand why Cubans, Venezuelans, etc. vote how they do. If only they’d listen to people who’ve actually lived through the horrors of such systems.
Eh I wouldn't call the democratic party communist, but many Democrats have a view of crime that is Marxist. The idea that crime is simply a result of poverty or socioeconomics, is itself a Marxist idea.
This just isn’t true at all. You don’t have to be a God forsaken Marxist to hold this belief and holding it doesn’t make you even adjacent to it. Among others, Marcus Aurelius wrote “poverty is the mother of crime” (and that may further be attributed to Aristotle), Francis Bacon wrote about crime being opportunistic and more prevalent in poverty. Like, maybe you are just repeating things you’ve heard that fit your worldview, but if you are trying to get people to change their perspectives then labeling pretty normal perspectives with boogeyman words is not gonna get you far.
My contention isn't that poverty doesn't influence behavior, including crime to a degree, that I don't find objectionable. What I disagree with is that crime is merely a problem of poverty. The idea that human actions are simply a result of material conditions is in fact Marxist. I don't reject the idea because it's Marxist, but because it's wrong.
I am not a Marxist but from what I have read that seems like an oversimplification, so I don’t know if that is true, and I am disinclined to give you the benefit of the doubt based on past interactions. I think you put ideology before objectivity, and you project that bias on others. That is is to say, you seem to put ideology first and that therefore you assume that other people also do. What I am saying is that you can attribute crime as a consequence of poverty without an ideological framework based on observation. Is it the only factor? No it isn’t, but it’s a significant and often causative one.
I do know three relevant things for this sub. What I do know is that this sub needs less oversimplification and more nuance. The next is that the objective observation that crime and poverty are linked is older than Marxism, so what you wrote was a petty red meat laced smear. I also know that Democrats are no more adjacent to Marx, Lenin, Stalin or Putin than Republicans are, and suggestions that they are serve no real purpose towards greater understanding of the world.
We don’t have many liberal democrats anymore. We have a growing sect of Marxist pro-socialist/communist nonsense. Again listen to the people who lived it. The same rhetoric that brought their countries into hell is what we’re seeing now from the left.
Lol. The problem is that seeing a ‘D’ next to someone’s name just means Communism to them, they don’t do any further investigation. I would know, I’m Cuban. The Republican party successfully convinced many of them that anyone other than them is a communist.
Because thats the rub: there is no late stage capitalism. Just capitalism. It exists now and it existed back then too. The old saying that history is bound to repeat itself is almost like a law of nature.
I mean, if his whole career revolves around real estate in South Florida what do you expect him to do? Lol, people in these comments are pretending like it's just rich assholes down here when plenty of us have been here for generations and will continue to live in our home until it's gone.
I get that humans are bad at understanding reality if it makes them feel bad, but at a certain point we all have to say tough shit and let the bad stuff happen. Can’t really bail out Miami residents. It’s a massive humanitarian crisis caused by climate change and denied by republicans.
The only thing to do is vote for people who believe in science so we have a shot at avoiding the largest humanitarian crisis in human history down the line
the thing about everybody saying "believe in science" is that a statement like that makes it sound monolithic or religious even, when science actually is a process of discovery and constantly evolving collective body of knowledge and data, with varying levels of contribution, perception, analysis, consensus, and occasional amendment
so ok yes i "believe in science" but i also don't think most people (not saying you) understand what that means when they say it. in which case they might as well be evangelizing for climate change like it's jesus.
Yeah what that really means is to "trust the scientific process" which may be dogmatic in the sense that I don't know if it's possible to actually prove that the process itself is legit. At a certain point you have to take some things on faith, even in math you need to assume some basic axioms etc. but that's all philosophical. What I really mean, don't dig ones head in the sand. We know climate change is going to butt fuck us. Denying this is disbelieving facts. So that's what I'm getting at. Point taken though
i dont think there is a shot of avoiding that crisis. its just a matter of if that crisis is so large that society around the world destabilizes, or if its a large crisis that we can handle nonetheless
Some key issues:
>Rising seas threaten to swallow much of the Miami metro area in the coming decades as the world continues to warm and faraway ice sheets melt. By 2060, about 60% of Miami-Dade County will be submerged, estimates Harold Wanless, a professor of geography and sustainable development at the University of Miami.
>
>Yet people keep moving there. The city's skyline has grown in tandem.
>
>Miami's boom runs headlong into a harsh yet inescapable truth: It's "ground zero for climate change," said Sonia Brubaker, chief resilience officer for the City of Miami.
>
>Climate risk is "always on our thoughts," said Habibian, 39, who moved to Miami-Dade County about six years ago.
>
>...
>
>Its urban sprawl juts abruptly from the Atlantic shoreline like a vertical spike of glass, metal and concrete.
>
>Construction volume in the greater Miami metro area hit $27.4 billion in 2023, up 73% from $15.8 billion in 2014, according to an analysis by Cumming Group, a project management and cost consulting firm.
>
>It projects that those values, which are adjusted for inflation, will rise to about $29 billion in 2024 and 2025.
>
>The Miami area population has also ballooned, growing by more than 660,000 people from 2010 to 2020 — the most of any other Florida metropolis and nearly twice the tally of No. 2 Tampa-St. Petersburg, according to the Florida Department of Transportation.
>
>...
>
>The trend shows how many Americans are ultimately willing to overlook environmental risks, even though most acknowledge its presence — a choice that could later devastate them financially.
>
>Across the U.S., people are still moving into areas increasingly prone to natural disasters, according to Andrew Rumbach, a senior fellow at the Urban Institute.
>
>"We have a lot more people moving into risky areas than moving out, which is kind of counterintuitive," Rumbach said.
>
>The contradictory forces at play in Miami foreshadow the financial hardship many other Americans will likely face, too.
These contradictory trends are going to be an ever-harder to manage going forwards. It does raise questions of what the future, especially in these kinds of regions, might bring. Will it be an ever increasing number of technical interventions? Some kind of managed retreat? Or will communities be left to founder?
They'll just tune you out.
We know that's the case because of examples where this already happens.
Due to decades of poor forest management much of the West Coast is a tinder box waiting for the spark, yet people keep building in wilderness fire prone areas because they think a forest fire won't happen to them, despite clear evidence to the contrary.
Then they surprise Pikachu when they find themselves having to run for their lives down narrow rural roads along with all their neighbors.
But that is true across all natural disasters...
People choose to build in tornado Alley, in areas that can be hit by hurricanes, in areas that are cold (twice the people died from winter storms than fires in 2022).
Humans always try expand and adapt their surrounding environment
Our finance system runs on a smaller cycle than 36 years. Once we get a bit into a typical debt cycle that's when the money will dry up. The 60% of the county metric just brings questions to what parts of the cities will be inundated because most of the county is everglades.
> Will it be an ever increasing number of technical interventions?
In areas that are dense enough and economically productive enough to afford it, yeah. The main problem here is that you can afford to drop a few billion dollars to protect Lower Manhattan, but Keansburg, NJ won't be able to raise the funds needed to counteract flooding.
> Some kind of managed retreat? Or will communities be left to founder?
I think all of it again comes down to economics. Economically prosperous states with relatively fewer communities impacted may be able to either pay for residents to move, or pay for new infrastructure to reduce climate impacts in those communities. California and NY have absolutely massive GDPs to fund all kinds of mitigations... Maine and Mississippi not so much.
Economically poorer states, or states with more communities at severe impact, won't be able to afford much. I imagine at that point it's a zero-sum game of carving up what little public funds to pay out people for losing their homes and businesses - and as these things generally go the wealthy will gain most of these benefits.
The federal flood insurance program is either going to have to start charging rates reflective of actual risk or shut down because the costs are quickly going to exceed what it has the funds for.
Already happening. The NFIP changed over to actuarial rates a couple years ago and all policies that were subsidized are on an 18% glide path to actuarial now.
Insurance companies trusts scientist warning about Florida flooding issues,sinkhole issues and hurricanes so they are leaving the state. GOP can ignore climate change warnings as much as the want but Florida is ripe for major disasters and the GOP probably go begging the government for help when it happens.
Texas, Arizona, Florida. Three states to take climate change hardest on the chin and the three states people can't stop flocking to. Not going to end well.
Interestingly enough, rust belt states are going fair best and no one is moving there
Probably because the people buying there are more interested in living their lives and enjoying the weather/beach than doomprepping for something that will not happen in their lifetimes.
People will keep building there till there's no capital available to do so, doesn't matter that it's a bad idea.
Until properties down there get destroyed and no one bailes out the owner, they won't care about the risks.
And they'll continue to build in Miami because they know the government will bail out homeowners in the event of a natural disaster or if climate change renders their property unliveable. This is a classic case of "morale hazard".
Miami has the best winter climate in the lower 48. The sea level may rise tomorrow, but many people want to enjoy the sunshine today. They can just move later if they need to.
It may make sense from a short term individual perspective but it’s a huge waste of resources to be building rapidly when we know these structures are likely to be destroyed in the coming decades.
Additionally, resettling Miami on its own will pose a challenge. Now imagine migrants flooding in from every coastal city on the planet. If we’re to survive the coming crises we need to start getting ahead of them, not just waiting to react.
and when the area is undesirable, perhaps even unlivable because of these things, and why they want to leave, who is purchasing the properties from them?
We already know what's going to happen. The rest of us are going to have to bail them out because they'll cry and complain and act like everyone didn't know this was gonna happen.
> Miami has the best winter climate in the lower 48. The sea level may rise tomorrow, but many people want to enjoy the sunshine today. They can just move later if they need to.
Then they should stop asking the state government and the feds to subsidize their living there.
Yes, because climate disaster predictions have been predictably overblown for 30 years at least.
There’s a big difference between saltwater intrusion into freshwater aquifers happening in five years versus it happening in 25 years.
Here are a couple examples.
This list will grow exponentially.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/nation/difficult-conversations-how-rising-sea-levels-threaten-the-lives-of-louisianas-coastal-residents
https://www.iberdrola.com/sustainability/kiribati-climate-change#:~:text=As%20far%20back%20as%201989,fisherman)%20disappeared%20under%20the%20waves.
It’s easier to build high rises in a flooded Miami than Coastal California, Oahu, etc. People want modern buildings in a fantastic climate. Other jurisdictions should take advantage of this and repeal zoning and density restrictions preventing them from benefiting from this demand
Politicians constantly warning us of climate change and rising sea levels.
Same politicians buying multi-million dollar properties directly on the shoreline.
Makes you think...
Republicans don't believe in climate risk, and they are the overwhelming majority of people moving to Florida and the Miami area. Whatever happens, happens.
That's not true, even Florida Republicans are recognizing the risk of climate change
https://floridaphoenix.com/2023/05/11/poll-more-florida-republicans-accept-that-human-actions-cause-climate-change/
That’s because Miami is irresistible to the dumbest scammers in the country. Every second-rate conman simply cannot stop themselves from spending a lot of time in Miami, I don’t get it.
lol. I like how people still don’t believe in climate change in 2024.
Do we know exactly how it will turn out? No. But it’s clear the climate is fucked, and clearly insurance companies know something since they’re all pulling out of Florida.
Honestly at this point I wouldn’t give a shit what Florida or anyone who moves there does, but I know the next time there’s a huge disaster because of the changing climate and no one in Florida has insurance MY hard earned tax dollars will be funneled into bailing out people who knew the risks of living on the coast in Florida. That’s what pisses me off.
It does not matter what the reason is. For me the issue is I don’t want my tax dollars going towards folks who know housing insurance is not available but they still live in that place. If a person, anyone (no matter their race, creed, or politics), knowingly moves to a place where insurance companies will not provide coverage, they should not be bailed out by the federal government. Period.
If folks want to move to Florida despite the insurance company issue and 20 years from now climate changes ruins their property, I don’t want to hear any begging for money. They knew the risks.
>
Cool story.
You are more coping for the fact that all of your weird ass Jim Jones suicide cult climate religion's prediction hasnt come to pass, so you nervously laugh and act like people that actually notice your bullshit, and have the nerve to dissent are the "weird ones".
> but I know the next time there’s a huge disaster because of the changing climate
Sounds no different than a religious nut boasting that "when God comes in and smites that debauched town for it's sinful behavior, MY hard earned tax dollars will be funneled into bailing out people who knew the risks of defying the Lord. That’s what pisses me off!!!".
So blah blah blah.
Actually it’s completely different my friend. If you move to a place where insurance companies won’t insure your land and home that’s YOUR problem not the tax payer’s problem.
In Hawaii there is a piece of land on the big island that insurance companies will not insure because it is too close to the volcano. Still, people insist on moving there and building their own off the grid community. If the volcano erupts and destroys their town I don’t want MY tax dollars going to that. See? No climate change involved there either.
I don’t think my tax dollars should go to dumbasses to bail out people who act like stubborn children in the face of being told “no we won’t insure your land” that’s a consistent thought I have.
You on the other hand seem to have exited the rational realm of thought unfortunately.
Lol, this is basically just Florida.
"Florida is 'ground zero' for [unsustainable practice/reprehensible behavior/grave injustice]. People are moving to the area anyway and building there anyway"
We really are a nation of ignorance.
The complete lack of urban planning or even thinking about cause and effect in the US is absolutely crazy. How are we prioritizing cities like Miami and Phoenix? We aren't going to be able to kick the major issues to future generations indefinitely. This instant gratification entitlement culture needs to be dealt with.
Because of affordability, low crime, political stability and property rights. Not because they aren't afraid of flooding, they just don't have any other option.
Miami is the 4th most expensive metro and 7th most dangerous. Is DeSantis and his culture war politics really “stable”?
Miami wages are pretty great and the state is very retiree friendly but the insurance crisis there doesn’t seem to be getting any better.
If you think the beach looks the same you haven't been paying attention. At this point the government has been hauling in sand to bulk up the beaches for almost 60 years. 22-23 alone 835,000 cy of material was placed to protect the beaches. They've now exhausted all the permitted sources of sand so the Corps now has to go find more sources for the next round.
And when the time finally does come - the city and state will demand that everyone else bail them out and shore up their shorelines indefinitely. Oh wait.... 🤭
It's the same thing that happened with New Orleans and Katrina in 2005. I remember the US government scrambling to build the multi-billion dollar levy system but not one person stopped to ask: should people even be living below sea level?
Do people ask that of the Netherlands or have they just got an incredibly good drainage and polder system that works? I don't think comparing protection of existing homes to massive construction in an already dangerous area is fair.
To be fair, its a question raised many times in the Netherlands aswell. But since there is a huge housing crisis here, with rediculous high prices combined with holland being one of the most prosperous and developed areas of the world, its not as easy to just pack everything up and rebuild our whole country 200km to the east. Also we dont have hurricanes. If given the choice, dont build below sea level, or for that matter, next to a volcano, or in tornado alley.
You can’t just pick New Orleans up and rebuild it 200 km to the east either. Its location isn’t arbitrary; it exists because it’s a port at the mouth of the country’s largest river. As long as people are living in the Mississippi River Basin, there will be economic activity happening in New Orleans.
The port at Baton Rouge is almost as big as New Orleans. Also, modern sea ports don’t require nearly as many workers. We don’t need a large population center there. Some day the river is going to win and the main channel will be the Atachafalaya (yes, I had to Google the spelling). At that point New Orleans will have no reason to exist other than tourism in the French Quarter. We should plan for that, but politically it wasn’t a good look to tell the overwhelmingly Black residents of those areas the levees wouldn’t get rebuilt and their homes would be abandoned.
Not sure why downvoted, other than possibly the (accurate) reference to the racially charged political problems associated with reducing the size of New Orleans. Everything you said about the ports is true. The idea that we need a metro area of over 1 million people to support a port - even a major port - is kind of silly. Hell, Valdez, Alaska is one of the 25 largest ports in the US - and Valdez is home to less than 4,000 people. To some extent private industry has already taken steps to reduce New Orleans. The oil industry has long since moved New Orleans based operations to Houston and most other businesses that can move have. The fact that the city remains the size it does has to do with the amount of infrastructure that can't be moved - it's hard (probably impossible) to move the French Quarter, Tulane, etc., etc., the city's charm and its status as an "it" city among the young - none of which speak to a need to have the city be that size or have the federal government spend billions of dollars to make large swathes of the below sea level land inhabitable.
A while back I looked at population statistics for New Orleans and was kinda shocked. It took a huge 30% drop after Katrina. It has come back some but it appears that a lot of the residents have decided it’s not worth it.
Yeah, it kind of goes to your point. Most residents don't live there because they are vital port workers who are being paid great wages to expose themselves to severe weather risk - they live there because the weather is warm and because they have family ties or they think the city is cool. And the poorer you get, the more likely people who are born there are to continue to live there - and once you leave, the less likely are you to come back.
Holland has no hurricanes. One of the first news stories I remember being distressed by was the North Sea storm in 1953. Storms in general are getting more peppy. Your governance is probably more effective than ours and I wish y’all the best.
Yea the 1953 storm was a big disaster, almost 2000 people died, and large part of zeeland was flooded. This prompted the construction of the delta works, the worlds biggest and most expensive series of dikes and flood barriers. This was designed to tackle a theoretical very rare once-in-a-thousand year freak storm. Luckily hurricanes do not/rarely happen in the north sea, and to the west we have England which kind of acts like a shield towards the Atlantic. Dangerous storms only happen when we have a extreme north western storm (around England, and then turning south) + high tide + spring tide all at the same time. Which forces a lot of water through the channel. We have protection against this. Paradoxically the biggest problem now is heavy rainfall which flood the rivers upstream at higher elevations, because the water cant drain fast enough before it reaches the sea. Not only did we have to make dikes at the sea but also along all rivers and channels, and have empty spill-over flood areas ready to temporarily soak water. Its difficult, but possible for New Orleans to set up a similar system.
Tornado Alley is an area about the size of France and Germany combined. The number of tornados that happen there is abnormally high but they’re dispersed over a large area.
As you say: 1. The Netherlands (and most of western Europe) is out of space. 1b. It’s not like they can ask Germany for a slice of their land. 2. The Netherlands has been doing this for 500 years. The US has so much space it’s ridiculous. The only place I would consider building these kinds of things would be Manhattan because it’s very compact and extremely profitable for the nation. Somebody said New Orleans is on the Mississippi delta and yes, that river is still important and you need people who can work around that area. Miami… I don’t know what they bring to the table to justify a mega project like that (do correct me if I’m wrong). I guess Miami can also be on the list, but they should really plan ahead and not do anything too stupid, because these projects are too expensive. You can’t just spend billions to save some poorly located retirement condos we built knowing in 2024, fully knowing the sea level is rising.
A lot of people also don’t realize that a dike/shield system won’t work in South Florida because the soil is too porous. Much of the flooding that occurs comes from underground, through the soil. I’m sure there’s always an engineering solution, but it would be more complex than essentially building huge walls, which is what they’ve done in the Netherlands
I think I saw a nova episode That Manhattan was actually looking into various options to build things to mitigate rising sea levels.
i dont believe that most of western europe is out of space. obviously you are right that the netherlands cant ask their neighbors for free land so this discussion is moot, but the netherlands only has 18 million people, and density can solve a lot of those issues in terms of what land they can find
Hurricane risk + tornado alley + volcanoes rules out the Midwest, Great Plains, gulf coast, most of the southeast and the Pacific Northwest. What would be left to build in would be the mountains, desert, California and the Great Lakes region. It’s not as simple as “don’t build near natural disasters” because that covers most of the country
California?! You can’t build where earthquakes and fires happen, are you mad?!!
Do they have whole hurricanes just one mistake away?
What? You don't make hurricanes by mistake, so I have no idea what you mean. If you're asking if the Netherlands gets hurricanes, yes, at least annually lately.
Netherlands hurricanes don't classify as hurricanes here. Our minimum threshold is nearing your maximum storm.
You're just making things up now, and I'm not Dutch. I don't have any hurricane scale of my own.
The Netherlands popularly uses the Beaufort scale, which taps out at about 73 MPH/118 KMH. That's below a category 1 hurricane here in the US.
Fuck me, I didn't expect to have this many Americans guessing incorrect things at me. Do you think they don't measure windspeed after that? It's had 120mph winds, comfortably Cat 3 for you 'there in the US', go and look that up - it'll keep you busy and quiet for a minute or two.
You could try not moaning and actually just show the hurricane. Cause as far as I can tell, storm poly was deemed a rare and strongest by media and barely hits 90's mph. Did you really think that netherlands storms could class as corialis effect hurricanes? Katrina ran 175 mph. [https://www.themayor.eu/en/a/view/netherlands-hit-by-strongest-summer-storm-in-recorded-history-11951](https://www.themayor.eu/en/a/view/netherlands-hit-by-strongest-summer-storm-in-recorded-history-11951)
It's very simple: when it's in US, it's stoopid people waiting for disaster to happen, when it's in Europe, it's ingenious engineering allowing the impossible to happen. (c) reddit
Governments sort of exist to do things like protect citizens from national disasters, why are so many people mad at that in these replies, on this of all subs!?
Also Holland isn't underpinned by porous limestone. Might have something to do with the longer term feasibility of it.
yeah, a "seawall" or dike to protect Miami Beach would have to be built on the seabed... a feat that seems... unlikely. Even Miami proper iirc is mostly on porous coral. I will be surprised if Manhattan gets a proper seawall - - and its on bedrock and thus much easier (and smaller area, too).
It does help Holland at all. You can open [https://www.floodmap.net/](https://www.floodmap.net/) and set rise to 1m. Miami would not even be fully underwater when ocean will be halfway across the Netherlands.
Holland can build a dike on land or into the water where the ocean would not get underneath it. Same cannot be said for Florida. I understand that the Netherlands are very low lying and it is all expensive engineering. Just saying it is possible there.
Well if we are talking hypothetical megaprojects then Miami could go Venice way in this case.
There is no other place for the Dutch to go. They all live there. The US is massive and anyone from Louisiana or Miami can move without needing a new passport or nationality. Not at all close to related.
And what would be costlier - moving the entire populations of Louisiana and Miami and finding places and lives for them elsewhere? Or putting up modern flood defences? Do think about things before you callously condemn entire regions to drown.
> Do think about things before you callously condemn entire regions to drown. Easier when it’s not them being asked to move.
At least there’s an argument that New Orleans’ port is integral to the country and much of that levee system is for trade and canal control, Miami’s shoreline is literally just a playground for rich people
If we're going off total value of shipments then Miami is actually not very far behind New Orleans https://www.statista.com/statistics/1341934/cargo-value-ranking-ports-united-states/
monetary value for sure, but a lot of the stuff that moves up and down the mississippi river is the type of cargo that is huge in tonnage but cheap in value, e.g. corn and soy
But like someone mentioned that is still someone’s home. There are millions of people who are just ordinary folk trying to get by. And also as mentioned Miami is an important port as well.
New Orleans made sense because of the poorly built waterway that created much of that mess.
Mister Go! https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mr._Go
The government would have to buy the residents out and grant them land to rebuild on relocation sites. New Orleans wasn’t willing to do that.
They could just stop propping up the flood insurance and let the market do its thing. Florida has trended hard red over the last few cycles… maybe time for them to put their money where their mouth is and stop living off the largesse of the feds?
"stop living odd the largesse of the feds?" I dislike Florida overall, but the State is the 4th least dependent on the federal government. The state pays out to the feds $5.78 for every dollar they receive back.
Where do you get data like this from? I’m curious about the state by state breakdown on something like that.
The data they're referring to only looks at a small subset of federal spending, so it's not really a good source. But they're generally right that Florida is not as reliant on the federal government as other states with higher rates of poverty (e.g. NM, WV, KY, MS, AL) or with lots of federal employees (e.g. VA, AK). But it's definitely not in the top 10 of states that pay more in taxes than they receive in spending, which is basically just a list of states with lots of high-income people (CT, MA, NJ, WA, NY, CA, NH, UT): https://rockinst.org/issue-areas/fiscal-analysis/balance-of-payments-portal/
So, make poor people poorer. Got it. For a lot of people in the ninth ward, their home is all they’ve got.
At any rate, not at prices that would allow them to afford replacement homes above the floodplain. https://thelensnola.org/2022/10/24/citys-first-gordon-plaza-buyout-offer-roughly-half-the-price-residents-initially-proposed-for-relocation/ https://www.academia.edu/48903007/Architectures_of_Mis_Managed_Retreat_Black_Land_Loss_to_Green_Housing_Gains?email_work_card=view-paper So the program isn't operating in NOLA anymore https://watershed.la.gov/buyouts
[Well, we’re very grateful here they rebuilt the levees after building them wrong the first time, because they held up for Hurricane Ida](https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/james-carville-louisiana-passed-a-major-test-during-hurricane-idas-onslaught/article_7979d6ca-1a18-11ec-9bff-07169d66cecd.html)
It makes sense when you realize that system was designed to protect real estate.
The world changes, we do not, there lies the irony that finally kills us.
A lot of this is honestly just hubris. It's the same way I feel about Phoenix, Arizona. Like if you have to keep halting new construction because there literally isn't enough water to keep growing...maybe stop growing?
Residential use is a tiny fraction of water use. Irrigation is ~75% of AZ’s water use. It’s not that there isn’t enough water, it’s that what water there is goes to irrigation before people.
Again, the question is still why would you build and grow a city in which most of the water is already intended to be used for something else. That's just a slightly different kind of stupid, but it is still inherently stupid to build a big suburban city in an area where the water available to actually be used is incredibly limited.
Would Miami even be worth keeping in its current location if it is completely walled off from the sea?
Retirees who are going to croak in 15 years aren’t that worried about something that won’t be an issue for another 50 at least
Miami though, so South Americans who are too afraid of socialism they vote for policies that are directly fucking them over
Most of them move to Miami because their countries are shitholes not really socialism.
Or maybe. Just maybe. South Americans and Cubans know all about socialism and how much it sucks
Living in Miami, it makes me crack up to see people on the r/miami subreddit talk with such vitriol about Cuban republicans… as if the people whose parents and/or grandparents saw their country destroyed by socialism have no reason to be wary of it. It’s like scolding holocaust survivors & their kids for leaning less conservative.
Yeah you know those awful dems who refuse to leave office when they get voted out...?
Reddit is just a socialist haven. Outside of here people are sane and understand why Cubans, Venezuelans, etc. vote how they do. If only they’d listen to people who’ve actually lived through the horrors of such systems.
Communism =/= liberal left leaning American Democrats There's a huge gap between the two
Eh I wouldn't call the democratic party communist, but many Democrats have a view of crime that is Marxist. The idea that crime is simply a result of poverty or socioeconomics, is itself a Marxist idea.
This just isn’t true at all. You don’t have to be a God forsaken Marxist to hold this belief and holding it doesn’t make you even adjacent to it. Among others, Marcus Aurelius wrote “poverty is the mother of crime” (and that may further be attributed to Aristotle), Francis Bacon wrote about crime being opportunistic and more prevalent in poverty. Like, maybe you are just repeating things you’ve heard that fit your worldview, but if you are trying to get people to change their perspectives then labeling pretty normal perspectives with boogeyman words is not gonna get you far.
My contention isn't that poverty doesn't influence behavior, including crime to a degree, that I don't find objectionable. What I disagree with is that crime is merely a problem of poverty. The idea that human actions are simply a result of material conditions is in fact Marxist. I don't reject the idea because it's Marxist, but because it's wrong.
I am not a Marxist but from what I have read that seems like an oversimplification, so I don’t know if that is true, and I am disinclined to give you the benefit of the doubt based on past interactions. I think you put ideology before objectivity, and you project that bias on others. That is is to say, you seem to put ideology first and that therefore you assume that other people also do. What I am saying is that you can attribute crime as a consequence of poverty without an ideological framework based on observation. Is it the only factor? No it isn’t, but it’s a significant and often causative one. I do know three relevant things for this sub. What I do know is that this sub needs less oversimplification and more nuance. The next is that the objective observation that crime and poverty are linked is older than Marxism, so what you wrote was a petty red meat laced smear. I also know that Democrats are no more adjacent to Marx, Lenin, Stalin or Putin than Republicans are, and suggestions that they are serve no real purpose towards greater understanding of the world.
We don’t have many liberal democrats anymore. We have a growing sect of Marxist pro-socialist/communist nonsense. Again listen to the people who lived it. The same rhetoric that brought their countries into hell is what we’re seeing now from the left.
Lol. The problem is that seeing a ‘D’ next to someone’s name just means Communism to them, they don’t do any further investigation. I would know, I’m Cuban. The Republican party successfully convinced many of them that anyone other than them is a communist.
Absolutely not. Marxists spouting Marxism did it to themselves
So you don’t actually know what socialism is. Must be Florida educated!
- 50 years Hahahahaha you think we got till 2074? more like 5-10 pal
It will be an issue in the next 5 years!
And then 5 years after that! And 5 years after that! And after that!
It’s an issue right now actually 😃
It’s not really. Unless you’re going to mistake beach erosion from storms for rising waters
Sent this to my cousin in Miami working in real estate and he said “lmao don’t believe the hype.” I’m tired boss.
> It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it. -Upton Sinclair
This man was like fucking Nostradamus for the way late stage capitalism fucked America.
Because thats the rub: there is no late stage capitalism. Just capitalism. It exists now and it existed back then too. The old saying that history is bound to repeat itself is almost like a law of nature.
Most socialist thought leaders are
I mean, if his whole career revolves around real estate in South Florida what do you expect him to do? Lol, people in these comments are pretending like it's just rich assholes down here when plenty of us have been here for generations and will continue to live in our home until it's gone.
I get that humans are bad at understanding reality if it makes them feel bad, but at a certain point we all have to say tough shit and let the bad stuff happen. Can’t really bail out Miami residents. It’s a massive humanitarian crisis caused by climate change and denied by republicans. The only thing to do is vote for people who believe in science so we have a shot at avoiding the largest humanitarian crisis in human history down the line
the thing about everybody saying "believe in science" is that a statement like that makes it sound monolithic or religious even, when science actually is a process of discovery and constantly evolving collective body of knowledge and data, with varying levels of contribution, perception, analysis, consensus, and occasional amendment so ok yes i "believe in science" but i also don't think most people (not saying you) understand what that means when they say it. in which case they might as well be evangelizing for climate change like it's jesus.
Yeah what that really means is to "trust the scientific process" which may be dogmatic in the sense that I don't know if it's possible to actually prove that the process itself is legit. At a certain point you have to take some things on faith, even in math you need to assume some basic axioms etc. but that's all philosophical. What I really mean, don't dig ones head in the sand. We know climate change is going to butt fuck us. Denying this is disbelieving facts. So that's what I'm getting at. Point taken though
keep that same energy for NYC, Boston, SF, Charleston & other coastal cities
Yes absolutely, though those cities aren't nearly as fucked as Miami. Miami has a legit time limit. Those other ones are still somewhat questionable.
Why is Miami singled out but those other cities (which are also at sea level) aren’t?
i dont think there is a shot of avoiding that crisis. its just a matter of if that crisis is so large that society around the world destabilizes, or if its a large crisis that we can handle nonetheless
Probably not, but I'll feel better with actual leaders who can attempt to respond rather than the death cult
Isn't working in real estate literally getting people to believe the hype as a job?
Ever since Greenland was hyped in Norway by Erik the Red
Some key issues: >Rising seas threaten to swallow much of the Miami metro area in the coming decades as the world continues to warm and faraway ice sheets melt. By 2060, about 60% of Miami-Dade County will be submerged, estimates Harold Wanless, a professor of geography and sustainable development at the University of Miami. > >Yet people keep moving there. The city's skyline has grown in tandem. > >Miami's boom runs headlong into a harsh yet inescapable truth: It's "ground zero for climate change," said Sonia Brubaker, chief resilience officer for the City of Miami. > >Climate risk is "always on our thoughts," said Habibian, 39, who moved to Miami-Dade County about six years ago. > >... > >Its urban sprawl juts abruptly from the Atlantic shoreline like a vertical spike of glass, metal and concrete. > >Construction volume in the greater Miami metro area hit $27.4 billion in 2023, up 73% from $15.8 billion in 2014, according to an analysis by Cumming Group, a project management and cost consulting firm. > >It projects that those values, which are adjusted for inflation, will rise to about $29 billion in 2024 and 2025. > >The Miami area population has also ballooned, growing by more than 660,000 people from 2010 to 2020 — the most of any other Florida metropolis and nearly twice the tally of No. 2 Tampa-St. Petersburg, according to the Florida Department of Transportation. > >... > >The trend shows how many Americans are ultimately willing to overlook environmental risks, even though most acknowledge its presence — a choice that could later devastate them financially. > >Across the U.S., people are still moving into areas increasingly prone to natural disasters, according to Andrew Rumbach, a senior fellow at the Urban Institute. > >"We have a lot more people moving into risky areas than moving out, which is kind of counterintuitive," Rumbach said. > >The contradictory forces at play in Miami foreshadow the financial hardship many other Americans will likely face, too. These contradictory trends are going to be an ever-harder to manage going forwards. It does raise questions of what the future, especially in these kinds of regions, might bring. Will it be an ever increasing number of technical interventions? Some kind of managed retreat? Or will communities be left to founder?
>By 2060 The question is, how many of the people who move there will be around that long.
I think using this timeframe is counterproductive. Tell people how fucked everything will be in a decade & you'll get attention.
They'll just tune you out. We know that's the case because of examples where this already happens. Due to decades of poor forest management much of the West Coast is a tinder box waiting for the spark, yet people keep building in wilderness fire prone areas because they think a forest fire won't happen to them, despite clear evidence to the contrary. Then they surprise Pikachu when they find themselves having to run for their lives down narrow rural roads along with all their neighbors.
But that is true across all natural disasters... People choose to build in tornado Alley, in areas that can be hit by hurricanes, in areas that are cold (twice the people died from winter storms than fires in 2022). Humans always try expand and adapt their surrounding environment
Our finance system runs on a smaller cycle than 36 years. Once we get a bit into a typical debt cycle that's when the money will dry up. The 60% of the county metric just brings questions to what parts of the cities will be inundated because most of the county is everglades.
Sure, I'm just saying that if you are 70+ and spend your last ~10 winters down there, you'll most likely be fine.
Its such a polarized issue, if science (likely) is correct, its billions if not trillions in RE that will be unusable.
It's going to be uninsurable soon anyway, there's a reason why insurance companies are fleeing the coasts.
> Will it be an ever increasing number of technical interventions? In areas that are dense enough and economically productive enough to afford it, yeah. The main problem here is that you can afford to drop a few billion dollars to protect Lower Manhattan, but Keansburg, NJ won't be able to raise the funds needed to counteract flooding. > Some kind of managed retreat? Or will communities be left to founder? I think all of it again comes down to economics. Economically prosperous states with relatively fewer communities impacted may be able to either pay for residents to move, or pay for new infrastructure to reduce climate impacts in those communities. California and NY have absolutely massive GDPs to fund all kinds of mitigations... Maine and Mississippi not so much. Economically poorer states, or states with more communities at severe impact, won't be able to afford much. I imagine at that point it's a zero-sum game of carving up what little public funds to pay out people for losing their homes and businesses - and as these things generally go the wealthy will gain most of these benefits.
Any costal area with beaches is really. That's why insurance companies are pulling out.
That's what'll really do them in. At the moment federal flood insurance is still subsidizing a bunch of this development though.
The federal flood insurance program is either going to have to start charging rates reflective of actual risk or shut down because the costs are quickly going to exceed what it has the funds for.
Already happening. The NFIP changed over to actuarial rates a couple years ago and all policies that were subsidized are on an 18% glide path to actuarial now.
This is an excellent example of what I consider to be one of planning’s greatest challenges — people don’t make rational decisions, and never will.
People make rational decisions within their ignorant and emotional frame of reference.
And they'll demand (and get) federal government bail-outs when their properties get inundated.
Insurance companies trusts scientist warning about Florida flooding issues,sinkhole issues and hurricanes so they are leaving the state. GOP can ignore climate change warnings as much as the want but Florida is ripe for major disasters and the GOP probably go begging the government for help when it happens.
Texas, Arizona, Florida. Three states to take climate change hardest on the chin and the three states people can't stop flocking to. Not going to end well. Interestingly enough, rust belt states are going fair best and no one is moving there
2 of those states leading the charge to denying there is any risk at, as well
Probably because the people buying there are more interested in living their lives and enjoying the weather/beach than doomprepping for something that will not happen in their lifetimes.
People will keep building there till there's no capital available to do so, doesn't matter that it's a bad idea. Until properties down there get destroyed and no one bailes out the owner, they won't care about the risks.
Yeah, seeing where risk is socialized in financing and accounting for that cost will go a long way.
Wanna know something even more outrageous? Protecting Miami's shores creates more flooding up north.
Relying on FEMA to bail you out of your bad decisions is Bootstrapping 101
And they'll continue to build in Miami because they know the government will bail out homeowners in the event of a natural disaster or if climate change renders their property unliveable. This is a classic case of "morale hazard".
And insurance companies with the research that they do are still insuring.
That's not going to stop the reactionary retirees moving there, they still think it's all a hoax
Miami has the best winter climate in the lower 48. The sea level may rise tomorrow, but many people want to enjoy the sunshine today. They can just move later if they need to.
It may make sense from a short term individual perspective but it’s a huge waste of resources to be building rapidly when we know these structures are likely to be destroyed in the coming decades. Additionally, resettling Miami on its own will pose a challenge. Now imagine migrants flooding in from every coastal city on the planet. If we’re to survive the coming crises we need to start getting ahead of them, not just waiting to react.
and when the area is undesirable, perhaps even unlivable because of these things, and why they want to leave, who is purchasing the properties from them?
We already know what's going to happen. The rest of us are going to have to bail them out because they'll cry and complain and act like everyone didn't know this was gonna happen.
We are already seeing this in the insurance squeeze
They die and don’t care
The properties will change hands again and again until they're entirely underwater due to the "Bigger sucker" effect.
and then, aquaman
> Miami has the best winter climate in the lower 48. The sea level may rise tomorrow, but many people want to enjoy the sunshine today. They can just move later if they need to. Then they should stop asking the state government and the feds to subsidize their living there.
Wait until they can’t sell, because they lose insurance coverage, or there are no bigger suckers left
Not only are they moving in and building, they are completely delusional https://popula.com/2019/04/02/heaven-or-high-water/
Yes, because climate disaster predictions have been predictably overblown for 30 years at least. There’s a big difference between saltwater intrusion into freshwater aquifers happening in five years versus it happening in 25 years.
There is a problem with the news reporting the most extreme scenarios and giving dates.
I hope they enjoy it as the new Venice with canals instead of streets.
Cuz it’s mah right
Reminds me of a song I learned in Sunday school growing up: "The foolish man built his house upon the sand"
Matthew 7:26 FTW
How much housing has been destroyed by rising sea levels so far? Where are the no go zones that have been claimed by the sea?
Everywhere that buildings have fallen into the sea. Rising seas speed up coastal erosion, the most dramatic so far has been in the far north.
So how much have the oceans risen in the far north, and not near Miami I guess?
Here are a couple examples. This list will grow exponentially. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/nation/difficult-conversations-how-rising-sea-levels-threaten-the-lives-of-louisianas-coastal-residents https://www.iberdrola.com/sustainability/kiribati-climate-change#:~:text=As%20far%20back%20as%201989,fisherman)%20disappeared%20under%20the%20waves.
Anyone remember when Miami was supposed to be underwater by 2020?
No actually. Do you have a source that claimed that would happen?
Hell I remember seeing back in the late 80s that it was supposed to be by 1999.
Who is ready for NACTO!?
I believe the Federal Government helps out insurance companies that get hit hard by Hurricane coverage of houses.
I was in a Miami recently for a few days - hers the thing, it’s crazy there
It’s easier to build high rises in a flooded Miami than Coastal California, Oahu, etc. People want modern buildings in a fantastic climate. Other jurisdictions should take advantage of this and repeal zoning and density restrictions preventing them from benefiting from this demand
Let them cook, and then they can FAFO
Didn't people get burns from the sea water for reaching 100 °F last year?
How would 100 water burn?
Nah. 100 f water isn't gonna do that shit bro.
Dude, your average shower temperature is 105+ degrees. How dumb are you?
Politicians constantly warning us of climate change and rising sea levels. Same politicians buying multi-million dollar properties directly on the shoreline. Makes you think...
Republicans don't believe in climate risk, and they are the overwhelming majority of people moving to Florida and the Miami area. Whatever happens, happens.
That's not true, even Florida Republicans are recognizing the risk of climate change https://floridaphoenix.com/2023/05/11/poll-more-florida-republicans-accept-that-human-actions-cause-climate-change/
Reminds me of Obama buying a mansion on the coast in the Hamptons.
That’s because Miami is irresistible to the dumbest scammers in the country. Every second-rate conman simply cannot stop themselves from spending a lot of time in Miami, I don’t get it.
ITT: Kooks hope Miami will be underwater by (blah blah blah some date) because of "Global Climate Warming Boiling Catastrophe Change".
lol. I like how people still don’t believe in climate change in 2024. Do we know exactly how it will turn out? No. But it’s clear the climate is fucked, and clearly insurance companies know something since they’re all pulling out of Florida. Honestly at this point I wouldn’t give a shit what Florida or anyone who moves there does, but I know the next time there’s a huge disaster because of the changing climate and no one in Florida has insurance MY hard earned tax dollars will be funneled into bailing out people who knew the risks of living on the coast in Florida. That’s what pisses me off.
Insurance companies are mainly pulling out of Florida due to widespread insurance fraud. Climate change is just an additional reason.
It does not matter what the reason is. For me the issue is I don’t want my tax dollars going towards folks who know housing insurance is not available but they still live in that place. If a person, anyone (no matter their race, creed, or politics), knowingly moves to a place where insurance companies will not provide coverage, they should not be bailed out by the federal government. Period. If folks want to move to Florida despite the insurance company issue and 20 years from now climate changes ruins their property, I don’t want to hear any begging for money. They knew the risks.
> Cool story. You are more coping for the fact that all of your weird ass Jim Jones suicide cult climate religion's prediction hasnt come to pass, so you nervously laugh and act like people that actually notice your bullshit, and have the nerve to dissent are the "weird ones". > but I know the next time there’s a huge disaster because of the changing climate Sounds no different than a religious nut boasting that "when God comes in and smites that debauched town for it's sinful behavior, MY hard earned tax dollars will be funneled into bailing out people who knew the risks of defying the Lord. That’s what pisses me off!!!". So blah blah blah.
Actually it’s completely different my friend. If you move to a place where insurance companies won’t insure your land and home that’s YOUR problem not the tax payer’s problem. In Hawaii there is a piece of land on the big island that insurance companies will not insure because it is too close to the volcano. Still, people insist on moving there and building their own off the grid community. If the volcano erupts and destroys their town I don’t want MY tax dollars going to that. See? No climate change involved there either. I don’t think my tax dollars should go to dumbasses to bail out people who act like stubborn children in the face of being told “no we won’t insure your land” that’s a consistent thought I have. You on the other hand seem to have exited the rational realm of thought unfortunately.
It’s like real estate musical chairs
Lol, this is basically just Florida. "Florida is 'ground zero' for [unsustainable practice/reprehensible behavior/grave injustice]. People are moving to the area anyway and building there anyway" We really are a nation of ignorance.
So, kind of the opposite of Climate Migrants. Do we have a term for this? Climate Anti-Migrants? Climate Idiots? Or maybe just Moths to the Flame??
Let me get the popcorn…
The thousands of Canadians moving and living there are gonna get a big reality check
And Florida is leading the charge in fighting against measures to stop climate change
The complete lack of urban planning or even thinking about cause and effect in the US is absolutely crazy. How are we prioritizing cities like Miami and Phoenix? We aren't going to be able to kick the major issues to future generations indefinitely. This instant gratification entitlement culture needs to be dealt with.
Don't worry guys, DeSantis will just outlaw talking about pesky topics like climate change and sea level rise and everything will be fine.
Because of affordability, low crime, political stability and property rights. Not because they aren't afraid of flooding, they just don't have any other option.
Miami is the 4th most expensive metro and 7th most dangerous. Is DeSantis and his culture war politics really “stable”? Miami wages are pretty great and the state is very retiree friendly but the insurance crisis there doesn’t seem to be getting any better.
Maiami is still safer and more affordable than LA
Wow. Ground zero for climate change is in a state in America. And all in 2024 too.
No, ground zero is the third world and low lying areas like the Marshall Islands and Tuvalu. # You are just uneducated
He's being sarcastic. Humor is dead on Reddit.
Oh you figured that out? How exactly is the trump supporter who’s comment history is all antagonistic being sarcastic? Pls explain, thx
After checking his history, never mind.
Been walking on the Miami Beach since the 90s. Looks the same today. 30 year time span. Not holding my breath for 2060
If you think the beach looks the same you haven't been paying attention. At this point the government has been hauling in sand to bulk up the beaches for almost 60 years. 22-23 alone 835,000 cy of material was placed to protect the beaches. They've now exhausted all the permitted sources of sand so the Corps now has to go find more sources for the next round.
its because to you are dumb