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.
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.
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.
> The last person can currently only get the money if a disaster strikes and insurance pays out.
Usually there is no insurance.
The insurance industry, for all of its other faults, is one of the few left that still deals in reality instead of vibes so they aren't going to give you affordable insurance against floods/hurricanes/etc in these areas with any real coverage.
They aren't going to give you affordable insurance even in places that don't generally get hit by floods/hurricanes/etc.
I have a house in Louisiana (up "north") - outside of a couple tornados every few years, and the heavy rains of a hurricane every few years, it is a fairly "safe" place. Never been a claim against the property, or any immediate neighbors. We aren't in a floodplain of any sort, and are on top of a hill that is around 120 feet above the closest creek.
My premium has gone up 250% over the last 3 years (after being steady for a decade). Shopping around, they are even higher. I think they are finally starting to catch up with where they needed to be for years, but I can't help but feel I'm offsetting the people "down south" with their more expensive property that is literally underwater.
> I can't help but feel I'm offsetting the people "down south" with their more expensive property that is literally underwater.
I am not sure about Louisiana, but you very well may be.
State insurance commissions sometimes promulgate onerous regulations that effectively require cost shifting. For example, if it's profitable to keep operating in a state overall, but you can't raise premiums or drop policies for the riskiest properties, then you just raise premiums across the board and let the less-risky subsidize the unprofitable policies.
And rising reinsurance premiums mean that everybody pays more to account for increasing risks and costs in the insurers' portfolios, which may be concentrated in riskier areas far from your own property.
> 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.
I would not put this on my listing, what are you smoking mate?! (I own a condo in brightwood park in northwest dc, been sketchy since 2008 when I bought it, you need an address? lol)
> 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)?
That would be lying in order to sell something, and thus unethical.
You then expressed confusion over what exactly would be a lie here, despite you very clearly stating what the lie is in the above quote.
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.
What is there to discuss? If you have the ability to move away, then you move away, done.
We aren't discussing this particular group because we're a too emotional to think straight. We're discussing this group because it's the one that will bear the brunt of the suffering and it's the one where there isn't an obvious "just let them figure it out and it'll be fine" solution.
You’re both undervaluing and overvaluing collective action at the same time. We know from experience with people in disaster-prone areas that the majority aren’t going to do that. They’re going to stay, and when the disaster comes, it will be a huge problem and they’ll demand the Army Corps of Engineers performs some miracle to help them.
> 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.
> 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.
This is exactly the problematic thinking I’m talking about. Your obsession with using society to help those whose problems are the most intractable leads you to conclude to majority should be left “to make their own choices.”
But the most effective use of social action is helping the majority. They can benefit from social organization and their problems are tractable. Here, leaving the majority to its own devices is going to cause the most damage in the long run. Society should push them to make good choices and relocate in an orderly manner while there’s time.
We don't need them to "leave now." We don't need them to move to California. We need them to move to Baton Rogue over a period of decades. Under a high emissions scenario, sea level is projected to rise 6 feet by 2100. New Orleans is on average 1-2 feet below sea level (up to 10 feet). Baton Rouge is 60 feet above sea level. The average elevation of the state is 100 feet.
In any given year, 15% of the population moves, and 40% of them move to a different county. https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2023/09/why-people-mo.... It's insane to say that most people wouldn't be able to make a once-in-a-lifetime move just a couple of towns over sometime over the next few decades.
Baton Rouge is partially on a bluff. But didn't you see the 7m map? The coastline will be lapping at St. George, southern EBR Parish along Burbank Road and the south part of LSU campus at that point.
This is true. It is also true that waiting until things bottom out will make things even worse. It will be more expensive and options will be more limited.
There will need to be a federal bailout to relocate everyone who needs help. The government should also probably announce a policy that there will be no future disaster relief that involves rebuilding, only relocating.
New Orleans will be the first, but not the last American city to collapse. Miami is probably next. Salt Lake City could very well run out of water, nevermind the increasingly toxic lakebed. Phoenix too. In the next hundred years people are going to learn why environmentalists use the word "sustainability" so much.
Global warming increases evaporation and consequently increase global rainfall. Although it is true that it can shift the location of rainy spots and dry spots, unless you have some magic way to predict the locations they will shift to, I'm going to assume Phoenix's access to water is going to increase because it seems extremely unlikely to me that the entire watershed of the Colorado River (encompassing most of the American part of the Rockies probably) will become dryer on average.
You're demonstrating the point I'm afraid. Rather than think of anything which can help 90%, you obsess on calling the people who want to save 90% of the people evil instead of thinking of anything to reduce the 10% further.
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.
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.
Agreed, building on a flood plain is incredibly stupid. The city of East Grand Forks demolished all of the buildings in the flood plain portion of town after the 1997 Red River floods and turned it into a park. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Grand_Forks_Greenway
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.
For less and less, presumably? Or is the housing situation so bad that prices rise even when the area will soon be underwater?
It doesn't even matter, really.
Suppose one person follows the sage advice of the HN glibertarians, sells his house and moves out. Good for him. But does this solve the problem? No, because now there's someone else there. Possibly a more desperate, poorer person. They can't all follow your advice, no more than they can all be best in their high school class, run the fastest in the marathon, or being on the winning side of a prediction market bet.
Yes but I feel a lot less bad for the person who sells there house and moves now than the person moving in. Basically what I was trying to show is that the option is still available and people are choosing not to take it so can we really act like they're all trapped in this situation.
What an incredibly out of touch post. This gives off "let them eat cakes" classic. Do you realize how expensive is it to move out of your home? I won't write a laundry list of items here, since you either know all of them already or will dismiss outright with the same attitude. I do want to say is that social darwinism is not something to be proud about.
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.
If someone sells their house in an area soon to be underwater, will you buy it? If not you, who? Aquaman? (Apologies to HBomberMan).
The reason people don't move is that for the time being, they're much, much better off than if they move. Especially if they start moving in large numbers.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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
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.
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.
If the consensus is this lopsided I think it’s time to accept it. There are plenty of contrarian arguments, especially from oil companies who have a vested interest obviously) and they haven’t turned the consensus around despite their best efforts.
Also, due to the risks associated with climate change, doing something now as a societal insurance policy is prudent. Not to mention that polluters are necessarily infringing on the property and human rights of everyone else.
If this was true years ago, it is not anymore. There are plenty of stories, and posts, about climate change.
And over the...I dunno, something like 9 years? I've been here, I have observed a distinct but gradual shift to the left in the overall tenor of conversation. Things do change, even here.
> “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.
No he was saying he doesn't care that creating a backdoor for encryption means anyone can use that backdoor and that you must both follow the law by being secure but also follow the law by being insecure. People arguing that that creating encryption that both did and didn't have a backdoor was impossible got that little gem in return.
Apropos that, I remember that James Lovelock said basically the same about Australia as this article says about New Orleans: living there is not sustainable, you should all leave.
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.
This is very fascinating from a cultural viewpoint. Some cities in Europe are important just for the history and not economy like Venice, or lesser extent Rome. When the Russian attack started, people moaned about the old buildings and the culture in Kyiv. (Ofcourse the attack itself was inmoral).
What I get is New Orleans has an unique culture and history. Most people in the US dont think it is worth to preserve?
When you look at who the rest of Louisiana voted for, they don't even want to preserve New Orleans. They're literally terrified of it and were elected on the promise to subjugate it.
I mean this is a sign of the flawed political process.
But even in a working democracy if people arent interested, politican mostly wont care. So Americans dont think New Orleans is worth to preserve?
I've been reading more about New Orleans situation this morning and my thinking is changing. It would be nice if we could preserve it, but I didn't really understand how bad the situation is. I don't think it's possible and spending should be focused on relocating people from the area.
New Orleans is probably going to be a fairly small island 20 miles offshore that gets drowned by hurricanes every few years.
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.
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.
Eh, no. Trump of course has zero actual ideology, but there's pretty solid reason to believe e.g. Hegseth and Mike Johnson actually believe this type of stuff.
“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?
So a crane like this one https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvicq-kvVbw ; it picks thing up and sets thing back down. In US waters? Verboten ("nee meneer, helaas verboden", in this case). Sure there's workarounds with barges sometimes; but it gets silly.
Jones act and more specifically dredge act even: you're moving stuff inside US territorial waters.
Both cases it's not (or barely) made in the US, and you can't hire the big crews from elsewhere. There's no competition, and this has resulted in no incentive to learn, keep up or even try.
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.
An Article V convention is a legal process and Amendments proposed by such a convention have the same ratification threshold (which is the barrier, not the proposal threshold in Congress) as Amendments that are Congressionally proposed.
Now, an Art V convention could be seized on as an opportunity for organizing extralegal change, but then Art V process obviously isn’t necessary precondition for that, just a potential opportunity.
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 )
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.
I imagine this type of system is not designed for large, sudden and prolonged inundation of water, something New Orleans faces from seasonal hurricanes and their storm surges. Or maybe it is and it’s just a question of magnitude?
The problem is saltwater intrusion into the drinking water table - a problem New Orleans only has one when it comes up the Mississippi river - Miami is a whole different level
That can be solved using desalination of seawater, an energy-intensive process which is tailor-made for the abundance of solar power in the area. If for some reason desalination is not deemed sufficient it may be possible to slow the seepage by creating deep barriers between coast and land [1]. If this results in groundwater emergence so much the better, just pump it out and send it to the water treatment plant. Excess water can be pumped elsewhere, either over the dikes or into the ground outside the dikes or wherever else it may be needed or beneficial. Since pumps are needed anyway the criticism in the article - reliance on pumps is costly and can lead to a point of failure in flood mitigation plans - is negated. Also, pumps have been used as part of flood mitigation plans for centuries in places like the Netherlands so there is a lot of data to be found for those who need it.
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.
This is mostly a pedantic point that it's not actuaries doing the pricing, but a different set of risk analysts using a different suite of tools, right?
[Edit] The following comment can be read very snarkily but that is not the intention. I'm legitimately interested + curious:
Very interesting! Does it affect the point that insurers (even if not actuaries) put a high price on this risk and that the price is subsequently suppressed by government insurance subsidies?
Local governments have obvious incentives to encourage building, but the state of Florida itself does subsidize flood and hurricane insurance.
If you own a house or building in Florida and have a mortgage, you're required to carry it. Here's how a policy gets priced:
You go to a retail broker with your info. They pass it to a wholesaler, who puts the submission out into the market for quotes. Any carrier or MGA that wants the business prices the CAT and AOP (non-CAT) portions separately. Actuaries build models for the AOP side, while Verisk and Moody's model the CAT portion. Those two numbers get added together, plus some fees — and that's your annual premium.
From there, the insurers buy reinsurance on their portfolios. The reinsurers run those same models, do their magic, and come up with their own price.
Just an example, because no major hurricanes have hit the south east in a while, premiums are down 30% right now. All of the insurance companies are getting squeezed.
No, it is a realistic approach to a problem which has been facing many places elsewhere in the world where it has been solved using engineering. It is far more apt to call climate doom predictions statements of religious faith given the history of engineering solutions to climate-related problems and the close resemblance of climate doom preachers to those deriving their prophecies from scripture.
Here's a few books on the subject which might be of interest for those who want to widen their view on the ever-changing climate. All of them have in common that they do not deny the climate is changing nor that human activities influence how it changes. Where they differ from the doom narrative is that they approach climate change in the way humans have dealt with other environmental problems to lessen or negate their impact instead of by preaching some grand narrative on how society should be run to avoid catastrophe.
Apocalypse Never: Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All by Michael Shellenberger
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.
Most of my family is there, and I spent much of my childhood there. I have the same feeling as you. It’s such a beautiful, unique place, and I don’t think the locals will ever abandon it. City park with those beautiful oak trees will always be one of my favorite places on earth.
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...
No hurricanes there, so I guess they can just slowly rebuild walls to keep up with sea level and increase number of pumps already used to get rid of excess rainwater. Not great but manageable as long they secure enough money.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Great idea until we have to save grandpa from Katrina 2.0.
> The last person can currently only get the money if a disaster strikes and insurance pays out.
Usually there is no insurance.
The insurance industry, for all of its other faults, is one of the few left that still deals in reality instead of vibes so they aren't going to give you affordable insurance against floods/hurricanes/etc in these areas with any real coverage.
They aren't going to give you affordable insurance even in places that don't generally get hit by floods/hurricanes/etc.
I have a house in Louisiana (up "north") - outside of a couple tornados every few years, and the heavy rains of a hurricane every few years, it is a fairly "safe" place. Never been a claim against the property, or any immediate neighbors. We aren't in a floodplain of any sort, and are on top of a hill that is around 120 feet above the closest creek.
My premium has gone up 250% over the last 3 years (after being steady for a decade). Shopping around, they are even higher. I think they are finally starting to catch up with where they needed to be for years, but I can't help but feel I'm offsetting the people "down south" with their more expensive property that is literally underwater.
> I can't help but feel I'm offsetting the people "down south" with their more expensive property that is literally underwater.
I am not sure about Louisiana, but you very well may be.
State insurance commissions sometimes promulgate onerous regulations that effectively require cost shifting. For example, if it's profitable to keep operating in a state overall, but you can't raise premiums or drop policies for the riskiest properties, then you just raise premiums across the board and let the less-risky subsidize the unprofitable policies.
And rising reinsurance premiums mean that everybody pays more to account for increasing risks and costs in the insurers' portfolios, which may be concentrated in riskier areas far from your own property.
> only get the money if a disaster strikes and insurance pays out.
People in New Orleans have affordable flood insurance?
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.
> Is it unethical to lie in order to sell something?
what exactly is a lie in this context specifically I wonder?
> “up and coming area” which never upped and never came
Is this so difficult that you can't even detect your own lie specifically constructed as an example of it?
I would not put this on my listing, what are you smoking mate?! (I own a condo in brightwood park in northwest dc, been sketchy since 2008 when I bought it, you need an address? lol)
You asked:
> 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)?
That would be lying in order to sell something, and thus unethical.
You then expressed confusion over what exactly would be a lie here, despite you very clearly stating what the lie is in the above quote.
In your scenario, "up and coming" is specifically a lie.
no one really lied to me, most certainly not the seller. blame my wife for that one :)
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.
What is there to discuss? If you have the ability to move away, then you move away, done.
We aren't discussing this particular group because we're a too emotional to think straight. We're discussing this group because it's the one that will bear the brunt of the suffering and it's the one where there isn't an obvious "just let them figure it out and it'll be fine" solution.
You’re both undervaluing and overvaluing collective action at the same time. We know from experience with people in disaster-prone areas that the majority aren’t going to do that. They’re going to stay, and when the disaster comes, it will be a huge problem and they’ll demand the Army Corps of Engineers performs some miracle to help them.
> 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.
> 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.
This is exactly the problematic thinking I’m talking about. Your obsession with using society to help those whose problems are the most intractable leads you to conclude to majority should be left “to make their own choices.”
But the most effective use of social action is helping the majority. They can benefit from social organization and their problems are tractable. Here, leaving the majority to its own devices is going to cause the most damage in the long run. Society should push them to make good choices and relocate in an orderly manner while there’s time.
I assure you, the proportion of New Orleans residents who would be able to leave now without financial hardship are not the majority.
Even for reasonably-stable middle-class people, moving—especially out of a place like NOLA—is going to cause financial hardship.
We don't need them to "leave now." We don't need them to move to California. We need them to move to Baton Rogue over a period of decades. Under a high emissions scenario, sea level is projected to rise 6 feet by 2100. New Orleans is on average 1-2 feet below sea level (up to 10 feet). Baton Rouge is 60 feet above sea level. The average elevation of the state is 100 feet.
In any given year, 15% of the population moves, and 40% of them move to a different county. https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2023/09/why-people-mo.... It's insane to say that most people wouldn't be able to make a once-in-a-lifetime move just a couple of towns over sometime over the next few decades.
Baton Rouge is partially on a bluff. But didn't you see the 7m map? The coastline will be lapping at St. George, southern EBR Parish along Burbank Road and the south part of LSU campus at that point.
What’s the relevance of the 7m map? Are sea levels expected to rise much higher in the Gulf than the global average of 2m by 2100?
This is true. It is also true that waiting until things bottom out will make things even worse. It will be more expensive and options will be more limited.
There will need to be a federal bailout to relocate everyone who needs help. The government should also probably announce a policy that there will be no future disaster relief that involves rebuilding, only relocating.
New Orleans will be the first, but not the last American city to collapse. Miami is probably next. Salt Lake City could very well run out of water, nevermind the increasingly toxic lakebed. Phoenix too. In the next hundred years people are going to learn why environmentalists use the word "sustainability" so much.
Global warming increases evaporation and consequently increase global rainfall. Although it is true that it can shift the location of rainy spots and dry spots, unless you have some magic way to predict the locations they will shift to, I'm going to assume Phoenix's access to water is going to increase because it seems extremely unlikely to me that the entire watershed of the Colorado River (encompassing most of the American part of the Rockies probably) will become dryer on average.
You're demonstrating the point I'm afraid. Rather than think of anything which can help 90%, you obsess on calling the people who want to save 90% of the people evil instead of thinking of anything to reduce the 10% further.
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.
Aquaman is going to have to buy a lot of homes.
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
A couple of ballrooms. Maybe half an Iran war or a Venezuelan coup or two?
I like it!
Agreed, building on a flood plain is incredibly stupid. The city of East Grand Forks demolished all of the buildings in the flood plain portion of town after the 1997 Red River floods and turned it into a park. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Grand_Forks_Greenway
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
Keep an eye on the sales number before and after this article drops. Something tells me it will not be going up.
For less and less, presumably? Or is the housing situation so bad that prices rise even when the area will soon be underwater?
It doesn't even matter, really.
Suppose one person follows the sage advice of the HN glibertarians, sells his house and moves out. Good for him. But does this solve the problem? No, because now there's someone else there. Possibly a more desperate, poorer person. They can't all follow your advice, no more than they can all be best in their high school class, run the fastest in the marathon, or being on the winning side of a prediction market bet.
Yes but I feel a lot less bad for the person who sells there house and moves now than the person moving in. Basically what I was trying to show is that the option is still available and people are choosing not to take it so can we really act like they're all trapped in this situation.
Thank you for spelling it out.
They can just sell to Aquaman.
What an incredibly out of touch post. This gives off "let them eat cakes" classic. Do you realize how expensive is it to move out of your home? I won't write a laundry list of items here, since you either know all of them already or will dismiss outright with the same attitude. I do want to say is that social darwinism is not something to be proud about.
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.
If someone sells their house in an area soon to be underwater, will you buy it? If not you, who? Aquaman? (Apologies to HBomberMan).
The reason people don't move is that for the time being, they're much, much better off than if they move. Especially if they start moving in large numbers.
No, you are condescendingly proposing individual solutions to a systemic problem.
Nice dog whistle, bud. Just come out and say it instead of dancing around it like a coward.
> but they won't
Then they will look for someone to blame. The usual scape goats are the government and society.
You talk about "blame". Were they the ones that made the decisions causing the current ecological disaster?
Society fucked up, and that fuck up is gonna affect a lot of people who are not able to move out. Some sort of bailout will be needed.
> Society fucked up
Like clockwork ;)
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.
He is all too American.
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?
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.
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.
On the flip-side, the urbex that will come with that will be amazing.
> 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
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.
> 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.
If the consensus is this lopsided I think it’s time to accept it. There are plenty of contrarian arguments, especially from oil companies who have a vested interest obviously) and they haven’t turned the consensus around despite their best efforts.
Also, due to the risks associated with climate change, doing something now as a societal insurance policy is prudent. Not to mention that polluters are necessarily infringing on the property and human rights of everyone else.
If this was true years ago, it is not anymore. There are plenty of stories, and posts, about climate change.
And over the...I dunno, something like 9 years? I've been here, I have observed a distinct but gradual shift to the left in the overall tenor of conversation. Things do change, even here.
Hackernews progresses one carmudgeon funeral at a time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_principle
And we can make the sea pay for it!!
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.
No he was saying he doesn't care that creating a backdoor for encryption means anyone can use that backdoor and that you must both follow the law by being secure but also follow the law by being insecure. People arguing that that creating encryption that both did and didn't have a backdoor was impossible got that little gem in return.
He was effectively saying this: https://xkcd.com/538/
Apropos that, I remember that James Lovelock said basically the same about Australia as this article says about New Orleans: living there is not sustainable, you should all leave.
> 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.
This is very fascinating from a cultural viewpoint. Some cities in Europe are important just for the history and not economy like Venice, or lesser extent Rome. When the Russian attack started, people moaned about the old buildings and the culture in Kyiv. (Ofcourse the attack itself was inmoral).
What I get is New Orleans has an unique culture and history. Most people in the US dont think it is worth to preserve?
When you look at who the rest of Louisiana voted for, they don't even want to preserve New Orleans. They're literally terrified of it and were elected on the promise to subjugate it.
What they really want to preserve is stuff like this: https://www.youtube.com/live/mHljI5JbnTM?si=dReL9sZKiqtNlvpr...
Most people in the US think everybody should have access to basic healthcare but we haven't been able to make that happen.
Something like saving New Orleans probably doesn't stand a chance.
I mean this is a sign of the flawed political process. But even in a working democracy if people arent interested, politican mostly wont care. So Americans dont think New Orleans is worth to preserve?
I've been reading more about New Orleans situation this morning and my thinking is changing. It would be nice if we could preserve it, but I didn't really understand how bad the situation is. I don't think it's possible and spending should be focused on relocating people from the area.
New Orleans is probably going to be a fairly small island 20 miles offshore that gets drowned by hurricanes every few years.
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.
Yup.
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.
Hush now, you'll hasten the Antichrist.
Eh, no. Trump of course has zero actual ideology, but there's pretty solid reason to believe e.g. Hegseth and Mike Johnson actually believe this type of stuff.
That's the short term plan, baby! The long term plan is to be the elect who get raptured first.
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?
The cabotage provision of Jones act says a foreign (built) vessel is not allowed to move stuff between two points within US waters https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/46/55102 . There's also actually a separate dredge act too (now here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/46/55109) .
So a crane like this one https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvicq-kvVbw ; it picks thing up and sets thing back down. In US waters? Verboten ("nee meneer, helaas verboden", in this case). Sure there's workarounds with barges sometimes; but it gets silly.
Or this rather large 'bulldozer' (a trailing suction hopper dredger) : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MhysyOJHY8A . Move mud from spot where it's unwanted to spot where it's needed. Operates in coastal/river areas. Fixes dunes, replenishes beaches, creates walls, places landfill; all at scale. Builds things like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palm_Islands, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansai_International_Airport, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maasvlakte_2 .
Jones act and more specifically dredge act even: you're moving stuff inside US territorial waters.
Both cases it's not (or barely) made in the US, and you can't hire the big crews from elsewhere. There's no competition, and this has resulted in no incentive to learn, keep up or even try.
NB Heritage foundation on some of this: https://www.heritage.org/trade/commentary/113-year-old-law-h...
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.
An Article V convention is a legal process and Amendments proposed by such a convention have the same ratification threshold (which is the barrier, not the proposal threshold in Congress) as Amendments that are Congressionally proposed.
Now, an Art V convention could be seized on as an opportunity for organizing extralegal change, but then Art V process obviously isn’t necessary precondition for that, just a potential opportunity.
Miami too. The city is build on porous limestone. No amount of levees, seawalls, or dams will save it.
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 )
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.
I imagine this type of system is not designed for large, sudden and prolonged inundation of water, something New Orleans faces from seasonal hurricanes and their storm surges. Or maybe it is and it’s just a question of magnitude?
The problem is saltwater intrusion into the drinking water table - a problem New Orleans only has one when it comes up the Mississippi river - Miami is a whole different level
That can be solved using desalination of seawater, an energy-intensive process which is tailor-made for the abundance of solar power in the area. If for some reason desalination is not deemed sufficient it may be possible to slow the seepage by creating deep barriers between coast and land [1]. If this results in groundwater emergence so much the better, just pump it out and send it to the water treatment plant. Excess water can be pumped elsewhere, either over the dikes or into the ground outside the dikes or wherever else it may be needed or beneficial. Since pumps are needed anyway the criticism in the article - reliance on pumps is costly and can lead to a point of failure in flood mitigation plans - is negated. Also, pumps have been used as part of flood mitigation plans for centuries in places like the Netherlands so there is a lot of data to be found for those who need it.
[1] https://coastalscience.noaa.gov/news/hardening-shorelines-ma...
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.
USA loves socialism in most forms that benefit landowners
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.
This is mostly a pedantic point that it's not actuaries doing the pricing, but a different set of risk analysts using a different suite of tools, right?
It's two monte carlo models that get refreshed every few years.
[Edit] The following comment can be read very snarkily but that is not the intention. I'm legitimately interested + curious:
Very interesting! Does it affect the point that insurers (even if not actuaries) put a high price on this risk and that the price is subsequently suppressed by government insurance subsidies?
Local governments have obvious incentives to encourage building, but the state of Florida itself does subsidize flood and hurricane insurance.
If you own a house or building in Florida and have a mortgage, you're required to carry it. Here's how a policy gets priced:
You go to a retail broker with your info. They pass it to a wholesaler, who puts the submission out into the market for quotes. Any carrier or MGA that wants the business prices the CAT and AOP (non-CAT) portions separately. Actuaries build models for the AOP side, while Verisk and Moody's model the CAT portion. Those two numbers get added together, plus some fees — and that's your annual premium.
From there, the insurers buy reinsurance on their portfolios. The reinsurers run those same models, do their magic, and come up with their own price.
Just an example, because no major hurricanes have hit the south east in a while, premiums are down 30% right now. All of the insurance companies are getting squeezed.
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.
No, it is a realistic approach to a problem which has been facing many places elsewhere in the world where it has been solved using engineering. It is far more apt to call climate doom predictions statements of religious faith given the history of engineering solutions to climate-related problems and the close resemblance of climate doom preachers to those deriving their prophecies from scripture.
Here's a few books on the subject which might be of interest for those who want to widen their view on the ever-changing climate. All of them have in common that they do not deny the climate is changing nor that human activities influence how it changes. Where they differ from the doom narrative is that they approach climate change in the way humans have dealt with other environmental problems to lessen or negate their impact instead of by preaching some grand narrative on how society should be run to avoid catastrophe.
Apocalypse Never: Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All by Michael Shellenberger
https://www.amazon.com/Apocalypse-Never-Environmental-Alarmi...
False Alarm: How Climate Change Panic Costs Us Trillions, Hurts the Poor, and Fails to Fix the Planet by Bjorn Lomborg
https://www.amazon.com/False-Alarm-Climate-Change-Trillions/...
Unsettled (Updated and Expanded Edition): What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn't, and Why It Matters by Steven E. Koonin
https://www.amazon.com/Unsettled-Updated-Expanded-Climate-Sc...
Underwriters already have a solution, but there's a national flood insurance program ensuring taxpayers hold the bag instead.
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.
It’s already below sea level isn’t it?
I'm not sure on the math on this one. Google says:
>Global sea levels are currently rising at an accelerating rate, measuring roughly 3.6–4.6 mm per year
so in say 30 years time at the higher figure you have 30*4.6mm = 13.8 cm
The sea is broadly at sea level so it's going to be a job to get the "3-7 metres of sea-level rise"?
When ice melts in Greenland and Antarctica there is also a gravity effect
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.
If you employ all the unemployed film people here it's a deal.
NOLA is worth saving.
You and I and egypturnash know this but good luck with the rest of this crowd.
The energy, the community, the corruption, the vibrance, the hopelessness, the resilience, the city that care forgot. You can't relocate New Orleans.
I know it's "gatekeeping" but it's so difficult to talk about with those who haven't had their every day consumed by it.
Most of my family is there, and I spent much of my childhood there. I have the same feeling as you. It’s such a beautiful, unique place, and I don’t think the locals will ever abandon it. City park with those beautiful oak trees will always be one of my favorite places on earth.
The graham hancocks of the future are gonna go nuts finding out about this mythical new orleans
Would any of the technology that the dutch have surrounding water control help here? Or is the geography just too complex for it to work?
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...
A bit OT but what about the Netherlands?
No hurricanes there, so I guess they can just slowly rebuild walls to keep up with sea level and increase number of pumps already used to get rid of excess rainwater. Not great but manageable as long they secure enough money.
Aha interesting. Thanks!
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.
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.
it has more character that SF
Agreed. Miami is in Florida.
stick to software, you have no career in comedy.
That's a bit harsh mate.
Finally, Ben Shapiro is going to buy that real estate for a bargain! /s
I was looking for this comment.
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.