Who Will Pay for the Costs of Holding Back Rising Seas?

I think increased variance in weather is something that's really easy to underappreciate and isn't really being explained well enough to the general population.

Certainly ten or so years ago I was far more skeptical of climate issues than I am now. I knew climate change was coming, sure.

But when you think about a 1c temperature rise - a 2c temperature rise - 2m of sea level rise - etc - put in those terms it doesn't seem like a huge issue, because I would have historically thought (I didn't think about this stuff too much), well, OK, averaged out, it's 36c instead of 34c, or whatever, who cares?

Until you realise things like - oh, there are tipping points right, so if the average temperature in a region is -1c, and it goes to 1c, suddenly a bunch of ice is gone never to come back.

Or there's a climate in which harvesting is sort of viable, and the season becomes slightly shorter, and now it's borked.

Or yeah, one or two bad floods and a city is wiped out. It doesn't matter if the average level only went up by 1 metre in that case, it's gone.

In the US, homeowners will pay, as they should. Towns will pay, as they should, as they've had their collective heads in the sand.

Places with resources will, many will not. Fortunately we have bankruptcy.

It’s pretty obvious that coastal development is beyond unsustainable in many places. Places like Florida and New Orleans are really screwed, and that shouldn’t be a big surprise. I remember reading in school in the 80s that the destruction of the delta by flood control doomed New Orleans for example.

City planners who approve new housing zones in low lying areas are partially to blame here. If climate change is a known risk, how is it legal to approve housing in such areas?

We should encourage approving city expansion only into regions that are naturally immune to 500-year floods. Otherwise it's a fight against inevitability

The people who choose to live near the coast as a luxury? Move inland, problem solved.

Occupants of cities that have this problem?

Definitely not FEMA or federal govt! IMO FEMA should be defunded in the wake of climate change and let the private sector factor in the actual replacement cost & risk. I feel this is the fastest way of putting a dollar figure on the cost of climate change and might actually lead to some positive change if cities & individuals are not able to externalize the costs of CC to general public.

PS: I am a liberal democrat & by no means support the rest of libertarian/right-wing agenda.