SF Fed: Banks could stop lending in climate-threatened communities
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
> Banks could stop lending to flood-prone communities.
> Towns could lose the tax money they need to build sea walls and other protections.
That's exactly what should happen. If a city is about to be reclaimed by the sea, the very last thing you want to do is build more houses there. This incentivizes people to do the sensible thing - move away from areas that'll be hard hit by climate change - without compelling them to do anything or engaging in expensive unlikely-to-work boondoggles. The town'll die, but the people survive.
Otherwise it's all too easy to point to the people affected by the floods, rather than the system which changed the risk factors.
For example, you write "building a major city under the sea level".
It's below sea level because "engineers accidentally sank half the city below the level of the sea" - https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2018/02/how-h...
> What was beginning to happen was anthropogenic soil subsidence—the sinking of the land by human action. When runoff is removed and artificial levees prevent the river from overtopping, the groundwater lowers, the soils dry out, and the organic matter decays. All this creates air pockets in the soil body, into which those sand, silt, and clay particles settle, consolidate—and drop below sea level.
Instead, the oil companies got all the profits.
People in towns got all the risk, and may lose their houses and equity.
That's how capitalism works, right?
What if areas that are prone to flood risk are disproportionately minority owned?