Rising sea levels and the case against federal disaster relief
Government disaster relief and prevention efforts are noble, but they can have unforeseen negative consequences.
Who knew that Grist has a free markets libertarian streak? This piece by Tom Horton makes a lot of sense. He argues that sea level rise along the Virginia coastline should nudge an organized retreat and the growth of wetlands. But, he notes that government disaster relief efforts offer insurance and will have perverse effects as we adapt to climate change. Here is a quote from the end of his piece.
"The only way many wetlands could adapt would be if adjacent uplands are left undeveloped to give the marshes a chance to migrate inland as the Bay rises, Stiles says. That’s a good reason to leave places like Bluff Point in conservation zones.
Ultimately the taxpayers will pick up the bills, bailing out places like Bluff Point as flooding escalates. Taxpayer-supported federal flood insurance programs, beach replenishment programs, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency are all seeing costs soar as coastal flooding escalates. Private insurers have already pulled back from many coastal areas."As you know, I discuss this exact point at length in my "Climatopolis." We need to harness market forces to help us to adapt to climate change. Well meaning government actions often have nasty unintended consequences and this is a classic example.
The Christian Science Monitor has assembled a diverse group of the best economy-related bloggers out there. Our guest bloggers are not employed or directed by the Monitor and the views expressed are the bloggers' own, as is responsibility for the content of their blogs. To contact us about a blogger, click here. To add or view a comment on a guest blog, please go to the blogger's own site by clicking on greeneconomics.blogspot.com.