4 ms·

First, even if you lose the house you can recoup some of its value through flood insurance. Since 1968 in the US you can get flood insurance via the National Fl

First, even if you lose the house you can recoup some of its value through flood insurance. Since 1968 in the US you can get flood insurance via the National Flood Insurance Program in many at-risk areas. Given that the program has operated at an ever-increasing loss since 2004 one could reasonably claim that taxpayers are subsidizing risky coastal building at an ever-increasing rate. Second, even if you believe that the property will be a total loss at some point in the future, it will still provide some value as you use it until that point. Third, it is entirely possible that the net costs above have already been (at least somewhat) factored in to the price, and that as high as the prices seem to you, they would be substantially more expensive if climate change was not a factor.

alexk307 5y ago
So you're saying it's worth it if you don't think about the financial solvency of the US subsidized flood insurance while you look away from the problem until your front porch is underwater. Enjoy your vacation!
- asoneth 5y ago
  Correct. Think of low-lying coastal property as a disposable luxury good that we choose to subsidize, like large cars or air travel. In a few wealthy regions like SF and NY I would guess that Dutch-style defenses will be economically feasible to protect home values. In other places my guess is that property values will crash when the federal government eventually admits it cannot afford to keep NFIP solvent indefinitely. Though even in that case I wouldn't be surprised if wealthy coastal landowners still manage to finagle a taxpayer bailout out of it.