Climate Change Adaptation and Whose Interests Count

 The New York Times The Daily podcast for October 11th covered climate change mitigation and adaptation efforts in two North Carolina towns subject to significant flood events over the past several years: Avon and Fair Bluff. It's been 8 year since Hurricane Matthew put the towns under water; 4 since Florence. Both towns are struggling from the realities of the physical collapse caused by flooding and now economic collapse for numerous reasons, notably the loss of residents following each major flood event.

In the case of Fair Bluff (pop. 545), they rely on grants and what amounts to many volunteer hours to keep things going and rebuild after every set back. Current economic development goals include rebuilding downtown on higher ground-- but that requires significant funds and a tax base. They discuss federal aid (notably FEMA) who offer to buy out residents in at-risk areas, essentially encouraging residents to leave rather than invest in a rebuild time after time.  This depopulation creates major fiscal issues for already cash-strapped towns. 

Avon, NC (pop. 421) has a more secure fiscal situation as they work to rebuild. The Outer Banks town is completely different from Fair Bluff in that it is based on income from tourism and still has a secure tax base (wealthier residents). Looking at Google Maps, its a bit wild to think that Avon, a town built quite literally on the beach and into the ocean, fairs better in its fight against climate change than Fair Bluff miles inland (I'm assuming this has something to do with the geography). But Avon is, notably, used to the risks of flooding. Buildings are built on stilts, for instance.  But with sea levels rising and the beach deteriorating inland (a natural process for a barrier island--now happening more quickly), Avon is vulnerable as they decide how to adapt to the increased threats. The one major road in and out of the town to the mainland in particular is a major issue.  If this floods in a severe weather event, things go south very quickly.  Their solution: beach nourishment (an $11-14 million project). This involves bringing in a bunch of sand to create a beach essentially, and only lasts about 5 years.  The beach has to continually be rebuilt as the ocean washes it away.  It's a temporary fix-- or one with continuing costs.  There are no federal or state funds. If they do the project, funds must be self-generated, raising taxes. This is not a popular solution, but time is of the essence as erosion continues and the price tag of the project goes up. 

In Avon, the beach nourishment project is going ahead. But city officials know this isn't necessarily a sustainable solution. At some point, these at-risk towns consider the ultimate solution: retreat. According to the official in Avon: "Where we can't mitigate it...retreats going to happen." In some sense, these officials are buying time for a town already in a state of emergency.  The responsibility still falls largely on the residents. "if you come in and want to build your house on the ocean, you're coming in with your eyes open."

The Daily calls climate change a "great equalizer". Avon has money, Fair Bluff doesn't, yet both can't avoid inevitable retreat unless something changes. This brings into question the role of our government or social safety net in these communities faced with the issues brought about by climate change. Do we indeed heap the responsibility on those most affected for having the "poor foresight" (and in many cases, poor luck) of building in an area susceptible to flooding or severe weather?  Do we think it's appropriate for these communities to take the massive fiscal hit (that often reverberates state-wide) for being in the path of storms over and over again, even when they previously were lower risk in the past? What about those that have lived in a now at-risk area for generations, long before flooding would have posed a significant consideration to the shop or homestead?

Even in the Great Lakes Region, climate change adaptation efforts are underway to save our coastal cities. The average temperature, the frost-free season, total precipitation, and the number of heavy precipitation events in the area all increased from 1951–2017 (GLISA, 2019). Changes in climate and weather patterns exacerbate the environmental, social, and economic stressors local communities already face and can lead to new threats previously not considered. With lake levels rising at unprecedented rates since 2014 (ibid), Coastal cities along Michigan’s Upper Peninsula have been feeling the effects of severe coastal erosion more sharply than ever, leading to deteriorating infrastructure in these areas and a desperate need for climate adaptation efforts. Even when the homes of residents themselves are not at risk, the valuation of the property and access to amenities are.  What support do we offer these communities? 

As always, it will come down to a question of whose interests count. The only solution for climate change in the near term that these communities have is adaptation efforts-- sea walls, beach nourishment, some forms of relocation or restructuring of facilities... For many, it will be too late. 

references

Great Lakes Integrated Sciences and Assessments: A NOAA RISA Team. (2019, February 14). Climate change in the Great Lakes region.

Retrieved from http://glisa.umich.edu/media/files/GLISA%202%20Pager%202019.pdf

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/11/podcasts/the-daily/climate-crisis-resilience.html