Beachfront property and sunk costs

While we were grad students at UNC-Chapel Hill, we visited my wife’s uncle and his family on the Outer Banks. He built fishing boats, and lhey lived in a modest house in Buxton, near Hatteras lighthouse. Hatteras lighthouse is the tallest lighthouse in the US.

In 1999, Hatteras lighthouse was moved from its original location at the edge of the ocean to safer ground. Not so fortunate have been the recently abandoned private dwellings on the Outer Banks, which are now succumbing to erosion and collapsing into the water.

While Fox News has covered these real estate losses, they’ve steadfastly refused to acknowledge the politically incorrect cause—climate change.

“The Observer noted that “the home was well away from the ocean and behind a vegetated dune when it was built in 1969. But a series of storms, which have occurred more frequently in recent years due to climate change, carved away the beach and the dune and brought the surf up to the pilings of the home and a string of others to its north and south.”

 

“While the Fox & Friends segment mentioned that worsening storms “have caused erosion,” the network has repeatedly downplayed any connections between hurricanes and climate change, which has been making storms grow rapidly and more intense, destroying homes and businesses. Fox has also downplayed the threat of sea level rise, which occurs “mostly due to a combination of melt water from glaciers and ice sheets and thermal expansion of seawater as it warms,” according to NASA. 

 

“As FactCheck.org pointed out, “For every inch of sea level rise, approximately 100 inches of beach are lost, according to NASA oceanographer and climate scientist Josh Willis.” 

I remember back in the day wondering who would insure these doomed structures. I guess if you have to ask, you can’t afford them.

https://www.mediamatters.org/fox-friends/fox-ignores-climate-change-while-covering-collapsing-houses-along-north-carolina-coast

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The ruble is collapsing

In 1998, I traveled to Moscow for the first time to teach in a summer course at the Russian Academy. The week before, we were on vacation and I heard on the radio “Today, the ruble lost 100% of its value.” This news was arresting—it meant that the ruble was worthless. That seemed unlikely. Indeed, the next day, the announcer apologized and said she meant to say that the ruble lost 50% of its value.  In the event, by the time I arrived at the Hotel Sputnik in Moscow, all the cash machines in the city were shut down. Restaurant prices changed hourly during my five-day stay, and there were sidewalk signs posting exchange rates that were written in chalk so they could easily be edited. Certainly puts our recent experience with inflation in perspective.   Over at jabberwocking.com, Kevin Drum notes that the ruble is down 30% since the war started and 20% just since September.   From the comment thread: “The problem with the Russian economy at this point is that it is basically...
Read more

I agree with RFK Jr.

Though it feels weird to say it, RFK Jr and I agree on something: curtailing direct-to-consumer marketing of pharmaceuticals. “ The Trump administration is discussing policies that would make it harder and more expensive for pharmaceutical companies to advertise directly to patients, in a move that could disrupt more than $10 billion in annual ad spending.   Although the US is the only place, besides New Zealand, where pharma companies can directly advertise, banning pharma ads outright could make the administration vulnerable to lawsuits, so it’s instead focusing on cutting down on the practice by adding legal and financial hurdles, according to people familiar with the plans who weren’t authorized to speak publicly on the matter.   “The two policies the administration has focused in on would be to require greater disclosures of side effects of a drug within each ad — likely making broadcast ads much longer and prohibitively expensive — or removing the industry’s ability to d...
Read more

The big C

Nobody wants to get cancer. And there is no sure path to avoiding cancer. There are a number of gene alleles that predispose to cancer risk. If you inherit one of these alleles, your risk of cancer is higher than average. That doesn’t mean you can’t do anything. Knowing you’re at higher risk means you should undergo more frequent testing (breast imaging, colonoscopy, prostate exams, etc). Early detection improves survival. There are a number of other “lifestyle” risk factors for cancer: smoking, alcohol, sun exposure, obesity and aging. Of course, if your goal is a long life, you’ll have to confront an increased risk of cancer as you age. Again, surveillance is an important way to increase survival. Diet is probably the most modifiable cancer risk factor.  “ The most recent research uses different indices to assess dietary patterns without specifying the amount of animal-based foods that participants consumed. A   2023 meta-analysis   included assessment of 22 prospective...
Read more