If you are rich, why not? When sea level rise, increased frequency or intensity of bad storms, etc., makes it not worth living there...they can buy another house somewhere inland. Even if they have to completely write off the waterfront property, they should be reasonably OK.

It's the people who aren't rich who have to worry the most--the people that have most of their wealth tied up in their house, and so need to be able to sell it for a good price to afford to move.

With sea level rise projected to be less than two meters in the next century, why not? Unless the land is extremely low lying, like some sand covered atoll in the Pacific, the property will outlast both yourself and your children.

I don't know about you, but I don't sweat what happens to my investments after myself and my children are long gone. Honestly, most of the time I have trouble just planning ten years out.

I thought civilization is going to collapse within the next nine years?

Greetings from the outer banks.

As far as I know in Florida they lobbied for the government to provide flood insurance because no private company would underwrite one.

Flood insurance is a national program underwritten by FEMA. We have it on our house in inland New Jersey, because we're on a river.

You may be thinking of the windstorm insurance program. The state of Florida underwrites that, and started it as insurance of last resort after insurers started bailing following Andrew.

Possible. The point was that people kept building mansions in clearly unsuitable areas and when the private market wouldn’t insure them they made the government do so.

This is the case pretty much everywhere, and is unrelated to sea level rise.

The rich also kept buying mortgage backed securities all the way until they suddenly wanted to sell them all.

Yes, the people who can buy multi-million dollar cars just to have them sit uselessly in a garage can also afford to buy properties that may be useless in a few decades. Others are buying up land in New Zealand on the belief it's relative isolation will protect them from societal collapse.

Insurers and the Pentagon seem to be treating it as a real threat, which is probably more indicative than the purchasing habits of people who tend to love rapidly depreciating status symbols.

They can afford to insure and rebuild in highly desirable, but disaster prone, areas.

Didn't Obama just spend 15million for an on-beach estate?

(EDIT: Apparently sale is not finalized)

It's a nice looking place and it'll be okay for the rest of his life (and probably his kids if they keep it). After that things get more worrying.

There are actually maps which show where the water levels will be at each year. My great grandma's house was recently sold for over $1m and only has 70 years before it will be permanently underwater and likely destroyed by 50 years if there is any heavy rainfall.

I wish more wealthy people would lead by example though. Like instead if Obamas bought much smaller place and made it carbon neutral.

Also, I have no idea, but what is the timeline for ocean's rising to make a place like his on beach uninhabitable? I thought it was much less time, like 12 years or so, there are so many predictions out there.