Who should pay to relocate the Alaskan villages that are falling into the sea?

Question

Several Alaskan villages are falling into the sea. This is mostly due to global warming. The permafrost (ground that was permanantly frozen) is melting and the buildings are sinking. Rivers are overflowing. The ice that would form on the shore and protect it from storms is forming later each year.

Here is an example - look at the two pictures, the first taken before a storm and the second one after a storm. They were taken from different angles, so it is hard to look at the shoreline and see the change. Look at how close the metal trashcan is to the edge in each picture.
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/detect/human-shishmaref.shtml

The cost to relaocate the 3 villages that are not expected to last 10 years:
Shishmaref, ~600 people, up to 200 million dollars
Newtok, ~315 people, up to 130 million dollars,
Kivalena, ~380 people, ~125 million dollars.
These are just the most serious cases.

Other villages that will have to be moved at some point include Bethel, Unalakleet, Dillingham, Kaktovik, and others.

The cheapest solution would be to just buy everyone a condo in Anchorage, but they have not been socialized to live in a city, and this would kill off the way of life they have kept for thousands of years.

The fedral government has paid to help people hurt by Hurricane Katrina. Bush is saying he will use tax money to help people hurt in the California wildfires. Should the government be consistant and pay to move the villages?

If not, who should pay? The residents practice "subsistance living", surviving mostly by killing what hey need to eat and using the skins for clothes. They have very little money.

Answer 1

Ever see the movie "Local Hero?" A Texan visits Scotland to negotiate a deal to buy some or all of the town so his company can build an oil facility. He ends up falling in love with the town, the people, and in the end an alternative use for the towns resources is found that makes all parties happy.

Most of the answers here are clinical and cold-hearted. This is one question I'd have to think on long and hard. I'd have to visit some of the sites, talk to people, learn the backstory on how these communities were established, and why.

Then I could answer your question. Because it's not just a matter of money. God help us if it were.

Answer 2

Same thing is happening in my home town on the other side of the continent, but it was happening long before Global Warming was around. They may no longer be protected by ice, but erosion should be expected along any shoreline.

In the end the insurance company pays, if they have the appropriate insurance, If they do not have insurance (subsistence living) I cannot see it being that much per person to move or rebuild a safe distance from the shoreline.

I think the State and Federal governments should both dip into their pockets to aid them, but the numbers quoted seem inflated to me. It wouldn't cost $300,000 per person to move my town a few miles out of harms way. Especially since it is only a few houses affected at a time, assuming the houses in the community are not all aligned along the clliff.

Answer 3

You make it sound like they live in huts and live off the bare necessities. It appears to me they have electricity. But that's not the point. The point is they should get help just like any other part of the USA that gets struck with disaster. But just like people in FL, why the hell you build on the coast!! Same difference whether it's global warming or not. Hurricanes and storms have been hitting these areas before the Industrial revolution. So whats your point. It happens all the time. It is a disaster and I feel for these people but once again don't build on the COAST!!! I'm sure our government will take care of these people the best they can like they do everybody else who have disaster areas. The key words are "the best they can"

Answer 4

I do not know, the government should tell people do not build on the coast line of Alaska it is always been a place of rapid climatic change, such as an excerpt from the link below.

"An intense storm struck the northwestern tip of Alaska during the fall of 1963. This storm caused over 3 million dollars in damage, primarily to the U.S. Government research camp that was located at Barrow, AK, as 55mph winds (gusting to 75mph) and waves topping 10 feet pushed a storm surge over the 10 foot high protective beach. The storm hit during an unusual ice-free period in early October—the primary reason why the seas grew to such damaging heights."

Even back in the sixties when people were worried about an ice age.

""an unusual ice-free period ""

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2007/10/26/settling-on-an-unstable-alaskan-shore-a-warning-unheeded/

.
.

Answer 5

Who should pay to relocate anyone who builds in an area prone to erosion, earthquake, tornadoes, hurricanes, floods, famines, and all other sort of geological or meteorological events?

And where do you plan to relocate them? If Global Warming is truly a disaster waiting to happen everywhere on earth, there's not much point in helping them out - it's a temporary fix at best.

Each person should do what happened when other natural or man-made disasters have made other regions unprofitable to live in (remember all the "bust towns" of the old west when the Gold/Silver/whatever ran out?) - they should move on their own accord to wherever they can make a living.

Answer 6

From looking at the pictures, those sure are some expensive shacks that you want the government to move. $200 million to move 600 people?!? While we are at it, why don't we throw in a few plasma flat screens and a Range Rover or 2.

Sounds more like a socialistic redistribution of wealth than humanitarian aid.

Answer 7

It is possible government relief will be available to these people. It would be possible regardless of the cause of their problems. But that is no guarantee there will be government relief in every case and no guarantee that the people in question will be satisfied with the quality or amount of relief if they do get it.

Answer 8

This appears to be another global warming scam. your costs per person are:
Shishmaref 333,333 or 1,333,333 per family of four
Newtok 412,698 or 1,650,792 per family of four
Kivalena 328,497 or 1,315,789 per family of four.

I would gladly contract to move them all inland 10 miles where they could commute less distance than I do to continue with their lifestyle for 1/4th that cost. I will even reeducate the people so they can live anywhere if that is what they want.
All global warming math is just like this. It just does not hold water.

Answer 9

I know, the white Christian Republicans.

What would their ancestors have done?
What would they do if there was no government?

I've been up there. They use electricity and drive cars too.

Answer 10

If we can rebuild iraq dont you think we should help our own country? I think our government owe it to them since they make the laws or dont make the laws that could help our enviroment.