Because science says sea level rise is 10ft at the worst case in 100 years? In other words, its alarmism and I don’t appreciate blaming (and compensating) everything because the big boogeyman, climate change.

House prices will fall long before that, so buying those houses doesn't seem like a bright economical move, to me.

I remember as a child going on vacation to the beaches in Virgina and the Carolinas and always seeing the remains of multiple beach front houses that had been destroyed by waves. The unpredictability of which houses were wiped out made quite an impression.

Because a mortgage is only for 30 years. Our whole economic system is incapable of planning beyond 30 years.

I have lived in Florida for all of my 47 years. It is clear that some land is unsuitable for development when taking a long term view. That does not stop the mortgages from being approved.

I've always wondered why banks would finance the deals and insurance companies would insure them.

The article does appear to be chasing a bias. “America’s Great Climate Exodus” is not a present reality, even if it is imagined as an eventuality to some.

> President Obama is one of those who must think the sea level won't rise dramatically for a while, given he recently bought property near the ocean.

This is a silly talking point. Obama, like other past presidents, is now fantastically wealthy to the point where a few million dollars in lost property decades from now isn't much to worry about.

He wouldn't be fazed by, say, a doubling in food costs, either. That doesn't mean it wouldn't be devastating for lots of Americans if their grocery bills doubled.

Barrack Obama just bought a multi-million dollar beachfront home. If any major public figure has the most accurate info about pending sea level rise, even classified level information that might not be released to the public, surely it's him.

He also has 'fuck you' money so he doesn't care. It's not like the 60 year old woman quoted in the article who might become homeless.

Is the home literally on the beach, if not it should be safe even if the water rises a bit.

This is an interesting fact related to the discussion, yet downvoted. Weird.

I think the reason is that what I said isn't compatible with the most catastrophized interpretation of climate change. Climate change is one of the few topics alongside topics like guns and abortion where nuance is generally not welcome. Look at the other responses. Does "he's rich so he's probably just burning millions of dollars" feel like the most reasonable explanation of his behavior? I don't think that fits what I know of Obama's temperament. Apparently, some people disagree.

It's mildly relevant, but it's implying that somebody with 40 million dollars would never buy something that would lose money over time. Which is ridiculous.

A house doesn't have to be investment!