Having people educated, healthy, and protected from the damages of homelessness all have positive externalities. Paying people to return to areas that are regularly ravaged by massive storms only benefits them until the next storm and doesn't represent a long term good, especially in the face of climate change.

Shall we apply this moral rule globally then?

Say goodbye to Pakistan.

I'd love to see the HN crowd that is championing the premise stand up and proclaim all the areas of the globe that people should no longer be allowed to live, huge swaths of which will be in hyper impoverished areas of India, China, Pakistan. They won't dare.

The Pakistan floods were due to massive rainfall exacerbating glacial melt, both of which were triggered by climate change. Pakistan is responsible for fewer than 1% of global emissions and experienced catastrophic flooding anyways. It's an incredibly poor nation that got the short end of the climate change stick. The level of sorrow that Florida pales in comparison to that of Pakistan; I'd argue that Pakistan warrants $100B as much as Florida does (if not more).

Admittedly there's also grinding poverty in parts of Florida so I appreciate the comparison; that's a good hole in my argument.

Should we provide compensation for Floridians to move to safer areas? Yes.

Should we provide compensation for Pakistan for improved flood management? Yes.

Should Pakistanis or Floridians rebuild in the exact same places and the same ways where they've been building? No, unfortunately nobody gets that luxury. That's the horrible thing about climate change - we have very few options and they all have major downsides but we don't get to opt out. Florida's going to experience massive flooding regularly and Pakistan will face the same, and either populations in both areas adapt in some fashion (build for floods or move) or continue to experience mass devastation when the inevitable occurs.

I don't get to dictate where people live any more than I get to dictate where the flood waters go. It's heartbreaking but that's the world we're stuck in.

> no longer be allowed

Who's talking about allowing anything? The debate is about whether these people will be subsidised.

Aren't those for everyone? Not just people not in Florida?