The case for strategic and managed climate retreat

Retreat may well be a better focus for our energies. Ice is melting. We're headed for hot. More mitigation would sap our energies be a wasted effort. Probably. Whatever, retreat, i.e. adaptation, is worth a serious look. Siders et al. see retreat as something that can be planned for. I see multiple disasters from multiple causes happening one after another, or all together. This is a situation that makes planning our responses unimaginably complicated.
Can anyone say in what order the following will happen: jet stream changes make Iowa a lousy place to grow corn, Gulf stream changes make Europe a lousy place to live, migrants escaping blazing heat in Senegal cause social chaos in Spain. Add to this mix, (before, after or during), sea level rise. Planning for these events would be like planning the rebuilding of the Bahamas before a hurricane Dorian has passed over. Maybe the best we can do is adapt to a changed world as it emerges. What's that funny Greek word? Oh yes, hubris.

Siders et al. argue that retreat is necessary in coastal areas, should be done strategically to serve societal goals, and is impeded by risk-reducing investments like shoreline armoring that stimulate development[1]. We agree. Investments in risk reduction that seem sensible produce a positive feedback that encourages private investment in vulnerable coastal areas[2]. Specific policies are needed to break this cycle. Here we suggest one: buyouts with rentbacks (BwRs).

BwRs create a public or private financial entity that purchases at-risk real estate and rents it back to previous owners under contracts that specify the length of time or observable climate triggers that determine when the property becomes no longer habitable.

BwRs could mitigate socio-economic challenges of retreat. They disrupt the positive feedback if local officials deciding about climate-proofing infrastructure investments do not represent property owners with investments at risk. BwRs sever the link between relocation timing and concerns about real estate wealth; families can cash out their home values and later decide how, when, and where to relocate. BwRs generate new financial resources. Redirecting funds for shoreline armoring would finance initial buyouts and post-sale rents finance future buyouts. Finally, transferring ownership of real property to a single entity promotes economies of scale in remediating environmental damage from buildings falling into the sea.

There are policy design details to develop, including when BwRs begin, what triggers property retirement, how to form and regulate ownership and management institutions, and rental terms. BwRs face social, political, and economic challenges – but so does every other option. We offer them as an example of policy innovations that can address some of the vexing issues surrounding coastal adaptation and retreat.

1. Siders, A., M. Hino, and K.J. Mach, Science, 2019. 365(6455): 761-763.

2. Keeler, A., D. McNamara, and J. Irish, Earth's Future, 2018. 6(4): 618-621.

It is helpful to see more consideration of climate retreat. As one of the available climate adaptation options, retreat makes logical sense as removing communities and buildings out of harm's way will reduce future impacts. However, strategic retreat in particular has been challenging to implement. The authors make a great point in that consideration to date has focused on the physical relocation, rather than recognising that retreat is a social challenge. However, the barriers to strategic retreat are also well recognised, especially for non-command and control political economies that are often loathe to impact on private property rights. Many retreat recommendations contained in adaptation studies also amount to nothing less than creating a moral hazard by incentivising further development in locations increasingly at risk. This occurs when government becomes the insurer of last resort and communities expect to rely on post-inundation government support; and hence abdicate responsibility for adaptation. Therefore, one of the key challenges that has not been well addressed is that of who is ultimately responsible for strategic retreat. In particular, what is the role of insurers and building financiers in this challenge? These global actors often indirectly control the intensification or de-intensification of the built environment in hazardous areas. By contrast, more often than not, central governments are seen to be the saviour and implementer of strategic retreat. However central governments are often not well structured to address chronic problems. Therefore expecting central governments to increasingly manage climate risks on settlements or implement strategic retreat is likely to leave many communities increasingly at risk. Rather, it is perhaps more likely that strategic retreat initiatives will be generated and operationalised on a city and local region scale and it is at this scale that strategic policy development is likely to reveal the greatest benefits.