Climate Forward is coming to New York CityNext week will be busy in New York. The United Nations General Assembly draws hundreds of world leaders to Manhattan. Climate Week hosts dozens of events across the city. And on Wednesday, Sept. 23, The Times will host our annual Climate Forward live event. This year will feature an interview with Energy Secretary Chris Wright at a moment of soaring energy costs. We’ll speak about the data center boom with the activist Erin Brockovich; Josh Parker, the head of sustainability at Nvidia; and Gov. Abigail Spanberger of Virginia. And we’ll hear from the chief executives of solar, nuclear, geothermal and deep sea mining companies. Register for the free livestream here.
The racial disparities of flood buyouts
After a flood, homeowners are often faced with a difficult choice: Rebuild and risk a repeat disaster or move away. The federal government’s efforts to nudge them toward the second option have resulted in more than 43,000 buyouts in recent decades for damaged and at-risk homes, which are destroyed or moved. But new research has unearthed a troubling racial gap in what homeowners are paid for their properties, which are sold through the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, an initiative that was started in 1988 and is intended to help with long-term disaster recovery and prevent future losses. That difference may be part of the reason Black homeowners who received a FEMA buyout tended to move to homes in worse neighborhoods with as much or more flood risk as their previous homes, whereas white homeowners tended to move into better neighborhoods with less flood risk, the paper found. “There’s nothing in the flood buyout program that’s explicitly racist like there was in government programs in the 1930s and 40s,” said Christopher Timmins, economics professor at the Wisconsin School of Business who worked on the study. “But that doesn’t mean that the way the systems operate don’t lead to those kinds of outcomes.” FEMA did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the study. Unequal payoutsThe FEMA buyout process starts with an independent appraiser who calculates the fair market value of a home. If the home has been damaged in a recent flood, they rely on the market value before the disaster, which determines the buyout offer to the homeowner. Then, the homeowner has three choices: Accept the offer, appeal the price, or refuse to move. It’s not clear which parts of this process contribute to the compensation gap, said Lala Ma, an associate professor of economics at the University of Kentucky who also worked on the paper. Some of the problem could lie in the broader housing market. For example, researchers have found widespread racial bias in home appraisals. But Dr. Ma said bias wouldn’t explain the trend in full. Another possible explanation is the appeal process. It could be that white homeowners tend to appeal their appraisals more often, and that they successfully petition for higher compensation. The researchers did not have data about which homeowners appealed their offers. Some homeowners may also feel like they can’t say no to an offer, even if it’s for a lower price than they’d like. A 2012 survey of four cities with buyout programs found that a third of the homeowners felt like they had been forced to participate. Previous research has found that FEMA “offers white disaster victims more than people of color, even when the amount of damage is the same,” my colleague Chris Flavelle has reported. Policymakers have considered expanding buyout programs and purchasing homes before disaster hits. If they don’t fix the payment gap, “these unequal impacts are going to be magnified,” Dr. Ma said. There are other possibilities that could explain some of the gap the researchers found. Most of the homeowners in the data set were white, and the sample size of Black homeowners was relatively small. Also, in some cases, insurance payouts and other disaster aid are subtracted from buyout purchase offers, and these subtractions are not reported in the figures the researchers used. After the buyoutThe researchers were able to follow the movements of some of the buyout participants as they settled into new neighborhoods. This tracking revealed another divergence. White sellers tended to move to better neighborhoods with lower flood risks than their prior homes, but Black sellers tended to move to worse neighborhoods that had higher flood risk. (For the purposes of the study, neighborhoods were considered to be “better” or “worse” based on factors like poverty rates, the percentage of renters and single parents, and environmental risk factors like pollution.) These outcomes seemed to flow from the payment gaps: The lower a Black homeowner’s payment relative to the predicted fair market value of their property, the worse their new neighborhood. The paper will undergo peer review before it can be published in a journal, a process that could recast or soften some of the findings. Climate relocation is still a relatively new phenomenon, and policymakers are trying to understand what works and what doesn’t. Still, the research suggests that buyout participants could use more support during the relocation process, Dr. Timmins said. “What we need to do is think harder about what happens when you give people a pile of money and say, go find a better place to live,” he added. Get a free month in the Times appIf you’re not a Times subscriber yet, we have some news: You can now explore all of our coverage free for your first month in The New York Times app. That’s a month to experience The Times like a subscriber and click through all the links in this newsletter without hitting paywalls. And if you already subscribe, thank you.
CONSERVATION Trump administration moves to gut a core endangered species protectionIn what would be a seismic shift, the Trump administration is quietly moving to strip a core protection of the Endangered Species Act, according to an internal memo obtained by The New York Times. Under a new interpretation of the law’s language outlined in the memo, the accidental killing or injury of an animal would no longer be considered illegal; only actions specifically intending to target an animal would. The change would be transformative because, in the United States, the killing of endangered animals almost always happens incidentally, in the course of economic activity. Until now, industries and individuals could be held accountable for those foreseeable deaths and, as a result, they have been incentivized to avoid them. — Catrin Einhorn ONE LAST THING
Rising seas are gobbling up beaches around the world. A.I. might restore them.In the Maldives, a low-lying archipelago in the Indian Ocean, researchers are doing something remarkable: They’re growing beaches. The project, born in a lab at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology a decade ago, uses artificial intelligence, satellite and ocean-current data to predict coastal erosion patterns and create submerged structures that harness currents to coax the beach back. More climate news from around the web:
Read past editions of the newsletter here. If you’re enjoying what you’re reading, please consider recommending it to others. They can sign up here. Follow The New York Times on Instagram, Threads, Facebook and TikTok at @nytimes. Reach us at climateforward@nytimes.com. We read every message, and reply to many!
|
