The threat of global warming is becoming more pervasive, causing sea levels to rise and storms to become more severe. Not only do people living in coastal areas suffer due to the intensity of these storms, the entire nation is affected. It is irresponsible as a nation to encourage the development of coastal areas, and therefore the NFIP should be privatized.
When reading this article about how flood insurance is so heavily subsidized and the notion that "New York City wants the Obama administration to use up to $400 million in storm relief money to buy out homeowners"" (187), I was appalled, and immediately angered as a taxpayer. National funds should not be used to protect those who make the precarious decision to live and buy property on coastlines. The lingering threat of a hurricanes, storms, and flooding is in no way new, and has only escalated over the past few decades due to global climate change and the degradation of coastal wildlife to provide a natural buffer. As a person with sound enough mind to not purchase property in such an area, it seems unjustified that my taxes should go towards others insist on living in these dangerous areas; they are not only putting tax dollars at risk, but their families as well.
Coastal development can have dire consequences, as shown in the timeline provided in the article. Not only do these storms cost billions of dollars in damages, but there is also a detrimental loss of human life- a problem that could have easily been avoided if families and businesses had been moved more inland. Additionally, one must consider how NFIP has "sparked development in the most risk-prone and environmentally sensitive regions, threatening innumerable endangered species, [and] depleting wetlands"" (197). With the NFIP $30 billion dollars in debt because of the unforeseen costs of federal aid, one can only imagine if that $30 billion had been invested in the protection of wildlife, management of freshwater, or the development of renewable energy.
