Wednesday, January 15, 2014

Sen. Inhofe, got any coastal vacation properties where you want to sell options?

From a comment of mine at Same Facts about coastal properties and sea level rise:

One other option for climate denialist landowners – sell 99-year options to obtain ownership of their land for token value should it become uninhabitable. Denialists will be willing to [sell] this cheaply. Science believers will be willing to buy in order to get whatever residual value the land has other than residential use (harvest, recreation etc.).
A denialist with a large expensive coastal property should be willing sell for a small amount of money an option to buy it for a nominal amount if sea level makes it uninhabitable. The obvious problem is once the land's uninhabitable then it loses a lot of value, but maybe there are other uses that give some benefit to owning it.

I had an earlier version of this idea several years back thinking about the end-of-the-world types and how to bet with them (aren't we due another outbreak?). Climate change isn't the end of the world, but it's going to be curtains for a lot of residences.

UPDATE:  just thought I'd add a personal note - yours truly is now the Vice-Chair of our Water District, a feat I achieved by "waiting my turn." It doesn't mean a whole lot, one or two extra committee assignments. If I'm re-elected then I'll be Chair next year and have the honor of chucking aside any goals I have for the District for that year, to work instead on the goals of the rest of the Board and on everything else the Chair's got to get done. Should be fun.


EliRabett said...

Eli always thought you were a bit wooden. . .

Brian said...

We'll see how much I can chuck.


First , Congress should auction the water skiing franchise for The Mall

Daniel Wirt said...

Yes, Seitz, there is hardly anything left to commidify. Wrap up those loose ends. The neoliberals and libertarians will help.

Brian said...

Water privatization is an interesting litmus test.

Leftists oppose it for ideological reasons. They'll also make empirical arguments but IMO those are secondary motivations.

Liberals oppose it for empirical reasons (hasn't worked well overall).

Conservatives support it for ideological reasons. They'll also make (incorrect) empirical argument, but they aren't the drivers.

On this issue at least, put me with the liberals. I will concede though that privatization has often been done when a government has totally messed up water financing and wants a private company take the blame for massive rate hikes.