July, 12 2017, 10:00am EDT

Published Study Identifies When Hundreds of Coastal Communities Will Face Inundation, Possible Retreat
Meeting Paris Agreement Goals Could Spare Many Communities from This Fate
WASHINGTON
More than 90 U.S. communities already face chronic inundation from rising seas caused by climate change, and the number could jump to nearly 170 communities in less than 20 years and as many as 670 by the end of the century, according to a study by analysts at the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) published in the peer-reviewed journal Elementa today. The analysis is the first to look at the entire coastline of the lower 48 states and identify communities that will experience flooding so extensive and disruptive that it will require either expensive investments to fortify against rising seas or residents and businesses to prepare to abandon areas they call home. The analysis projects when communities can expect to see this degree of flooding and which cities and towns might avoid such flooding if the long-term temperature goals of the Paris climate agreement are achieved.
The study was published on the same day a 2,200 square mile iceberg--one of the largest ever recorded and nearly the size of Delaware--broke off from an ice shelf in Antarctica, highlighting how quickly the planet is warming.
The analysis defines a threshold above which flooding becomes unmanageable for people's daily lives. The threshold--10 percent or more of a community's usable, non-wetland area is flooded at least 26 times per year or the equivalent of a flood every other week--was determined after consulting technical experts and residents of communities currently experiencing disruptive flooding. Once a community--delineated by the Census Bureau as county subdivisions--crosses this threshold, it is considered "chronically inundated." To put it in perspective, Miami Beach--widely considered a poster child for rising seas--has not yet reached the 10 percent threshold set in this analysis, but is already facing tough, costly choices.
"Some 90 communities, mostly in Louisiana and Maryland where the land is also sinking, are already facing chronic inundation from sea level rise," said Erika Spanger-Siegfried, senior analyst in the Climate and Energy Program at UCS and a report author. "As global temperature increases sea level rise, several hundred coastal communities are looking at the same kind of chronic flooding around the middle of the century--from beach vacation destinations like the Jersey Shore and the Gulf Coast of Florida to larger cities, including Boston, Galveston, Savannah and Fort Lauderdale. By late century, four of the five boroughs of New York City (excluding the Bronx) would be chronically inundated. We hope this analysis provides a wake-up call to coastal communities--and us as a nation--so we can see this coming and have time to prepare."
The UCS study assessed three sea level rise scenarios: The "low scenario" assumes carbon emissions decline steeply, sea level rise is driven primarily by ocean warming with very little ice loss, and warming is limited to less than 2 degrees Celsius--in line with the primary goal of the Paris Agreement. The "intermediate scenario" projects carbon emissions peaking around mid-century and about 4 feet of sea level rise globally, with ice melting at a moderate rate that increases over time. In the "high scenario," emissions rise through the end of the century and ice melts faster to yield about 6.5 feet of sea level rise. Recent studies suggest the high scenario is increasingly plausible due to accelerating ice sheet loss. In fact, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration recently released a substantially higher scenario.
The UCS analysis found:
- By 2035, about 170 communities--roughly twice as many as today--will face chronic flooding and possible retreat from affected areas under the intermediate or high sea level rise scenarios, with more than 100 seeing at least a quarter of their land chronically flooded.
- By 2060, about 270 communities will face chronic flooding and possible retreat from affected areas with intermediate sea level rise. This number jumps to 360 under the high scenario. About 40 percent of chronically inundated communities in either scenario would see at least half of their land flooded.
- By 2100, about 490 communities--including roughly 40 percent of all oceanfront communities on the East and Gulf Coasts--will face chronic flooding and possible retreat with intermediate sea level rise, with nearly 300 seeing at least a quarter of their land chronically flooded. The number of communities jumps to about 670--including roughly 60 percent of all oceanfront communities on the East and Gulf Coasts--under the high scenario.
- Many communities that never reach the 10 percent threshold of chronic inundation this century--such as Annapolis, Md. and Long Beach, Calif.--are nevertheless expected to see chronic flooding of important areas and infrastructure.
The chronically inundated communities in 2035--mainly on the Jersey Shore, mainland side of North Carolina's Pamlico Sound, southern Louisiana, and Maryland's Eastern Shore--are mostly clustered together in places already experiencing regular tidal flooding, or neighboring such places. By 2060, entirely new stretches of coastline become chronically inundated under both the intermediate and high sea level rise scenarios, including the greater Boston area and northern New Jersey, as well as additional communities along the northern coast of Texas, and Louisiana and Florida's Gulf Coasts.
"By 2060, hundreds of U.S. coastal communities--cities and towns of all kinds--face chronic inundation," said Kristy Dahl, a report author and climate scientist consultant to UCS. "In Texas, for example, bigger cities and industrial centers like Galveston and Sabine Pass become chronically inundated by mid-century. So do many tourist destinations, such as Sanibel and Captiva Islands in Florida, Hilton Head in South Carolina, Ocean City in Maryland, and more than a dozen towns along the Jersey Shore."
Chronic flooding becomes a problem for many major cities in the coming decades, but at the end of the century with the high scenario, that number tops 50 communities--both big cities and large county subdivisions--with populations over 100,000, including Boston, Newark, Fort Lauderdale, and four of the five boroughs of New York City. Residents in these cities will need to grapple with the question of whether to adapt or relocate. And while the West Coast was previously able to escape mostly unscathed, by 2100 the San Francisco Bay and greater Los Angeles areas join the ranks of the chronically inundated.
The communities that will be affected have three basic strategies to cope with rising seas: defend, accommodate and retreat. Some East and Gulf Coast communities are already employing defensive and accommodation measures such as seawalls, tide gates, levees, elevated homes and large-scale pumping systems. Efforts to accommodate or keep out water may stall the inundation projected by this analysis, but often at great cost and for a limited time. That means hundreds of communities along the coasts, from Maine to the state of Washington, will be forced to make difficult choices about how much to invest in flooded areas versus when to retreat from them. Likewise, residents in affected areas will be forced to decide their tipping point for remaining at home or relocating.
"By making sound decisions soon, communities can prepare for chronic inundation in the time they have," said Shana Udvardy, report author and climate preparedness specialist at UCS. "This could help them avoid serious losses not only of homes, schools, businesses, and other infrastructure, but also of regional history, sense of place, local culture, and the community's way of life."
The analysis also highlights that some Americans will be harder hit than others. By using a previously published index of socioeconomic vulnerability, the study identified that nearly 60 communities facing chronic inundation in the next 20 years are also contending with social and economic challenges that may leave them with fewer resources to plan or adapt, and thus exposed to disproportionate harms. While equitable solutions to chronic inundation will require inclusion of all voices, people of color and low-income people are too often excluded from decisions affecting their neighborhoods and communities, and face significant hurdles accessing federal and state programs, as well as funding.
The analysis makes a number of policy recommendations to help coastal communities at risk of chronic inundation, including phasing out policies that encourage risky coastal development, and bolstering existing policies or enacting new ones that would bring about investments to make communities more resilient to sea level rise. But it's achieving the long- term temperature goals established in the Paris Agreement and limiting global ice loss that could have the greatest effect. Holding warming to between 1.5 and 2 degrees Celsius by the end of the century could spare between roughly 200 and 380 U.S. coastal communities, including nearly 50 major U.S. cities and many more cities worldwide, from chronic flooding and possible retreat, depending on the amount of sea level rise.
"Meeting the long term goals of the Paris Agreement would offer coastal communities facing chronic flooding their best chance to limit the harms of sea level rise," said Rachel Cleetus, lead economist and climate policy manager at UCS. "Despite President Trump's attempts to undermine near-term federal action on climate change, other countries as well as U.S. states, cities, businesses and citizens are showing firm resolve to fulfill the promise of Paris. They understand that if we fail to limit warming, we're committing a great many people to a future of flooding and inundation, and the hard choices and significant costs that come with it."
To view the report PDF, click here.
The Elementa journal article can be found by clicking here.
To view a spreadsheet that sorts the chronically inundated communities by state, click here. To see the communities sorted by year, click here.
To use the interactive mapping tool, click here. The various tabs allow you to explore the amount of land area flooded, and the communities that are affected by the rising seas--including the ones that may have fewer resources to cope with chronic inundation, and ones that could avoid such flooding if the Paris Agreement's temperature goals were achieved. By scrolling, you will see buttons for each time frame examined in the report for both the intermediate and high sea level rise scenarios. As you zoom in, the maps become more detailed. You can also click on a specific community for more details about it.
For state-specific fact sheets, community case studies, Spanish language materials, blogs and a video, click here.
The Union of Concerned Scientists is the leading science-based nonprofit working for a healthy environment and a safer world. UCS combines independent scientific research and citizen action to develop innovative, practical solutions and to secure responsible changes in government policy, corporate practices, and consumer choices.
LATEST NEWS
Amazon Won't Display Tariff Costs After Trump Whines to Bezos
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said all companies should be "displaying how much tariffs contribute to the total price of products."
Apr 29, 2025
Amazon said Tuesday that it would not display tariff costs next to products on its website after U.S. President Donald Trump called the e-commerce giant's billionaire founder, Jeff Bezos, to complain about the reported plan.
Citing an unnamed person familiar with Amazon's supposed plan, Punchbowl Newsreported that "the shopping site will display how much of an item's cost is derived from tariffs—right next to the product's total listed price."
Many Amazon products come from China. While U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent claimed Sunday that "there is a path" to a tariff deal with the Chinese government, Trump has recently caused global economic alarm by hitting the country with a 145% tax and imposing a 10% minimum for other nations.
According toCNN, which spoke with two senior White House officials on Tuesday, Trump's call to Bezos "came shortly after one of the senior officials phoned the president to inform him of the story" from Punchbowl.
"Of course he was pissed," one officials said of Trump. "Why should a multibillion-dollar company pass off costs to consumers?"
Asked about how the call with Bezos went, Trump told reporters: "Great. Jeff Bezos was very nice. He was terrific. He solved the problem very quickly, and he did the right thing, and he's a good guy."
Earlier Tuesday, during a briefing, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt called Amazon's reported plan "a hostile and political act," and said that "this is another reason why Americans should buy American."
Leavitt also asked why Amazon didn't have such displays during the Biden administration and held up a printed version of a 2021 Reutersreport about the company's "compliance with the Chinese government edict" to stop allowing customer ratings and reviews in China, allegedly prompted by negative feedback left on a collection President Xi Jinping's speeches and writings.
Asked whether Bezos is "still a Trump supporter," Leavitt said that she "will not speak to" the president's relationship with him.
As CNBCdetailed Tuesday:
Less than two hours after the press briefing, an Amazon spokesperson told CNBC that the company was only ever considering listing tariff charges on some products for Amazon Haul, its budget-focused shopping section.
"The team that runs our ultra low cost Amazon Haul store has considered listing import charges on certain products," the spokesperson said. "This was never a consideration for the main Amazon site and nothing has been implemented on any Amazon properties."
But in a follow-up statement an hour after that one, the spokesperson clarified that the plan to show tariff surcharges was "never approved" and is "not going to happen."
In response to Bloomberg also reporting on Amazon's claim that tariff displays were never under consideration for the company's main site, U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick wrote on social media Tuesday, "Good move."
Before Amazon publicly killed any plans for showing consumers the costs from Trump's import taxes, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said on the chamber's floor Tuesday that companies should be "displaying how much tariffs contribute to the total price of products."
"I urge more companies, particularly national retailers that compete with Amazon, to adopt this practice. If Amazon has the courage to display why prices are going up because of tariffs, so should all of our other national retailers who compete with them. And I am calling on them to do it now," he said.
Congressional Progressive Caucus Chair Greg Casar (D-Texas) on Tuesday framed the whole incident as an example of how "Trump has created a government by and for the billionaires," declaring: "If anyone ever doubted that Trump, and Musk, and Bezos, and the billionaires are all [on] one team, just look at what happened at Amazon today. Bezos immediately caved and walked back a plan to tell Americans how much Trump's tariffs are costing them."
Casar also claimed Bezos wants "big tax cuts and sweatheart deals," and pointed to Amazon's Prime Video paying $40 million to license a documentary about the life of First Lady Melania Trump. In addition to the film agreement, Bezos has come under fire for Amazon's $1 million donation to the president's inauguration fund.
As the owner of
The Washington Post, Bezos—the world's second-richest person, after Trump adviser Elon Musk—also faced intense criticism for blocking the newspaper's planned endorsement of the president's 2024 Democratic challenger, Kamala Harris, and demanding its opinion page advocate for "personal liberties and free markets."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Medicare for All, Says Sanders, Would Show American People 'Government Is Listening to Them'
"The goal of the current administration and their billionaire buddies is to pile on endless cuts," said one nurse and union leader. "Even on our hardest days, we won't stop fighting for Medicare for All."
Apr 29, 2025
On Tuesday, Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Democratic Reps. Pramila Jayapal of Washington and Debbie Dingell of Michigan reintroduced the Medicare for All Act, re-upping the legislative quest to enact a single-payer healthcare system even as the bill faces little chance of advancing in the GOP-controlled House of Representatives or Senate.
Hundreds of nurses, healthcare providers, and workers from across the country joined the lawmakers for a press conference focused on the bill's reintroduction in front of the Capitol on Tuesday.
"We have the radical idea of putting healthcare dollars into healthcare, not into profiteering or bureaucracy," said Sanders during the press conference. "A simple healthcare system, which is what we are talking about, substantially reduces administrative costs, but it would also make life a lot easier, not just for patients, but for nurses" and other healthcare providers, he continued.
"So let us stand together," Sanders told the crowd. "Let us do what the American people want and let us transform this country. And when we pass Medicare for All, it's not only about improving healthcare for all our people—it's doing something else. It's telling the American people that, finally, the American government is listening to them."
Under Medicare for All, the government would pay for all healthcare services, including dental, vision, prescription drugs, and other care.
"It is a travesty when 85 million people are uninsured or underinsured and millions more are drowning in medical debt in the richest nation on Earth," said Jayapal in a statement on Tuesday.
In 2020, a study in the peer-reviewed medical journal The Lancet found that a single-payer program like Medicare for All would save Americans more than $450 billion and would likely prevent 68,000 deaths every year. That same year, the Congressional Budget Office found that a single-payer system that resembles Medicare for All would yield some $650 billion in savings in 2030.
Members of National Nurses United (NNU), the nation's largest union of registered nurses, were also at the press conference on Tuesday.
In a statement, the group highlighted that the bill comes at a critical time, given GOP-led threats to programs like Medicaid.
"The goal of the current administration and their billionaire buddies is to pile on endless cuts and attacks so that we become too demoralized and overwhelmed to move forward," said Bonnie Castillo, registered nurse and executive director of NNU. "Even on our hardest days, we won't stop fighting for Medicare for All."
Per Sanders' office, the legislation has 104 co-sponsors in the House and 16 in the Senate, which is an increase from the previous Congress.
A poll from Gallup released in 2023 found that 7 in 10 Democrats support a government-run healthcare system. The poll also found that across the political spectrum, 57% of respondents believe the government should ensure all people have healthcare coverage.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Advocates Warn GOP Just Unveiled 'Most Dangerous Higher Ed Bill in US History'
"This is the boldest attempt we've seen in recent history to segregate higher education along racial and class lines," said the Debt Collective.
Apr 29, 2025
At a markup session held by a U.S. House committee on the Republican Party's recently unveiled higher education reform bill Tuesday, one Democratic lawmaker had a succinct description for the legislation.
"This bill is a dream-killer," said Rep. Suzanne Bonamici (D-Ore.) of the so-called Student Success and Taxpayer Savings Plan, which was introduced by Education and Workforce Committee Chairman Tim Walberg (R-Mich.) as part of an effort to find $330 billion in education programs to offset President Donald Trump's tax plan.
Tasked with helping to make $4.5 trillion in tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans possible, Walberg on Monday proposed changes to the Pell Grant program, which has provided financial aid to more than 80 million low-income students since it began in 1972. The bill would allocate more funding to the program but would also reduce the number of students who are eligible for the grants, changing the definition of a "full-time" student to one enrolled in at least 30 semester hours each academic year—up from 12 hours. Students would be cut off from the financial assistance entirely if they are enrolled less than six hours per semester.
David Baime, senior vice president for government relations for the American Association of Community Colleges, suggested the legislation doesn't account for the realities faced by many students who benefit from Pell Grants.
"These students are almost always working a substantial number of hours each week and often have family responsibilities. Pell Grants help them meet the cost of tuition and required fees," Baime toldInside Higher Ed. "We commend the committee for identifying substantial additional resources to help finance Pell, but it should not come at the cost of undermining the ability of low-income working students to enroll at a community college."
The draft bill would also end subsidized loans, which don't accrue interest when a student is still in college and gives borrowers a six-month grace period after graduation, starting in July 2026. More than 30 million borrowers currently have subsidized loans.
The proposal would also reduce the number of student loan repayment options from those offered by the Biden administration to just two, with borrowers given the option for a fixed monthly amount paid over a certain period of time or an income-based plan.
At the markup session on Tuesday, Bonamici pointed to her own experience of paying for college and law school "through a combination of grants and loans and work study and food stamps," and noted that her Republican colleagues on the committee also "graduated from college."
"And more than half of them have gone on to earn advanced degrees," said the congresswoman. "And yet those same individuals who benefited so much from accessing higher education are supporting a bill that will prevent others from doing so."
“In a time when higher ed is being attacked, this bill is another assault,” @RepBonamici calls out committee leaders for wanting to gut financial aid.
“With this bill, they will be taking that opportunity [of higher ed] away from others. This bill is a dream killer.” pic.twitter.com/UjTYvnOEKv
— Student Borrower Protection Center (@theSBPC) April 29, 2025
Democrats on the committee also spoke out against provisions that would cap loans a student can take out for graduate programs at $100,000; the Grad PLUS program has allowed students to borrow up to the cost of attendance.
The Parent PLUS program, which has been found to provide crucial help to Black families accessing higher education, would also be restricted.
"Black students, brown students, first-generation college students, first-generation Americans, will not have access to college," said Rep. Summer Lee (D-Pa.).
“We cannot take away access to loans, and not replace it with anything else, not make the system better. We know the outcome here—Black, brown, and poor students will not figure it out. Instead, only elite students from the 1% will continue to access education.”@RepSummerLee🙇 pic.twitter.com/oGbRH154Ed
— Student Borrower Protection Center (@theSBPC) April 29, 2025
As the Student Borrower Protection Center (SBPC) warned last week, eliminating the Grad PLUS program without also lowering the cost of graduate programs would "subject millions of future borrowers to an unregulated and predatory private student loan market, while doing little to reduce overall student debt and the need to borrow."
Aissa Canchola Bañez, policy director for SBPC, told The Hill that the draft bill is "an attack on students and working families with student loan debt."
"We've seen an array of really problematic proposals that are on the table for congressional Republicans," Canchola Bañez said. "Many of these would cause massive spikes for families with monthly student loan payments."
With the proposal, which Republicans hope to pass through reconciliation with a simple majority, the party would be "restructuring higher education for the worse," said the Debt Collective.
"It's the most dangerous higher ed bill in U.S. history," said the student loan borrowers union. "It strips the Department of Education of virtually every authority to cancel student debt. Eliminates every repayment program. Abolishes subsidized loans."
"This is the boldest attempt we've seen in recent history to segregate higher education along racial and class lines," the group added. "We have to push back."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular