If sea levels are bound to rise, tax flood-risk zones

But it’s doubtful Congress will pass it

It’s already too late to stop global warming, say scientists. No matter what we do, sea levels will rise. Some climate activists have even released an interactive map that will let you see how much of, say Washington, D.C., will be under water in the next century, with the flooded zones depicted in blue.

If it’s too late to stop global warming, I have a modest proposal instead: Tax the blue zones. That is, minimize the damage that will occur from flooding many decades in the future by reducing development now.

If we’re seriously worried about flooding from higher sea levels, then we want to make sure the areas that will be flooded in the future won’t be developed now. We want to limit the investment in buildings that will be swamped, and we want to limit the number of people who’ll have to move. And we want to encourage people who live in those areas to move before they’re flooded.

How? Well, we could limit construction in lower-lying coastal areas, ban rebuilding after hurricane damage, etc. But probably the favorite tool of politicians out to regulate behavior is to tax people. So that’s my proposal: Tax the blue zones. That is, put a large and steeply increasing tax on property located in areas scientists say are likely to be flooded because of global warming.

Such a tax might seem burdensome up front, but if flooding is as big a problem as climate activists claim, today’s burdens are likely to be minor compared with the problems prevented by limiting development in the blue zones. Like the high fuel taxes designed to keep SUV-driving flyover types from burning too much gas, my proposed “blue zone tax” will affect behavior now in ways that will reduce costs in the future.

Climate activists say 20 million to 31 million Americans live in places that will be at risk of flooding from global warming by the end of the century. Just to be safe, we should aim to reduce the number of people living in these areas by 25% within 25 years, 50% in 50 years and 100% by the end of the century.

I’m not sure how big a tax that will require, but if there’s anything our elected representatives are good at, it’s making sure that taxes are high enough.

Whether they’ll be able to pass this is another question. Though I used the term “blue zone” to refer to the climate change map, it hasn’t escaped my notice that most of those areas are blue in another sense: Urban coastal cities that are heavily Democratic. Urban Democrats are among the biggest believers in climate change. But even they are more interested in talking about global warming than in sacrificing to fix it. Still, if global warming really is a challenge that deserves the equivalent of war mobilization in response, as some activists claim, then it’s hard to call my proposal too drastic. What do you say, Congress? Is there a “flood risk tax” in our future?

Glenn Harlan Reynolds, a University of Tennessee law professor, is a member of USA TODAY’s Board of Contributors.