Abstract

Managed retreat—the planned relocation of people facing imminent climate threats—is an inevitable part of future climate adaptation in the United States. Given that Black, Brown, and low-income communities are disproportionately vulnerable to climate hazards, managed retreat has significant justice implications. This Article explores what I call an apparent “justice paradox”—two “justice problems” with managed retreat that seem to point to opposite solutions. On the one hand, managed retreat can be inaccessible to marginalized communities, many of whom lack the resources to successfully navigate the relocation process. This justice problem suggests that decision-makers should prioritize managed retreat for marginalized communities since they are in greater need of relocation assistance. On the other hand, managed retreat can disproportionately harm marginalized communities, who may experience greater relocation-related psychosocial and financial harms. This justice problem suggests that decision-makers should avoid managed retreat for marginalized communities.

This Article argues that although these justice problems appear to indicate opposite solutions, they in fact reveal the same structural flaws with our current approach to climate-induced relocation and therefore call for the same remedies. First, both justice problems reflect the logic of racial capitalism and, specifically, the limitations of market-based economic approaches to managed retreat. Second, both problems manifest the ongoing failure to conceptualize and seize managed retreat as an opportunity to redress historic and systemic injustices. Finally, both problems are rooted in a lack of self-determination for marginalized communities facing climate threats. Addressing these structural issues will require fundamental transformations in how we think about climate adaptation.

Download

Included in

Law Commons

Share

COinS