In October 2012, Hurricane Sandy swept through the Caribbean and North America, killing 286 people and causing over $68 billion in damages. The storm brought flooding and strong winds. In New York and New Jersey alone, more than 40,000 people were displaced as the storm destroyed homes and businesses.

Although hurricanes are common, Hurricane Sandy was more destructive than most. Experts attribute Sandy’s unusual strength to the effects of climate change, which include higher average temperatures and rising sea levels. Scientists project that storms like Sandy will become more frequent as Earth gets warmer. And powerful storms aren’t the only consequence of climate change. Statistics about rising sea levels suggest that parts of many coastal U.S. cities will be under water by 2100. The cities of Boston, New York, Baltimore, Philadelphia, and Miami are at high risk.

The Rockaways is an area of New York that was hit particularly hard by Hurricane Sandy. New Yorkers agreed that rebuilding the Rockaways—a popular recreation area that many people call home—was in everyone’s best interest. But that cost a lot! New York City spent over $140 million to clean up Rockaway beaches in the two years after the storm, and that was only a start. The price tag for adding sand to the beaches and rebuilding the boardwalk was even higher. Government programs also helped pay for residents to rebuild their homes. But government funds come from taxes paid by everyone. Should those funds go toward helping people rebuild houses in locations that are prone to major storms?

Some communities have chosen to relocate rather than rebuild. Newtok, Alaska became an unsustainable place to live due to rising sea levels. Residents of Netwok chose to move to Mertarvik, a site nine miles away. The relocation project came with a price tag of over $100 million. Dozens of Alaskan communities face the same risk. They are also fighting for the funding they need to relocate to stay safe from further disruption.

Scientists agree that climate change is a reality. Large cities like New York and Miami have so much infrastructure— buildings, roads, power plants—that the cost of relocating would be unrealistic. These cities are building roof gardens to absorb heat and elevating waterfront areas to reduce the impact of storm flooding.

But what about smaller communities? Should the government spend limited dollars on rebuilding these communities to withstand the next big storm? Or should these communities be responsible for rebuilding themselves, since they are deciding to stay in the path of storms?