SpaceBus
Minister of Fire
Yeah! Screw those millions of people who lived on the coast for thousands of years, they are just poor brown folk anyway!
Wood vs fossil fuels bad for climate warming???
- Thread starter Thomas Maxwell
- Start date
-
Active since 1995, Hearth.com is THE place on the internet for free information and advice about wood stoves, pellet stoves and other energy saving equipment.
We strive to provide opinions, articles, discussions and history related to Hearth Products and in a more general sense, energy issues.
We promote the EFFICIENT, RESPONSIBLE, CLEAN and SAFE use of all fuels, whether renewable or fossil.
The problem is that government steps in and creates self perpetuating programs that may start out as self funded risk pools but inevitably end up having the general tax paper subsidize stupidity. The National Flood insurance program started out as a shared risk pool but long ago it became subsidized by all the US taxpayers. When there are attempts to raise the rates for flood insurance to reflect losses voters in those risky areas raise heck with their politcians and the increases get delayed.
Take a look at the barrier islands in Florida. Basically one road in the middle with a lot on the Atlantic side and lot on the Intracoastal. Houses get wiped out when a hurricane comes by and developers rush right in an build "storm resistant" high end structures to replace
The politicians also have warped the intent of the program to encourage building and rebuilding in flood prone areas. The rational for buyers is they are willing to take the risk of a "big one" to live in paradise the rest of the time. Look at Key West Florida, it will get wiped out whenever a Hurricane hits yet people are lined up to move on down somehow even if they have to live in a trailer. Enforce tough laws and local politicians scream as empty lots do not vote.
BTW after Hurricane Andrew hit south Florida all the insurance companies were going to stop writing policies in the state. Florida had to step in provide big backstops on major losses to keep the firms in the state. They put in all sorts of major restrictions and deductibles on the policies. They also put in statewide enforcement of building codes. Previously the small towns just didn't enforce them especially for developers. Insurance rates went way up but banks would still write mortgages so those with a short time horizon and more money than sense just kept buying. There are some big debates that banks at one point will just stop writing mortgages as when the bust starts after a couple of big hurricanes they don't want to be stuck holding paper on worthless property.
It should be if the structure is in a 20 year flood plain, the owner gets a check and the lot is turned into buffer space never to be built on. The problem is in many areas a developer grabs the lot and builds a high rise with utility areas like parkign spaces under the first couple floors. Their building may survive but all the local infrastructure can not support it. Unless a community pulls a Galveston project and raises the entire city including the streets and infrastructure let it revert back to dunes and mangroves.
In my area the town didnt have accurate flood plan maps. A state high way was moved years ago to avoid washout and flooding from spring flooding. The owner of the land started selling camp lots along the old road. The area is short on land for new homes so a bunch of folks built year round homes along the road. Every 10 years or so the road will flood during spring runoff and the bankings will washout along the river. The town usually gets FEMA funds to deal with the worst washouts but in few years the grass grows back on the banks and the owner sells their home to someone outside the area who doesnt know about the issue. No one wants to get holding the stick.
Well, that means that all folks in tornado alley are on their own. That means that the West coast (quakes and tsunami's) are on their own. That means that the gulf and Atlantic coasts (hurricanes) are on their own. That means that the forested areas in the West (forest fires, droughts) are on their own.
Maybe we should only live in -- well, maybe we should stop living then altogether?
I agree that building in a floodplain is not smart. But then again, building in a bone dry pine forest in OR or CA? Building in Nebraska?
The point is that all of us in this country benefit from the economic and agricultural activity in these places. And hence it is okay (fair?) for all of us to contribute to mitigate the risks that the folks run while living and working in these places.
This does not resolve the issue, but it is "the other side of the story" that I think is worth considering.
Isaac Carlson
Minister of Fire
Proper planning of building sites, managemant of local resources, and elimination of incentives might help. Greed drives a lot of people and government. Municipalities want more tax dollars, more people. Why? Stop being greedy and let people be. It costs so damn much to live now that a lot of people choose poverty.
Of course, when a trend of 30 yr averages goes up, but on top of that are seasonal (yearly) fluctuations, they can not predict how many, how much $ and when.
This is THE fallacy about statistics. That they allow to predict what happens "tomorrow" - because the next 5 yrs us tomorrow in climate terms.
I don't understand what you're saying. Do insurance companies rely on predictions to set rates?
No, the interviewee in that npr piece said they are being asked "how many, when, how.muxh" for the next five years, and you latch on to "we can't do that". My point is that that is naturally not possible. As trends are understood, but 5 yr predictions are not possible because trends have statistical fluctuations superimposed on them.
The trends are clear. Climate is changing. But that doesn't allow to say what's going to happen two years from now.
At what point should people bear the cost of living where they do? I have zero access to public transit to get to my workplace, should other taxpayers pitch in for my vehicle or gas money because my taxes help to pay for a transit system I can't use?
We have areas here now where homes are uninsurable for flooding, homes have flooded multiple times and the last time the insurance company says "upon completion of the rebuild the flood portion of your policy will be nullified due to risk". It is then the homeowners choice to take that risk, or get out with the insurance money and buy elsewhere.
We have areas here now where homes are uninsurable for flooding, homes have flooded multiple times and the last time the insurance company says "upon completion of the rebuild the flood portion of your policy will be nullified due to risk". It is then the homeowners choice to take that risk, or get out with the insurance money and buy elsewhere.
This is a deep and charged question of what in means to be part of a community. In fact other taxpayers DID pitch in to your transportation system.... they paid for at least some of the roads you drive on. Sure, rural folks can chip in to urban subway systems they will never use. And urban people pay taxes to support building highways in rural areas that THEY will never use.
There is a lot of emotion around these issues, and both sides think THEY are paying more and getting less. There doesn't need to be any arguing about it. Its numbers. In the US (I don't know about Alberta), the numbers say that the states with large urban centers generally contribute more per capita to the fed budget than those states that lack such large urban centers. But a lot of people in those rural states are telling themselves they are independent and self-reliant and 'their taxes are too high'. Check the numbers sometime.
This sort of antagonism is due to a lack of relating between rural and urban people, and each having stereotypes about the other. The reality is that they are both part of one community, and resources are being allocated ad transferred according to a mix of history, need, and political power.
The point you miss here is one of opportunity. I think most people would NOT choose to live on a floodplain. Those that do are often renters who are looking for a cheap place to live. Why is it cheap? Bc the owners are (sensibly) refusing to update/upgrade the property, and would rather rent it than tear it down for a loss. And there is a steady supply of poor people looking for a roof over their heads that they can afford.
And that is why climate and zoning are matters of social justice and equality. I know I brought up the (rich) folks on Miami beach with their $$$ condos imperiled by King Tides. That gets lots of press...but for every one person in that spot, there are hundreds of poor people living on floodplains, in low lying areas (not beachfront) subject to storm surges or immediately downwind from a chemical plant. What those people have in common is that their properties are lower value, and their rents are lower. And so they are poorer, and to tell them to move away misses the point.
For your example, the community should buy out those properties at a fair rate, and demolish them. And make sure that there are alternate safe and affordable housing solutions for the displaced people.
SpaceBus
Minister of Fire
This is hard to understand for Americans, but the rest of the world has already been developed with huge cities since before cities were planned. Almost the whole world population lives in Asia, also a place people have had cities in now flood prone areas for centuries.
Your family hasn't lived in Canada for thousands of years. Bad example. The people that live in flood areas, outside of this country, have been there for thousands of years. This is a tough concept for North Americans to understand, but the world existed before you did, and yes, you should help those people. Most of the people trapped in these flood zones don't have insurance, can't afford to move, and don't have anywhere else to go. Especially when nations like Canada and America make it hard to immigrate or become a legal citizen.
I would want a bit more definition on what constitutes a coastal zone. There are plenty of coastal zones that are not subject to significant flooding events. I think its important to flag a low to moderate risk zone from high risk zone. It used to be 20 year flood zone and 100 year flood zone but FEMA no longer uses the year title. On top of that is what is considered the Mean Coincident Storm Surge. On coastal headlands with a steep drop to water a home can be well above the low to moderate zone and even over the Mean Coincident Storm Surge and still have shore front while barrier islands and shore front may have high risk zones well inland. Those areas are also impact the most by storm surges. With climate change its a double whammy as mean sea level is rising consistently over the long term and the oceans are warmer and this more energetic. That means bigger storms that can create higher elevation storm surges. In many areas coastal populations over centuries have filling in shallow areas to make more land, not only do the flood more often the fill can be variable due to soil liquefaction.
I guess you misunderstood my post without details of the conditions of my specific area.
The vast majority of this area has been developed in the last 100 years. Local floods and floodplains have been fairly well understood. We don't have oceanfront, but we do have lake and river front properties. These areas are desirable as a status symbol for those with the wealth to do so, and with few exceptions command higher purchase prices, I assure you people don't live there out of desperation. Why should my insurance rates go up because someone decides to build a multi-million dollar home on the edge of the river on a 1 in 10 or 20 year floodplain? Why should it then be the communities responsibility to buy them out? They chose to turn a piece of flood plain used as riverfront farmland into their home and lost.
That's pretty bold to say. My family left Europe in the 1870's out of survival, after being chased around Europe due to religious persecution for most of the 200 years before, not for greed or otherwise. We know just a little about what it's like to have our family land stolen away, and all our family records burned and destroyed. Maybe I should call up Putin and see if he's ready to give our land in Crimea back?
I also feel for those that are forced out of their homes, but as I said above I don't feel bad for those who deliberately put themselves in harms way.
SpaceBus
Minister of Fire
It's not like these millions of people decided that they would pick a 10=20 year floodplain, 99% of the people threatened are not there by choice. On the other side of the globe most of the areas at risk have been established for thousands of years, and the millions of inhabitants didn't exactly request to be born there. Many of the at risk regions may not even be that close to the coast. Rivers that connect to the oceans will flood with rising sea levels and cause damage miles inland. As a person of displaced diaspora you know that fleeing people rarely have a choice of housing.
You could call up Putin, but I don't think he likes the native Crimeans or the Jewish minorities that fled at the end of the 19th century and later.
I love George. But the man passed away 12 years ago, and it seems this clip is from 2007. It's dated.
For the record, this Carlin video is frequently promoted by the AEI, a conservative and neoconservative think tank.
Moreover, AEI has both financial and leadership ties to ExxonMobil. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Enterprise_Institute#Global_warming
Last edited:
Nothing dated , Georges commentary is timeless, listen again, he even talks about the virus well before it’s time...
Yeah, no. Agree to disagree. If I find a comedian in 1960 saying cigarettes aren't bad for you, its not funny in 1975.
The present rate of species extinction is 100X the figure he cited.
A question of the common good. Many folks don't have children but pay school taxes regularly. Those people are also paying taxes for the roads we use. I pay for the hefty cost of highway snow removal and wildfires in eastern WA even though I rarely go there. In turn, their taxes help pay for the ferry system which is an extension of the highway network. In Canada, you are paying for a national healthcare network even if you are hail and hearty. But it's there when you need it. 20 or 30 yrs from now you may move into an urban area as you get too old to manage remote living. Then you may need all of those services.
There is recent study by a organization that predicts flood insurance rates that is raising some eyebrows. They are predicting that national flood insurance rates are going to go up significantly.
First Street Foundation Finds Over 4 Million Homes Face Annual Financial Losses From Flooding That Are 4.5 Times The Cost Of Their Estimated National Flood Insurance Premiums Today And Increase To 7.2 Times over the next 30 years (prnewswire.com)
NPR used that study and did a considerably expanded article on how much of the country increased risk of floods could impact.
Climate Driven Flood Damage Threatens Towns Across U.S. : NPR
First Street Foundation Finds Over 4 Million Homes Face Annual Financial Losses From Flooding That Are 4.5 Times The Cost Of Their Estimated National Flood Insurance Premiums Today And Increase To 7.2 Times over the next 30 years (prnewswire.com)
NPR used that study and did a considerably expanded article on how much of the country increased risk of floods could impact.
Climate Driven Flood Damage Threatens Towns Across U.S. : NPR
Similar threads
