|
|
Post by tazwtrdvl on Aug 18, 2018 18:10:22 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Aug 19, 2018 0:41:05 GMT
That is very likely true. As a child in the 1950's I moved into a southern California brush area and stayed there or right on the edge of such areas until graduating high school. Brush fires were very much on our mind all the time. I remember a half dozen of them that threatened either my home or my grandparents home from the 5th through the 12th grade. I also remember looking at the nearby mountains and seeing many fire roads cut on the mountainsides. In those days they also did strategic burns, intentionally set blazes in the right kind of weather to create fire buffers. I only lived intermittently in brush areas since but somewhere along the way the fire roads disappeared and the strategic burns stopped. I have little doubt they stopped because people thought the fire roads spoiled their views and that the strategic burns were harmful to the critters. Somewhere along the way we started to hear more about "natural" forests and "natural" ecosystems. Fire is clearly a part of these ecosystems. But you can't have your cake and eat it too. |
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Nov 22, 2018 21:50:14 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by blustnmtn on Nov 22, 2018 22:25:33 GMT
Yes, but for those with A.D.D. It’s much easier to say “Global Warming “...or...”Climate Change”! But easiest to comprehend is “Trump Did It!!!” |
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Nov 22, 2018 22:59:02 GMT
That is very likely true. As a child in the 1950's I moved into a southern California brush area and stayed there or right on the edge of such areas until graduating high school. Brush fires were very much on our mind all the time. I remember a half dozen of them that threatened either my home or my grandparents home from the 5th through the 12th grade. I also remember looking at the nearby mountains and seeing many fire roads cut on the mountainsides. In those days they also did strategic burns, intentionally set blazes in the right kind of weather to create fire buffers. I only lived intermittently in brush areas since but somewhere along the way the fire roads disappeared and the strategic burns stopped. I have little doubt they stopped because people thought the fire roads spoiled their views and that the strategic burns were harmful to the critters. Somewhere along the way we started to hear more about "natural" forests and "natural" ecosystems. Fire is clearly a part of these ecosystems. But you can't have your cake and eat it too. An all the more poignant point now 🙁 |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Nov 24, 2018 4:38:52 GMT
That is very likely true. As a child in the 1950's I moved into a southern California brush area and stayed there or right on the edge of such areas until graduating high school. Brush fires were very much on our mind all the time. I remember a half dozen of them that threatened either my home or my grandparents home from the 5th through the 12th grade. I also remember looking at the nearby mountains and seeing many fire roads cut on the mountainsides. In those days they also did strategic burns, intentionally set blazes in the right kind of weather to create fire buffers. I only lived intermittently in brush areas since but somewhere along the way the fire roads disappeared and the strategic burns stopped. I have little doubt they stopped because people thought the fire roads spoiled their views and that the strategic burns were harmful to the critters. Somewhere along the way we started to hear more about "natural" forests and "natural" ecosystems. Fire is clearly a part of these ecosystems. But you can't have your cake and eat it too. An all the more poignant point now 🙁 Yes this fire in Paradise is unprecedented in its toll on human life here in California. Its one thing to have the loss of homes, that an acceptable risk for the people that choose to live in such places. But you have to have a chance to evacuate, many didn't. |
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Nov 24, 2018 12:35:39 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Nov 27, 2018 4:27:54 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Dec 31, 2018 14:19:26 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Dec 31, 2018 20:00:20 GMT
Also a case for not subsidizing insurance rates? |
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Dec 31, 2018 20:18:19 GMT
Also a case for not subsidizing insurance rates? Indeed it is - and for not subsidizing rates in flood or hurricane prone areas |
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Jan 1, 2019 6:50:27 GMT
You get subsidies for insurance  ?? |
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Jan 1, 2019 15:13:26 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by phydeaux2363 on Jan 1, 2019 16:12:07 GMT
Many of the most desirable places to live, for both economic and aesthetic reasons, are prone to more or less regular natural disasters. For reasons too many to count, people have always lived on the coasts. It just so happens that the entire US Coast from Brownsville to Bangor is regularly visited by nasty tropical cyclones. The entire west coast of the US is prone to earthquakes and volcanic eruptions. In the middle of the country (and in parts of the west--Sacramento anyone?) the great continent draining rivers will flood, no matter the levee systems humans build. And as for Mr. Moboy, let's hope he's visiting Mr. Ratty when the New Madrid fault lets loose. Same with the California valleys--the climate is tempestuous, and the geology treacherous. But it's beautiful and comfortable most of the time. Maybe more importantly, coasts, rivers and fertile valleys are places where people can thrive economically. They are critical to trade and commerce. People will always live there, and our society needs them to live there to take advantage of the benefits of those places. But it's very expensive to rebuild and get life back to normal when natural disasters strike. So our society has decided to share those costs through subsidized insurance and government aid. It is not a totally irrational policy, in my view. Full disclosure. I live in the city that is probably most likely to suffer a devastating natural disaster (hurricane or river flood) in any given year, and has seen tens of billions in federal aid in the last 15 years. I live in the French Quarter though, so I don't need flood insurance. If my place flooded, there would be no New Orleans to rebuild. I do own a house on the Mississippi Coast that is on the beach in the bulls eye of where Katrina came ashore. I have private flood insurance on that place. Very expensive, but I think the right thing to do for my peace of mind. But enough about me, let's talk about y'all. When you think about it, are these policies and subsidies really a bad thing? Should we abandon the coasts and valleys? Here's wishing everyone on this board a happy and prosperous 2019. I think it's going to be an exciting year! |
|
|
|
Post by nonentropic on Jan 1, 2019 18:45:38 GMT
Its not about abandoning these areas.
Its about market signals in reality. They need to be feathered out over ten years, its madness for sane people to pay for insanity.
|
|
??