|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 1, 2019 19:07:31 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! The downside to subsidizing folks living in areas that are prone to disaster is that the center of the area, the MW, gets starved. I am talking USA. We build today where the population is. We are building on yesterdays reality, rather than today's reality. When all we had were trains and horse/buggy, you had to live close to your work, suppliers etc. That is not the case today. It took a century to develop what we have today, it will take a century to develop where it is now practical.
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Jan 1, 2019 23:25:19 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! We thank you for your concern Mr Phy. But we are taken care of by the insurance market on the basis of our distance from the event source and their perception of its magnitude. Farmers insurance seems to believe that we are far enough away that I'm charged a relatively paltry sum to insure against the worst. Of course they say that the first 5% is my responsibility. If I were closer, they would gouge me dearly. I think that the government should not insure people for actions that are blatantly stupid or perversely motivated. If the private sector wishes to do so, then that is their business. Flood zones (here I include the coast as well as inland flood plains) are very quantifiable. Setting up housekeeping in a known flood zone where rigorous analysis and mapping have quantified the risk as it relates to water, should preclude the government from bailing you out if you choose to take the risk. Let the buyer beware. If owners follow the rules and are still overwhelmed by an unforeseen event or bad maps etc, then the government should help them out. Of course, the value of very expensive coastal property might suffer ... but that should not be the government's problem. The exact location of random violent weather events such as tornadoes cannot be predicted, but can be modeled by insurance companies who set their rates accordingly. Flooding seems to scare them a lot more. I don't think we need to abandon the coasts and valleys. We just need to shift the responsibility for proper siting and engineering back to those who benefit. I think that New Orleans was originally settled by some very observant folks. They stayed away from the bad spots and otherwise engineered accordingly. If the New Madrid really does go off big time again ... Memphis is probably toast. And all those petroleum and natural gas product pipelines? As the geologist stated ... the flash of the explosion will be reflected off the moon.
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Jan 2, 2019 1:19:25 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! Eloquently put, Mr. Fido, if a little too formal for me. Mr. Moboy and Mr. Ratty? Really? To the best of my knowledge, there are no similar subsidies in Oz; everyone pays thru their premiums and there will be some government assistance in aftermaths. Although I have been in and around a couple of major floods, I have no personal experience to draw on. If you're uninsured here, you're in trouble but communities & charities rally round to help. In the BIG ONE, we were all packed ready to shift from Ipswich to Brisbane. We called one of the relief agencies and gave furniture and any other items we could do without to the relief effort. We were on the high side of the river, a river which we couldn't see before the flood. We could just have easily been living in the underwater suburb because we never gave flooding a thought when purchasing.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Jan 2, 2019 10:48:19 GMT
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 12, 2019 23:22:42 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Jan 13, 2019 1:58:46 GMT
Well worth reading. Thanks Sig.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on May 24, 2019 21:36:50 GMT
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jun 29, 2019 13:09:57 GMT
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Oct 29, 2019 12:40:27 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Oct 29, 2019 13:24:21 GMT
Maybe some of the deficit is being made up now?
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Oct 29, 2019 13:39:01 GMT
Maybe some of the deficit is being made up now? Not according to historical normals.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Oct 29, 2019 14:59:02 GMT
Maybe some of the deficit is being made up now? Not according to historical normals. CA had a wet spring. Lots of rapid growth vegetation Dryish summer grass and brush die and dry out in sun Greens against ANY management of vegetation and trees that are now a significant fuel source for wild fire Equinoctial winds -> fire Everybody act surprised - blame PG&E and climate change Rinse and repeat
|
|
|
Post by nonentropic on Oct 29, 2019 17:31:16 GMT
The natural process would have had thousands of small fires much earlier. The result would have been less fuel and a broken cells of dry land with fuel at season end.
As a famous but forgotten by me Melbourne professor said the reason we have big fires is because we have to few little fires.
Most firefighters have a strong pyro gene give them matches to play with.
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Oct 29, 2019 22:00:47 GMT
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Oct 29, 2019 23:11:21 GMT
It's hard to hug an ash pile.
|
|