Sharlin says> "But is there really a need for people to live in places like Houston?"
Houston _is_ a hellhole part of the year. But ports are necessary and, while they needn't be cities, they usually are.
Two things about that:
- Regardless of climate, cities are too often built in regions that are prime river-bottom farmland. It would have been better if such lands were left for farming (since they flood easily and harbor disease) and the cities located at higher elevation.
Houston was built literally in a swamp. Part of this is it's use as a port city, but it didn't have to be that way. Thanks to storms and flooding the city is slowly moving to whatever higher ground there is (honestly there isn't much).
But as long as the government provides flood insurance at bargain rates, developers will build new homes in flood-prone areas and sell the homes to suckers who don't know any better. The developers sell out and move on to new projects, the homeowner gets flooded and the government(taxpayer) pays for the stupidity and inefficiency of it all.
- Houston's humidity is high, so the usual pressurized A/C system is required. Dallas in contrast has low humidity so that evaporative A/C systems, which are much cheaper to build and to operate, can be used very effectively:
It seems like you could keep flood insurance and provide the right incentive for developers if as part of the permitting process for developers, they'd have to put up an insurance bond (or otherwise pay into a risk pool).
Is the net gain better than the net loss from flooding? For example, Houston doesn’t have to salt roads, plow snow or mitigate against earthquakes. You don’t have a wildfire risk, nor mudslides. So even if you have periodic floods, it would seem that the positives outweighs the negatives. You also rarely have airport closures or delays due to weather. It’s simplistic to cite flood risk as a reason not to build somewhere. If the cost of a flood is offset by the savings in many other areas, it could be a net positive. There is, however a hurricane risk, but even New York City and most of the Atlantic and Gulf Coast faces those risks. In the Midwest, you have tornado risk plus blizzards and snow, in California, you have fires, droughts and earthquakes.
We could argue, under the same logic of not building in Houston, that the Netherlands ought not be developed given their elevation.
> It’s simplistic to cite flood risk as a reason not to build somewhere.
I didn't say people shouldn't build in Houston. I proposed a framework under which the economic incentives would presumably provide improved signals about whether building/living in Houston was a better idea than doing so elsewhere: require developments built in areas that can make federal flood insurance claims to pay something into the risk pool. Developers and potential residents can decide if the rest is worth it.
Costs like plowing snow or risks like earthquakes and wildfire risks seem to be covered by local taxes and/or private insurance. If the savings Houston achieves from having no need for them really do outweigh the problems of flood risk -- as your comment seems to suggest -- then presumably Houston would remain an economically appealing place to live even after my proposed change.
Presumably the same thing happens with the Netherlands and the Dutch bear the economic costs knowing it's worth it.
FWIW Houston does salt roads infrequently in the wintertime. So they had to invest the capital and gain the skills to do so. They simply use less salt than Detroit each year.
Under current incentives, the positives of living in Houston certainly outweigh the negatives. Otherwise people would not live there. But were the externalities exposed and the costs shifted away from the taxpayers, then the population map would undoubtedly shift Northward.
Part of the problem is that most of Houston is near sea-level and flooding occurs where there is heavy rainfall, a random process. This problem exists for adjacent areas, out to San Antonio and Austin. Typical political response to flooding is to build a dam or holding reservoir, whereupon the next heavy rainfall occurs in an area above, below or away from the dam...build another dam/reservoir...rain falls somewhere else.... You get the idea.
Then there are hurricanes, their associated storm surge and flooding which simply overwhelm any dams/reservoirs.
The idiocy/malfunction of society vis-a-vis housing development and flood-prone regions is only one example of many such economic externalities:
What appeared to be a good idea intended to help a relatively small group of suffering people turns out to have been sponsored by a much smaller group of extremely greedy people (here, developers and insurance companies), all to the detriment of taxpayers (who weren't/aren't paying enough attention). Adam Smith's "invisible hand" once again spanks humanity's butt:
“People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.”
- Adam Smith.
My mantra is "Flooding is Nature's way of telling you to move." regardless of whether you're speaking of storm surge in Houston or flash flooding in Utah. I see no reason to live in a region encircled/protected by a dam or seawall
And once you start attempting to dam off the sea, taxpayers never cease paying for it. There's a proper myth and a term for that - Sisyphean - although the phrase "spitting into the wind" (and variants) comes to mind also. BTW did you know that Galveston was once the largest port city in Texas? It was wiped out by the 1900 hurricane (6,000-12,000 dead) although people continue to live there today:
Or basically anywhere not the west coast, within a few miles of the water? In Chicago you have heating in the winter and AC in the summer. Same with NYC. In the California central valley, your AC will be running a lot of the time. Wyoming, some serious heating, Etc.
>> But is there really a need for people to live in places like Houston?
No, if we can all live without food. Plants love the hot parts of the world. The prairies bake in the summer.
I'm reminded of President Bush visiting the John Deere factory. He asked a worker about the most important innovation for combination harvesters. Without hesitation: "Enclosed cabs with air conditioning".
Where exactly would you draw the line? Should farmers live alone in bunkhouses like loggers do? Farming and farmers are tied to land for years, decades. They need innumerable support services, from pilots and engineers to kindergartens and dentists for their kids. I'm hard pressed to point to any job in Iowa that doesn't in some degree support farmers and farming.
Then add all those involved in resource extraction, mining/oil. Their jobs are location dependent too. They also need services.
I type this while at work (military) with two doors open to outside. There is a pleasant breeze passing through the office. This weather holds for more than half the year. But if one more person moves here, driving up my rent again, I'll start running the AC just to speed up climate change.
But the GP’s argument was that AC is good because it made populating places like Texas possible. But was it worth it to populate those places in retrospect if it depended on a technology with known negative externalities?
Similarly, the personal automobile made urban sprawl possible. But is sprawl and ensuing car-dependency a good thing all things considered? Many would say no.
It's market forces at work with little regulation, especially in places like Houston. Real estate prices are much more appealing in places with extreme temperatures. We all couldn't afford to live in temperate climates like the bay area without some extreme zoning density regulations.
You could even extend that argument to include "is there a need for people to live in a place where they can't grow enough food to sustain their population".
I wouldn't pull too hard on that thread here, though.
...and Houston which is further south and has a subtropical climate. It boomed in population after A/C became a standard thing.
> I think there is a stigma people have that heating is essential for life, but A/C is optional.
Yes, and A/C is a public health issue. In subtropical climates it keeps people indoors and away from disease carrying insects such as mosquitos.