I am as democratic/left as it gets on most issues but I'd argue that its time to defund FEMA Insurance programs and let the private sector free market factor in the cost of impending destruction because of climate change. IMO that would put a hard dollar figure on the 'cost of doing nothing'. Which will (hopefully) translate into some kind or carbon taxes.
Or another alternative would be fund insurance through carbon tax dollars and return the rest as refund.
There are no disaster-free zones. I've looked. They don't exist.
It's a case of "pick your poison." Which disaster is least reprehensible to you?
In the Deep South where I grew up, you can set your watch by the summer afternoon thunderstorms. The last time I lived there, our TV and Wii got fried while turned off and plugged into an uninterupted power supply that was supposed to protect them from any electrical issues. To this day, my mother will say "Can't talk. A storm is coming. Bye!" when I call because the electrical storms are awful in Georgia.
When I lived in Kansas, it was tornadoes.
In California, earthquakes. Worse, California has fire season, not a season I ever want in my life again, ideally.
Etc ad nauseum.
Human development tends to have a strong correlation to flood zones because water is essential to human survival and human civilization. We need to drink to live. We need water for crops and flood plains have rich soils. We use rivers and oceans for transportation of goods. Major cities have a tendency to be coastal and sitting on a natural harbor that has been artificially enhanced.
Sure, floods cause problems. But having no water is generally vastly worse.
I know you're mostly joking, but you do not get taxed to death. Taxes in Canada (and Ontario) are reasonable on global standards. Your housing costs in TO are too high, but that's not taxes at fault.
But the "flooding" is NOTHING like What Houston/etc got. It'll cause bad traffic and some highway closures one day per year but the actual damage is negligible relative to what an actual flood causes. It's a minor nuisance, not a catastrophe.
Pittsburgh, PA is pretty close to natural disaster free. Some parts of downtown will flood from the rivers, and there have been a couple very small landslides in the last two years from too much rain. But for most of the city, there aren't natural disasters really. No earthquakes, the mountains pretty much prevent tornadoes, no hurricanes, and flooding is not an issue unless you live on the bank of the rivers. Elevation increases pretty quickly as you move away from the river banks.
There are more options than “the current bad system” and “shut it down violently”. The FEMA insurance program can be modified so payouts have a lifetime cap, and/or once they reach a certain level, a buyout is required. It would allow people to relocate and over the long term (i.e. a generation or two), the accounting works out.
As a society who has completely failed addressing climate change, having “all of us” help pay for it is not a completely unfair way to address it.
Areas with high risk of catastrophic natural disaster should be identified and FEMA insurance should not be given to any new residents or new dwellings in these areas.
Once you include tornadoes in the flat places, drought in the farm places, hurricanes on the coast places, and earthquakes in the earthquake places there really not much places left.
Government bureaucracy is absolutely the right kind of answer for things like earthquakes and other one-in-a-hundred-years events. But any time a location wouldn't be considered habitable but for the presence of FEMA, Government bureaucracy is the wrong answer.
The problem is that vulnerable populations would be hurt the worst. It's an ugly issue that will be hard to deal with, and I think we need to start looking at more widespread preparedness regulation as well as systems for moving people out of at-risk areas.
Where do you move people out of "at-risk" areas for tornadoes? Essentially, the entirety of the central and eastern US are at risk for significant (EF2+) tornadoes for at least some portion of the year [1]. And then the places that aren't at risk of tornadoes have their own substantial risks for natural disasters-- earthquakes and fires out west, hurricanes and flooding closer to the coasts, blizzards and winter weather up north and into the Rockies, water supply issues in the southwest, etc.
That's why we have FEMA, because "just" displacing people after a natural disaster doesn't work.
Luckily tornadoes are not actually that destructive on a broad population scale. Out of ~1000 tornadoes per year, there are only about 80 deaths per year on average [1] and the national cost of the damage is around $10-$14b per year [2].
Hurricanes are a lot harder to talk about deaths since hurricanes are so big and cause such widespread damage (although Hurricane Maria is supposedly responsible for around 3,000 deaths), but the economic impacts are much, much larger. Just one hurricane can cause hundreds of billions of dollars in damage [3].
I'm absolutely not arguing in favor of getting rid of FEMA, but there are definitely the costs of some natural disasters that could be avoided by relocating population centers. Although tornadoes are not one of them, in my opinion. The cost and death toll just isn't that high for a tornado.
if you look at the distribution of folks most opposed to any action on climate change, they are also the most vulnerable to the effects of it (red state + poor). So I am not opposed to them feeling some heat (no pun intended) for their actions. if things get dire then IMO they'll less opposed to a tax on big corp that gives then some relief money. this may be a good way to nudge them into supporting action.
I mean even at a very base consumer level, why does someone buys a big V8 truck that's really bad for environment if they are poor. its because the price of polluting environment is not included in their operating costs. so other values take over their decision. if you change that equation, the people who have least amount of headroom are the ones having hardest time adopting. this is true for any equilibrium. So in short this argument can be used to attack any positive change. IMO it has no bearing & IMHO its better to remedy the effects by another positive change rather than discarding the original well built idea.
> So I am not opposed to them feeling some heat (no pun intended) for their actions.
I hear you, but you have to remember that these are averages. Even in the deepest red parts of the country, there are large minorities of progressives.
This was one of the big arguments I heard against a sugar tax too, I'm sure it's true for raising taxes on gas, consumables, etc. But it seems to me like every regressive tax could be offset with another progressive subsidy like a tax cut, as a potential solution.
The science doesn't support a sugar tax harming vulnerable people - really quite the opposite. Getting rid of FEMA without a lot of care is an entirely different proposition.
> FEMA’s research found that low-income households are less likely to purchase flood insurance than higher-income households, even though low-income families are more likely to live in high-risk flood zones.
You should come to southern California.
Loads of poor ppl living on the beach.
Generation after generation.
I'm not judging because that's my roots.
Even in exclusive neighborhoods the poor, even dirt poor, outnumber the top of the food chain by dozens to one.
Living close to the beach without an insurance company backing you is a normal thing here
I'm not saying we shouldn't fix our response to disasters: I'm tired of subsidizing luxury houses on the Outer Banks, for example. My point was only that getting rid of FEMA outright will harm people living in floodplains etc., who generally are poorer than average.
Incorrect. Vulnerable populations, when properly accounted for in disaster planning, would not be "hurt the worst."
For those unfamiliar with disaster resilience, vulnerable populations generally refers to the poor, elderly, mobility-limited, homeless, etc.
As an example: if an earthquake happens and your disaster resilience plan accounts for these groups, there would be specific triage to take special care of them. Similarly, if a heat wave happens and a power outage occurs due to disaster, many elderly risk losing their lives. This wouldn't be captured as a dollar amount to private industry. Organizations such as FEMA take special care to plan for these kinds of vulnerable populations.
The comment you responded to was getting at the idea that gov't has a responsibility to take care of their citizens and do this kind of due diligence / triage for the vulnerable. If you "leave it to the private sector" then people with money will be hurt less than people without, and people who need special advocacy would not find themselves having it.
You make a fair point about effective disaster resilience planning, but optimizing for the poor, elderly, mobility-limited, homeless, etc (while virtuous) would merely make that group less vulnerable than those otherwise capable populations, thereby making a new group the most, by the simple definition of the term vulnerable... Thus a tautology.
The point is to prioritize assistance for people who otherwise would not be able to take care of themselves as much as less vulnerable people.
Prioritizing care for the elderly doesn't necessarily make them less vulnerable than otherwise capable people, after all: they have more risk factors that can't be fully minimized. There's not some kind of straightforward calculation like you imply that you can make here.
Right, in this context, for example, it could mean people who are not able to stockpile several days of food and water, versus people whose biggest concern is the Whole Foods spoiling in the fridge if power is out for too long.
I can only say that I've witnessed some of these situations first-hand, with tragic conclusions. But I'd in no way diminish the importance of addressing the most pressing needs discussed here.
Subsidized insurance can maybe still make sense, if it is taking on the role of a deep pocketed reinsurer. Still, it should at least be structured to discourage people from living in the most flood prone areas, and carefully monitored to make sure it is administered as intended (inaccurate maps lead to incorrect rates).
It bothers me they continue to build straw houses in tornado alley. There really needs to be strict regulations for construction methods for buildings in areas prone to tornadoes. I'm talking two feet thick rebar reinforced concrete. We rebuild that area every year using insurance money taken from everybody else.
The average interval between tornadoes for any given point in the most tornado-prone areas is still a couple thousand years. Building all houses to withstand such a rare event doesn’t seem likely to be cost effective.
The problem is showing a direct correlation between disasters and climate change.
I'm in the boat with ppl who think this stuff may be caused by human activity but I think that the science is not exactly clear on this.
There is so much info and dis- info it's hard to find enough clear data to take a side.
Agreed. Let the actuaries at the insurance companies figure it out. Some companies will figure it out, some won't, and the best will flourish and the worst will die and free up resources for better stewards.
Actually, when it comes to the link between natural disasters and climate change I think the science is still significantly less settled. There are certainly suggestions and indications that a warming world will increase the likelihood or intensity of certain weather-related disasters, but I think for many of them there's still a fair amount of uncertainty. For instance, my understanding is that hurricanes may be made more likely/more intense due to increased available thermal energy but that this may be counterbalanced by other factors such as changes in wind shear, and that historical trends aren't yet enough to indicate much one way or another.
Flooding may be one exception to this, though, since I think there's strong evidence that one result of warming will be an increase general weather variability and strong precipitation events.
I think there's still a lot of active research going on here, though, so if someone has more up-to-date information I'm happy to be corrected!
I'm not arguing with you as you seem to have already made up your mind on this issue.
Please I ask you- enlighten me on this golden source of info that caused you to be so one sided.
Drop some links from reputable sources?
I am also incredibly tired of people banging the climate change drum every time there is a weather anomaly (or even a marginally notable event). In a dynamical system "anomalies" are normal.
There is a difference between a philosophy of reason and discovery driving your view of the world and interjecting your chosen "science issues" at every opportunity with zeal.
In more general terms I am sick of the top ten political issues being the only thing of substance anybody seems to care about because I believe the people in power want those discussions to happen as they benefit from the discord and distraction.
No one single instance of an extreme can be used to pinpoint "climate change" , but the absurd statistical deviation from the norm over the last 10 yrs or so is notable and clearly present.
>I am also incredibly tired of people banging the climate change drum every time there is a weather anomaly (or even a marginally notable event). In a dynamical system "anomalies" are normal.
linked paper (first sentence)
>We develop a theoretical approach to quantify the effect of long-term trends on the expected number of extremes in generic time series, using analytical solutions and Monte Carlo simulations
"weather anomaly/marginally notable event" signified by the "expected number of extremes"
The google scholar link/search seems broken, but I remember reading this when it came out in 2011 and covered a wide range of global heat waves in disparate parts of countries, extreme drought, extreme flooding, wild fires, etc.
Tornadoes are the perfect example of this nonsense. 2018 was the calmest year recorded in the US (which means very little because we have so few records):
People keep bringing it up because it's a serious existential threat to humanity and large swathes of the population are still completely ignorant and still vote for people who (at least pretend to) also are completely ignorant.
That is because for some people climate change has become a religion or cult (you can read comments of deeply exasperated people right here on HN). This issue is the corner stone of their identity. From psychological point of view it is actually really amazing watching the same patterns unfold today right in front our eyes instead only to be able to read about them in the history books.
So you're saying human-induced climate change isn't increasing the probability of an anomalous (extreme) weather event? I've often seen researchers describe the effect in terms of statistical frequency, e.g. 'once in a hundred years' event becomes 'once in a decade'.
This is true, but over time we should expect fewer and fewer records being broken as the expected ranges slowly expand for extreme outliers. What we actually see is the opposite with records anomalies happening more and more frequently.
Records for damage and such are obviously going to be broken all the time, because we have more and more people jammed in everywhere. If you have a once-in-a-hundred-years storm that doesn't hit anybody directly, nobody cares and it isn't recorded as such.
The other bit is that there is every incentive to magnify the impact of every event, to get a chance to suck some of those sweet, sweet Federal dollars. At this point, when we get a wimpy Noreaster that drops a foot of snow, people are rushing to declare it a disaster emergency.
It's sad that you felt you had to include that first sentence. And ironic that the reason you had to do it is largely because of the behavior you describe in the rest of the sentences.
Federal government weather forecasters logged preliminary reports of more than 500 tornadoes in a 30-day period — a rare figure, if the reports are ultimately verified — after the start of the year proved mercifully quiet.
Monday, Dr. Marsh said, was the 11th consecutive day with at least eight tornado reports, tying the record.
That reads to me more like the exception than the norm.
Tying a record when the records don't really go back that far isn't all that rare. Certainly it's something to take notice of but not something to read too much into, at least not yet.
It's true, that is one of the things about lies, damned lies, and statistics - the more creative you are, the easier it is to invent new record breaking stats.
2000 years seems somewhat arbitrary - would you apply the same threshold to "500 tornadoes within a 30 day span", what about 1,000, what about 10,000?
There probably ought to a threshold where extraordinary evidence is sufficient to make extraordinary claims, otherwise if your requirement is 2000 years, I'm sorry to report that nothing could ever persuade you about climate science, or really most science.
I was thinking more about it, feeling a bit bad about my somewhat glib comment, and I came back to add, I think as long as you can come up with equally impressive sounding statistics pushing the other side of the narrative, it’s no use.
But to your point, annual statistics showing multiple sigma deviation for several years out of a 10 year period, that to me would tells us something has changed.
Then it occurred to me, I don’t know anything about number of tornadoes per year, how much variance is in the data, and what’s the trend like, but a quick Google search brought me here;
And it sure looks like the “Violent US Tornadoes by Year” has massive variance and little to no discernible trend line.
What I learned is that almost all violent tornadoes happen in April and May and some years have huge clusters and some years have very few.
This kind of phenomenon requires a very long historical series coupled with a long stretch of deviation from the norm to be able to say anything meaningful about recent data, other than you are most likely seeing new random output from the same underlying/unchanged function.
It short, I hate news stories about the weather. They need to make something inherent about the world seem new.
EDIT: Here’s another good one from the same site;
“I decided to take a look at the number of tornadoes that have been reported in the Plains between May 16-31 over the past 25 years, from 1993 to 2017. ... The most was 204 in 2004, while the least was just nine in both 2006 and 2009.”
In that ~two week period (which coincides with the current burst of activity) we saw some years 9, one year 204, in the last 25 years.
What’s so discernible about this year in that context?
"Complete tornado records" don't go anywhere near as far back as 1950.
The modern NEXRAD system wasn't even deployed until the early 1990s, and has been upgraded since then. Also, we now have zillions of storm-chasers cruising the highways any time severe weather is in the offing.
> In the early 1990s, a major modernization program within NWS took place, which included the deployment of Doppler radar and a more rigorous spotter training program. In addition, the 1990s saw an increasing number of storm chasers using video cameras and cell phones to document and report severe weather. These facts are likely responsible for the dramatic increase in annual tornadoes reported since 1990.
Also, as recently as 2014, we were in a three year record low period for tornadoes.
> The headline was formed based on the quote from the academic involved:
The headline was cherrypicked from an interview.
> The headline was formed based on the quote from the academic involved:
No, it would suggest that the reporter picked the most sensationalistic quote he could find from a lengthy interview.
> But this constant shoot the messenger to climate change denial will not stop the contents of the message from playing out in time.
I notice that you did not address any of the facts linked from my post, such as the number of tornadoes being at a record low between 2012 and 2014, nor the fact that according to the National Weather Service's own site, the increase in the number of reported tornadoes is largely due to better radars and more storm-chasers looking for them.
In recall a time probably 30 years ago or so. A large low pressure system settled in the Pacific northwest at the same time a high settled somewhere in the southeast. The counter rotation pumped moist air in across southern CA or Mexico and up to the northeast. We had rain every day (but not continuously) in Michigan for 29 straight days. It only stopped when a typhoon got sucked in to the apparently stable system. Point being that one unusual series of events doesn't mean anything. Neither did that record hurricane season in 200x that people claimed would be the new normal.
The storm cells are typically many miles wide. Tornadoes not infrequently will cut a swath a mile wide. I could repeat many stories from family and friends who have witnessed such things, but after a bit they all start to sound the same to me after living most of my life in tornado alley.
Listening to the news feed on 167 MHz FM, they say the tornado itself is 1 mile wide, but who knows. Again, maybe more sensationalism. The thread headline is more like baseball statistics.
For those curious about the connection between climate change and the observed trends in tornado behavior (stable year-over-year total count, and stable average intensity, but increased 'clumping' and variability), I would recommend this talk Harold Brooks gave last week: https://youtu.be/Z_1PiixPX3o?t=275
Really great to hear these phone alerts are working as intended and saving lives. When I grew up in Tornado Alley you pretty much listened for the wind and hoped the sirens didn't get knocked over.
I may be younger than you, but our battery NOAA weather radio in the 90s was effective, with the only issue being that we learned to ignore it if we thought it would be buzzing for a severe storm warning instead of a tornado warning.
> Tuesday was the 12th consecutive day with at least eight tornado reports, breaking the record
Is there a list of tornado records? How many consecutive days with four tornados? 16 tornados? Longest stretch of at least one tornado but less than 8?
Or another alternative would be fund insurance through carbon tax dollars and return the rest as refund.