I agree, it does sometimes seem crazy to keep building in places that can get destroyed by hurricanes, but, really, there are so many places on Earth that are dangerous. Areas that get nailed with tornadoes. How about earthquakes? They rebuilt San Francisco, right? Alaska and LA? Japan? China? How about areas with volcanoes? How many have homes in danger zones in Hawaii? How about those live near Mt. Etna, Mt. Pompeii, and Mt. Ranier? Places in danger of tsunamis? Avalanches? Deserts, for goodness sakes. But, the climate cult is nuts, and can’t mind their own business
Is it a mistake to rebuild in climate danger zones?
In the wake of major disasters like Hurricane Ian, which devastated large swaths of the Florida coast and caused at least 84 deaths last week, the goal of rebuilding what was lost often becomes a unifying mission for local residents and the country as a whole.
Both President Biden and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, who are on opposite sides of most issues, spoke recently of the enormous task that lies ahead if communities that experienced the worst wind damage and flooding are going to be revived. Their statements echo sentiments from political leaders after other disasters, including previous hurricanes, major storms elsewhere in the country and wildfires in Western states.
With climate change increasing the severity of hurricanes and wildfires, among other natural disasters, the sheer scale of rebuilding efforts has become enormous. Hurricane Ian alone is believed to have caused as much as $57 billion in damages, according to an estimate from the risk management firm Verisk. Since 1980 there have been more than 330 weather and climate disasters that each have caused more than $1 billion in damages, according to a database maintained by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The costs are only getting bigger. In the 1980s, weather-related damages averaged about $20 billion per year. Over the past five years, that figure has reached almost $158 billion a year.
Yes, more expensive, because there are more people and more buildings, more infrastructure, and so forth. The Great Galveston Hurricane of 1900 destroyed just about everything, It killed 6,000-8,000 people. No one really knows. The pricetag in today’s dollars? Almost $1.1 billion. Now imagine the cost with today’s infrastructure and buildings. And, that hit just a small area.
The escalating costs — let alone the extraordinary logistical and human challenges — of reviving communities after these increasingly common events has led many experts to raise an uncomfortable question: Should we rebuild in places that face a high risk of being destroyed again by a climate-fueled disaster in the near future?
Why there’s debate
Though they universally express sympathy for people who would be asked to abandon their homes for good, a number of experts say that it’s simply not feasible to keep pouring resources into communities that are directly in the likely path of future hurricanes and wildfires. They argue that people in these areas must stop treating major disasters as random events and instead accept the reality that climate change has made more catastrophic weather all but inevitable.
You know what? It’s none of their business. If they don’t like being in a danger area, don’t move there. Some people are willing to take the chance. Here’s my favorite
It’s wasteful and dangerous to keep rebuilding communities that will likely be destroyed again
“The definition of insanity is to keep doing the same thing over and over — building and rebuilding in areas we know are deadly — with the same result: destruction.” — Anita Chabria and Erika D. Smith, Los Angeles Times
They’ve rebuilt LA, right? There are over 100 active fault lines in the LA area. Five of which are considered extremely dangerous. Why are people not moving away due to this? Heck, leaving large parts of California due to all the fault lines. How about Washington, with the Cascadia fault zone? Why are they all building everything up?
One way to look at such things is to recognize that nothing is permanent. Therefore, reasonable people should make economic and engineering decisions on their own to mitigate risk, provide shelter and strike balance between structures that can withstand CAT 5 hurricane and simply letting it get swept away and rebuilding it later.
Similarly, car manufacturers no longer put the cost, engineering, and materials into making a car that lasts 20 years when they know most owners don’t want to keep a vehicle that long.
Personally, I am fascinated by the concepts around property ownership in cases of total disaster. When an entire island is swept away in a wave, or a hillside slides off, or a river changes course, who really owns what is left? I find it interesting that the government at all levels continues to pretend it exists as long as there is any revenues to be collected from it.
I also find it interesting that the practice of issuing evacuation orders has become established as if governors actually have that sort of authority and then the authority to deny residents the ability to re-enter an area. Of course, I realize there are good reasons to do so, uncapped utilities and preventing looting and such, but still, the ability to move freely within our own borders and access to our own property used to be one of those unquestionable rights in the USA.
Yes, it is. It’s what some choose to do.
However, the National Flood Insurance program needs to go. You want to build there, YOU pay the costs.
I note that there’s no comparable programs for earthquakes – you buy coverage yourself. Why should floods be different?
*Unnecessary assumptions edited out
Remember: it isn’t just (sort of) red states like Florida in which people live on the coast: blue states like Virginia, New Jersey, New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Maine.
Me? I wonder why New Orleans, mostly built below sea level, exists.
But let’s face it: tornadoes are a constant threat in the southeast and southern plains, much of the western United States is very susceptible to drought, the Appalachians are huge flash flood areas, California and Alaska are in major earthquake zones, and Alaska and Hawai’i are susceptible to volcanos!
It’s wasteful and dangerous to keep rebuilding communities that will likely be destroyed again…
Same old leftist drivel/dribble.
The few are the only ones smart enough to decide for everyone else what is wasteful or dangerous.
Want to know what is dangerous and wasteful? News media people driving into a storm area when everyone else is trying to get out of it, just so the news media can get some nice pictures of their person standing outside in a storm.
Want to know what else is wasteful? Giving any US tax money to foreign governments and foreign citizens.
Now what else is wasteful? Taking a private jet to a far away location to talk to other rich people about how bad climate is, when they could have just called or done a video call.
There is plenty of waste. Let’s not forget about people who still work for newspapers that get printed on dead trees. And people who get paid to produce content that is really nothing more than their own opinions, when millions of people do that for free every day on the internet. So Wasteful. If only there was someone who was smarter to hang out at the LA Times to point out to them all their wasteful things they do.
Flood insurance, more welfare for the rich. Who owns waterside property? Of the est. 5.5 million owners of qualifying property are millionaires. Why are we paying to rebuild millionaires? I own a property on a boat canal in Florida. So happens Ian barely touched my house but would dowd want to rebuild me? Doubtful. How about my multimillionaire parents in Palm beach? There house, about $5 million. Should dowd pay to rebuild them or their neighbors Donald Trump, Vanilla Ice, Bill Gates or Serena Williams?
For some reason ordinary people building and living in ordinary areas are deemed 100% responsible for their property and the cost of insuring it but the rich who buil along rivers and on oceanfront properties put us on the hook.
https://youtu.be/DsTKAqHwj0s
MAGA
I agree, LGB, the gummint should not subsidize insurance on properties developed in hazardous areas or anywhere for that matter. The gummint is not an insurance company, insurance is the business of State Farm, Allstate, Liberty and others. Let them handle it.
On an aside, I remember Rush talking about insurance on his compound in FL and saying that he had little insurance on it as the premiums were so high that it was better to self insure. That’s good if you can do it, I guess.
Teach has no problem subsidizing people who live in Florida prone areas with low priced federal flood insurance. Isn’t that socialism? For those wealthy ocean front owners?
Gore’s “beachfront” house in Cali is at elevation 480′
Because of the extreme risk banks demand insurance on flood prone areas, the only affordable insurance is federal
The National Flood Insurance Program is already 20 billion in the red
Where does Teach state ” has no problem subsidizing people who live in Florida prone areas with low priced federal flood insurance.”? Show us. Teach said no such thing. Why do you leftist commies feel the need to lie to make a fake point? What is it with you?
Isn’t that socialism? For those wealthy ocean front owners?
Yes it is, what’s your point?
Gore’s “beachfront” house in Cali is at elevation 480?
It doesn’t matter what the elevation is it is still susceptible to the winds, rains and flash floods of a storm and as beachfront property is required to have flood insurance. So fuck you and your butt boy Gore. You’re all commie thieves.
MAGA gorelover.
I live in north Louisiana and we are about 500 miles or more from New Orleans. What pisses me off is that because we live in Louisiana, we pay higher property taxes due to the expenses incurred from the people on the coast demanding compensation for the hurricane damage that they get about every 5 years. In my area the hurricane is welcomed as it brings in rain, damage is dirt low.