Climate Change: the costs of doing nothing
- Thread starter watu05
- Start date
Then there’s this:
laist.com
The Big One is coming to Southern California. This is your survival guide
Get ready. We're here to help.
laist.com
Heaven forbid a natural disaster hits Cali.Then there’s this:
The Big One is coming to Southern California. This is your survival guide
Get ready. We're here to help.
Seriously though, i hope it doesn't end up political like Sandy, when it happens. That was embarrasing & wrong, so many in the gop being partisan on aid. You can't talk about it happening too frequently for aid, when you have florida as an example.
Again, I was not saying anything about THIS hurricane… just that people, especially transplants tend to forget how much it suck’s to have to rebuild entire cities every 30 years.
I’ll take the earthquakes over the hurricanes.Then there’s this:
The Big One is coming to Southern California. This is your survival guide
Get ready. We're here to help.
In terms of natural disaster most likely to screw your life up… most likely is hurricanes… then earthquakes… then volcanoes. (Well if you leave out wildfires)
I'd say fires and hurricanes are a toss up on devastion.
But you haven't seen a major quake, live and in color in cali yet. You'd have to go back to 1906/1857 for that.
Here's one that would be even worseThen there’s this:
The Big One is coming to Southern California. This is your survival guide
Get ready. We're here to help.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/07/20/the-really-big-one
I’m going to take the Hurricane. Will know it’s coming and if I live on or near the coast I’m simply driving inland at a direction to avoid the brunt of the storm. Earthquakes are much less frequent but there is no warning and when a big one does hit your life is certainly in danger.
So you stay alive, but your entire livelihood can be destroyed much more often. I don’t know what kind of quality of life that is. Not worth it.
Don’t live on the coast and your livelihood will be just fine. The 3 million people who have moved to Florida over the last ten years seem to believe it’s very worth it.
On a personal note….I would rather live in the Colorado /Wyoming area like you.
The demographic shift in the US is toward areas that will be most harshly affected by climate change’s most severe effects. Phoenix and Tucson are running out of water but growing quickly, same for Texas and Utah. Developers are building homes in high risk areas for hurricanes and flooding near the beaches on the east coast in full awareness of these risks. All these people expect to be bailed out when these events happen, and who pays for it? The entire country.
Removing government insurance and bailouts for people who knowingly build in these areas and make developers liable for failing to make full disclosure of the risks would allow market forces to reduce the costs of ignoring climate change. Private insurers know what these risks are real and what they cost if individual buyers do not.
Removing government insurance and bailouts for people who knowingly build in these areas and make developers liable for failing to make full disclosure of the risks would allow market forces to reduce the costs of ignoring climate change. Private insurers know what these risks are real and what they cost if individual buyers do not.
You raise a good point. People who claim there is a looming climate disaster are choosing to live in places that will be unlivable if that disaster occurs. Should we judge their true level of concern by their actions?
I will go a step further. To what extent is the US government responsible for the coming climate crisis in Texas and the southwestern portion of the US? Given that most new immigrants are settling in these areas why are we encouraging this immigration ? Especially given the current issues with water. Do we need a change in policy?
Ian will 'financially ruin' homeowners and insurers
The storm inundated the homes of thousands of Floridians who don't have flood insurance, exposing weaknesses in the nation's effort to address the rising costs of extreme weather.
www.politico.com
A wake up call?
Meanwhile, Kamala promises Hurricane aid will be based on the amount of melanin one has in their skin and not on actual need.
nypost.com
VP Harris slammed for saying Hurricane Ian aid will be ‘based on equity’
“We have to address this in a way that is about giving resources based on equity,” Harris said Friday.
nypost.com
Worst thing I have to deal with is drought and the chance of Yellowstone blowing up.…
I think we do. If we had a more policy where migrants were not having to sneak across as they are maybe we could do things more like Ellis island and distribute people more evenly across the states. Honestly it would be nice to populate some states that arent currently populated. Imagine new self sufficient towns and cities popping up in South Dakota or Nebraska.
Nonsense. Sneaking across the border isn’t necessary. More than 1 million immigrants enter the US every year. That is the most of any country in the world btw. I’m currently helping several from Honduras go through the process. As I said above, we have no comprehensive plan where to help place them. As such, they tend to end up living in areas which lack or will lack the natural resources to support them. As I’ve said many time on this board, with climate change making resources in this country more and more scarce it’s probable time to curb immigration numbers. The natural resources simply won’t be available in the future to support our population…assuming the climate bros are correct
I have some family in millionaire / billionaire laden area near there and we always joke with them that when Yellowstone blows we will buy their land for Pennies on the dollar.
This is a fascinating article about Babcock Ranch, a development just northeast of Fort Myers and how it fared after hurricane Ian.
Last edited:
But if we blow all our money on providing an example to the world, eventually China will come around.
We'll be broke, but it will be only because of our actions, our shining country on the hill.
We'll be broke either way. Might as well do something that would actually have a positive effect. The costs of coping will eventually outweigh the costs of mitigation without the benefits.
The irrationality of rapdily expanding populations is places that are already strapped for enough water to supply their current residents, building retirement homes in areas that will be increasingly hit by" 100 year events" that are increasingly happening every 5 or 10 years, building homes in areas that will be hardest hit by higher temperatures, and opposing addressing climate change seem to be strongly rooted in many Americans, including many who are doing three or four of those things. Those are paths that lead to going broke.
The irrationality of rapdily expanding populations is places that are already strapped for enough water to supply their current residents, building retirement homes in areas that will be increasingly hit by" 100 year events" that are increasingly happening every 5 or 10 years, building homes in areas that will be hardest hit by higher temperatures, and opposing addressing climate change seem to be strongly rooted in many Americans, including many who are doing three or four of those things. Those are paths that lead to going broke.
US immigration needs to be directly addressed by Congress which has studiously avoided dealing with it for over two decades, leaving frustrated Presidents including both Dubya and Obama. Florida needs bodies to rebuild, restaurants and other businesses struggle to find staff, yet the politicians only talk about immigrants as if they were lice.
So you’re in favor of halting immigration from Mexico and other Central American countries? A vast number which settle in the places you describe.
If we have $10 to spend you advocate spending all $10 in trying to prevent something which can’t be prevented and having $0 leftover to develop ways to bring water and food to Americans. I would use $7 to lessen this impacts
What do you Experts think of this.
I read it today.
SMRs - Small Modular Reactors is the new nuclear power way to go to generate electricity. Steady electricity around the clock. Storing rad waste less a problem than recycling millions of car batteries. Build incremental units as needed. Built in factory delivered to site as needed. Automatic shut down by magnetically held control rods. Lose power, stop reaction.
Think about who owns the lithium for batteries. How much fossil fuel does it take to mine lithium.
Please research for yourself. Be informed. Not emotional.
I read it today.
SMRs - Small Modular Reactors is the new nuclear power way to go to generate electricity. Steady electricity around the clock. Storing rad waste less a problem than recycling millions of car batteries. Build incremental units as needed. Built in factory delivered to site as needed. Automatic shut down by magnetically held control rods. Lose power, stop reaction.
Think about who owns the lithium for batteries. How much fossil fuel does it take to mine lithium.
Please research for yourself. Be informed. Not emotional.
Read about them several years ago. At that time economic feasibility was an issue.
They are reevaluating the use of them right now, because of situations like Ukraine. They don't know if they could handle being bombed. They could handle a lot of natural disasters safely, but they are unsure about bombing
I think the larger one that isn't modular is not handling being bombed that well either. No nuclear catastrophe yet, but a lot of nerves around that situation. They are not stupid, careless, or brazen enough to hit it directly though. Just because it hasn't happened yet doesn't say it wouldn't.
The problem is if we went modular, there would be many targets that could be hit accidentally or intentionally. That would multiply the chances of it happening even accidentally. It would give somebody(Putin) more cover to say it happened accidentally when it was intentional.
Personally I think you risk evaluate and make an assessment. Is it worth the remote possibility of one getting hit somewhere in the world every 15 years for the production it could be putting out for 100's of millions if widely utilized. My guess is yes. But you have to test it in computer simulations, and possibly real situations, to determine the risk first. They haven't done that much or at all, at this point.
There is zero chance that commuter vehicles will become nuclear powered.
If you're talking about a nuclear reactor akin to the one that Gates is built in Wyoming, then I'd say you might be on to something, but that's not going to get rid of the need for a combustion engine alternative.
From my perspective a large reason for the emigration we're seeing from Central America is related to prolonged drought conditions in what used to be agrarian cultures. So, again, you're advocating treating the symptoms rather than addressing the root cause.
Sometimes that works... many times it doesn't.
What are you talking about. You convert the nuclear energy to electricity. Houses don't run on nuclear energy either.
He was referring to Nuclear being an alternative to lithium batteries. It's not. The batteries would still be needed if the ultimate goal is to de-carbonize the transportation sector as much as possible (which it is)What are you talking about. You convert the nuclear energy to electricity. Houses don't run on nuclear energy either.
I didn't think it was being stated as an alternative to lithium batteries, I just thought the nuclear waste and energy required to mine lithium were being stated as a comparison to evaluating the use of smr's. If that was the case, then that needs to be rethought by TUMU. They will still be needed, obviously. I couldn't conceive that, that, would be the point.
We are broke. To the tune of $31 Trillion. And that doesnt include shortfalls in our other liabilities.
