As this shows, not acting against climate has costs too, which the people that argue against carbon pricing never seem to remember...
Hurricane Ian damages in Southeast estimated at $100B to $120B
61–70 of 237 posts
Re: Hurricane Ian damages in Southeast estimated at $100B to $120B
#62I can only assume it will go higher. We need to push FEMA to have a 2 and done rule. After that the property must be returned back to dunes/parks/public spaces.
Hurricanes are a fact of life in the gulf and southeastern atlantic coasts. There is no area that has not have been hit twice already in the past century. So all this coastline should be dunes and park spaces?
If an area is regularly rendered uninhabitable by major weather events then rebuilding in that area is a liability for all involved. When buildings and property are destroyed their contents are dispersed or leak, representing an environmental hazard; people and animals returning are exposed to evacuation risks in following weather events; and then there's the obvious tax and insurance liability discussed elsewhere.
We've been treating these areas as fit for habitation and we're watching in realtime as they become uninhabitable. While it may have been more tolerable to live in these regions in the last century when global temperatures were lower we're at an inflection point; we're going be forced to concede spaces as too dangerous for regular habitation because storms are only going to increase in severity and frequency.
As a society we have a few options: 1, we continue to rebuild and pay the costs until it becomes completely cost prohibitive; 2, dramatically rethink how we build in the area and construct buildings that can cope with several feet of storm surges; or 3, accept reality and begin the process of resettling people in areas that won't be submerged in 100 years. It's likely that we're going to pursue option 1 for the next 10-30 years because collective change is hard but we ought to start having these conversations well in advance of insurance companies writing off all of Florida as uninsurable.
This doesn't even begin to touch on the benefits of allowing areas to revert to wetlands, but considering that they act as excellent buffers from the storms we're observing as well as carbon sinks, but it's worth stating that retreating from these areas makes more sense on ecological and financial grounds.
Re: Hurricane Ian damages in Southeast estimated at $100B to $120B
#63I can only assume it will go higher. We need to push FEMA to have a 2 and done rule. After that the property must be returned back to dunes/parks/public spaces.
I must say that is a terrible idea. Should parts of CA or other earthquake prone areas be labelled uninhabitable? What about areas where forest fires are routine? Flood prone areas? Tornado prone areas? High UV? Poor air quality? It makes no sense whatsoever to dictate that people cannot live on the coasts due to natural disasters which happen everywhere, all the time. Frankly, being told where to live is more garish…
No one is being told where to live. But there is no reason to subsidize property prices in areas by providing federal taxpayer subsidized insurance. Providing taxpayer subsidized insurance allows people to buy properties with a larger mortgage (for which banks require flood insurance), which allows property prices to rise higher than they would have without taxpayer subsidized insurance.
Re: Hurricane Ian damages in Southeast estimated at $100B to $120B
#64Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hurricanes are a fact of life in the gulf and southeastern atlantic coasts. There is no area that has not have been hit twice already in the past century. So all this coastline should be dunes and park spaces?
Public funds should not pay to rebuild the same property more than 1-2 times within N years. You either: a) Build the property to withstand all but 1-2 statistically expected hurricanes within that N year period. This is possible, it's just costly. b) You don't get public funds c) You get private insurance d) You don't build
No problem, so long as you pay for your own college, health insurance, and unemployment.
Re: Hurricane Ian damages in Southeast estimated at $100B to $120B
#65I can only assume it will go higher. We need to push FEMA to have a 2 and done rule. After that the property must be returned back to dunes/parks/public spaces.
Hurricanes are a fact of life in the gulf and southeastern atlantic coasts. There is no area that has not have been hit twice already in the past century. So all this coastline should be dunes and park spaces?
To be honest, that sounds amazing.
Having those coasts be parks with hundreds of miles of low-impact infrastructure like hiking/biking/walking paths, maybe simple low-key restaurants that aren't a big deal to rebuild every decade, etc.
Put all the heavier infrastructure like housing developments a few miles inland. Then everyone can enjoy these idyllic beach lands a little farther from all the buzz of cities. Everyone in the city can still easily go to the coastline-spanning megapark, but now the beach isn't lined with gaudy condos.
Sign me up!
Re: Hurricane Ian damages in Southeast estimated at $100B to $120B
#66Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hurricanes are a fact of life in the gulf and southeastern atlantic coasts. There is no area that has not have been hit twice already in the past century. So all this coastline should be dunes and park spaces?
Calgary did this after the 2013 Bow river flood. They bailed out the homeowners. But if they choose to rebuild on those lots, next time they get zero. They are on their own. If catastrophic hurricanes are really going to happen every 10 years, should the federal government be subsidizing the coastal lifestyle and building you a new house each time? Consider: 100B/100M taxpayers = $1000 per person. Can you really say…
Didn't Key West do this also, or something similar?
Re: Hurricane Ian damages in Southeast estimated at $100B to $120B
#67Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not a chance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Flood_Insurance_Progr... >As of August 2017, the program insured about 5 million homes (down from about 5.5 million homes in April 2010), the majority of which are in Texas and Florida.[3][4] The cost of the insurance program was fully covered by its premiums until the end of 2004, but it has had to steadily borrow funds since, primarily due to Hurricane Katrina an…
Is the conclusion that housing should not be built where Sandy’s damages occurred? That seems... unreasonable .
Like anything non-hurricane related, either find a private insurer you can afford, or risk being uninsured and losing everything you own
Re: Hurricane Ian damages in Southeast estimated at $100B to $120B
#68I can only assume it will go higher. We need to push FEMA to have a 2 and done rule. After that the property must be returned back to dunes/parks/public spaces.
Hurricanes are a fact of life in the gulf and southeastern atlantic coasts. There is no area that has not have been hit twice already in the past century. So all this coastline should be dunes and park spaces?
As a Floridian: Yes.
Re: Hurricane Ian damages in Southeast estimated at $100B to $120B
#69Earlier quoted context omitted.
I must say that is a terrible idea. Should parts of CA or other earthquake prone areas be labelled uninhabitable? What about areas where forest fires are routine? Flood prone areas? Tornado prone areas? High UV? Poor air quality? It makes no sense whatsoever to dictate that people cannot live on the coasts due to natural disasters which happen everywhere, all the time. Frankly, being told where to live is more garish…
No one is being told where to live. But there is no reason to subsidize property prices in areas by providing federal taxpayer subsidized insurance. Providing taxpayer subsidized insurance allows people to buy properties with a larger mortgage (for which banks require flood insurance), which allows property prices to rise higher than they would have without taxpayer subsidized insurance.
"We need to push FEMA to have a 2 and done rule. After that the property must be returned back to dunes/parks/public spaces."
My response was to this comment at the top, where it was, explicitly and objectively, supporting a policy that dictates where people should live.
Re: Hurricane Ian damages in Southeast estimated at $100B to $120B
#70Earlier quoted context omitted.
Calgary did this after the 2013 Bow river flood. They bailed out the homeowners. But if they choose to rebuild on those lots, next time they get zero. They are on their own. If catastrophic hurricanes are really going to happen every 10 years, should the federal government be subsidizing the coastal lifestyle and building you a new house each time? Consider: 100B/100M taxpayers = $1000 per person. Can you really say…
Is the federal government paying out $100B for Ian damages from taxes? Or is most of that being paid by private insurance (or even if paid by federal flood insurance, you have to credit back the flood insurance premiums paid rather than assume it’s all coming from taxes).
Literally no one wants to insure those homeowners. They get insurance through the National Flood Insurance Program - it’s subsidized by the Federal government and it’s still incredibly expensive because the NFIP can’t refuse to insure a property thats going to be destroyed once a decade, so they end up being subsidized by all the properties in the NFIP that weren’t built in insane locations.