941–950 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You’re a fire management expert? What did LA do wrong?
If you actually want to know the answer to this question, this is a wonderful and well-researched book on the topic. https://tendingthewild.com/tending-the-wild/
[1]: https://www.amazon.com/Before-Wilderness-Environmental-Calif...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
the US would avoid flood damage if they just built apartment buildings. Asian apartments towers are immune to flooding because they allocate the ground floor to parking. Can't blow the roof off a square concrete building either. Ofc, a sufficiently strong Tornado is destroying everything in its wake. But, they're rare in comparison.
>the US would avoid flood damage if they just built apartment buildings. What do you mean by this?
> [...] immune to flooding because they allocate the ground floor to parking.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Then they cry when they lose everything Yes, that's a normal human response. It's ok to have emotions.
Yes but OTOH between drugs/addiction, homelessness, traffic, healthcare, consequences of global warming, loneliness epidemy, crime, it is hard to have empathy when you see a whole country complaining of self induced misery.
No. Even if they had homes in Malibu, the ones who caused those situations would not have lost everything.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, we are commenting on an article specifically about the spread of fire in urban areas, as we've seen in LA this week. Here in the seismically stable UK, we had problems with fire spreading in urban areas [1] in 1666. So we banned wood exteriors on buildings. It works pretty well if you don't need to worry about earthquakes or hurricanes; brick doesn't burn. This lesson is taught in history classes to 10 year old…
> Here in the seismically stable UK I don't think the US has enough seismic activity to be much different. Chile and Japan do fine with solid construction and periodic 6-8 Richter earthquakes. California is allegedly a seismic state within the USA and it rarely sees a 4 degree one, and when it happens it makes it to the US national news (and sometimes even to the news back home, but as a comedy break because people d…
The entire western third of the US is has several M7+ earthquakes per century, with a M6 every couple years, and the occasional M8-9+. The 1964 Anchorage earthquake was stronger (M9.2) than the 2011 Japanese earthquake that caused the great tsunami.
In the eastern US, there is a giant seismic zone that had multiple M8+ earthquakes in the 19th century. These were so powerful they changed the path of the mighty Mississippi River. People forget about it because it hasn’t had a large earthquake in over a century.
A lot of R&D is done on new construction techniques for extreme earthquake risks. The challenge with reinforced concrete is the absurd amount of reinforcement and steel you need to make it survive an earthquake that strong, which makes construction slow and expensive. The state-of-the-art doesn’t use reinforced concrete at all, even in skyscrapers; they use specially designed welded steel plates and fill the empty spaces with poured concrete.
The US has an anomalously high exposure to natural disasters as an accident of geography. For example, people often forget just how many active volcanoes there are in the US, including multiple super-volcanoes. While I live in an area well-known for its M9+ earthquake and tsunami risk, I can see three active volcanoes from my kitchen window.
American, living in area prone to natural disasters: "Is the WHOLE WORLD becoming uninsurable?" The answer is obviously "no" since there are other parts of the world that don't live on a hurricane highway nor build houses made from firewood in an area prone to wildfires.
Do we know why the insurance companies can't simply raise the insurance price to match the risks in those areas that are prone to natural disasters? I mean in general, not as in California where the government imposes strange policies. Speaking of the policy, why wouldn't California allow the insurance company raise the premium by region? Doesn't such policy benefit the rich at the cost of the poor as the rich love t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do we know why the insurance companies can't simply raise the insurance price to match the risks in those areas that are prone to natural disasters? I mean in general, not as in California where the government imposes strange policies. Speaking of the policy, why wouldn't California allow the insurance company raise the premium by region? Doesn't such policy benefit the rich at the cost of the poor as the rich love t…
California's ideology is to protect at all costs the people who already live among its hills, lakes, and beaches. Insurance and property tax hikes are threats insofar as they could drain your wealth. The (other, new) rich are a threat insofar as they could become your neighbors and ruin the view. The state protects you in both directions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've been trying to talk to people locally, a place with lots of homes built in the woodland-urban interface, about the risks of climate change and how insurance will have to change. Unfortunately these discussions almost never go well, because it seems that most people have at best a surface level understanding of what insurance is and how it works, and everyone is convinced that it's a full scam and insurance compa…
Insurance should not be for profit, and things like e.g. State Farm suddenly cancelling people's renters/fire insurance just two weeks before the fires (I am one of those people) are what people hate about insurance. No one is arguing that insurance is bad at risk assessment, but rather how they wield their proficiency with it.
Like we see in California, when the government sets a price ceiling, insurance companies just leave. Same in Florida. If the free market truly was allowed run normally, the insurance rates in Pacific Palisades or on the Florida coast would be so high that no one could afford to live there. Is that a bad thing? If someone was living in a house near where they tested missiles, we'd call them crazy. At what point can we…
> when the government sets a price ceiling, insurance companies just leave… > the insurance rates in Pacific Palisades or on the Florida coast would be so high that no one could afford to live there… Seems like the result is the same — people will live there but without insurance.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The real problem is that we're politically/socially unwilling to transfer the risk to the people who are responsible for creating it: Wealthy coastal landowners believe that the cost of home insurance should be about $2000/year. If their properties actually cost $200,000 per year to insure, then that's what they should have to pay! If they don't like it, they should either build something cheaper (that's the other ha…
I talked to somebody who owned a beach house in South Carolina about 5 years ago and if he wanted flood insurance it would cost $5,000 / month.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I talked to somebody who owned a beach house in South Carolina about 5 years ago and if he wanted flood insurance it would cost $5,000 / month.
How much was the house worth?