Re: Climate:Cool&Warm

From: Pat Fallon (pfallon@ptd.net)
Date: Wed Apr 09 2003 - 10:10:21 MDT

  • Next message: Lee Daniel Crocker: "Re: POLITICS [&WAR]: Neo-Conservative policies and power"

    Subject: Re: Climate:Cool&Warm

    >>> ...rising sealevel isn't the acute problem.
    >>> It's rather the threat of much more
    >>> frequent extreme weather events (100 year storms)
    >>> which can cause massive floods, especially if combined
    >>> with something like a high tide, backing up
    >>> of the Rhine and Maas.

    >> Not a lot anyone can do to prevent this though. Florida real
    >> estate doesn't look like a good bet to me if you look back
    >> just 80 years to the weather it experienced in the 1920s
    >> when it had a series of huge hurricanes. Not so many condos
    >> and hotels back then.

    I vaguely remember reading an article or 2 on this subject from a
    libertarian oriented magazine that made the additional point that most
    building in coastal regions subject to storm damage used to be either light
    structures meant to be replaced if swept away or damaged or reinforced
    buildings meant to survive.

    With the advent of subsidized flood insurance, people could get loans for
    building a lot more regular housing in flood prone areas.

    I'm all for voluntary charities helping the victims of disasters.
    But government subsidy of flood insurance encourages people to build in
    flood prone areas.

    I would favor letting people build on their shorefront property, but not in
    favor of subsidizing their flood insurance. Without subsidized insurance, I
    don't think as many people would get loans to build standard housing in
    areas likely to be damaged by coastal storms.

    >Just get the government to declare it a
    >disaster area, and the owners don't really run any risk.

    This was said in jest, I think.
    Shielding people from the consequences of their actions is frequently
    counterproductive.

    It seems so bogus to tax us all so some can build right in flood prone
    areas. Then the inevitable 100 year storm comes every 5 years and they just
    rebuild because they are covered by insurance. Even a one time buyout or
    other arrangement to phase out the flood subsidy would be preferred, IMHO.

    Otherwise many people argue that since they are subsidizing the insurance,
    the public should have cheap beach access, development should be nil or
    managed by the gov, or other erosion of private property rights.

    Pat Fallon
    pfallon@ptd.net



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Apr 09 2003 - 10:20:57 MDT