SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum//index.php)
-   City Discussions (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum//forumdisplay.php?f=24)
-   -   American Cities and Climate Change: When is Enough, Enough? (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum//showthread.php?t=240370)

iheartthed Sep 21, 2019 1:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shawn (Post 8694131)
You have 100+ year old billion dollar insurance conglomerates, whose only functions are to make institutional investors money and who have been damn good at doing so for a century and counting, refusing to insure coastal properties in places like Florida. These companies, who are the absolute best at predicting long-term risk trends, have decided that the likelihood of coastal flooding is now so high, it is no longer reasonable in a fiduciary sense to insure against. Because it would lose them money.

That is all you need to know to understand that this is not just a case of increased media cycle exposure rates. When the Progressives, Allstates, and Liberty Mutuals (and the Pentagon, for that matter) say "this is getting serious", it's serious.

The National Flood Insurance Program is, IMO, the culprit. Banks would never make loans for properties that could not be insured, which would put a stop to almost all home construction in vulnerable areas. But the federal government stepped in to insure where the private market won't, which is probably led to people building/buying home in places where houses should not be built.

Sam Hill Sep 21, 2019 2:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sun Belt (Post 8694218)
The climate has had wild swings of global temperatures that have occurred over a short period of time -- numerous times.

It was just a blink of an eye ago that we had an F'n land bridge connecting North America to Asia and Britain wasn't an island. We're not talking 100 million years ago, 10 million years ago, 1 million years ago, 100,000 years ago. This was as recently as 18,000 years ago.

Buy hey, a carbon tax will reverse 18,000 years of warming. [Where does that carbon tax money go?]. Here's an idea, if carbon taxes are the solution, why does somebody receive that money and what are they going to do with that money? They'll probably spend it, gets recirculated in the system for people to use to buy stuff that creates more carbon in the atmosphere.

Why don't we tax people and then throw that money dig a giant hole and bury it? Shrink the money supply, instead of taking it from someone to then give it back to someone, so that they can then give it back to somebody else. That'll cool the Earth. Less money, less warming.

LOL.

Wow.

Clearly you know far more about the climate than the world's foremost experts who have devoted their entire academic and professional careers to the study of the climate. You should go give them a talking to and straighten them out.

JManc Sep 21, 2019 2:47 PM

Where I live in Kingwood TX, homes that flooded lost a considerable amount of value and will carry the stigma of flooding for years and won't sell as well as houses that didn't flood. Harvey and Imelda made it pretty clear which houses are flood prone. Fortunately, ours isn't.

pj3000 Sep 21, 2019 5:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sun Belt (Post 8694218)

Buy hey, a carbon tax will reverse 18,000 years of warming. [Where does that carbon tax money go?]. Here's an idea, if carbon taxes are the solution, why does somebody receive that money and what are they going to do with that money? They'll probably spend it, gets recirculated in the system for people to use to buy stuff that creates more carbon in the atmosphere.

Why don't we tax people and then throw that money dig a giant hole and bury it? Shrink the money supply, instead of taking it from someone to then give it back to someone, so that they can then give it back to somebody else. That'll cool the Earth. Less money, less warming.

LOL.

It sounds like you have no idea how a carbon tax works. Instead of bringing up irrelevant geological history like land bridges to Asia and senselessly LOL-ing, maybe spend 15 minutes of your time educating yourself on the details of a carbon tax.

In quick summary for you, most producers are able avoid paying the tax via utilizing more energy efficient technologies. The tax main purpose is to dissuade the unnecessary use of fossil fuels. Tax money that is collected goes to fund small biz tax breaks and incentives/rebates to homeowners, and investment into energy technology research. So, even producers who pay the tax most likely receive the benefits back anyway. Only the largest emitters end up paying (and ALL studies on the issue show that they can more than easily afford it). There’s a reason conservatives favor it over other methods, like cap and trade, because it’s more effective, the tax is a tax in name only, and it actually functions as a market mechanism, rather than a hard and fast regulation.

lio45 Sep 21, 2019 6:18 PM

Governments should at most bail out people once. Then you're on your own.

Makes no sense otherwise.

pdxtex Sep 21, 2019 7:10 PM

probably because its not cost prohibitive yet. if insurance companies quadrupled their rates around the gulf, des moines property would go thru the roof!

pdxtex Sep 21, 2019 7:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JManc (Post 8694270)
Where I live in Kingwood TX, homes that flooded lost a considerable amount of value and will carry the stigma of flooding for years and won't sell as well as houses that didn't flood. Harvey and Imelda made it pretty clear which houses are flood prone. Fortunately, ours isn't.

are there disclosure laws for homes that have flooded or are buyers left to their own dilligence? do people try and cover that kind of history up? you certainly see listings down there that say did not FLOOD in capital letters....

jd3189 Sep 21, 2019 7:41 PM

Florida residents whose property were damaged by Irma a few years back are now just opting to demolished them whole, especially in the Keys. The Exodus is slowly happening.

pdxtex Sep 21, 2019 8:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jd3189 (Post 8694426)
Florida residents whose property were damaged by Irma a few years back are now just opting to demolished them whole, especially in the Keys. The Exodus is slowly happening.

maybe the work around in the future will just be just renting. homeownership of stick built construction anywhere in florida seems crazy to me.

JManc Sep 21, 2019 10:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pdxtex (Post 8694419)
are there disclosure laws for homes that have flooded or are buyers left to their own dilligence? do people try and cover that kind of history up? you certainly see listings down there that say did not FLOOD in capital letters....

Yes as of this month. Sellers have to disclose if home is in 100 year flood plain and if the home ever flooded but without, pretty hard to hide. A little knowledge of the neighborhood and any repairs coinciding with major events. Previously, owners had to disclose if there was a flood risk. When you go to get a quote for flood insurance, you'll know pretty quick the flood risk. I backed out of buying a house a few years ago when i discovered it sat in 100 yearplain. And insurance was $3,000/ year just for flood. It's normally around $500 and optional if you don't live in risk area.

pdxtex Sep 21, 2019 11:12 PM

wowzers, here check out your city's flood plain GIS site. pretty wild. https://www.harriscountyfemt.org i didnt realize it was at such a risk. i figured galveston took the brunt of the storms and provided a bit a barrier. id still live there but might opt for a upper story unit in a condo tower....also did the media even bother to report the amazing 36 inches of rain imelda just dropped??? it barely even made west coast news.....nothing to see here folks...move on.......

Sun Belt Sep 22, 2019 12:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sam Hill (Post 8694269)
Wow.

Clearly you know far more about the climate than the world's foremost experts who have devoted their entire academic and professional careers to the study of the climate. You should go give them a talking to and straighten them out.

I've never ever stated that.

However, have any of those experts ever figured out a way to stop the 18,000 year warming trend?

A] Is it taxes?
B] Is it consuming other products?
C] Is it politics?

Sun Belt Sep 22, 2019 12:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pj3000 (Post 8694376)
It sounds like you have no idea how a carbon tax works. Instead of bringing up irrelevant geological history like land bridges to Asia and senselessly LOL-ing, maybe spend 15 minutes of your time educating yourself on the details of a carbon tax.

In quick summary for you, most producers are able avoid paying the tax via utilizing more energy efficient technologies. The tax main purpose is to dissuade the unnecessary use of fossil fuels. Tax money that is collected goes to fund small biz tax breaks and incentives/rebates to homeowners, and investment into energy technology research. So, even producers who pay the tax most likely receive the benefits back anyway. Only the largest emitters end up paying (and ALL studies on the issue show that they can more than easily afford it). There’s a reason conservatives favor it over other methods, like cap and trade, because it’s more effective, the tax is a tax in name only, and it actually functions as a market mechanism, rather than a hard and fast regulation.

Thanks for the post.

In other words, it's just a big ol' giant game that's being played. But hey, to get people on board, you must scare them first.

None of this will lead to a cooler world [and what year are we trying to get back to? Has any expert told us that yet? 1900 AD? 1800 AD? 1000 AD? 2000 BC? 10000 BC? 5 million BC? -- LOL

But back to your post, those players that play the game will most definitely get rich real quick and will rule the world in the future.

Game on!

Obadno Sep 22, 2019 12:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shawn (Post 8694131)
You have 100+ year old billion dollar insurance conglomerates, whose only functions are to make institutional investors money and who have been damn good at doing so for a century and counting, refusing to insure coastal properties in places like Florida. These companies, who are the absolute best at predicting long-term risk trends, have decided that the likelihood of coastal flooding is now so high, it is no longer reasonable in a fiduciary sense to insure against. Because it would lose them money.

That is all you need to know to understand that this is not just a case of increased media cycle exposure rates. When the Progressives, Allstates, and Liberty Mutuals (and the Pentagon, for that matter) say "this is getting serious", it's serious.

They are limiting coverage there because there is more exposure there than ever, Florida population has grown immensely in the last 50 years, mass home insurers like Liberty Mutual or State farm have stopped writing standard insurance in Florida because they cannot charge enough to cover all the millions of homes they are responsible for that isn't how their business model works

There are plenty of smaller insurance carriers and specialty writers that love hurricane and windstorm risks in Florida and make money hand over fist. If there was no weather risk they would have no product to sell.

An insurance company is much more likely to bail on a state because of regulation than it is due to weather or because of climate change.

How do I know? Lets say I'm intimately familiar with the insurance industry and have been for many years all across the industry.

Sun Belt Sep 22, 2019 1:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jd3189 (Post 8694426)
Florida residents whose property were damaged by Irma a few years back are now just opting to demolished them whole, especially in the Keys. The Exodus is slowly happening.

Move to Southern Arizona cities!

No hurricanes, no blizzards or snow for that matter, no earthquakes just rare some jiggles, no major wildfires, no power outages, no water restrictions, no riots, suppressed bum activity [compared to CA] ... etc

jtown,man Sep 22, 2019 1:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The North One (Post 8694141)
Every coastal city is f*cked royally and we're about to have the worst migration crisis/human suffering event this planet has ever seen in the next 100 years. The amount of people who live in Jakarta alone is staggering, 90% of them have nowhere else to go.

If the US was smart we'd start phasing out into interior regions and offering incentives to move in more strategic and habitable places but LOL that kinda good planning is not gonna happen in the most incompetent developed nation. Like always the poor will be hurt most.

I think the whole world minus the Americas, Australia, and Sub-Saharan Africa would disagree with that bold statement. The Plague killed off nearly 50% of the population in Europe and similar numbers in other areas across the world. Native Americans died off in insane numbers due to diseases they weren't used to.

You are merely making a prediction. This stuff already happened. When 50% of people in the United States die from Climate Change I'll stop laughing at your hyperbole.

jtown,man Sep 22, 2019 1:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sam Hill (Post 8694269)
Wow.

Clearly you know far more about the climate than the world's foremost experts who have devoted their entire academic and professional careers to the study of the climate. You should go give them a talking to and straighten them out.

This is the issues I have with people who worship Climate Change as a religion. You guys *hate* anyone challenging you. Even if it's based on actual facts.

Facts, we had an ice age less than 20,000 years ago. In order to END an ice age, you need massive heating. Not saying we aren't warming the planet. But it's important to acknowledge.

I asked a professor of mine, who has written a lot of articles about climate change, "so we all know about the negative consequences of climate change, what are the positives to a warming planet?"

He had no answer. A guy who has spent the last 10 years writing papers and researching this issue has not even thought about the positives of a warming planet. This informs me that this is more than science, this has become a political religion full of dogma.

Sam Hill Sep 22, 2019 2:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sun Belt (Post 8694580)
I've never ever stated that.

Yes you did. The denial of anthropogenic climate change is only possible if you think you somehow know better than the world's foremost experts who have devoted their entire academic and professional careers to the study of the climate.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sun Belt (Post 8694580)
18,000 year warming trend

You keep saying this.^ It implies the climate crisis was not caused by human activity and has been naturally occurring for thousands of years. It's a completely bizarre thing to mention in this context and a cringe-worthy display of ignorance.

Have you never seen the goddamned "hockey stick" graph? Here, this just happened to be sitting in my news feed today:

The climate crisis explained in 10 charts

Quote:

The level of CO2 has been rising since the industrial revolution and is now at its highest for about 4 million years. The rate of the rise is even more striking – the fastest for 66m years – with scientists saying we are in “uncharted territory”.
Look at those charts. Obviously what we're discussing is the warming that began during the industrial revolution and the extreme acceleration of that warming over the course of recent decades. Stop referring to the climate crisis as an "18,000-year trend."

AviationGuy Sep 22, 2019 2:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sam Hill (Post 8694269)
Wow.

Clearly you know far more about the climate than the world's foremost experts who have devoted their entire academic and professional careers to the study of the climate. You should go give them a talking to and straighten them out.

Exactly. It's amusing that the Fox News commentators and talk radio hosts/guests, and their followers, believe they know more than the experts. But someone has to show those experts a thing or two.

ThePhun1 Sep 22, 2019 4:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SpawnOfVulcan (Post 8692779)
As a geographer, with a focus in urban and regional planning, I wonder why people choose to remain in large, disaster-prone metro areas. I'm talking about extreme natural disasters that occur nearly every year. These extreme weather events, that are exacerbated by impervious surfaces in urban areas are obviously going to continue to occur!

What gives?

Certainly demographics play into certain populations' abilities to move out of hazardous areas, but (aside from denial of the existance of climate change) why do certain demographic groups choose to remain in such susceptible areas?

I, of course, live in a state that is highly proned to natural disasters. However, I love Alabama, I love Birmingham, and I love the Tennessee Valley. None of us can truly escape all natural disasters, but when you see the catastrophic flooding like we're seeing with Imelda, I wonder what coastal residents think when the rebuild time after time.

Is Houston just an exceptional city?

Is Miami Beach just too beautiful?

Is Charleston too precious to sacrifice?

Is New Orleans too important of a port to allow the Mississippi to run its natural course?

What, God Forbid, could happen in Houston could be tragic. Many of us no longer evacuate for hurricanes and can't afford hotels for too long. We already saw what happened during Rita and Ike as far as jam packed freeways go.

Low lying areas, various bodies of water right on the coast and millions of people within 50 miles of the coast? Whew...

And yet, after a few recent storms,
I feel confident I could ride out a big storm in Galveston. I hope I don't get overconfident.


All times are GMT. The time now is 4:42 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.