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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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....

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Sun Belt (Post 8694580)

I've never ever stated that.

Originally Posted by Sun Belt (Post 8694580)

18,000 year warming trend

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.

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?