American Cities and Climate Change: When is Enough, Enough?

[Shawn]

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.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Shawn

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.

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by Shawn

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.

[The North One]

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.

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by The North One

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.

[dave8721]

Originally Posted by SpawnOfVulcan

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?

Its not exactly every year. I'm try to think of the last time Miami Beach experienced hurricane force winds. Maybe Wilma in 2007 I think? Probably not though. Maybe Andrew in 1992 but i don't think the strong hurricane force winds extended that far north. Maybe Betsy in 1965? That hit near Key Largo but had a big wind field and caused a little damage in Miami Beach. Probably have to go back to 1926. I have lived in Miami since about 1985 and I think i have been through hurricane force winds probably twice. Andrew, cat 5 and Wilma, cat 1. (Katrina was borderline). It only takes one (i learned that with Andrew) but those tend to be about a 1 in 50 year event. In an transient place like Miami and especially Miami Beach most people never experience that event.

[SFBruin]

Do we have a model for how much worse hurricanes will get?

I feel like that is important before making any policy.

Edit: I also think that flood insurance should be mandated in certain areas and privatized. I am probably forgetting something, though.

[Sun Belt]

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.


https://earthlymission.com/europe-at...f-the-ice-age/

http://www.virginiaplaces.org/chesbay/chesgeo.html

[Sam Hill]

Originally Posted by Sun Belt

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.

[Sun Belt]

Originally Posted by Sam Hill

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?

[Sam Hill]

Originally Posted by Sun Belt

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.

Originally Posted by Sun Belt

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

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."

[Sun Belt]

Originally Posted by Sam Hill

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.



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:

You're inventing stuff that I never talked about. There is no solution to warming. It's all about redirecting money. That's all it's always been about.

The Earth is warming, as it has for the last 18,000 years. Nobody has a solution on how to cool the Earth. Nobody. Nobody has determined at what temperature the Earth should cool to. What is the baseline? Nobody has established this.

Isn't it extremely unfair to have the Earth warm to a certain point, allowing some nations to reap the benefits of a warm world, while leaving other lands too cold to grow crops? When will we have that discussion? Or is that even a discussion to consider? Think about how much land is too damn cold to do anything with on this planet.

Land on Earth is about 29% of the surface, and human settlements are on about 1%.

Most of Canada, Alaska, most of Asia, Nordic nations, all of Antartica, all of Greenland -- it's so damn cold to use the land, live, or grow crops.

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by Sam Hill

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]

Originally Posted by jtown,man

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.

I get it. It's a tough pill to swallow - especially in the midst of this culture war. It means - as it pertains to this topic at least - those damn liberals were completely right all along and our side was completely wrong. (I'm assuming you're conservative at this point.)

The fact that there was an ice age tens of thousands of years ago doesn't challenge the scientific consensus regarding the climate crisis in any way whatsoever, and in the context of this conversation, is completely irrelevant. In fact, attempting to present it as evidence that this crisis isn't a crisis, or that it isn't unprecedented and completely anthropogenic, is an unfortunate display of ignorance.

There is no climate religion; there is only appropriate, commensurate concern. And there is no hate, obviously. You're just taking advantage of the opportunity to co-opt that word - likely because you're tired of the left hyperbolically lobbing it around in other, unrelated theaters of this culture war.

This issue really shouldn't be partisan. The only reason it is is because of a certain lobby - the same lobby that for decades successfully obfuscated the truth about rising levels of lead across the globe. The fact that it has somehow become partisan is a travesty of the democratic process.

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by Sam Hill

I get it. It's a tough pill to swallow - especially in the midst of this culture war. It means - as it pertains to this topic at least - those damn liberals were completely right all along and our side was completely wrong. (I'm assuming you're conservative at this point.)

The fact that there was an ice age tens of thousands of years ago doesn't challenge the scientific consensus regarding the climate crisis in any way whatsoever, and in the context of this conversation, is completely irrelevant. In fact, attempting to present it as evidence that this crisis isn't a crisis, or that it isn't unprecedented and completely anthropogenic, is an unfortunate display of ignorance.

There is no climate religion; there is only appropriate, commensurate concern. And there is no hate, obviously. You're just taking advantage of the opportunity to co-opt that word - likely because you're tired of the left hyperbolically lobbing it around in other, unrelated theaters of this culture war.

This issue really shouldn't be partisan. The only reason it is is because of a certain lobby - the same lobby that for decades successfully obfuscated the truth about rising levels of lead across the globe. The fact that it has somehow become partisan is a travesty of the democratic process.

I actually agree with you, this shouldn't be partisan. However, it seems to be that way on both sides.

Look at the GND, it was like 60% about anything but the environment. What does a federal job gaurentee have to do with the environment? Or sexism? Why do people like Bernie say they will not only not allow new nuclear plants(that are MUCH safer) but won't even renew older plants leases? If you TRULY thought climate change was the biggest issue on Earth, wouldn't every necessary step possible to stem the tide be worth it?

I'll explain this as simply as I can...I am a conservative. I know what they think. The phrase "green is the new red" rings true to a lot of people. This is because so much of climate change talk *always* reverts back to the government have massive new powers(and a lot of them having nothing to do with climate change). Bernie, for example, wants to spend 1.6 trillion dollars per year for the next 10 years, nearly doubling our budget. Meanwhile, places like New Delhi have air quality that can only be matched by American cities during extreme forest fires(I think SF came close last year). We ban plastic straws while one Amazon package has more plastic in it then all the straws I use in a decade.

A lot of this is moral posturing. That's why I like Yang's proposals. He is being serious about the issue but actually tackling it head-on and not including stupid things that have nothing to do with climate change. That's how you get the whole country on board.

But really, if you study climate change and can't name ONE positive thing about it, you're not researching climate change, you're researching how to make it look as bad as possible.

[mousquet]

Originally Posted by jtown,man

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.

I for one can understand your sort of thinking.
Actually, some people here in my country are harsh to environmentalists for the same kind of reasons, mostly because they are very worried about the economy and can't figure how the development model we've relied on for over 100 years - which is based on fossil fuels - could ever change positively. That's the fearsome challenge we're facing, definitely one of the hardest in entire mankind history.

So, you're not totally wrong in that everything has to be a subject to criticism, if not downright harshly questioned, except for things that are strictly, scientifically proven since these are no ideological dogma, they are just facts.

And you know what? By now science as a whole is already clear in that matter. Burning fossil fuels at the rate we do so to maintain our established economy releases an excessive amount of CO2 into Earth's atmosphere. Far far more than volcanoes do, and more that Earth can seize by its natural mechanisms to regulate the atmosphere.

Guess your professor couldn't answer your question because there is most likely no positive effect to this phenomenon, at least not for ourselves and most other species. The obvious prediction is that it would trigger a chain of events that would gradually turn Earth into an overheated hellhole, sort of like planet Venus whose atmosphere is saturated with greenhouse gasses, CO2 in particular.

There is a whole ton of credible documentation on the topic. So forget about politics, that's the annoying dogma, and just stick to scientific studies and conclusions.

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by mousquet

I for one can understand your sort of thinking.
Actually, some people here in my country are harsh to environmentalists for the same kind of reasons, mostly because they are very worried about the economy and can't figure how the development model we've relied on for over 100 years - which is based on fossil fuels - could ever change positively. That's the fearsome challenge we're facing, definitely one of the hardest in entire mankind history.

So, you're not totally wrong in that everything has to be a subject to criticism, if not downright harshly questioned, except for things that are strictly, scientifically proven since these are no ideological dogma, they are just facts.

And you know what? By now science as a whole is already clear in that matter. Burning fossil fuels at the rate we do so to maintain our established economy releases an excessive amount of CO2 into Earth's atmosphere. Far far more than volcanoes do, and more that Earth can seize by its natural mechanisms to regulate the atmosphere.

Guess your professor couldn't answer your question because there is most likely no positive effect to this phenomenon, at least not for ourselves and most other species. The obvious prediction is that it would trigger a chain of events that would gradually turn Earth into an overheated hellhole, sort of like planet Venus whose atmosphere is saturated with greenhouse gasses, CO2 in particular.

There is a whole ton of credible documentation on the topic. So forget about politics, that's the annoying dogma, and just stick to scientific studies and conclusions.

Appreciate the post. Yeah, that's why I've come up with my own GND...just waiting for some politician to ask me about it lol

[RavioliAficionado]

Originally Posted by mousquet

Guess your professor couldn't answer your question because there is most likely no positive effect to this phenomenon, at least not for ourselves and most other species. The obvious prediction is that it would trigger a chain of events that would gradually turn Earth into an overheated hellhole, sort of like planet Venus whose atmosphere is saturated with greenhouse gasses, CO2 in particular.

Nothing about that statement is true. And there are indeed many studies of the positive effects of global warming. Some countries like Canada and Russia are expected to receive considerable positive benefits from it. The problem is just that the Earth is a sphere so there's a lot more surface area near the equator that would get worse for humans than there is surface area near the poles that would get better for humans. So the net effect is negative even though some regions see a positive benefit. It will be pretty simply to adapt plants to grow in the warmer climates though so food isn't likely to be much of an issue. The only real inescapable issue is sea level rise and the effect it will have on our coastal communities. Global warming is bad, but it's no catastrophe by any means. It's nothing like the threats our ancestors faces like say the bubonic plague.

[AviationGuy]

Originally Posted by Sam Hill

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.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by Sun Belt

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.