Before making its imminent landfall on Florida, Hurricane Matthew on Thursday strengthened once again to a Category 4 storm, prompting widespread evacuations and fears over its devastating potential.
There's the proper headline for a CD story. The mainstream media is doing just fine at skimming over the sidebar of more than 100 dead in Haiti, but woo! the fools who live on barrier islands in the US are "bracing" and Disney is closing at 5PM.
I would like to go off topic for just a moment (glancing at my pocket watch for a marker, yes chickens sometimes carry pocket watches) to comment on your off topic judgement of people living in the barrier islands.
Fools eh? Relative to storms, what people, according to their geographic location of choice do you consider not fools?
I really want to know.
For pity's sake, I've been off topic now for a couple of minutes. Let's get back to the issue of the article.
This must be terrifying for those living in the barrier islands, given the strength of this storm detailed in the article. Also, the article broadly references ACD and climate change, documenting the significant warming of the ocean as a contributing factor to this storm.
Since this is a topic brought up in the article, and since what can be done to address ACD on a large scale has everything to do with public policy, I think it is quite appropriate to corn-sider whether or not particular politicians are actually genuine in addressing such corn-cerns.
Have a nice day.
People should be allowed to live wherever they chose to live.
But, they need to self-insure and save themselves from drowning.
Our insurance rates shouldn't reflect a risk takers lifestyle, nor should our taxes be used to rebuild their sandy beach's, and first responders shouldn't be asked to risk their own lives to go in and save them.
Other then that, party on.
Come on man. Everyone knows there is no such thing as global warming. Trump told me so.
Most people do have insurance who live in such proximity to oceans, rivers, etc. Many people are born into coastal regions for instance, who are stuck in their situations because of a host of situations that come from life situations, including living in proximity to close relatives, not being able to afford to move anywhere else, etc.. Thus, in general, I think it is good that people are helped in such disasters that have no insurance, etc.
A similar argument is often made (not that you would make this particular argument) regarding the cost of health insurance i.e., that it is all of those people pursuing expensive treatments, or making unnecessary appointments that ultimately jack up the price for everyone.
The only equitable solution, according to your perspective relative to disaster related expenditures somehow affecting you, or the responsibility everyone must bear who lives in regions vulnerable to such disasters is the following…
No one should be able to buy insurance who lives in such designated zones, so no cost is unfairly distributed by those living in the desert for instance.
Insurance companies should be tightly regulated so they can't distribute risk (but that's what insurance companies do, so no such regulations is possible)
People who live in these zones should just die, and not be rescued otherwise someone's precious tax dollar might not be able to be spent expanding Empire, and the like.
Sandy beach? Hell the whole coast is a sandy beach. What, this all should be private expenditure?
You sound like a Libertarian on this one.
What zones should be designated Libertarian zones, relative to natural disasters?
All citizens of Miami for instance? No insurance available to anyone, no first responders?
I mean, Californians are all fools for living in a land that is destined to have a major Earthquake.
That is REALLY going to piss off that Libertarian sensitivity some day when the big one hits.
FOOLS!!!!! You don't get no first responders!!!
Actually this is a private property issue.
Who owns it and how much should they pay for that privilege?
If the entire coastline (or lakefronts) were considered to be a "commons" then we could all share it and pay for its upkeep. With our taxes.
Until that day comes the 99% should not be forced to subsidize the lifestyles of the 1%.
We have known for centuries that coast lines are constantly in flux with currents, storms and tsunamis creating and destroying the coasts.
My friend built a beach house on the West Coast in 1970 that is now one quarter mile from the beach due to deposition, while beach houses one mile south are installing rip rap so the houses don't wash away due to erosion over the same period.
With few exceptions, governments have been unable to prevent coastal development because they are guaranteed to be sued by the wealthy land owners if they attempt to stop development whereas if they allow development they will get sued by those folks only when destructive events occur. Prudent risk management dictates their decision to maybe get sued rather than for sure getting sued.
A few years ago I was in Sweden giving some lectures and took a walk along the coast right through what seemed to be people's backyards. When I asked if people minded that - they laughed at me. Unlike the U.S., Swedes didn't have any fences around their property and the public can walk through anyone's land any time they want (understandably - they do care if you trample their flower gardens). Sure felt freer and more democratic.
In my original comment I spoke specifically to the barrier islands, which are mostly reserved to the wealthy. I've been listening to TV handwringing over "Melbourne FL." My parents lived for many years in Melbourne. Dad's ashes were returned to the Earth through the inland waterway. On the other end of the causeway are high-rise condos where high premiums are paid for "ocean views," and indeed a few public beaches. But the mandatory evacuations are from Melbourne Beach, and the shelters are in Melbourne proper. Poor lady is sheltered in a room with "11 other women." I do not want to pay for rebuilding those condos.
So did Rick Scott, the Florida Governor. But of course, Rick will still be a climate denier and spin this devastating hurricane as some kind of weather anomaly.
I'll just refer you back to my post, for the arguments I actually made.
Huh, I think you are getting your posts and related replies corn-fused. Use a spreadsheet.
In your original post, by the way, you didn't qualify that you were only talking about rich "fools". What, no regular folk live on any barrier islands in Florida?
Those USAians living on barrier islands off the coast of the USA seem about to learn what around 100million people in Bangladesh will face as sea-level rises, thanks to AGH denialism. Even in the good old days of 1971and a mere 350ppm or so CO2 in the atmosphere, around 1 million people in Bangladesh got utterly smashed if not dead when a typhoon hit the place.
... Yes, people should be allowed to live ...where their ancestors did... if that is what they want... Wouldn't it have been nice... if we had not built the modern world on fossil fuels... Wouldn't it have been nice, if more of us had had a CLUE that there even was such a thing as climate change... caused by humans, using fossil fuels... as far back as... what.. 1930's... 1950's??? even 1970.... Because, it WAS a real theory... and .. it SHOULD have been general knowledge that was taken MORE SERIOUSLY... than ALLOWING A SMALL NICHE OF PEOPLE TO BECOME BILLIONAIRES...
You see, this is what I cannot get past.... The fact that our SO CALLED DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT... did NOT fully inform it's citizens...with this knowledge and allow for a DEMOCRATIC DECISION on what we would use as energy for our economy. Most of us... really had not clue...as to the seriousness or even existence of this problem... I did not here a word, till 1999 ... and that was a statement, brief and simple by someone I knew... but it meant nothing to me... then, in 2003 I started to learn more... and kept up my research...
Then, I find out that EXXON MOBIL... IS GUILTY OF KILLING THE PLANET... SINCE, THEY DID KNOW... FROM THEIR OWN RESEARCH THAT THE PREDICTABLE CLIMATE we had had for 10000 years... would become unstable with the continued burning of fossil fuels...
So, I am angry and I will continue to be so... the real deal is... we were all brought up with a particular understanding of what we were suppose to do as far as making a living... and creating a life... but...we were unaware of the consequences... Those who did know only cared about money. OUR WHOLE CULTURE IS BASED ON EXPEDIENCY......and the more money one has, the more expedient... that person is...
Many poor people live in coastal areas in marginal homes. They often do not have the resources or support network to move away. Sometimes they don't even have the means to evacuate when life becomes precarious. Let's not turn our backs on them just because they live near the coast, aka "sandy beaches".
I was quite specific about the barrier islands along the FL east coast. "Ocean views" are very expensive.
How right you are! The US had better stop funding Pentagon wars and Israel and set aside some money for damage done by climate change because there will be many more storms such as Matthew.
The article talks about ocean temperatures and humidity, and maybe these are the main points of global warming affecting this hurricane 's status, but I think the main issue for Florida in the next couple of decades is the level of the ocean itself. It is expected to rise dramatically. Florida has no mountains, and very few hills. It's all pretty much just a tad above sea level now. Gov. Scott, didn't you sign a bill recently prohibiting discussions of global warming by government employees with the media?
I grew up two miles from the ocean in Ft. Lauderdale. Saw quite a few hurricanes. The water table in my yard, over fifty years ago, was usually about eighteen inches..
caption for lead photo:
Pac-Man About to Eat Florida