Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As the peer-reviewed science you so steadfastly deny has repeatedly proven, whether CO2 levels are 260 ppm CO2 or 400 ppm CO2, the sea levels are going to rise 3 meters to 14 meters and there ain't a damn thing you or anyone else can do about it.
The only thing that can be done now is to attempt to mitigate the damage of the resulting flooding that is inevitable. We can do that.
The only thing that can be done now is to attempt to mitigate the damage of the resulting flooding that is inevitable. We can do that.
Why should we?
If you choose to place your investment and life in the path of nature, eventually, nature wins. It's been that way since the dawn of civilization and people putting themselves and their livelihood in the path of nature. Building at the coast, or the border of any body of water means accepting the risk that eventually, someday, guaranteed, the water level of that body of water will rise and come ruin your day if you got bold enough to be where a rise can do so.
Question - do we use federal funds to bail out gamblers who crap out at roulette in Vegas? Do we have a fund for when people lose money in the stock markets? Same principle really, people assuming risk and getting beat by the odds, and you are assuming we should do it for real estate, so why not for all risk?
If you choose to place your investment and life in the path of nature, eventually, nature wins. It's been that way since the dawn of civilization and people putting themselves and their livelihood in the path of nature. Building at the coast, or the border of any body of water means accepting the risk that eventually, someday, guaranteed, the water level of that body of water will rise and come ruin your day if you got bold enough to be where a rise can do so.
Question - do we use federal funds to bail out gamblers who crap out at roulette in Vegas? Do we have a fund for when people lose money in the stock markets? Same principle really, people assuming risk and getting beat by the odds, and you are assuming we should do it for real estate, so why not for all risk?
Do you know what percentage of Americans live on, or very near, the coastline in the U.S.? A lot of people don't. I agree, however, that taxpayers should not be on the hook for high-rises being built at this very moment on the beaches of Miami. These developers will get their money, Miami will get their tax revenue, and in 40 years, the first floor will be accessible only by boat. It's a money grab with no thought towards the future.
And that is essentially why we are destroying our environment and the planet's climate.
The only thing that can be done now is to attempt to mitigate the damage of the resulting flooding that is inevitable. We can do that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by odanny
Do you know what percentage of Americans live on, or very near, the coastline in the U.S.?
Who cares?
Nothing needs to be done.
The Free Market will deal with the matter efficiently and effectively with no cost to Americans.
As soon as government gets the hell out of the way and stops interfering, everything will be fine.
Eventually, insurance companies will cease to issue policies for certain properties, or entire census tracts, or even whole zip codes, because of either repeated damage or the cost of insurance is so exorbitant property owners cannot afford it.
At that point, all new development ceases and redevelopment ceases as well.
Why? Because no mortgage lender is going to issue a mortgage on a property that cannot be insured, and no financial institution will lend money for redevelopment of property that cannot be insured.
What about the property owners? It's not my problem. There are inherent risks to ocean-front property. They should have thought about that and done their due-diligence before purchasing the property.
It's not my job to subsidize or reimburse people who make stupid decisions.
People will trickle out of those areas over the coming decades and relocate to locales that aren't subject to damage.
The only thing government should do is pick a reasonable time, say seven years, and any property that is vacant for seven years or more must be demolished and restored to its original state as close as possible. That will help mitigate storm damage.
That's all that needs to be done, and it doesn't cost tax-payers even a penny.
The Free Market will deal with the matter efficiently and effectively with no cost to Americans.
As soon as government gets the hell out of the way and stops interfering, everything will be fine.
Eventually, insurance companies will cease to issue policies for certain properties, or entire census tracts, or even whole zip codes, because of either repeated damage or the cost of insurance is so exorbitant property owners cannot afford it.
At that point, all new development ceases and redevelopment ceases as well.
Why? Because no mortgage lender is going to issue a mortgage on a property that cannot be insured, and no financial institution will lend money for redevelopment of property that cannot be insured.
What about the property owners? It's not my problem. There are inherent risks to ocean-front property. They should have thought about that and done their due-diligence before purchasing the property.
It's not my job to subsidize or reimburse people who make stupid decisions.
People will trickle out of those areas over the coming decades and relocate to locales that aren't subject to damage.
The only thing government should do is pick a reasonable time, say seven years, and any property that is vacant for seven years or more must be demolished and restored to its original state as close as possible. That will help mitigate storm damage.
That's all that needs to be done, and it doesn't cost tax-payers even a penny.
I thought it was crazy, after the 1993 floods along the Missouri and Mississippi, people were allowed to rebuild. Many of the same places flooded again in 2011 and this year.
Deniers do not want to pay a little now to halt climate change, well, be prepared to pay a lot more in the future. $400 billion dollars will be necessary to save coastal communities. $76 Billion in Florida alone.
You can always move to Alaska, sea level there is dropping, about 7 inches per decade in some places. And for perspective, sea level is rising at Key West at 2.42 millimeters a year, Miami, 2.39mm/year, and Daytona Beach, 2.32mm/year. So we have a little time to figure out how much tax we need to make the climate stop changing, and stop the isostatic rebound of the North American Plate.
Deniers do not want to pay a little now to halt climate change, well, be prepared to pay a lot more in the future. $400 billion dollars will be necessary to save coastal communities. $76 Billion in Florida alone.
To save yourself from x (fill in the blank), all you need to do is increase taxes a trillion dollars or so, then you will be "safe".
So why will all these terrible things come to pass, when the AGW predictions for the last 30 years have been wrong?
And how does one hold back the ocean? By stacking trillions of dollars in currency as a levy?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.