Some were prepared for flooding, others were not.

[OldWiseGuy]

Those living in areas where flooding is now a distinct possibility (major river drainages and low lying coastal areas) who believe strongly in global warming were fully prepared for the recent floods and protected their properties from it. Those who don't believe it didn't and suffered great losses. Flying over flooded cities and towns one can see some properties protected with berms, sandbags, etc. while the homes of unbelievers were not. There is definitely a lesson to be learned from this.

 

[Albion]

The lesson: There will occasionally be floods just as there always have been. Take precautions if you do not want to risk loss.

 

[durangodawood]

Those living in areas where flooding is now a distinct possibility (major river drainages and low lying coastal areas) who believe strongly in global warming were fully prepared for the recent floods and protected their properties from it. Those who don't believe it didn't and suffered great losses. Flying over flooded cities and towns one can see some properties protected with berms, sandbags, etc. while the homes of unbelievers were not. There is definitely a lesson to be learned from this.

How can you tell who believes in it and who doesnt just by flying over?

 

[ananda]

Those living in areas where flooding is now a distinct possibility (major river drainages and low lying coastal areas) who believe strongly in global warming were fully prepared for the recent floods and protected their properties from it. Those who don't believe it didn't and suffered great losses. Flying over flooded cities and towns one can see some properties protected with berms, sandbags, etc. while the homes of unbelievers were not. There is definitely a lesson to be learned from this.

Is the lesson this: Believers in the Global Warming deity must each build an ark for themselves?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Is the lesson this: Believers in the Global Warming deity must each build an ark for themselves?

Actually that's a major part of it. To my knowledge no government agency was involved in protecting these properties, only the owners, family, and friends who helped.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

How can you tell who believes in it and who doesnt just by flying over?

That's the best way to view the damage over a wide area, preferably in a helicopter.

 

[durangodawood]

That's the best way to view the damage over a wide area, preferably in a helicopter.

Ok.

But how can you tell who believes in it and who doesnt just by flying over?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Ok.

But how can you tell who believes in it and who doesnt just by flying over?

Those who protected their property are the true believers.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/texas-house-saved-inflatable-dam/

 

[durangodawood]

Those who protected their property are the true believers....

How can you tell?

 

[Nithavela]

One of the few times I fully agree with OWG: when you believe in global warming, not only should you take action to lower your carbon footprint, but you should also prepare for the changes in weather patterns. For people living near water, that means investing in flooding protection, while farmers need to store water for draughts like the one hitting central europe this year and people living in the shore area should move further inland.

 

[jayem]

Responsible flood preparedness includes having flood insurance. Which is provided by the National Flood Insurance Program. USA Today had an interesting article on the NFIP just a few months ago. It costs the taxpayers $30 billion/year, and apparently does little to incentivize risk mitigation. (As per the article, it actually encourages development in flood prone areas.) It may be better to privatize the program, but the Senate hasn't acted on it.

I don't mean to derail the thread. But I rarely hear complaints that the taxpayers are subsidizing the cost of insurance for people choosing to live in coastal and high flood risk areas. Whereas the objections to tax-funded subsidies for ACA health insurance premiums have been loud and nearly constant since the law was enacted. Now it's true that the bill for ACA subsidies is over 20X greater (over $650 billion, IIRC.) And NFIP benefits are limited ($250,000 for property damage/$100,000 for contents.) But in principle, why should public assistance to insure real estate be less objectionable than such assistance for covering people's health care costs?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Responsible flood preparedness includes having flood insurance. Which is provided by the National Flood Insurance Program. USA Today had an interesting article on the NFIP just a few months ago. It costs the taxpayers $30 billion/year, and apparently does little to incentivize risk mitigation. (As per the article, it actually encourages development in flood prone areas.) It may be better to privatize the program, but the Senate hasn't acted on it.

I don't mean to derail the thread. But I rarely hear complaints that the taxpayers are subsidizing the cost of insurance for people choosing to live in coastal and high flood risk areas. Whereas the objections to tax-funded subsidies for ACA health insurance premiums have been loud and nearly constant since the law was enacted. Now it's true that the bill for ACA subsidies is over 20X greater (over $650 billion, IIRC.) And NFIP benefits are limited ($250,000 for property damage/$100,000 for contents.) But in principle, why should public assistance to insure real estate be less objectionable than such assistance for covering people's health care costs?

Flood insurance and health insurance cannot be compared in any meaningful way.

The average flood damage cost per structure is $111,000. Most structures can be protected from flood damage for $2000-$3000. If whole neighborhoods cooperate in flood control the cost would be much less.

 

[jayem]

Flood insurance and health insurance cannot be compared in any meaningful way.

The average flood damage cost per structure is $111,000. Most structures can be protected from flood damage for $2000-$3000. If whole neighborhoods cooperate in flood control the cost would be much less.

Yes, they are completely different types of insurance, with very different economics. I'm only addressing the fact that both are subject to taxpayer-funded subsidies. Is this more appropriate in one case than the other? Or inappropriate in both cases?

 

[Desk trauma]

Those living in areas where flooding is now a distinct possibility (major river drainages and low lying coastal areas) who believe strongly in global warming were fully prepared for the recent floods and protected their properties from it. Those who don't believe it didn't and suffered great losses.

No, all that demonstrates is who had the foresight and means to protect their properties against flooding. Denying humanities role in climate changes does not preclude one from reading a wealth report calling for flooding and taking measures to mitigate damages.

It's also worth pointing out that my state legislatures, in their infinite wisdom, have explicitly prohibited taking rising sea levels into account in zoning and development decisions. Now if we could just get the message to the Atlantic that it has to remain where it's told to.

 

[Par5]

How can you tell?

How can you tell who believes in it and who doesnt just by flying over?

Easy. From the air, you can see the homes that had all the animals on their property. The giraffes, the kangaroos, the dinosaurs, the elephants etc.

 

[mindlight]

One of the few times I fully agree with OWG: when you believe in global warming, not only should you take action to lower your carbon footprint, but you should also prepare for the changes in weather patterns. For people living near water, that means investing in flooding protection, while farmers need to store water for draughts like the one hitting central europe this year and people living in the shore area should move further inland.

But is this really anything to do with GW or just common sense preparation. In the 60s there was a big flood in Hamburg when the cities flood defences were breached. So now the walls are higher and the defences are better. GW is incidental to Hamburgers desire to protect their city. I should imagine the Dutch have a similar view since much of their land is below sea level.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

But is this really anything to do with GW or just common sense preparation. In the 60s there was a big flood in Hamburg when the cities flood defences were breached. So now the walls are higher and the defences are better. GW is incidental to Hamburgers desire to protect their city. I should imagine the Dutch have a similar view since much of their land is below sea level.

Lack of preparedness is common around the world. Few believe that a "hundred year flood" will strike in their lifetime, so there are no preparations for it. Hundreds of poorly built levees and dams are breached every time a major storm hits leading to huge losses that might have been prevented.

 

[Desk trauma]

Few believe that a "hundred year flood" will strike in their lifetime...

Which is why that term really needs to be done away with. A hundred or five hundred year flood is not one that will happen once every century or five as if on a schedule with years arriving in order but one that has a one in one hundred or one in five hundred chance of occurring in any given year.

 

[Fantine]

In 2015, FEMA told states that the agency will approve disaster preparedness funds only for states whose governors approve hazard mitigation plans that address climate change.

That seems very sensible to me....which is why I'm not sure whether it survived the ravages of the Trump administration.

News

 

[dgiharris]

Lack of preparedness is common around the world. Few believe that a "hundred year flood" will strike in their lifetime, so there are no preparations for it. Hundreds of poorly built levees and dams are breached every time a major storm hits leading to huge losses that might have been prevented.

Lack of preparedness is something that I would guess that 90% of the posters in this very thread are guilty of.

I was a Survival Instructor in the military once upon a time. One of the things I MAKE-FORCE-COERCE all of my friends into doing is putting a survival kit in their car. I keep telling them, "you never know when an emergency will hit you." Because duh, that is what "accident" means. No one plans on getting stranded somewhere.

The emergency kit I forced each of them to invest in consist of: a $20 medical kit, a blanket, one gallon jug of water, 2 MRE food packets, a swiss army knife, and some flares. I force them to put those items in their trunk in their car.

Every year or so, a friend calls me up out of the blue thanking me for that kit. That kit is quietly sitting in a forgotten corner of their trunk until they get stranded somewhere and need it. One of my friends got caught in a freak blizzard as he was driving from nice sunny Florida to some nearby State. The kit literally saved his life.

But getting my friends to take $30-ish and create a survival kit is like pulling teeth. They roll their eyes and almost treat me like I'm some paranoid conspiracy theory nutter. And this is just talking about a $30 survival kit. I can only imagine it being a million times harder getting people to SERIOUSLY prepare for possible flooding way ahead of time before there is even any threat of a flood. Because to adequately prepare takes serious time and resources and effort. Like that guy who prepared his house in Texas with those Aqua Dams. Everyone laughed at him up until the actual flood hit.

Don't understand why we human beings are so hard headed about that sort of stuff....