Comment

Why the GOP Will be Forced to Adjust Course on Climate Change

15
lostlakehiker1/06/2013 11:50:05 pm PST

re: #12 EiMitch

So to follow that logic consistently, people should (stuff I didn’t say) …

re: #9 lostlakehiker

Wait! You already considered that, and think its a good thing?!

Earth to lostlakehiker: Most people can’t afford to move on command, even with insurance payouts! Its easy to talk about building new places with more efficient technologies. But the who the hell can afford it? I can tell you who can’t: the majority!

The areas which suffered the most damage in NY & NJ were not wealthy, fyi. For all your complaints about “subsidies,” what you’re proposing would for all intents and purposes be a regressive tax. Meaning that it impacts lower-income people disproportionately hard.

Telling farmers “plant something else” is a far cry from telling them “get the f*** outta here!” Analogy fail.

On the contrary, today’s state of the art would be alot more effective simply by adding efficient, large-scale energy storage, aka mega-batteries. And those are just around the corner.

Frankly, this is a far more practical and cost effective solution than mass-exodi. (yeah, I pluralized exodus)

Oh, and if people were to relocate en mass, that would sharply drive up property values, pricing many more people out of moving. That, and adding to sprawl would cause more environmental damage, potentially making the “mitigated” problems worse.

Have I finally made it clear why forcing practically entire cities of people to move is absoludicrous? Or why using free-market mechanisms to “nudge” people into moving is nothing but social darwinism?

Rubbish. People who’ve been flooded out can use their money elsewhere and rebuild elsewhere. On higher ground. We’ve done it for rivers.

Look: we cannot prevent the degree of global warming that will bring on the rising sea levels I’m talking about. It’s move sooner, taking your valuables with you, move later after being flooded out, move still later, after being flooded out twice and fruitlessly rebuilding once, or die.

As to moving to get away from the other hazards, no. I didn’t say that. And you ought to read the post carefully enough to see that.

People who are at risk of having too-high AC bills should use white shingles the next time they re-roof. (Like I have, already.) People who are at particular risk of wind damage should, when they build, incorporate measures to reduce the likely damage. Insurance companies, through premiums, can signal which mitigation measures are likely to be cost effective. And if the house is already built, premiums can signal what retrofits will be cost effective.

People who are at risk of fires, as for instance along the Front Range, should take measures to “harden” their house. Slate shingles (I know, not white asphalt, first things first don’t get burned down), no brush near the house, etc. Premiums can signal…

The technology of conservation and mitigation is not going to advance as fast over the next decade as the technology of wind/solar. Thus, given a trillion dollars to spend on climate concerns this decade, it would make more sense to front-load the money going to reducing demand for electricity and home heating and transportation, and to mitigation steps such as planting the right crops and AT LEAST not putting up new structures where they’re likely to get hammered.

And back-load the part of it that will be dedicated to construction of wind/solar. Because, as you say, we DO NOT HAVE the batteries, or whatever it will be. Subsidize today, learn today, go massive tomorrow.