hate these ads?, log in or register to hide them
Page 10 of 19 FirstFirst ... 78910111213 ... LastLast
Results 181 to 200 of 363

Thread: God Hates America (Natural Disaster Thread)

  1. #181
    The Pube Whisperer Maximillian's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    3,499
    The other issue is that supposed protections often either shift the problem or can make it worse.

    The US Army Corp of Engineers has spent decades "flood controlling" US rivers. If a flood event is small they work. If a flood event is huge they make the situation worse which is why they wind up blowing up dikes to release flood waters.

    Anti-erosion and surge barriers stop the natural movement of sand and strip beaches. The few mangroves and dunes left untouched by development are wrecked by speeding up water flow.

    The Mississippi delta is the perfect example of this. Once the coastal mouth was a network of wetlands and barrier islands which absorbed the initial force of hurricanes. Walling the river and dredging now means that sediment is carried far out to sea. The coast wetlands have almost vanished as a result and the changes to the water table means that the whole coastline is sinking.

    If you want to spend billions move major populations away from flood plains and hurricane effected coastlines. Anything else is just wasting money.

  2. #182
    Lachesis VII's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 20, 2011
    Location
    Egghelende
    Posts
    1,245
    Quote Originally Posted by Maximillian View Post

    If you want to spend billions move major populations away from flood plains and hurricane effected coastlines. Anything else is just wasting money.
    But that would risk totalitarianism. Nothing good comes from mandated relocation of population, regardless of your motivation.

    Incentivize rural people to move with positive measures such as housing credits, land buybacks, job programs, etc. Protect urban cores with good engineering. Let a century or so of extreme weather do the rest.

  3. #183
    Alistair's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    Sadness
    Posts
    11,562
    Quote Originally Posted by Lachesis VII View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Maximillian View Post

    If you want to spend billions move major populations away from flood plains and hurricane effected coastlines. Anything else is just wasting money.
    But that would risk totalitarianism.
    It would do nothing of the sort.

    Goverment simply says "we will help you move. If you stay, there will be no help, there will be no insurance payment, there will be no Government aid. You are free to do as you wish, but it's on your own dime. Otherwise, we will help you move".

    Free market takes it form there. Smart folks will take the aid and move. Fools will stay, bigger fools will offer free market alternatives for insurance, and when an Irma hits, they all pay for it. System working as intended.

    Simple, and no "totalitarianism" involved.

    Nothing good comes from mandated relocation of population, regardless of your motivation.
    seeing that coming from a die-hard Communist.


    "Nothing left to do, but smile, smile, smile......" Robert Hunter, "He's Gone"
    "...we looked very closely at the matter and concluded that unfortunately arseholes also get to benefit from democratic freedoms." Andreas Geisel, Interior Affairs Senator, Germany


  4. #184
    Alistair's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    Sadness
    Posts
    11,562
    Also, pic appreopriate for thread:





    "Nothing left to do, but smile, smile, smile......" Robert Hunter, "He's Gone"
    "...we looked very closely at the matter and concluded that unfortunately arseholes also get to benefit from democratic freedoms." Andreas Geisel, Interior Affairs Senator, Germany


  5. #185
    The Pube Whisperer Maximillian's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    3,499
    Quote Originally Posted by Lachesis VII View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Maximillian View Post

    If you want to spend billions move major populations away from flood plains and hurricane effected coastlines. Anything else is just wasting money.
    But that would risk totalitarianism. Nothing good comes from mandated relocation of population, regardless of your motivation.

    Incentivize rural people to move with positive measures such as housing credits, land buybacks, job programs, etc. Protect urban cores with good engineering. Let a century or so of extreme weather do the rest.
    Actually the push is happening anyway.

    Big parts of New Orleans and the surrounding areas remain vacant as no one can get insurance and you can't get loans for businesses and property without insurance.

    If the predictions of climate change are realized places like New Orleans will either be abandoned or surrounded by 30 m tall sea walls.

    People will move if they face getting wiped out every few years or so.

  6. #186
    Lachesis VII's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 20, 2011
    Location
    Egghelende
    Posts
    1,245
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lachesis VII View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lachesis VII View Post
    Nice strawman.

    The entire coast does not need protection, just the densely populated parts.

    Probably looking at a few hundred billion to a trillion dollars, spent over a decade or two. Well within our economic capabilities, just not our political capabilities.
    So much for collective well being and equality, only protecting the big cities (and the big business) that exists there whilst leaving more sparsely populated locales to get fucked, eh?
    Again with the strawman. Please try harder.
    Not really needed for you Comrade Lach.

    But no, you forgot the part where the Rednecks living in the boonies don't believe in climate change, and so don't need any fancy-schmancy seawalls or wetlands restoration. /s
    You really do embrace killing people for their beliefs, doncha Comrade.
    Did you not notice the sarcasm tag, comrade?

    If you're going to expend resources protecting people, it makes sense to spend those resources where they protect the most people. That's just common sense.

    No one, whether they believe in climate change or not, deserves to be fucked by it. No one should be forced off their land or out of their homes. But if I have a choice between building a seawall to protect Houston or New Orleans or Miami, versus the bayou or some sand dunes, I'm protecting the big cities.

  7. #187
    Lachesis VII's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 20, 2011
    Location
    Egghelende
    Posts
    1,245
    Quote Originally Posted by Maximillian View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lachesis VII View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Maximillian View Post

    If you want to spend billions move major populations away from flood plains and hurricane effected coastlines. Anything else is just wasting money.
    But that would risk totalitarianism. Nothing good comes from mandated relocation of population, regardless of your motivation.

    Incentivize rural people to move with positive measures such as housing credits, land buybacks, job programs, etc. Protect urban cores with good engineering. Let a century or so of extreme weather do the rest.
    Actually the push is happening anyway.

    Big parts of New Orleans and the surrounding areas remain vacant as no one can get insurance and you can't get loans for businesses and property without insurance.

    If the predictions of climate change are realized places like New Orleans will either be abandoned or surrounded by 30 m tall sea walls.

    People will move if they face getting wiped out every few years or so.
    Right, and that's about as non-coercive a process as you can get. We could certainly add some incentives or positive policy levers to encourage people to relocate, but really, property insurance dynamics and repeated storms will do most of the work.

  8. #188
    Alistair's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    Sadness
    Posts
    11,562
    Quote Originally Posted by Lachesis VII View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lachesis VII View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lachesis VII View Post
    Nice strawman.

    The entire coast does not need protection, just the densely populated parts.

    Probably looking at a few hundred billion to a trillion dollars, spent over a decade or two. Well within our economic capabilities, just not our political capabilities.
    So much for collective well being and equality, only protecting the big cities (and the big business) that exists there whilst leaving more sparsely populated locales to get fucked, eh?
    Again with the strawman. Please try harder.
    Not really needed for you Comrade Lach.

    But no, you forgot the part where the Rednecks living in the boonies don't believe in climate change, and so don't need any fancy-schmancy seawalls or wetlands restoration. /s
    You really do embrace killing people for their beliefs, doncha Comrade.
    Did you not notice the sarcasm tag, comrade?

    If you're going to expend resources protecting people, it makes sense to spend those resources where they protect the most people. That's just common sense.

    No one, whether they believe in climate change or not, deserves to be fucked by it. No one should be forced off their land or out of their homes. But if I have a choice between building a seawall to protect Houston or New Orleans or Miami, versus the bayou or some sand dunes, I'm protecting the big cities.
    What do you mean by "their land" Comrade? Land belongs collectively to the people, does it not?

    And no one would be "forcing them" off. They would simply be taking away the endless cycle of taxpayer funded aid that is the only reason they're able to continue to live in environmentally unsuitable environments.

    The dumbest thing we as a Nation did after Katrina was to rebuild New Orleans in the same damn stupid spot.


    "Nothing left to do, but smile, smile, smile......" Robert Hunter, "He's Gone"
    "...we looked very closely at the matter and concluded that unfortunately arseholes also get to benefit from democratic freedoms." Andreas Geisel, Interior Affairs Senator, Germany


  9. #189
    The Pube Whisperer Maximillian's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    3,499
    If you want a perfect example of protection doing more harm than good look at the barrier islands. Barrier islands are meant to move, they are part of the sand cycle that replenishes the coastline while acting as a buffer to oceanic storms.

    Poor people built shacks on them. If the shack was destroyed they built another in a new location.

    Then rich people decided they wanted to build holiday mansions on the barrier islands. Suddenly you have property that must be protected at a massive and never ending cost, then a big storm comes along and smashes the houses anyway.

    Meanwhile the lack of sand replenishment speeds up coastal erosion elsewhere, meaning yet more costs for protection.

    Get those houses of the barrier islands, let the sand move and suddenly you are not only positively addressing the problem but are also freeing up money that can be used to protect other locations.

    I am not opposed to the Government using carrots & sticks to fix environmental problems, as long as the stick isn't camps or death squads.

  10. #190
    Alistair's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    Sadness
    Posts
    11,562
    Quote Originally Posted by Maximillian View Post
    If you want a perfect example of protection doing more harm than good look at the barrier islands. Barrier islands are meant to move, they are part of the sand cycle that replenishes the coastline while acting as a buffer to oceanic storms.

    Poor people built shacks on them. If the shack was destroyed they built another in a new location.

    Then rich people decided they wanted to build holiday mansions on the barrier islands. Suddenly you have property that must be protected at a massive and never ending cost, then a big storm comes along and smashes the houses anyway.

    Meanwhile the lack of sand replenishment speeds up coastal erosion elsewhere, meaning yet more costs for protection.

    Get those houses of the barrier islands, let the sand move and suddenly you are not only positively addressing the problem but are also freeing up money that can be used to protect other locations.

    I am not opposed to the Government using carrots & sticks to fix environmental problems, as long as the stick isn't camps or death squads.
    Well said. You're gudpoasting today Max.


    "Nothing left to do, but smile, smile, smile......" Robert Hunter, "He's Gone"
    "...we looked very closely at the matter and concluded that unfortunately arseholes also get to benefit from democratic freedoms." Andreas Geisel, Interior Affairs Senator, Germany


  11. #191
    Super Moderator Global Moderator QuackBot's Avatar
    Join Date
    March 7, 2012
    Posts
    20,806
    Quote Originally Posted by Maximillian View Post

    Actually the push is happening anyway.

    Big parts of New Orleans and the surrounding areas remain vacant as no one can get insurance and you can't get loans for businesses and property without insurance.

    If the predictions of climate change are realized places like New Orleans will either be abandoned or surrounded by 30 m tall sea walls.

    People will move if they face getting wiped out every few years or so.
    If they try to enter your property.

  12. #192
    Lachesis VII's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 20, 2011
    Location
    Egghelende
    Posts
    1,245
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lachesis VII View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lachesis VII View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lachesis VII View Post
    Nice strawman.

    The entire coast does not need protection, just the densely populated parts.

    Probably looking at a few hundred billion to a trillion dollars, spent over a decade or two. Well within our economic capabilities, just not our political capabilities.
    So much for collective well being and equality, only protecting the big cities (and the big business) that exists there whilst leaving more sparsely populated locales to get fucked, eh?
    Again with the strawman. Please try harder.
    Not really needed for you Comrade Lach.

    But no, you forgot the part where the Rednecks living in the boonies don't believe in climate change, and so don't need any fancy-schmancy seawalls or wetlands restoration. /s
    You really do embrace killing people for their beliefs, doncha Comrade.
    Did you not notice the sarcasm tag, comrade?

    If you're going to expend resources protecting people, it makes sense to spend those resources where they protect the most people. That's just common sense.

    No one, whether they believe in climate change or not, deserves to be fucked by it. No one should be forced off their land or out of their homes. But if I have a choice between building a seawall to protect Houston or New Orleans or Miami, versus the bayou or some sand dunes, I'm protecting the big cities.
    What do you mean by "their land" Comrade? Land belongs collectively to the people, does it not?
    I see someone still doesn't understand the difference between personal property and private property.

    Nothing wrong with the personal ownership of land. Owning one's residence and the land associated with it is good for social and municipal stability.

    More land should be brought under public control, yes, including a share of society's housing stock. That's why we have eminent domain (with the appropriate restrictions placed upon it by the Takings Clause). But there's nothing fundamentally wrong with fee-simple ownership of land by individuals, especially for residential use.

    This is what I mean by your fondness of strawmen. You're responding to arguments and positions that I have not taken, and would not take.

  13. #193
    Alistair's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    Sadness
    Posts
    11,562
    Quote Originally Posted by Lachesis VII View Post
    I see someone still doesn't understand the difference between personal property and private property.
    Some Communist you are.

    Nothing wrong with the personal ownership of land. Owning one's residence and the land associated with it is good for social and municipal stability........there's nothing fundamentally wrong with fee-simple ownership of land by individuals, especially for residential use.
    I'll let Kecker's take care of this, it's one of his favorite topics.

    This is what I mean by your fondness of strawmen. You're responding to arguments and positions that I have not taken, and would not take.
    Then take that asinine Communist propaganda out of your avatar mate, and stop white knighting Communist regimes in every thread, and maybe you'd have a point.


    "Nothing left to do, but smile, smile, smile......" Robert Hunter, "He's Gone"
    "...we looked very closely at the matter and concluded that unfortunately arseholes also get to benefit from democratic freedoms." Andreas Geisel, Interior Affairs Senator, Germany


  14. #194
    Keckers's Avatar
    Join Date
    July 31, 2012
    Posts
    13,536
    There's a difference between personal ownership of land and private ownership of land.

    Whoever has given Alistair a lesson in political economy at any point needs to be fired for incompetence.
    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Mason
    It is absurd that we are capable of witnessing a 40,000 year old system of gender oppression begin to dissolve before our eyes yet still see the abolition of a 200 year old economic system as an unrealistic utopia.

  15. #195
    Lachesis VII's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 20, 2011
    Location
    Egghelende
    Posts
    1,245
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lachesis VII View Post
    I see someone still doesn't understand the difference between personal property and private property.
    Some Communist you are.
    Every socialist understands the differences between personal, private, and public property. It's clear that you don't.

    Nothing wrong with the personal ownership of land. Owning one's residence and the land associated with it is good for social and municipal stability........there's nothing fundamentally wrong with fee-simple ownership of land by individuals, especially for residential use.
    I'll let Kecker's take care of this, it's one of his favorite topics.
    Oh look, he did, and he responded with the proper critique: that personal ownership is acceptable, while private ownership is not.

    This is what I mean by your fondness of strawmen. You're responding to arguments and positions that I have not taken, and would not take.
    Then take that asinine Communist propaganda out of your avatar mate, and stop white knighting Communist regimes in every thread, and maybe you'd have a point.
    Yeah, pushing back against the false historical narrative advanced in the wake of the Cold War is white knighting, or something. So, apparently, is drawing parallels between the failures of capitalist societies and the failures of socialist societies.

    And god forbid anyone point out that a socialist society ever accomplished anything positive in the human saga... after all, Comrade Yuri is personally responsible for the death of 2 trillion kulaks, better take his image down.
    Last edited by Lachesis VII; September 8 2017 at 04:51:45 PM.

  16. #196
    walrus's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    Fancomicidolkostümier- ungsspielgruppenzusammenkunft
    Posts
    5,889
    If you are going to keep building shit on the floodplains, the insurance premiums have to reflect that. And the government can not bail out wrecked houses that the insurance companies wont refund or insurance companies that get in trouble for insuring shit in dangerous locations.

    If you have to go for capitalism, you have to do it properly, no more Houston, Miami or New Orleans for 'Murica.
      Spoiler:
    Quote Originally Posted by RazoR View Post
    But islamism IS a product of class warfare. Rich white countries come into developing brown dictatorships, wreck the leadership, infrastructure and economy and then act all surprised that religious fanaticism is on the rise.
    Also:
    Quote Originally Posted by Tellenta View Post
    walrus isnt a bad poster.
    Quote Originally Posted by cullnean View Post
    also i like walrus.
    Quote Originally Posted by AmaNutin View Post
    Yer a hoot

  17. #197
    OrangeAfroMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    July 20, 2011
    Posts
    7,006
    Quote Originally Posted by Maximillian View Post
    If you want a perfect example of protection doing more harm than good look at the barrier islands. Barrier islands are meant to move, they are part of the sand cycle that replenishes the coastline while acting as a buffer to oceanic storms.

    Poor people built shacks on them. If the shack was destroyed they built another in a new location.

    Then rich people decided they wanted to build holiday mansions on the barrier islands. Suddenly you have property that must be protected at a massive and never ending cost, then a big storm comes along and smashes the houses anyway.

    Meanwhile the lack of sand replenishment speeds up coastal erosion elsewhere, meaning yet more costs for protection.

    Get those houses of the barrier islands, let the sand move and suddenly you are not only positively addressing the problem but are also freeing up money that can be used to protect other locations.

    I am not opposed to the Government using carrots & sticks to fix environmental problems, as long as the stick isn't camps or death squads.
    The actual protection policy there would be to not insure or waste money on the people building on the barrier islands. Planning.
    Actually an '06.

    EVE: OrangeAfroMan
    Dust514: Andrelommech
    WoT: NorthernNomad
    MWO: Loren Ward

    www.twitch.tv/oameve

  18. #198
    Keckers's Avatar
    Join Date
    July 31, 2012
    Posts
    13,536
    I can just imagine Alistair furiously googling the difference between personal, public and private property as fast as his podgy little fingers can mash his keyboard.
    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Mason
    It is absurd that we are capable of witnessing a 40,000 year old system of gender oppression begin to dissolve before our eyes yet still see the abolition of a 200 year old economic system as an unrealistic utopia.

  19. #199
    Lachesis VII's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 20, 2011
    Location
    Egghelende
    Posts
    1,245
    Quote Originally Posted by walrus View Post
    If you are going to keep building shit on the floodplains, the insurance premiums have to reflect that. And the government can not bail out wrecked houses that the insurance companies wont refund or insurance companies that get in trouble for insuring shit in dangerous locations.

    If you have to go for capitalism, you have to do it properly, no more Houston, Miami or New Orleans for 'Murica.
    But Houston is doing it properly. Privatize gains, socialize risk. That's what makes the most profit for the rich, so that's what capitalism chooses. The fact that we keep insuring shit that shouldn't be insured happens because capital has bought off government in order to access those magic taxpayer bailouts. They know they can keep collecting premiums, live like kings, and then go to the government for money when shit hits the fan by saying "you wouldn't want the economy to collapse, would you?"

    This isn't a failure of capitalism, it's what capitalism does.

  20. #200
    Alistair's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    Sadness
    Posts
    11,562
    Quote Originally Posted by Lachesis VII View Post
    Yeah, pushing back against the false historical narrative advanced in the wake of the Cold War is white knighting, or something.
    "False narrative".



    "Nothing left to do, but smile, smile, smile......" Robert Hunter, "He's Gone"
    "...we looked very closely at the matter and concluded that unfortunately arseholes also get to benefit from democratic freedoms." Andreas Geisel, Interior Affairs Senator, Germany


Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •