3 3
brenthutch

Green new deal equals magical thinking

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, brenthutch said:

I looked into it and you are right, according to NASA the rate of sea level rise has increased by a profound .9mm per year.  If this were truly a threat it would  be reflected in the price of beachfront property in Miami and the Obamas would not have spent millions on their house on the shore. 

So you're saying that a change in property value on waterfronts is a metric of whether sea level rise and global warming are relevant?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, DJL said:

So you're saying that a change in property value on waterfronts is a metric of whether sea level rise and global warming are relevant?

No I'm saying that if it were seriously a problem, banks would not make loans, and insurance companies would not cover oceanfront properties and folks would not be flocking from the inland safety of Illinois and New York to the dangerous,  just-barely-above-sea level, Florida.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Lets get back to the topic of the original post.  If I concede (and I don't) that global warming is bad and man is causing it, how will the green new/newer deal fix it?  

By getting Republicans voters who are afraid of Socialists to move forward on energy and environmental issues so all the feelgood BS and state employment things don't become a reality.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

No I'm saying that if it were seriously a problem, banks would not make loans, and insurance companies would not cover oceanfront properties and folks would not be flocking from the inland safety of Illinois and New York to the dangerous,  just-barely-above-sea level, Florida.

You should go read up on what Miami has had to already do and what it plans on doing.  Protecting that property value can get pretty expensive and you have to question why they'd spend the money if it weren't an issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

No I'm saying that if it were seriously a problem, banks would not make loans, and insurance companies would not cover oceanfront properties and folks would not be flocking from the inland safety of Illinois and New York to the dangerous,  just-barely-above-sea level, Florida.

Well, there is an increasing number of locations where insurance is either hard to find and/or astronomical. This article in Coastal Living  indicates that many places have “insurers of last resort.” Why? Because other insurers won’t cover them. 

The insurance company is making a bet that the house won’t flood this year. They can always cancel at the end of the year. And one’s responsibility to pay a mortgage doesn’t go away if the property floods, any more than responsibility to pay a car note goes away if you wreck the car. 

As far as “people flocking,” well, not everyone. People also buy McMansions, outdoor kitchens, and big giant trucks that don’t fit in their suburban garage (no, not for hauling plywood or a trailer, just to haul their perceived dick around, or to make sure that when they get into a wreck, the other guy gets screwed). They see it on TV and just have to have it  

Wendy P. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

No I'm saying that if it were seriously a problem, banks would not make loans, and insurance companies would not cover oceanfront properties

?? Insurance companies don't care about what they cover, as long as they make money.  In this case, they just raise their rates so that no matter what happens, they don't lose money.  After all, a hurricane won't destroy a home _every_ year.   Let's say it destroys a $500,000 home every ten years instead of every 100 years due to climate change.  Want insurance?  No problem!  New premium is $55K a year.

This is how insurance companies work.  If you don't believe me, talk to an actuary.

From the Guardian:

===================

MARCH 22, 2019

Climate Change Could Make Insurance Unaffordable for Most People

Insurers have warned that climate change could make coverage for ordinary people unaffordable after the world’s largest reinsurance firm blamed global warming for $24 billion of losses in California’s recent wildfires.

Ernst Rauch, Munich Re’s chief climatologist, told The Guardian that the costs could soon be widely felt, with premium rises already under discussion with clients holding asset concentrations in vulnerable parts of the state.

“If the risk from wildfires, flooding, storms, or hail is increasing, then the only sustainable option we have is to adjust our risk prices accordingly. In the long run it might become a social issue,” he said after Munich Re published a report into climate change’s impact on wildfires. “Affordability is so critical [because] some people on low and average incomes in some regions will no longer be able to buy insurance.”

========================

Quote

folks would not be flocking from the inland safety of Illinois and New York to the dangerous,  just-barely-above-sea level, Florida.

Of course they would.  They get a nice house today, and who cares about tomorrow.  People do things that are stupid and shortsighted all the time.  If you doubt this, visit any single's bar or casino in the world.  Or better yet, just listen to a republican deny climate change and push for more coal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

I looked into it and you are right, according to NASA the rate of sea level rise has increased by a profound .9mm per year.  If this were truly a threat it would  be reflected in the price of beachfront property in Miami and the Obamas would not have spent millions on their house on the shore. 

What does Miami have to do with this?   The beach house is on Martha's Vineyard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, brenthutch said:

If this were truly a threat it would  be reflected in the price of beachfront property in Miami and the Obamas would not have spent millions on their house on the shore.

Bullshit.

The real estate market is nowhere near nimble enough to reflect plus 10 year risks. I mean, income valuations are all done on 10 year basis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

You are right because the laws of hydrodynamics don't apply to Obama.

Remember back when you were using terms like Shockley-Quessier limit without knowing exactly what they meant and why they might or might not be relevant?  I fear you are doing that again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, brenthutch said:

You are right because the laws of hydrodynamics don't apply to Obama.

Their address is 79 Turkeyland Rd, Edgartwon and their property is not in a threatened area for flooding in a 65 to 100 year timescale.

https://www.mvtimes.com/2019/08/21/effects-climate-change-chappaquiddick/

Also, they do not live on "Oceanfront" property, they're about a mile back along an inner bay that is blocked off from the ocean by a breakwater.  It's at least 10 feet above sea level whereas sea level rise for that area is projected to be between 12 to 48 inches by 2050 and up to 72 inches by 2100.

https://www.topozone.com/massachusetts/dukes-ma/island/marthas-vineyard/

Martha's Vineyard simply isn't in the same category of risk as Miami and that's probably why they chose to buy a house there.  Also, the strategy of Democrats isn't simply to abandon the coast and sit back for 100 years until their grandchildren can say "Told you so...".    Things like the Green New Deal will save the world and we'll all get a puppy.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

More from the author of the Green New Deal

Glacier Disease

 https://www.mrctv.org/videos/rep-ocasio-cortez-climate-change-threatens-unleash-glacier-diseases-frozen-thousands-years

I didn't know they did not have mosquitos up north 

That was true 30 years ago of many places up North.  Fortunately you're changing the climate, so now they're feeling more at home!  Another way Trump is winning.

 

mosquito-habitat (1).gif

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, yoink said:

What?

 

Which laws of hydrodynamics are you referring to, exactly?

A liquid at liquid will keep liquiding until liquided upon by an equal and opposite liquid.  Gotta give a pass here and there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
3 3