4 ms·

>leave early when there's even a small chance of getting hit. This doesn't solve the problems associated with large scale evacuations; unless your plan is base

>leave early when there's even a small chance of getting hit. This doesn't solve the problems associated with large scale evacuations; unless your plan is based on the you leaving, while most of the population stays. >Or alternatively, legally require flood insurance in at risk areas and let actuaries price the risk, problem solved. Flood insurance could guard against the financial damage of a storm, but is useless to address the problems that evacuations are meant to address: human life. Unless your plan is for flood insurance to drive down the population in the region; which might work long term, but we still need to figure out how to handle the situation until then. >If the bad half of global warming predictions happen. This is the bad half of global warming predictions. The only question left is how bad the even worse half will be.'\ >If people don't have a motivation to mitigate the risk, everyone is going to have to pay for it collectively. Why wouldn't people have motivation to fix it? Aid is not going to be enough to compensate for all the damages (not event counting indirect economic damage). Everyone, from individuals, to municipalities, to the state, to the federal government, will come out of this in the red.

moonka 9y ago
>>leave early when there's even a small chance of getting hit. >This doesn't solve the problems associated with large scale evacuations; unless your plan is based on the you leaving, while most of the population stays. There's also the issue of having the means to be able to evacuate. Time off work (without pay for a large part of the population), alternative housing, food, travel expenses, for what may or may not end up being a big storm can be out of reach for many people.
latch 9y ago
> This doesn't solve the problems associated with large scale evacuations; unless your plan is based on the you leaving, while most of the population stays. You don't see how having millions of people evacuate over a period of 48 hours vs 6 makes the problem less severe?
notatoad 9y ago
>Flood insurance could guard against the financial damage of a storm, but is useless to address the problems that evacuations are meant to address It does if legally required - the point isn't to finance the evacuation, it's to make living in a flood plain financially unattractive. It's the "let the market decide" approach to disaster planning, by pricing in the cost of disaster instead of externalizing it to FEMA and the Red Cross.
- thaumasiotes 9y ago
  The risk of death is already priced in; FEMA and the Red Cross aren't helping with it.
  - Dylan16807 9y ago
    It's not priced in. People are more likely to just hope it doesn't happen to them. If you force both insurance and evacuations then the risks are actually priced in, with deaths minimized and a constant cost of living bump instead of tons of people gambling their lives and livelihood.
    - thaumasiotes 9y ago
      > It's not priced in. People are more likely to just hope it doesn't happen to them. That doesn't establish that it isn't priced in. It establishes that the value people place on their own lives isn't as high as you think it should be.
      - Dylan16807 9y ago
        This applies to things like houses with objective values too. People don't treat risks rationally.

moonka 9y ago

>>leave early when there's even a small chance of getting hit. >This doesn't solve the problems associated with large scale evacuations; unless your plan is based on the you leaving, while most of the population stays. There's also the issue of having the means to be able to evacuate. Time off work (without pay for a large part of the population), alternative housing, food, travel expenses, for what may or may not end up being a big storm can be out of reach for many people.

latch 9y ago

> This doesn't solve the problems associated with large scale evacuations; unless your plan is based on the you leaving, while most of the population stays. You don't see how having millions of people evacuate over a period of 48 hours vs 6 makes the problem less severe?

notatoad 9y ago

>Flood insurance could guard against the financial damage of a storm, but is useless to address the problems that evacuations are meant to address It does if legally required - the point isn't to finance the evacuation, it's to make living in a flood plain financially unattractive. It's the "let the market decide" approach to disaster planning, by pricing in the cost of disaster instead of externalizing it to FEMA and the Red Cross.

thaumasiotes 9y ago
The risk of death is already priced in; FEMA and the Red Cross aren't helping with it.
- Dylan16807 9y ago
  It's not priced in. People are more likely to just hope it doesn't happen to them. If you force both insurance and evacuations then the risks are actually priced in, with deaths minimized and a constant cost of living bump instead of tons of people gambling their lives and livelihood.
  - thaumasiotes 9y ago
    > It's not priced in. People are more likely to just hope it doesn't happen to them. That doesn't establish that it isn't priced in. It establishes that the value people place on their own lives isn't as high as you think it should be.
    - Dylan16807 9y ago
      This applies to things like houses with objective values too. People don't treat risks rationally.