Skip to comments.If the oceans are rising, if global warming is real, then why should we rebuild along the coastline?
Posted on 10/31/2012 8:10:20 AM PDT by ken5050
The federal government, the MSM, the Democrat party, all hold the thesis of global warming as the gospel truth. NY Governor, Andy Cuomo, as he surveyed submerged tunnels and subway stations in NYC, said that the "hundred year storm now seems to be occurring every two or three years." NJ elected officials, inspecting the devastation along miles of Jersey shoreline, vowed to rebuild.
Who will be the first to point out the inherent contradiction in these comments?
More importantly, who will be the first to suggest that we not keep throwing good money after bad. Federal flood insurance is the only thing that allows people to continue to live across the street from the ocean.
In 1946, Hilo, Hawaii, was hit by a tsunami, with considerable loss of life. In 1960, a 9.5 quake off Chile generated a huge tidal wave, which all but wiped out the downtown area. The city then rebuilt, but some 5 miles INLAND, and the land along the coast was turned into parkland, with no development.
Take one example. Watching the pictures of the devastation along the Jersey shore, many commented about the destruction of the amusement pier in Seaside Park, where generations have spent summers. Yet rebuild it, as many have promised? That's insanity. The rollercoaster is now sitting in the Atlantic.
There are thousands of homes on the barrier islands of the Jersey shore either destroyed or severely damaged. The insurance claims should be paid, but rebuild on the same sites? Madness.
I suspect that many won't be able to rebuild, because the insurance premiums will be staggering. Something like a $1 million policy, with a $900k deductible,and an annual premium of $50k. And then we'll hear the politicians screaming about the evil and rapacious insurance companies..and how government needs to do something.
I've spent many weekends on the Jersey shore. You have thousands of summer cottages, which, if built on vacant land in Iowa, would cost less than $50k. They were worth many, many times more, because the land they stood on was next to the ocean. Well, in some cases, the land isn't there anymore..
We need to begin the discussion. Who will speak first?
The liberals tend not to think through issues such as you have raised.
The lesson of Katrina will never be learned. New Orleans is in the same place it has always been and is just waiting to be flooded again.
For the same reason that people that live along rivers that flood every couple of years do, and people that live in avalanche zones do and people that live where earthquakes do or volcanos or droughts, etc. Gotta live somewhere and that’s where most of the cities are.
We take our chances, whether it makes sense or not.
The east coast has been subsiding anyway. Its well know documented fact.
The large coastal cities are an issue in themselves and you can’t simply let them slip under the waves. They need to look ahead at their own infrastructure needs and deal with them locally.
The people who choose to live along the shore shouldn’t be paid to rebuild again and again and again. If they want to live there, let them self insure and keep the taxpayers out of it.
Global warming must have caused Hurricane Andrew in Florida right? Isn’t that what they said. Well how come it has not happened again in all these years?
Many of the hills and mountains around our country were caused by Glaciers- Right? So Did man-made global warming cause the ICE age to go away. If it warmed up that much then we should already be dead.
A submerged building is just flood. Could happen anywhere with a nearby water main break. Having a building completely removed down to the foundation, is a real disaster. That is what happened in Andrew, the Japanese Tsunami and also is what happened near Corpus Christie a few years ago. It is also what happens when a large Tornado strikes. Comparing the damage from a Cat 1 or Cat 2 hurricane to the damage of a Cat 4 or Cat 5 Hurricane or F4 or F5 Tornado or a major Tsunami, is a little bit hysterical. IMHO - If they cannot handle simply flooding, they should not even contemplate building there.
I believe it is even worse than you think, the way I see it God, ie The Planet just CREATED THE LARGEST NATURAL WETLAND AREA in the US, for years the EPA has been claiming flooded properties whether man made accidents or by mother nature are to be Permanent Wetlands and not to be Disturbed by Humans
WHERE IS THE EPA,Sierra Club,Greenpeace.. Sean Penn, Michael Moore,... WE MUST DO EVERYTHING POSSIBLE TO PREVENT THE DESTRUCTION OF THESE NEW “NATURAL WETLANDS”
Global warming is complete fiction. The Earth is cooling and has been for quite some time.
As far as building on the beach, have at it. I don’t have any problem with it.
some of these posters don’t get the concept that the Federal Government is subsidising these insurance payments to rebuild.
And promising to subsidise the next payments after the next storm.
Good point. Global warming isn't really the issue.
It doesn't make much sense to rebuild in low-lying, easily flooded areas. If somebody wants to take the risk themselves that's one thing, but asking the public to pay for it is something wholly different.
If we failed to rebuild a major city like New Orleans, though, it would be taken as a sign of our decline, though of course things are going to have to change there if the city wants to survive.
In storm-battered NJ, agonizing question over whether to rebuild Jersey Shore
By GEOFF MULVIHILL and MARYCLAIRE DALE | Associated Press
In its tear of destruction, the megastorm Sandy left parts of New Jersey's beloved shore in tatters, sweeping away beaches, homes, boardwalks and amusement parks.
The devastation left the state a blank canvas to redevelop its prized vacation towns. But environmentalists and shoreline planners urged the state to think about how and if to redevelop the shoreline as it faces an even greater threat of extreme weather.
The sea level is rising fast, and destructive storms are occurring more frequently, said Williams, who expects things to get even worse.
He and other shoreline advocates say the state should consider how to protect coastal areas from furious storms when they rebuild it, such as relocating homes and businesses farther from the shore, building more seawalls and keeping sand dunes high.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.