[ROCKMAN]

"Four thousand miles away on the Louisiana coast, another town, Isle de Jean Charles, was also starting to drown." Actually that's not true. That region just didn't start to drown...that began many millions of gears ago. And all of the folks living in the area know the area was going to eventually be inundated. The rocks 5 miles below were initially deposited in less then 5' of water. And not only is the area subsiding the coastline continues to erode away as it has for many millions of years. The only reason there is a coastline today is because every 25,000 years or so the Mississippi River makes a big course correction and moves from one side of the state to the other.

No different the the CA cities, !ike L.A., that one day will be devastated by a massive earth quake. All these dynamics earn the same retort IMHO: if you build your home in a known flood plan don't blame someone else when it gets flooded.

KJ - You need to give up,buddy. The single largest DIRECT source of GHG production, the fossil fuel consumers, will never be able to admit the MAJOR ROLE they are playing in the destruction of the planet.

[GHung]

KJ said; "They didn't do anything to switch tobacco farming to food crops."

I can tell you don't farm, especially in tobacco country. Maybe you forget that I live in North Carolina, and have witnessed the whole process. The farmer down the road now grows row crops; made the change about 15 years ago with help from the tobacco trust. Many others in my area have made similar changes. Indeed, in a county where many folks grew tobacco 20-30 years ago, I know of no one doing so today.

The grant I received last year was funded largely by the above-mentioned trust, along with money from the huge settlement with TVA (carbon/emissions tax?). Indeed, by law, these monies couldn't be incorporated into the general tax fund until recently.

[AgentR11]

In a way, I've answered this many times. Its not a question of "who". Its a question of how.

The how is buyouts for large damage, and low interest LOANS with foreclosure possibility for small damage, land transferred to BLM permanently at buyout or foreclosure.

Then let nature do the picking.

[KaiserJeep]

KJ said; "They didn't do anything to switch tobacco farming to food crops."

I can tell you don't farm, especially in tobacco country. Maybe you forget that I live in North Carolina, and have witnessed the whole process. The farmer down the road now grows row crops; made the change about 15 years ago with help from the tobacco trust. Many others in my area have made similar changes. Indeed, in a county where many folks grew tobacco 20-30 years ago, I know of no one doing so today.

The grant I received last year was funded largely by the above-mentioned trust, along with money from the huge settlement with TVA (carbon/emissions tax?). Indeed, by law, these monies couldn't be incorporated into the general tax fund until recently.

According to the CDC, US tobacco farms fell from 180,000 in the '60's to approximately 10,000 today, while tobacco production stayed about the same, and exports went up when domestic consumption declined. http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/economics/econ_facts/

That represents the typical statistic for family farms evolving (or degrading if you prefer) into large corporate farms.

I'm glad you benefited from TVA taxes, they raped a whole lot of this country for hydropower and coal power plants. But notice that they had about 80 years of profits before they had to pay, while the government subsidized them. I happen to hate the TVA myself, my Mother (1925-1989) grew up on a farm in Arkansas that had no power. The TVA missed my Grandfather's farm on the first pass and didn't come back for 25 years.

Are you still grid-connected? Do you still buy gasoline and/or diesel? You know how green you are. I suspect both of us have reduced our carbon emissions more than the biggest complainers in this forum.

[GHung]

KJ asks; "Are you still grid-connected?"

No, nor am I connected to any utilities. Haven't been for over 19 years.

"Do you still buy gasoline and/or diesel?"

Yes. Our combined family driving was less than 7 thousand miles last year, largely due to my wife's 19 mile round-trip commute. I've cut my driving from over 15,000 miles/year to less than 3,000 over the last 10-12 years. No flying in 20 years. We've reduced our propane use to ~80 gallons/year (stove and clothes dryer). All else is solar.

Not perfect, and not entirely for environmental reasons. We just don't want the high-consumption lifestyle so many see as essential. Just another post-industrial trap we want to avoid. No debt, which I see as the biggest trap, near-term.

[Hawkcreek]

YOU the consumer bear all the blame. THEY the government and Big Business bear none. THEY work for you (the government) or THEY (big business) are scrambling, investing, and advertizing to satisfy your fickle and capricious demands.

So wise up and change your life. Nobody else can do it for you. When you have satisfied yourself that your own lifestyle is the appropriate one for the planet, then you get to bitch about them. By the way, each one of "them" is a person who also making lifestyle choices. In fact, here in Silicon Valley we are awash in wealthy flaming rectums who are so sanctimonious about driving a Tesla and having a green lifestyle.

There's not enough of THEM to matter anyways. If you want to save the world, the starving billions in 3rd world (better known as Turd World) countries must also make green choices. They don't get any breaks for being poor, the human population is in overshoot and that is the very reason the world is dying.

If you can't accept the truth, quit your bitching about your delusions.

No, I can't accept "your" truth. You say that its all the little guys fault, and business has none of the blame.
You say that business has nothing to do with creating a consumer mentality, and destroying the world - I claim total bullsh*t on that. That is stupid to the point of being deliberate propaganda.
You labor under the delusion that you can blame everything on the victims, just like the establishment tells you to do. I'll bet you think that abuse of any kind is partly the fault of the powerless.
Go back to your "green" lifestyle and your delusion that corporations and the rich have no part in the way the world has turned out. They have been shaping attitudes and opinions since day one.

[Plantagenet]

YOU the consumer bear all the blame. THEY the government … bear none. THEY work for you (the government) ...

So wise up and change your life. Nobody else can do it for you.

You don't understand how the government works.

The government is in the business of changing people's lives. Its what government does. By instituting taxes, awarding subsides, and issuing regulations, the government has the tools to change people's behavior.

For instance, if the government wants to reduce carbon emissions, then they should institute a carbon tax. Raise the cost of gasoline and heating fuel and people will use less of it.

Its pretty simple, really.

[KaiserJeep]

-snip-

No, I can't accept "your" truth. You say that its all the little guys fault, and business has none of the blame.
You say that business has nothing to do with creating a consumer mentality, and destroying the world - I claim total bullsh*t on that. That is stupid to the point of being deliberate propaganda.
You labor under the delusion that you can blame everything on the victims, just like the establishment tells you to do. I'll bet you think that abuse of any kind is partly the fault of the powerless.
Go back to your "green" lifestyle and your delusion that corporations and the rich have no part in the way the world has turned out. They have been shaping attitudes and opinions since day one.

THINK for yourself instead of listening to the political BS they are pouring into your head.

YOU make YOUR lifestyle choices. YOU buy and consume what YOU want. YOU (the consumer) bear ALL THE BLAME.

Here in California, they tried to pretend that the electric grid was not real. They offered consumers a menu of choices: do you want fossil fuel power, hydropower, wind power, etc. etc. You picked the type of generation and they charged you the appropriate rate, the same markup over what the market rate was for that wholesale power. The scheme didn't last a year, everybody wanted the cheapest energy they could buy.

There were dozens of gas stations charging more for "green" E85 fuels than the regular E10 that everybody sells. Even though most modern cars could accept E85 with just a software change, the E85 pumps disappeared, nobody would pay more - or at least, not enough people to make it profitable.

Consumers are definitely not "victims" of anything. They are greedy and they want things cheaper so they can buy more and consume more. Grow up and try to understand the way the world works.

[dohboi]

Ah, what would we do if we didn't have KJ around to joker-like take the thread completely off topic.

The thread is not about blame, but about how to allocate resources for those who need to move from harms way.

If you want to start a thread about allocating blame, please do so.

In the mean time, please cease and desist from your typical trollish behavior here.

Thank you.

[KaiserJeep]

-snip-

You don't understand how the government works.

The government is in the business of changing people's lives. Its what government does. By instituting taxes, awarding subsides, and issuing regulations, the government has the tools to change people's behavior.

For instance, if the government wants to reduce carbon emissions, then they should institute a carbon tax. Raise the cost of gasoline and heating fuel and people will use less of it.

Its pretty simple, really.

No, the government is NOT in the business of changing people's lives. Read the US Constitution and make a list of the 7 things the Federal government is allowed to do, you'll learn a lot. NONE are intended to change people's lives, all are intended to increase freedom from government. Then there is the most telling part of all:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. (10th Amendment, aka Article 10 of the Bill of Rights)

Your naïveté about government is touching, but you need to notice that most government actions have the opposite impact than intended, or none at all. I don't think Prohibition was intended to promote alcohol sales, but it had that effect. I don't think Obamacare was intended to effectively destroy our healthcare system, but it had that effect. I don't think the Department of Education was intended to lower educational standards, but it had that effect in spades.

In his writing Civil Disobedience, Henry David Thoreau said "That government is best which governs least". He was a wise man.

As for carbon taxes, if they spent the money on energy infrastructure, because the legislation forced them to, I'd support such taxes. But without such a clause, they'd spend it as the Oligarchs desire, including fossil fuel magnates like the Koch brothers. Spending carbon tax revenues on coal subsidies would be par for government spending, so I'm not in favor of a blank check approach.

[Hawkcreek]

Why should anyone allocate resources to help people move ?
I've done it quite a few times, and no one ever gave me money to help.
The reasons behind the move requirement aren't that important. It could be moving to a new job, moving to get away from the ex-wife, or moving because you know the waves seem to be getting closer each year. Just load your pickup truck, snowmobile, or bateau with your tools and keepsakes and haul ass.
I don't get it, I guess.

[Hawkcreek]

You don't understand how the government works.

The government is in the business of changing people's lives. Its what government does. By instituting taxes, awarding subsides, and issuing regulations, the government has the tools to change people's behavior.

For instance, if the government wants to reduce carbon emissions, then they should institute a carbon tax. Raise the cost of gasoline and heating fuel and people will use less of it.

Its pretty simple, really.

You are correct, Plant. That is the "reality" of the way the government works. KJ's version is the way it was "intended" to work.
He often mistakes reality for delusion.

[dohboi]

Again, KJ, see the CoC 2.1.4 "limit "off-topic" posts as much as possible so that the threads stay informative and clear"

Hawk, good question.

I think the issue is that it is not just individuals affected, but whole communities at once.

If a tragedy, even a natural tragedy, strikes one person, it is rarely news or cause to rally governmental or other forces. Of course, it is nice if the individual has insurance to cover it or friends to help out...but it is not seen generally as something that the general public should be called upon to step in for.

But when there is a general calamity--major earthquake, killer tornado, devastating hurricane, massive wildfire...etc...--then, there is, or has been, a general sense that there is a larger duty for the outside world to come to the aid of said afflicted community. This is what happened with Sandy, and with various other situations.

Now, I suppose you could say that we should never help out any community no matter what the damage or threat. That would be kind of a separate issue. Or you could say that, even though you think it's appropriate to help out in the instances spelled out above, that cases where the calamity is caused by GW is different for some reason. Certainly, such slow-motion calamaties can seem less of an acute problem needing emergency aid, perhaps.

But perhaps you're coming at this from some different angle that I am not thinking of?

Care to clarify further?

"He often mistakes reality for delusion."

Tru dat!

[KaiserJeep]

Ah, what would we do if we didn't have KJ around to joker-like take the thread completely off topic.

The thread is not about blame, but about how to allocate resources for those who need to move from harms way.

If you want to start a thread about allocating blame, please do so.

In the mean time, please cease and desist from your typical trollish behavior here.

Thank you.

I know you are a true believer, and I try to refrain from bashing somebody's religion, but really, you are dangerously delusional.

I used to live in Louisiana, and that whole part of the state is the Mississippi river delta, silt barely above water, which only becomes land when you allow the plant life to work it's magic for thousands of years. Except the river keeps changing course and cutting new channels through the mud. That town should never have been built, and it's sinking because they built it, and removed the plant roots that held it together.

You probably have never seen one of these devices, a pile driver:

...these are used to make foundations that last in delta country. The contractor drives "piles", which today are frequently made of steel, but formerly were creosote-coated logs (like wooden telephone poles, small end down). The pile driver pounds those into the ground until they hit bedrock, the contractor then pours concrete over and around the piles and builds a house on top of the foundation thus created. Except sometime in the 1970's they changed the residential building code to allow construction without such site preparation, and all housing built since has been sinking into the ooze. (Commercial construction is still done this way, and those buildings do not sink.)

What really needs to happen, is we need to deny any plans to build on delta areas, riverbank flood zones, and ocean beaches such as the Atlantic coast and the GOM region which get devastated by hurricanes on a regular basis. If people go ahead and build anyway (it is a free country and they own the land) they either pay for insurance at the going rate, or become homeless following a disaster. But under no circumstances do they ever get tax money.

Because the government is really, really, NOT your nanny. They are bought and paid for by the oligarchs. You cannot change that, and we call it BAU, and we call them TPTB.

[dohboi]

"True believer"

Ah, name calling. Another way that you like to be off-topic. Why you can't see the difference between belief and climate science is beyond me...well, I could make some guesses, but I'll refrain.

Again, see CoC and please refrain from further off topic comments. You are, of course, free to start a thread on whatever your little heart desires.

"we need to deny any plans to build on delta areas, riverbank flood zones, and ocean beaches such as the Atlantic coast..." Well, we can agree on this, at least.

[Hawkcreek]

I do look at GW as a slow-motion calamity. People have had plenty of warning to not build in coastal areas, but still insist on doing so. Part of the reason for doing this is that GW has been considered a non-issue to the majority of the public until recently. Again, I blame business and government for much of this ignorance. Can't disturb profit streams, you know. Kind of like the corporations tremendous efforts to claim that smoking was healthy. Since most people are undereducated, they will believe what "experts" tell them about it, especially since the truthful experts are marginalized in the media.
I understand that the reality is that most people and families are not prepared emotionally or financially to pick up and move at the drop of a hat. So, I suppose it does makes sense for government to give them a hand. But the help should be minimal, and should be tied to only their real start-over requirements, not to making them whole from leaving behind a million dollar house that they built in the wrong place.
If anyone has a mortgage on a soon-to-be-flooded house, the banks should take the fulll loss on the property. That would probably ensure that no more mortgages would be issued in coastal areas.
That alone would solve many problems.

[dohboi]

I feel ya. I have little sympathy for idiots who have moved to these vulnerable areas recently (and even less sympathy for those who have made gobs of money developing and selling such coastal boondoggles.)

But then, getting back to the opening article, what would you say about the Inuit (I think it was) village on the Arctic Ocean that had been there for generations but that is now becoming uninhabitable, and at a rate faster than most thought possible even a few years ago?

And here's another perspective to consider:

https://www.thenation.com/article/low-water-mark/

Cutting federal flood insurance doesn't just affect the relatively wealthy who tend to live on the coasts. Lots of poor communities are near inland waterways that are also more and more subject to flooding:



Poor and working-class neighborhoods have historically developed where inland-flood risk is the greatest.

[Hawkcreek]

I used to work with several Inuit, when I worked in Prudhoe Bay. From what I have seen, their knowledge and abilities in the wild would make them one of the more mobile peoples of any I have seen.
People have always set up camp at the best fishing and hunting spots on the coast. I understand that they may spend generations there, but to me, that doesn't make it a requirement that they have to stay forever.
I know it isn't their fault that the ocean is rising, and I think some start-over help may be warranted. But since the tribes already own most of Alaska, a new town site should not be hard to find. Most of them have been receiving a rather large check each year for oil revenue, and that alone would make me hesitant about spending too much on relocation.
The anglo culture is already responsible for creating a welfare mentality in many of the natives of Alaska. I would support spending on education and counselling for anyone, but I am uncertain about too much more.
This may be a case where we have already done too much damage.

[dohboi]

" I think some start-over help may be warranted."

Thanks. A bit ironic that they are the ones that got nothing, then.

Thanks for your other thoughtful comments and useful observations.

Gotta go. More later.

[KaiserJeep]

I say that as the quite natural global warming occurs, as we move out of the Pleistocene Ice Age and approach that peak inter-glacial temperature called the Climatic Optimum, that people are gonna have to move.

During the last Climatic Optimum, when the poles were 6 degrees C warmer than today, the archaic humans were still competing with Neanderthals, Denisovans, and Java Man (Homo Erectus). Antarctica had temperate rain forests - the ice cores show that clearly, and some of the seeds are still viable. For the record, the Polar Bears at the North Pole became land predators, in competition with the Grizzlies - and there are rare examples of hybrids between the two species. The Leopard seals of the Southern Continent had no competition, and don't really care if they eat aquatic or land animals anyway.

Or you could take the Chicken Little approach, and run around screaming "The world is warming! The world is warming!" - which come to think, is what you are doing.

Sorry to break it to you Doughboy, but all my posts in this thread are on topic.