Hacker News Reader

Comment by gbrown | Hacker News Reader

The problem is that vulnerable populations would be hurt the worst. It's an ugly issue that will be hard to deal with, and I think we need to start looking at more widespread preparedness regulation as well as systems for moving people out of at-risk areas.

View on HN

Where do you move people out of "at-risk" areas for tornadoes? Essentially, the entirety of the central and eastern US are at risk for significant (EF2+) tornadoes for at least some portion of the year [1]. And then the places that aren't at risk of tornadoes have their own substantial risks for natural disasters-- earthquakes and fires out west, hurricanes and flooding closer to the coasts, blizzards and winter weather up north and into the Rockies, water supply issues in the southwest, etc.

That's why we have FEMA, because "just" displacing people after a natural disaster doesn't work.

[1] https://www.spc.noaa.gov/new/SVRclimo/climo.php?parm=sigTorn

Luckily tornadoes are not actually that destructive on a broad population scale. Out of ~1000 tornadoes per year, there are only about 80 deaths per year on average [1] and the national cost of the damage is around $10-$14b per year [2].

Hurricanes are a lot harder to talk about deaths since hurricanes are so big and cause such widespread damage (although Hurricane Maria is supposedly responsible for around 3,000 deaths), but the economic impacts are much, much larger. Just one hurricane can cause hundreds of billions of dollars in damage [3].

I'm absolutely not arguing in favor of getting rid of FEMA, but there are definitely the costs of some natural disasters that could be avoided by relocating population centers. Although tornadoes are not one of them, in my opinion. The cost and death toll just isn't that high for a tornado.

[1] https://www.depts.ttu.edu/nwi/research/DebrisImpact/Reports/...

[2] https://www.iii.org/fact-statistic/facts-statistics-tornadoe...

[3] https://coast.noaa.gov/states/fast-facts/weather-disasters.h...

I was thinking more about floods and hurricanes.

if you look at the distribution of folks most opposed to any action on climate change, they are also the most vulnerable to the effects of it (red state + poor). So I am not opposed to them feeling some heat (no pun intended) for their actions. if things get dire then IMO they'll less opposed to a tax on big corp that gives then some relief money. this may be a good way to nudge them into supporting action.

I mean even at a very base consumer level, why does someone buys a big V8 truck that's really bad for environment if they are poor. its because the price of polluting environment is not included in their operating costs. so other values take over their decision. if you change that equation, the people who have least amount of headroom are the ones having hardest time adopting. this is true for any equilibrium. So in short this argument can be used to attack any positive change. IMO it has no bearing & IMHO its better to remedy the effects by another positive change rather than discarding the original well built idea.

> So I am not opposed to them feeling some heat (no pun intended) for their actions.

I hear you, but you have to remember that these are averages. Even in the deepest red parts of the country, there are large minorities of progressives.

This was one of the big arguments I heard against a sugar tax too, I'm sure it's true for raising taxes on gas, consumables, etc. But it seems to me like every regressive tax could be offset with another progressive subsidy like a tax cut, as a potential solution.

The science doesn't support a sugar tax harming vulnerable people - really quite the opposite. Getting rid of FEMA without a lot of care is an entirely different proposition.

Not speaking of tornado zones, but most of the FEMA insurance goes to homes that make of beach/water front property.

I'd love to see the hordes of poor people that live on the beach.

> FEMA’s research found that low-income households are less likely to purchase flood insurance than higher-income households, even though low-income families are more likely to live in high-risk flood zones.

[1] - https://www.nrdc.org/experts/joel-scata/flood-insurance-subs...

You should come to southern California. Loads of poor ppl living on the beach. Generation after generation. I'm not judging because that's my roots. Even in exclusive neighborhoods the poor, even dirt poor, outnumber the top of the food chain by dozens to one. Living close to the beach without an insurance company backing you is a normal thing here

I'm not saying we shouldn't fix our response to disasters: I'm tired of subsidizing luxury houses on the Outer Banks, for example. My point was only that getting rid of FEMA outright will harm people living in floodplains etc., who generally are poorer than average.

It's a tautology to state that "vulnerable populations would be hurt the worst" in any circumstance.

Incorrect. Vulnerable populations, when properly accounted for in disaster planning, would not be "hurt the worst."

For those unfamiliar with disaster resilience, vulnerable populations generally refers to the poor, elderly, mobility-limited, homeless, etc.

As an example: if an earthquake happens and your disaster resilience plan accounts for these groups, there would be specific triage to take special care of them. Similarly, if a heat wave happens and a power outage occurs due to disaster, many elderly risk losing their lives. This wouldn't be captured as a dollar amount to private industry. Organizations such as FEMA take special care to plan for these kinds of vulnerable populations.

The comment you responded to was getting at the idea that gov't has a responsibility to take care of their citizens and do this kind of due diligence / triage for the vulnerable. If you "leave it to the private sector" then people with money will be hurt less than people without, and people who need special advocacy would not find themselves having it.

You make a fair point about effective disaster resilience planning, but optimizing for the poor, elderly, mobility-limited, homeless, etc (while virtuous) would merely make that group less vulnerable than those otherwise capable populations, thereby making a new group the most, by the simple definition of the term vulnerable... Thus a tautology.

The point is to prioritize assistance for people who otherwise would not be able to take care of themselves as much as less vulnerable people.

Prioritizing care for the elderly doesn't necessarily make them less vulnerable than otherwise capable people, after all: they have more risk factors that can't be fully minimized. There's not some kind of straightforward calculation like you imply that you can make here.

Right, in this context, for example, it could mean people who are not able to stockpile several days of food and water, versus people whose biggest concern is the Whole Foods spoiling in the fridge if power is out for too long.

I can only say that I've witnessed some of these situations first-hand, with tragic conclusions. But I'd in no way diminish the importance of addressing the most pressing needs discussed here.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com