2 thoughts on “No Action at FEMA re Climate Change Law”

1. Well, let’s see.

   First, FEMA says sea levels will increase by four feet by 2100. And yet the current maximum rate of sea level rise reported leads to an increase in sea level rise of about one foot by 2100. On top of which, it appears that the total amount of glaciation may be increasing not decreasing.

   The maximum of four feet will be local to places like NOLA where subsidence dominates. Other places that are experiencing subsidence will see apparent sea level rises of somewhere between one and four feet. I sure hope the bureaucrats don’t try to do something that assumes that sea levels will rise by four feet everywhere. Personally, I’d say the best way to handle this is to plan to produce flood maps every 10-20 years. Trying to guess what’s going to happen re climate change on a local basis is a mug’s game, one in which the taxpayer gets played for a sucker.

   Second, the story again promotes the canard that storm frequencies and intensities are increasing. Just ain’t so. The COSTS of storms are increasing but that’s due to demographics; too darn many folks have moved to the coasts.

   Third, in lieu of maps, how about simply looking at the number of flooding incidents over some representative time period, and basing flood premiums on that basis [at least until we can update the maps]? No matter what we do, some people are going to take a financial hit. If they choose to build in risky locales, that’s their business. I would agree however that there should be a premium reduction based on adherence to common sense building codes.

   Reply ↓

   • Scientists with serious credentials, such as the one quoted in the CNN article posted on Oct. 24th, have compelling evidence in my opinion.

     Reply ↓

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.