Quote:
Originally Posted by Hondaracer
Lol the govt. props up communities of thousands of people that only have access by air. There’s no chance they are going to move communities of non-indigenous people at that expense. They’d rather let them burn and have people fight endlessly with insurance companies
|
I wouldn't look at it that way. Take Lytton, for example. If I were Hulk Horgan (or maybe even Turdeau), I'd look at the one-time cost of relocating / buying out every single resident in the village versus the rebuilding + recurring cost of rescuing them when climate disaster hits the fan over the next X-number of years. Even if the World were successful in meeting the 1.5°C target from the Paris Agreement -- and that's a BIG IF -- we know climate diasters are still going to get worse before it stablizes or gets better. So that pretty much means the people of Lytton are going to need rescuing and rebuilding at least a few times.
When basic infrastructure is destroyed to the level that we've seen (at Lytton), I would be very surprised if the one-time relocation cost isn't cheaper than the recurring rebuilding cost.
Turning to Princeton, News 1130 is saying that 2022 is the 6th (consecutive) year where the Princeton community got hit by one thing or another -- mostly wildfires and flooding. At what point do you want to say "enough is enough"?
Building back better is one thing. Tossing $$$ down a recurring and bottomless pit is quite another when you know shxt is just going to hit the fan again and again.