• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Scientific American - Poor Suffer More from Storms

Media_Truth

Media_Truth

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 31, 2016
Messages
11,375
Reaction score
2,650
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Like many environmental issues, the poor get the short end of the straw with severe storms.

When Storms Hit Cities, Poor Areas Suffer Most - Scientific American

Severe storms “fall on the rich and poor alike,” but low-income neighborhoods suffer more damage from urban flooding, according to a new study.

Poorer areas also have less political clout to remedy the many gaps in the way cities, states and the federal government deal with rising seas and more record rainfall caused by climate change.
 
Also fewer generators, business connections outside the area, less travel money, etc.
 
Media_Truth said:
Like many environmental issues, the poor get the short end of the straw with severe storms.

When Storms Hit Cities, Poor Areas Suffer Most - Scientific American

Severe storms “fall on the rich and poor alike,” but low-income neighborhoods suffer more damage from urban flooding, according to a new study.
Voyage Through The Universe Series
Poorer areas also have less political clout to remedy the many gaps in the way cities, states and the federal government deal with rising seas and more record rainfall caused by climate change.
Click to expand...

The other thing you have to consider is people with money relocate while the poor do not have the means. I watched low lying areas that flooded and the rich moved to higher ground and guess who moved into the flood prone area. The poor. They could buy a 200k home for 50k. Unfortunately the poor do not have the money to move back out. Instead they struggle with government aid to fix back up what they lost never overcoming the real problem. They need to move out of harms way. I fixed back many of the same homes over and over again. I asked why don't you move after the 3rd or 4th time. No one will buy my home after it is flooded and every dime I have is in this house. All I can do is take the FEMA money, my paychecks, whole lot of work, and fix it back. Then hope the next flood is 20 years away instead of next year. A lot of these people after 30 or 40 years of fighting a losing battle end up with nothing and die poor. After working their whole life a lot of times much harder than many wealthy people they die broken and poor.
 
Media_Truth said:
Like many environmental issues, the poor get the short end of the straw with severe storms.

When Storms Hit Cities, Poor Areas Suffer Most - Scientific American

Severe storms “fall on the rich and poor alike,” but low-income neighborhoods suffer more damage from urban flooding, according to a new study.

Poorer areas also have less political clout to remedy the many gaps in the way cities, states and the federal government deal with rising seas and more record rainfall caused by climate change.
Click to expand...

Think about what being poor means. It means one "owns" fewer and/or less valuable critical resources than do others. Even in the natural world, catastrophe and hardship most devastate the poor, the creatures dwelling ("housed," moving through and finding food) in the margins of their habitat.

What distinguishes humans from other creatures? Mainly that we invented a dualistic proxy for the critical resources on which other animals rely: money and laws. Despite our best intentions that our proxy enable us to overcome the shortcomings denizens of the natural world face -- and in some ways it has -- when "Mother Nature" strikes, our proxy is pointless. The same category of folks suffer as would absent the proxy; the proxy merely shifts, at an individual level, who is classed as "the rich" and "the poor."

To the extent that law and money are outgrowths of civilization, one must acknowledge that happenstances such as you've noted manifest civilization's failure. We don't have to allow the poorest among us to suffer more than do the richest -- because the law is a construct, we can make it allow, mandate and/or proscribe whatever we want, and there's more than enough extant money to secure the poorest's safety in storms and other natural calamities -- but we do. Moreover, Americans, as a culture, a geographically bound "tribe," do so even as overwhelmingly Americans ascribe to a belief system that expressly bids us not to do so.

If one's constructs, ones often enough based on morality given by a belief system, at the most basic levels yield outcomes substantively comparable to those nature effects, is civilization and its constructs, then something's wrong with the constructs and/or their design or implementation.
 
Media_Truth said:
Like many environmental issues, the poor get the short end of the straw with severe storms.

When Storms Hit Cities, Poor Areas Suffer Most - Scientific American

Severe storms “fall on the rich and poor alike,” but low-income neighborhoods suffer more damage from urban flooding, according to a new study.

Poorer areas also have less political clout to remedy the many gaps in the way cities, states and the federal government deal with rising seas and more record rainfall caused by climate change.
Click to expand...

So what do you suggest? That storms be politically correct and hit rich areas more? :lamo
 
Tans said:
So what do you suggest? That storms be politically correct and hit rich areas more? :lamo
Click to expand...

One of the points of the article is that the poor will lose out more because of Climate Change. I think others have made valid points, that the poor always lose out in our society. They are victims who cannot financially acclimate to changes (relocation, etc).
 
Media_Truth said:
One of the points of the article is that the poor will lose out more because of Climate Change. I think others have made valid points, that the poor always lose out in our society. They are victims who cannot financially acclimate to changes (relocation, etc).
Click to expand...

Well, since you have openly denied the first law of thermodynamics, you can't understand why the greenhouse effect doesn't work. Your science fiction doesn't impress me.
 
Tans said:
Well, since you have openly denied the first law of thermodynamics, you can't understand why the greenhouse effect doesn't work. Your science fiction doesn't impress me.
Click to expand...

Many of us have pointed out the fallacy of your argument.
 
Media_Truth said:
One of the points of the article is that the poor will lose out more because of Climate Change. I think others have made valid points, that the poor always lose out in our society. They are victims who cannot financially acclimate to changes (relocation, etc).
Click to expand...

Given the general uncaring approach to the devastation induced by the use of food as fuel it seems unlikely that any of the green movement actually give a toss about poor people.
 
Media_Truth said:
Many of us have pointed out the fallacy of your argument.
Click to expand...

None. It is you that is denying the first law of thermodynamics. You have openly done so. Until you accept this law, you are just spittin' in the wind.
 
Tim the plumber said:
Given the general uncaring approach to the devastation induced by the use of food as fuel it seems unlikely that any of the green movement actually give a toss about poor people.
Click to expand...

A fair point. The green movement is uncaring about the poor, except as pawns.
 
Tans said:
A fair point. The green movement is uncaring about the poor, except as pawns.
Click to expand...

What is interesting is the recent studies on the glaciers in the Himalayas, and how it affects the largest population of poor in the world.
 
Media_Truth said:
What is interesting is the recent studies on the glaciers in the Himalayas, and how it affects the largest population of poor in the world.
Click to expand...

It doesn't. The tiny amount of glacial ice in the Himalayas, less than 40 Gt in total, does not have a significant impact on the Ganges/Brahmaputra rivers which deliver 1000 billion tonnes (Gt) of water to Bangladesh each year.
 
Tans said:
None. It is you that is denying the first law of thermodynamics. You have openly done so. Until you accept this law, you are just spittin' in the wind.
Click to expand...

Inversion fallacy.
 
Tim the plumber said:
It doesn't. The tiny amount of glacial ice in the Himalayas, less than 40 Gt in total, does not have a significant impact on the Ganges/Brahmaputra rivers which deliver 1000 billion tonnes (Gt) of water to Bangladesh each year.
Click to expand...

Two statements - one false, one misleading... "Tiny amount":roll:

Glacial retreat in the Himalayas | LCLUC

Summary:
After the polar ice caps, the Himalayas have the largest amount of glaciers. More than thirty thousand sq. km of the Himalayan region is covered by the glaciers that can provide around 8.6 million cubic meters of water every year. Rivers, including the Ganga, the Indus, the Brahmaputra, the Salween, the Mekong, the Yangtze and the Yellow river are fed by glaciers in the Himalayas. Millions of people rely on this annual water supply to survive. Over the past several decades global climate change has influenced the Himalayan mountain glaciers significantly, pushing tempertures close to melting conditions (Rai and Gurung 2005). Recently, the Himalayan glaciers have been in a status of retreat at an increasing rate which will eventually result in a water shortage for all Himalayan countries (e.g. China, India, Nepal, and Bhutan).
 
Media_Truth said:
Two statements - one false, one misleading... "Tiny amount":roll:

Glacial retreat in the Himalayas | LCLUC

Summary:
After the polar ice caps, the Himalayas have the largest amount of glaciers. More than thirty thousand sq. km of the Himalayan region is covered by the glaciers that can provide around 8.6 million cubic meters of water every year. Rivers, including the Ganga, the Indus, the Brahmaputra, the Salween, the Mekong, the Yangtze and the Yellow river are fed by glaciers in the Himalayas. Millions of people rely on this annual water supply to survive. Over the past several decades global climate change has influenced the Himalayan mountain glaciers significantly, pushing tempertures close to melting conditions (Rai and Gurung 2005). Recently, the Himalayan glaciers have been in a status of retreat at an increasing rate which will eventually result in a water shortage for all Himalayan countries (e.g. China, India, Nepal, and Bhutan).
Click to expand...

AAAAAAgh!!!!

The snow might well cover 30,000km2 but the glaciers don't. Try finding 2000km2 of glacier on google earth. You wont.

Also area is not volume or mass.
 
Tim the plumber said:

AAAAAAgh!!!!

The snow might well cover 30,000km2 but the glaciers don't. Try finding 2000km2 of glacier on google earth. You wont.

Also area is not volume or mass.
Click to expand...

Like always, they throw horse puckey on the wall to see if any sticks.
 
Media_Truth said:
Two statements - one false, one misleading... "Tiny amount":roll:

Glacial retreat in the Himalayas | LCLUC

Summary:
After the polar ice caps, the Himalayas have the largest amount of glaciers. More than thirty thousand sq. km of the Himalayan region is covered by the glaciers that can provide around 8.6 million cubic meters of water every year. Rivers, including the Ganga, the Indus, the Brahmaputra, the Salween, the Mekong, the Yangtze and the Yellow river are fed by glaciers in the Himalayas. Millions of people rely on this annual water supply to survive. Over the past several decades global climate change has influenced the Himalayan mountain glaciers significantly, pushing tempertures close to melting conditions (Rai and Gurung 2005). Recently, the Himalayan glaciers have been in a status of retreat at an increasing rate which will eventually result in a water shortage for all Himalayan countries (e.g. China, India, Nepal, and Bhutan).
Click to expand...

Besides the massively inflated figure for the surface area of glaciers the outflow of 0.0086Gt vs the over 1000Gt that flows over Bangladesh each year says just how unimportant these glaciers are to the area.
 
[h=2]40-Year Meteorologist Says Public “Being Fed Bill Of Goods” By Climate Alarmists On Hurricanes, Tornadoes[/h]By P Gosselin on 14. April 2019
At the latest Saturday Summary at Weatherbell Analytics, Joe Bastardi, a well-known 40-year veteran of meteorology, looks at tornadoes and hurricanes.
Although many meteorologists and climatologists confirm that there is no data suggesting global warming is causing more frequent and intense tornado and hurricane activity, there is a small but influential alarmist group who claim otherwise. And it’s no surprise who the click-baiting media parrot at maximum volume.
Landfalling hurricanes downward trend
At the 5:45 mark, Joe presents a chart depicting the frequency of US landfalling hurricanes since 1900:

Thank you global warming!
As the chart above shows, hurricane frequency has declined while global temperatures have risen over the same period, which leads Joe to comment that we “have been fed a bill of goods by people who use the weather as weapons.”
By “people” here, he means the climate-ambulance chasing media, scientists and public figures who seize upon every weather anomaly and claim it’s a sign of manmade global warming. . . .
 
Media_Truth said:
Like many environmental issues, the poor get the short end of the straw with severe storms.

When Storms Hit Cities, Poor Areas Suffer Most - Scientific American

Severe storms “fall on the rich and poor alike,” but low-income neighborhoods suffer more damage from urban flooding, according to a new study.

Poorer areas also have less political clout to remedy the many gaps in the way cities, states and the federal government deal with rising seas and more record rainfall caused by climate change.
Click to expand...

Yep. It's the same with the pollution being caused by Trump's relaxing of environmental protection laws. The rich will move away from any toxic area, the poor won't have that luxury.
 
JustHanging said:
Yep. It's the same with the pollution being caused by Trump's relaxing of environmental protection laws. The rich will move away from any toxic area, the poor won't have that luxury.
Click to expand...

And what pollution is that? Be specific.
 
It's the way mother nature intended it to be, natural selection. It's like weeding a garden or ridding the world of parasites.
 
CommunityStanda said:
It's the way mother nature intended it to be, natural selection. It's like weeding a garden or ridding the world of parasites.
Click to expand...

We see various scenarios in fictional movies and books of how much worse the poor have it in the future. I see no way to prevent this except to instill in people to stop having children if they can't afford to. At some point, society as a whole will no longer be able to supplement so many poor.
 
noonereal said:
An awful lot of poor folks no longer can afford to live in urban areas.

Does Scientific American realize this?
Click to expand...

I'd need a link for that assertion. I think it's just the opposite. I think most poor people live in urban cities.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom