Recently in the news:
USDA has designated 597 counties as "primary natural disaster areas due to drought."
http://news.yahoo.co....5QuSQAKzrQtDMD
http://www.usda.gov/...tentidonly=true
Natural disaster? Or man-made disaster? Natural but made worse by anthropogenic climate change?
If a man-made disaster, should USDA apply relief measures meant for a natural disaster?
There are some really good arguments that say that the recent US midwest heatwaves are almost certainly not entirely natural, with the drought connected to the heatwaves http://www.columbia...._DicePopSci.pdf
Would the argument be enough to convince a court if a suit were brought against the USDA for inappropriate disaster relief? A successful suit might shift the attitudes if some congresscreatures.
| Create a Free Account or Sign In to connect and share in green living and alternative energy forum discussions. |
3
Current US 597 county drought natural or not?
Started by still learning, Jan 09 2013 08:58 PM
4 replies to this topic
#2
Posted 10 January 2013 - 04:28 AM
Good catch.
Old habits die hard; people have been saying natural disaster forever.
I caught part of Christie's state of the state address the other day and he referred to Sandy
as "an act of god" so there is still that mindset too.
A suit would be good if the coal industry had to pay for the "clean-up"
It would set a new precedent.
The worst part of that is, imo, is no matter how bad it gets, the feds will bail them
out and with our budget concerns, that mindset is wearing thin.
Of course we feel for the farmers, but many of them are big ag/mega farms not small
operations like in years past. It's like our subsides to big oil. They're fine without
taxpayer help.
all the same benefits as the small guys.
The drought may also be causing a new bubble. Farm bubble.
http://www.nytimes.c...wanted=all&_r=0
Old habits die hard; people have been saying natural disaster forever.
I caught part of Christie's state of the state address the other day and he referred to Sandy
as "an act of god" so there is still that mindset too.
A suit would be good if the coal industry had to pay for the "clean-up"
It would set a new precedent.
The worst part of that is, imo, is no matter how bad it gets, the feds will bail them
out and with our budget concerns, that mindset is wearing thin.
Of course we feel for the farmers, but many of them are big ag/mega farms not small
operations like in years past. It's like our subsides to big oil. They're fine without
taxpayer help.
75]"With no end in sight to the parched conditions, areas and businesses hardest hit by drought are already feeling the economic impact. But overall losses in the farm belt are expected to be reduced by the widespread use of federal farm insurance, which covers farmer’s losses from crop failures.
75]So the overall economic impact of this summer’s crop shortfall is expected to knock less than a tenth of a percent off gross domestic product, according to Paul Dales, economist at Capital Economics."
Aid could be based on previous profits or acreage-whatever, so the giants don't getall the same benefits as the small guys.
The drought may also be causing a new bubble. Farm bubble.
http://www.nytimes.c...wanted=all&_r=0
#3
Posted 14 January 2013 - 10:09 AM
A little economics lesson is in order. All business gets it's money from it's customers. There is no magic fund they can access if you "stick it to them". In every case they will simply raise prices to cover whatever you hit them with. You stop subsidizing oil and they will raise the price of gas to cover it, you pay. You stop subsidizing farms and they will rise the price of food, you pay.
Subsidies are highly progressive. The 1% could care less if the price of steak, bread, or milk doubled, not so the average American. The one program I do think is abused is paying people NOT to grow. That seems like an easy scam similar to cap and trade.
Much as you may dislike commercial farming, their very size means you should NOT want them to fail. I know, too big to fail all over again!
Subsidies are highly progressive. The 1% could care less if the price of steak, bread, or milk doubled, not so the average American. The one program I do think is abused is paying people NOT to grow. That seems like an easy scam similar to cap and trade.
Much as you may dislike commercial farming, their very size means you should NOT want them to fail. I know, too big to fail all over again!
#4
Posted 14 January 2013 - 02:51 PM
Regarding natural disasters though-
the term is used for nature.
When a train crashes or a bridge collapses, that's a man made disaster.
We will have to adjust our vocabulary to include all these natural disaster's into a larger conversation of man-made
disaster's because they're all man-made. Ouch.
(Did I make it 16 degrees today and overcast just to make sure all the mosquitoes are dead? You bet.)
the term is used for nature.
When a train crashes or a bridge collapses, that's a man made disaster.
We will have to adjust our vocabulary to include all these natural disaster's into a larger conversation of man-made
disaster's because they're all man-made. Ouch.
(Did I make it 16 degrees today and overcast just to make sure all the mosquitoes are dead? You bet.)
#5
Posted 12 April 2013 - 03:41 AM
Coal, oil and gas producers are NOT the ones responsible, though. Can't sue them. Why? Because it is ones who BURNED that coal, oil and gas are ones being directly responsible.
Which means, we should sue us. People should sue people. It is we who drive the cars, use electricity (most of which is made by burning fossil fuels), and own all sorts of things, to make which industries burn fossil fuels. It is we who use vast majority of world transportation - majority of which is powered by fossil fuels (electric too).
How about you going to court and sue YOURSELF?
Sigh. This is definitely a funny topic. :D
As for the nature of increasing drought conditions world-wide, of course it is not natural - and of course it is not man-made. It is a combo of both. Without natural world and natural processes, there couldn't be any drought (nor indeed any life to give to droughts any meaning, too). Without mankind, we wouldn't be getting increasing severety and frequency of droughts, though. So it's a hybrid of both causes. Unseparable.
I highly recommend works (papers) of professor Dai (shame i forgot his name) about PDSI and future values of this drought index globally - especially maps. And don't forget, his work is based on quite conservative - as of now, - assumptions of temperature increase, so consider his dates as "very optimistic": most likely, we'll see conditions similar to what his maps show much earlier than dates which said maps contain. Oh, one more thing, - great dust bowl in US in 1930s had PDSI in range of -2...-3, peaking in very few places for a short times at -5 (drought conditions are reflected by negative PDSI values if i remember correctly). Seeing maps in Dai's works which demonstrate increasingly large areas of the world becoming areas with PDSI value of -10 or even worse (up to -20 in some places!) - i just cannot imagine how anything would be able to live there. Poor France... Paris would become a ghost city. Shame! ><
Which means, we should sue us. People should sue people. It is we who drive the cars, use electricity (most of which is made by burning fossil fuels), and own all sorts of things, to make which industries burn fossil fuels. It is we who use vast majority of world transportation - majority of which is powered by fossil fuels (electric too).
How about you going to court and sue YOURSELF?
Sigh. This is definitely a funny topic. :D
As for the nature of increasing drought conditions world-wide, of course it is not natural - and of course it is not man-made. It is a combo of both. Without natural world and natural processes, there couldn't be any drought (nor indeed any life to give to droughts any meaning, too). Without mankind, we wouldn't be getting increasing severety and frequency of droughts, though. So it's a hybrid of both causes. Unseparable.
I highly recommend works (papers) of professor Dai (shame i forgot his name) about PDSI and future values of this drought index globally - especially maps. And don't forget, his work is based on quite conservative - as of now, - assumptions of temperature increase, so consider his dates as "very optimistic": most likely, we'll see conditions similar to what his maps show much earlier than dates which said maps contain. Oh, one more thing, - great dust bowl in US in 1930s had PDSI in range of -2...-3, peaking in very few places for a short times at -5 (drought conditions are reflected by negative PDSI values if i remember correctly). Seeing maps in Dai's works which demonstrate increasingly large areas of the world becoming areas with PDSI value of -10 or even worse (up to -20 in some places!) - i just cannot imagine how anything would be able to live there. Poor France... Paris would become a ghost city. Shame! ><
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users