News   Nov 18, 2024
 1.4K     1 
News   Nov 18, 2024
 726     0 
News   Nov 18, 2024
 1.7K     1 

The Climate Change Thread

I must admit that I thought Canada already had a national fire service. I expect our neighbours were equally surprised.


The US doesn't have one either. But their states have robust state level agencies in states that are prone to fire. There's nothing like Calfire in Canada.


Ontario, Quebec, BC and Alberta should be building agencies like this, but they don't. Ask yourself why instead of worrying why the feds don't take on yet more.
 
Since when does Ottawa and especially this federal government care about jurisdiction? If we can have federal ministers of health, housing, environment, and natural resources, all areas of provincial responsibility, why not a federal lead on wild fire management or at least intra-provincial cooperation? When wildfire smog impacts Canada distant neighbours it become a national and international matter.

I must admit that I thought Canada already had a national fire service. I expect our neighbours were equally surprised.


Federal involvement in national healthcare is a result of federal-provincial agreements resulting in the Canada Health Act and is essentially a money distribution role and an attempt to maintain standards. Other than areas of federal jurisdiction (FN, military), they are not directly involved in delivery. Aspects of environment and natural resources are constitutionally shared areas. As far as I'm concerned housing is completely out of the federal lane.

The US doesn't have a national fire service except fire fighting services under the US Forest Service which is responsible for federal lands. The Fire Administration, by their own website is "to support and strengthen fire and emergency medical services (EMS) and stakeholders to prepare for, prevent, mitigate and respond to all hazards." They don't fight fires either. The federal-state jurisdictional silos are stronger than anything we have to deal with.

What should the federal government do that the provinces can't, other than have bags and bags of money that they like to spend like drunken sailors.
 
You lost me, is this question or suggestion?
Maybe both?

What should the federal government do? Hire firefighters, buy fire trucks, planes, helicopters and all the other kit they need, then fly or drive into a province to do what the provinces can't or are unwilling to do? It seems everybody want the federal government to be all things to all people, right down to funding municipal transit, then complain about the money they spend.

Toronto has a comparatively low municipal tax rate, yet the infrastructure is crumbling. The Ontario government boasts it is putting money back in the pockets of hard working Ontarians, yet cut the MNRF's Aviation, Forest Fire and Emergency Services by 67% in 2019.
 
Exactly. I think the federal government needs to do less. Not more. And heck, maybe once a few towns burn down these provinces will start taking both climate change and firefighting more seriously. The Feds are a convenient foil for all these provincial governments who don't do anything.
 
Anyone who can read sea level rise predictions and a topographical map can see that a lot of Florida real estate is going to zero. No amount of federal insurance support is going to make it viable--though federal backstops for uninsurable properties isn't even something the public purse can support.
 
The feds will spend unlimited money to backstop the insurance market in Florida (both directly and indirectly) until the place is literally underwater. Despite the myths and stereotypes about the American free market, the US economy is extremely statist in areas where it wants to be, and I think this will be one of them.

First step will be various interventions that will effectively mean merging everything into one risk pool (even if there are nominally different risk pools on paper), which will buy time but isn't a solution. The next step will just be free money after every disaster.
 
Anyone who can read sea level rise predictions and a topographical map can see that a lot of Florida real estate is going to zero. No amount of federal insurance support is going to make it viable--though federal backstops for uninsurable properties isn't even something the public purse can support.
I expect homes built to Hurricane-resistant codes will still get insurance. You just need to build it properly to withstand hurricane force winds and if anywhere close to coastal, waterways or rivers, floods.




Now, those who cannot afford to build to these standards will be pushed out. But others with deeper pockets will replace them. Florida real estate is not going to zero.
 
I expect homes built to Hurricane-resistant codes will still get insurance. You just need to build it properly to withstand hurricane force winds and if anywhere close to coastal, waterways or rivers, floods.




Now, those who cannot afford to build to these standards will be pushed out. But others with deeper pockets will replace them. Florida real estate is not going to zero.
I don't think insurance will cover predictable coastal erosion and regular inundation.
 
I don't think insurance will cover predictable coastal erosion and regular inundation.
Sure they will. First they'll need the State and property developers to build up seawalls to address erosion and to upgrade floodways and other water management/redirection systems.

If your property is protected, I think you'll get insurance. This guy in Daytona Florida won't get insurance.... and nor should they, having not protected their property from erosion.

221110153321-01-nicole-damage.jpg


But a seawall, like this in Japan would make Florida homes able to survive most any hurricanes.

tsunami-13.jpg


There's money in Florida, folks will want to live there and will make it work.
 
Last edited:

Back
Top