Legislation to Create a National Disaster Review Board

[William Monfredo]

As you know, I'm not a moderator, but sounds to me like a brand new thread is needed for posts along the lines I'm seeing here.

 

[Boris Konon]

Deniers of climate change, and/or of human influence thereupon, love to talk about the costs of trying to address it, but they never mention the costs of NOT addressing it. More extreme wildfires, heavy rain events, heat, and tropical cyclone intensity (maybe not frequency, that is indeed a matter for further research) have imposed tremendous costs on humanity, both in the US and worldwide. If you want to talk about economics, you have to look at both sides of the equation. Looking at only one side of the economic equation could also be characterized as a vapid and simplistic mindset, and there are obviously great powers that be that are doing that, too.

It is irresponsible *not* to ask about the costs of addressing AGW, or any other issue/problem for that matter, as resources and $$ are finite. Demonizing the other "side" b/c it happens not agree with you is counterproductive and leads to more divide, and thus even less gets done.

Neither side in this case is addressing climate change correctly b/c it is an all or nothing divide. We need stop looking at it as a partisan issue, remove how we "feel" about it, and actually *think* in an objective, practical, and reasonable manner.

 

[John Farley]

It is irresponsible *not* to ask about the costs of addressing AGW, or any other issue/problem for that matter, as resources and $$ are finite. Demonizing the other "side" b/c it happens not agree with you is counterproductive and leads to more divide, and thus even less gets done.

Neither side in this case is addressing climate change correctly b/c it is an all or nothing divide. We need stop looking at it as a partisan issue, remove how we "feel" about it, and actually *think* in an objective, practical, and reasonable manner.

I agree, but would add that it is also irresponsible not to ask about the costs of NOT addressing this issue or any other. Totally agree with your second paragraph - it should never have become partisan or political. But it did.

 

[Boris Konon]

As you know, I'm not a moderator, but sounds to me like a brand new thread is needed for posts along the lines I'm seeing here.

It hard to avoid the "hot potato" issue here when wx even remotely comes up, let alone a a forum dedicated to storm chasing! I wish it could be separate, but it has infested literally everything, and now AGW is the scapegoat for all that bad happens, no matter what. That in itself is a major problem, so the fact it seeps into our discussion in the forum is no surprise.

I think it should be discussed civilly b/c just ignoring it has a plethora of downsides. Lack of discourse/communication has an insidious effect on a social level.

 

[Jamie H]

At the end of the day, regardless of how alarming it is, nobody is making the necessary changes (left side of the aisle, or right). In order to make substantiative changes, you basically have to be ok with going nowhere, eating only home grown foods and never buying anything. All 360 million plus people here in the US, and all seven billion plus people everywhere else. That's a big ask and it's not all up to government. Until the alternatives become affordable, efficient and economical without government subsidies, we're going to be in the same boat for a really long time.

For me, at least, it's about looking far bigger than individual actions, and perhaps that's where some of the messaging gets lost, if not only because one side features businesses who have a vested interest in the status quo and DEEP pockets to fund all kinds of shenanigans. EVs, for example, not only help with a reduction in petrol and diesel use, but similarly reduce harmful particulates, which has significant public health benefits (London for example has had low emission zones for more than 15 years and had both economic and health benefits). Does that mean they are emission free in their construction? No. But they can help.

I very much disagree with your assertion that "you basically have to be ok with going nowhere, eating only home grown foods and never buying anything." That feels like scaremongering. Globalisation and capitalism aren't leaving us any time soon, so there will be no serious reduction in travel, car driving, or what foods people eat, though expect costs to keep rising.

What would make a change, for example, is the 0.003% of the global adult population, owning an average of US$123 million and a combined wealth of US$31 trillion, using private jets like taxis, creating emissions the equivalent of 3.7 million petrol cars being driven over the course of a year. There is a growing concentration of wealth among a small part of the population, who are insulated from any of the downsides of their behaviour.

There are scientists now asking whether we've gone past the warming tipping point, despite knowing about the changing climate for 70+ years. In that time, every reasonable attempt to reduce usage has been pushed aside in the name of profits and convenience, and us in the 'western' world have barely had to bat an eyelid at any negative effects. The 'developing' world has been looking at mountains of clothes on beaches, plastics washing up from around the globe, crop failures, water shortages, farmlands lost, and geopolitical instability, and have been shouting for years that things are becoming insufferable.


Anyway, I have gone off the rails again! But it has been good to see this discussion lasting without any name calling or shouting at each other. I am sure everyone here agrees with the problem, but we have differing views on the solutions. Sadly, with many of us struggling to survive in an economic system which features higher inflation and low wage growth, it's understandable why short-term, populist politicians are gaining votes, because people want change. There's just some level of irony that conservatives worldwide have managed to spin a message that they are on the side of the working person and the liberals are big city elites, when the opposite is generally true. And those populist votes are going to lead to policies which make it all worse.

There's a big bill to pay, coming soon, and those who have caused it will likely get off scot free.

 

[Sean Ramsey]

Anyway, I have gone off the rails again! But it has been good to see this discussion lasting without any name calling or shouting at each other. I am sure everyone here agrees with the problem, but we have differing views on the solutions. Sadly, with many of us struggling to survive in an economic system which features higher inflation and low wage growth, it's understandable why short-term, populist politicians are gaining votes, because people want change. There's just some level of irony that conservatives worldwide have managed to spin a message that they are on the side of the working person and the liberals are big city elites, when the opposite is generally true. And those populist votes are going to lead to policies which make it all worse.

There's a big bill to pay, coming soon, and those who have caused it will likely get off scot free.

I'm enjoying the conversation myself, and discussions like this is what makes a place like ST so valuable and attractive.

I'm certainly not trying to scaremonger and have never been one to take anything to the extreme with opinion. Honestly, I'm not sure where the line is where everything moves back to normal and the problem is no one else really knows either. And, if someone does know they aren't doing a very good job at setting the parameters.

As far as politics goes, we literally just changed Presidents again because it's simply too expensive to live, and everyone feels it. Climate initiatives are currently too costly, too inefficient and un-economical to catch on sufficiently (and currently) in the marketplace. That's where the tipping point is that most on the left don't understand or maybe don't want to. Climate initiatives must stand on their own without subsidies in order to take hold and replace old methods of energy production, usage, etc. There's a lot that goes into that, but at the end of the day that's why the world isn't shifting.

Any policy that is implemented that doesn't generate a profit puts the burden on me, the taxpayer. This (among other non-revenue generating policies) is what causes inflation and makes it hard on the working people. Even the NDRB that Mike started this discussion about would be a tax increasing, inflation causing entity, needed or not. And as John mentioned, what's the cost of not doing anything? Could be a lot, but if people aren't able to afford food or housing going forward, ultimately things will self correct anyway.

I'm not the biggest Trump fan, but he understands these things. The market (what people spend their money on) decides what stays and what goes in the end. We're about to see the pendulum swing the other way for a while because of this.

 

[William Monfredo]

I too have enjoyed these conversations. I think it’s important to consider scale. Disasters occur mostly on a local / regional level (within a larger context, of course.) So, the solutions to what went right or wrong with an event will be mostly local and regional. That’s why world-wide averages don’t resonate with people, because they don’t live an “average.” And when something occurs in their neck of the woods, blaming a really big picture won’t solve their unique, local or regional problem. They might not want to change the world, just get their life back to normal as quickly as possible.

 

[John Farley]

In response to Sean's post, through history all kinds of things have started out with subsidies then eventually become profitable. Likely it would work the same way with renewable energy, and in may ways it already is. And there are some things, like health care and old-age economic security, that will always need subsidies because they are important, life-and-death matters. Both of these points are relevant to the climate change issue.

 

[Jamie H]

In response to Sean's post, through history all kinds of things have started out with subsidies then eventually become profitable. Likely it would work the same way with renewable energy, and in may ways it already is. And there are some things, like health care and old-age economic security, that will always need subsidies because they are important, life-and-death matters. Both of these points are relevant to the climate change issue.

That's a good point, as fossil fuel companies, despite their incredible profits, recieve far more in subsidy than clean and renewable companies do. I haven't delved into the report listed here, but it lists the US as providing more than double the subsidies to fossil fuels than clean sources. Until that changes, nothing will change.

It's a shame that countries like the UK and US failed to take the lead and become renewable powerhouses, as it only beholdens us to Gulf states, who are quickly buying up the world.

 

[Mike Smith]

From The Blaze:

Wait until you read the latest about western North Carolina. What is going on is cruel and criminal.

They wouldn't dare do this if we had a NDRB because it would hold them accountable. Now? No accountability at all.

 

[John Farley]

From The Blaze:

Wait until you read the latest about western North Carolina. What is going on is cruel and criminal.

They wouldn't dare do this if we had a NDRB because it would hold them accountable. Now? No accountability at all.

Mike, when you make blatantly partisan posts like this one (with the attachment that blames President Biden and Governor Cooper for alleged failures in the response to Helene), you undermine the case for a NDRB. A NDRB or anything similar needs to be above politics, and if it is seen as a partisan act, it will not likely pass and will not work if it does. And, with all due respect, it is a little disingenuous to blame Biden and Cooper when, in the latest NC legislation on disaster relief, Republicans reduced the funding way below previous bills and below what Democrats wanted, and tacked on to the bill all kinds of provisions to take power away from statewide Democratic elected officials just elected earlier this month. If the response is as bad as you say it is, there is plenty of blame to go around, not just Democrats

I don't know if a truly nonpartisan NDRB could ever be created in today's extremely polarized society, but if it could, sorting out truth from fiction and rumor could be a key function and would be a good reason for having a NDRB. But it won't pass and won't work if it does pass if it comes off as partisan in nature. Here are a few links that people interested in the situation in North Carolina and the larger issue of disaster relief may find informative:

Biden asks Congress for $100 billion to aid recovery from hurricanes, other disasters

Joe Biden wants nearly $100 billion in emergency funding to help respond to a series of disasters that have stretched government resources thin.

www.usatoday.com

How rumors and lies hurt people trying to recover from disasters like Helene

Disinformation and misinformation runs rampant after disasters, but experts say the public can be a 'line of defense.'

www.usatoday.com

NC lawmakers pass hurricane bill stripping power from Democrats • NC Newsline

Republicans passed legislation billed as another round of hurricane relief, but which primarily shifts power away from Democratic officials.

ncnewsline.com

 

[Mike Smith]

Mike, when you make blatantly partisan posts like this one (with the attachment that blames President Biden and Governor Cooper for alleged failures in the response to Helene), you undermine the case for a NDRB.

Hi John,

Thanks for the post. I don't think you'll be surprised to learn that I disagree.

As to your main point John: As a general rule, I believe we need much more accountability in politics and government operations and it matters not which party is in power. I don't recall to you objecting to me raking George Bush's (by name) FEMA over the coals in the aftermath of Katrina. If you criticized me for holding Bush accountable and I missed it, please post it here and I will apologize.

FEMA reports to the President of the United States (Joe Biden) and the North Carolina National Guard reports to the Governor of North Carolina (Roy Cooper). It was a great Democrat president -- Harry Truman -- who said of the office he held, "The Buck Stops Here." Joe Biden's FEMA has been AWOL in most of NC. We are two full months after the disaster and they have placed, as of today, a grand total of just 14 trailers in the disaster area. FEMA has now starting blaming the victims. Hundreds are living in tents with no bathroom facilities and suffered through the cold wave and snow Friday. They are begging for other housing. Now FEMA says (see post below), the victims "need to want to come out of the tents"!! FEMA is a terrible organization which needs to be abolished and/or completely reformed. Pointing the finger at high government officials who are cruelly treating disaster victims on my personal blog seems completely appropriate.

I hope President Trump will completely reform FEMA. One of the first things he should do is move its HQ far away from Washington.

As to Congress' disaster appropriations, the Director of FEMA says they have plenty of money until the end of the year. If you read the links you provided, you will find that there is a lot of pork in what was supposed to be a "clean" (single topic) disaster bill. Money for HUD should not be in a disaster bill, et cetera. We have a rapidly growing $36 trillion deficit that will sink the country unless swiftly dealt with. HUD can wait.


I would like to explain how the NTSB works. A very important point: its reports are not unfocused platitudes. Their reports are highly specific and name names of individuals and companies/government agencies.

Let me speak from experience: On August 9, 1997, Amtrak's Southwest Chief derailed near Kingman AZ due to a bridge support weakened by a flash flood. The weakened support caused the track to become misaligned. There were 26 serious injuries.

WeatherData, Inc., the company I founded and owned, was the track-specific storm warning partner for BNSF Railway at the time. We provided a timely and absolutely accurate flash flood warning to the railroad and BNSF began track inspections as a result of our warning.

About two months later, NTSB came to our office, accompanied by the Federal Railroad Administration, loaded for bear.* The NTSB brought their chief railroad investigators as well as their in-house meteorologist. They put me in our conference room and questioned me for about three hours. Our meteorologists and the manager on-duty that night were questioned separately, in our operations center. They asked us to demonstrate our proprietary storm warning software which we had not shown in detail to anyone outside of our organization. We cooperated and did a full demonstration.

You will find the essence of what the NTSB found below. While not attached, they were highly complimentary about our organization and what we did. Had we screwed up, the NTSB absolutely would have said so, named our company, and explained what they believe we did incorrectly. For example, the NTSB was initially critical of the way BNSF handled its bridge inspections. We should want a NTSB that is apolitical, expert and points fingers where/when they should be pointed.

As part of my proposal to create a National Disaster Review Board I want to locate it in the central United States and, by law, to keep it out of the highly political climate change controversies (we already have the U.S. Climate Assessment group for that). And, to answer a question that has been asked outside of StormTrack, I have zero interest in working for the NDRB with the possible exception of as a consultant the first month or two while they are getting organized.



* The NTSB was predisposed to believe we had somehow screwed up because of the some highly unfortunate and inaccurate information provided to them by the then-NOAA Administrator, Conrad Lautenbacher who knew nothing about railroads, weather forecasting or commercial meteorology. He was another in the long-line of "ocean" people who have run NOAA.



*

 

[John Farley]

I have no problem criticizing Biden if the response by FEMA was as bad as you are saying. I have heard contradictory things, such as both Democratic and Republican governors in states affected by Helene who said the response was good. But if what you are saying is accurate, criticism is in order. As to appropriations, in the critical comments in my post, I was talking about the NC state legislature, not Congress. I only brought it up in my previous post because you were critical of the governor, and in NC, at least, there is plenty of fault on the other side of the isle, too. I linked the article about Congress to make the point that Biden was requesting money that will, at least eventually, be needed for relief. As to the deficit, I hope you will be as outspoken as in the post above when Trump does things that blow it up, such as massive tax cuts that go mostly to the wealthiest folks. In general, although deficits have been increased under both parties, the increases have been biggest under Republican presidents. The last president to have a balanced budget was Bill Clinton. And I stand on what I said before: if an NDRB is perceived as being pushed by one party more than the other or as a way of one party making the other look bad, it will be doomed to failure. An NDRB is something I support in principle, but both the board itself and the motives for creating it must be seen as non-political.

 

[Mike Smith]

As to the deficit, I hope you will be as outspoken as in the post above when Trump does things that blow it up, such as massive tax cuts that go mostly to the wealthiest folks. In general, although deficits have been increased under both parties, the increases have been biggest under Republican presidents.

John, we are in agreement. FYI: I am not in favor of further tax cuts. That said, if Trump + Elon + Vivek can make giant cuts to the federal budget, it would be terrific.

If Trump does not deliver huge cuts to federal spending, I will be the first to hold him accountable.

 

[Jamie H]

Joe Biden's FEMA has been AWOL in most of NC. We are two full months after the disaster and they have placed, as of today, a grand total of just 14 trailers in the disaster area. FEMA has now starting blaming the victims. Hundreds are living in tents with no bathroom facilities and suffered through the cold wave and snow Friday. They are begging for other housing. Now FEMA says (see post below), the victims "need to want to come out of the tents"!!

Posting a tweet doesn't make something true.

FEMA has given out $47 million in displacement assistance since Helene hit.

For those living in tents, Slinker said FEMA is routinely and jointly checking on those sites, as well as offering them transitional sheltering assistance.

“If someone wants to come out of their tent, we will find a way [of] working with them. Whether it’s a FEMA solution or whether the state of North Carolina has a solution or one of our voluntary organizations has a solution, we would find that,” he said.

Slinker said that they are finding that some people are wanting to stay in the tents.

"That’s where they’re from. That's where they live. They’re worried about their property and if they’re not on their property, [they're worried about] somebody coming in and looting it or taking things," he said.

FEMA Deputy Assistant Administrator for Logistics Operations Julia Moline said that there are also residents who declined the option to be housed.

“More than 1,000 survivors here in North Carolina have declined housing for various reasons,” Moline said.

Many Helene survivors remain in tents as FEMA pledges ongoing support and solutions

FEMA has given out $47 million in displacement assistance since Helene hit. News 13 continues to ask FEMA questions about the speed of their response.

wlos.com

Look, I am not saying people are not suffering and that the response could not be better - we all can always keep learning and improving in whatever we do. I am just tired of baseless tweets being used as justification for attacking people who are trying to help. Slinker clearly doesn't blame people or say until they leave their tent they can't get help. He says they regularly check on people living in tents, many of whom are doing so because they want to remain on their land, and if people no longer want to remain, that they will support them finding accomodation.

I scrolled through that Twitter page. He's clearly doing great work bringing help to people and keeping people informed of how things are. But he also repeatedly posts things like saying FEMA claims no one is living in tents, but I cannot ever find evidence of this (yet it took me a handful of clicks to find the above quotes from FEMA talking about people living in tents).