David Roberson <[email protected]> wrote:
> For instance, everyone is convinced that one day soon a major earthquake > will hit the west coast of the US. If we applied the same logic to this > possibility as to the global warming issue, then it is time to force > everyone to move out of that area or rebuild every house that is not > capable of withstanding a large earthquake. I doubt that it would cost > more to fix the earthquake problem than what you propose for global warming. > You are wrong about that particular example. This is what they are doing in Japan. Older public buildings such as schools and offices are all being retrofitted to withstand earthquakes much better than they used to. That is a legal requirement. I do not think individual houses have to be fixed, but many homeowners are paying for similar upgrades, such as improved foundations and X-shaped beams on outside walls. To me, this seems like a prudent thing to do in a country with so many earthquakes. It is good way to spend money. They are also buying out people in some areas in the north where the land fell after the 2011 earthquake and the ocean is turning the land into seawater marshes. They are not forcing people but entire towns that were destroyed by the tsunami are being permanently abandoned. In the U.S. there are entire on Mississippi that have been razed and rebuilt on higher ground. - Jed
