Foolish to rebuild in extreme climate conditions?

Dear EarthTalk: Isn’t it foolish to rebuild millions of homes in areas ravaged by floods or wildfires given the likelihood that this extreme weather will keep occurring?

Mike Aspen,
Baltimore, MD

In recent years, the continued global prevalence of climate change has increased the number of weather-related catastrophes. In fact, eight of California’s 10 largest wildfires have occurred in the past five years, resulting not only in the loss of lives but also significant property damage. Due to this repeated phenomenon, many climate experts suggest that towns at a high risk of weather-related catastrophes should be abandoned, not rebuilt. Financial, logistical and safety factors indicate that rebuilding in low-hazard areas can be significantly more beneficial than rebuilding in high-hazard areas.

Building new homes in areas at high risk of flood or wildfire contributes up to $3 billion to disaster-related costs annually. At the current rate, experts predict that some 220,000 homes could be built in locations exposed to high wildfire hazards by 2030, making for unprecedented financial loss from property damage. In the case of Greenville, California, for instance, rebuilding is predicted to cost around $1 billion, yet most residents do not plan to return, largely because experts think the area could be destroyed again in the next 30 years. “Governments can save billions of dollars each year and keep people safe from disasters by building just a small percentage of new homes away from the highest-risk areas for wildfires and floods,” says Ryan Ness, Director of Adaptation at the Canadian Climate Institute.

To make matters worse, the use of fire-resistant material to rebuild is costly and thus not required by law, leading to increased risk. Though urban planners stress the need for fire-resistant design, officials often push for rapid reconstruction, thus waiving environmental permits and zoning regulations.

Beyond the lack of fire-resistant material, the location of rebuilt homes increases the dangers that residents face as the frequency of weather-related disasters such as droughts, floods and wildfires has increased fivefold since 1970 and have led to the deaths of 2 million people globally. Furthermore, wildfires do not just destroy homes—they degrade air quality, water supply and forests, causing permanent detrimental effects.

The Canadian Climate Institute recommends building housing and infrastructure in low-hazard areas, moving away from high-risk zones. Another recommendation is to create, maintain, and make publicly available maps that show where hazardous areas are to warn potential residents. Moreover, the Institute also suggested reforming disaster assistance programs as a way to deter risky urban development.

Dear EarthTalk: How long have scientists known about global warming and its potential catastrophic effects? Was there much effort to suppress this information?

T.D.V., Omaha, NE

The earth’s average surface temperature has risen about two degrees Fahrenheit since the late 19th century, with more record high temperature events increasing and cold weather events decreasing. Contrary to popular assumptions, evidence by scientists for these climate changes on our planet have been present since the 1950s, and issues could have been regulated sooner. However, efforts were put in place to suppress this information to the public.

Fossil fuel corporations in the decades following the mid-20th century were troubled by the newfound climate evidence and its ability to hurt their profits, so some of them alluded to the idea that the newfound evidence was inconclusive. “If people think the science is unsettled, then they tend not to be motivated to act on the problem ...I wouldn’t be motivated to act on a problem that I wasn’t really sure was a real thing,” Harvard professor Naomi Oreskes told Yale Climate Connections. This inconclusiveness, however, proved to be false: Results were already fully conclusive by the mid-1970s.

Exxon (now Exxon/Mobil) stands out for aggressively trying to de-bunk the effects of climate change since 1977, and was investigated by InsideClimateNews, revealing a harrowing account of the company spreading misinformation. In the 1980s, conscious that their products might not stay as profitable once the harmful effects were widely known, Exxon founded the Climate Coalition to question the scientific basis of distress due to climate change. The effort was so impactful that it helped stop the U.S. passing of the Kyoto Protocol in 1998.

In March 1974, past U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger announced in two speeches at the United Nations General Assembly and World Food Conference with CIA evidence stating that, “Leaders in climatology and economics agree that climate change is occurring...it has already caused major economic problems all around the world.”

Overall, climate change was one of many issues shrouded due to motivations of profit over moral standing. Like tobacco is to lungs, the harm done to mother earth was suppressed in favor of corporate greed.

EarthTalk® is produced by Roddy Scheer & Doug Moss for the 501(c)3 nonprofit EarthTalk.