Residents of Northern California, and especially those within the Paradise community, have begun to find hope amidst the burnt remains of their homes, since the rain had helped contain the Camp Fire to up to 95 percent. There have been 84 confirmed deaths and more than 14,000 homes burnt down. Since the town of Paradise was the most greatly affected, many wonder if people will ever return to what is now a barren landscape. Disaster workers continue their search for human remains, but the rain [makes] the search for the human remains and the recovery effort more difficult because [it gets] really muddy and sloppy up there," according to Jim Mackensen of the US Forest Service.
Organizations helped to provide Thanksgiving meals to victims of the Camp Fire. Federal funds are expected to cover 75 percent of Paradise's recovery costs. Should the federal government find other ways to assist in the aftermath of this state tragedy, and if so, how? Is it fair that organizations, such as Red Cross, must take on the most responsibility in providing food and shelter to victims of the wildfires? Is it fair that victims without insurance are expected to create a crowdfunding page in order to finance the rebuilding of their homes?
https://www.npr.org/2018/11/22/670249463/with-one-california-fire-contained-survivors-find-rays-of-hope-amid-the-horror
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46300309
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46277108
15 comments:
The rationale behind insurance is that you pay a premium (monthly, yearly, etc.) to an insurance company so that if whatever you insured against (disasters, death, car accident etc.) occurs, you don't pay the full price of the damage. The insurance company then takes the brunt of the financial burden. Insurance companies are able to pay these individual large sums because they have a large consumer base who pay those premiums. While homeowners may already be struggling with their mortgages and therefore find it a burden to pay natural disaster home insurance, it wouldn't be fair to insurance companies and to those homeowners who do in fact pay premiums if insurance companies were required to pay for the damage of those uninsured. Perhaps the government can give partial aids to those uninsured, but a more effective strategy might be to raise natural disaster insurance awareness for homeowners.
I think that in addition to raising natural disaster insurance awareness for homeowners, we need to focus on stopping climate change, regardless of how many uneducated people will continue to claim it's not real. It is real, and it's destroying our country. Out-of-control forest fires, destructive hurricanes -- these are more frequent and disastrous than ever. The logical thing to do is invest money into renewable energy and invest time and effort into international efforts to reduce emissions like the Paris Climate Agreement. The payoff is huge -- not just in human lives, but in the creation of new jobs.
As was said in the post, the Federal government is expected to cover 75% of recovery costs. I would assume that the remaining 25% is supposed to be picked up by insurance companies and other organizations. One of the questions asked was weather or not it was fair that people without insurance were forced to make a crowd funding page, and while it is unfortunate I do not believe it is unfair. The point of insurance is people pay a set amount every month or year, and in exchange, in the event of an accident, or disaster, that insurance company will essentially provide a return on investment to help whoever it may be rebuild whatever is lost. While it is unfortunate that some people were forced to made a crowdfunding page due to their lack of insurance, or inability to afford it, I do not believe the federal government should be forced to act as their "insurance". However, I think the saving grace of the "insurance-less" population of paradise, is that people will see their struggle and from what I have read, a lot of money has been raised to be put back into the families and community, until people are able to find jobs once again, and can hopefully either rebuild or find suitable shelter elsewhere.
Those who live in California have the unfortunate reality that the state does tend to catch on fire a lot. With the amount of times this occurs increasing do to climate change, those people who live in areas that are susceptible to fire damage run an even higher risk. It is unfavorable to say, but I believe that the government should not be required to somehow raise or guarantee money to those individuals who were impacted by the fire in any sort of personal insurance type of way. The government should generate some funding for the cleanup acts and help to rebuild but as far as the personal insurance claims of the individuals they should not be required to help. Red cross and those charitable organizations are meant for the individual relief and that is how the process works and should continue to work. It is undoubtably unfortunate for those who do not have insurance but the fact that crowd funding is even an option is, in itself, a benefit to them.
I believe that where you live in the United States should not have to effect the amount of insurance you need to pay for equal financial security. Other states also have fire insurance, but due to the prevalence of fire Californians would have to pay more often into protecting themselves against fire damages, which is wrong - it is not their fault they are living in a fire prone area and the government ought to contribute to everyone paying higher fire insurance prices in California and other fire prone regions of the United States to make the amount spent on insurance on par with the national average. I argued the same thing with flood insurance in Florida and Texas after the hurricanes. Although this may not be practical to implement, the most fair process possible would be to eliminate all natural disaster insurance - wildfire, flood, earthquake, tornado, etc. and raise the general population tax slightly to form a national disaster fund, which would essentially take the role of insurance, except that everyone pays into it equally.
I think the best way that the federal government can assist with natural disasters like hurricanes and fires is prevention through climate change regulation. It's clear that as the climate gets worse, natural disasters are becoming more common and more severe, so paying reparations will do little if the next natural disaster is around the corner. I think the first thing the government should focus on is regulating carbon emissions, subsidizing environmentally friendly forms of energy like solar and wind energy, and participating in international agreements to help fight climate change. If the climate gets better, less of these disasters will happen and we will spend less money trying to repair the damage.
With the effects of climate change California is highly susceptible to wildfires in addition to earthquakes. Since this is somewhat of a new development I agree that the federal government should be finding ways to help California get through the season because most people would not have thought it necessary to get fire insurance. I think that the government should expand on FEMA in order to help out with the inevitable increase in natural disasters. In regards to groups like Red Cross, it is their function to help out with relief in disaster and I don't think that should be influenced by government actions so it only makes sense for them to keep doing what they're doing. Ultimately, however, it all comes down to climate change. It is a reasonably simple idea to understand if some people took the time to think logically about it and the repercussions will affect us all both environmentally and economically. It is advisable that the government solves this root issue in order to prevent double the costs in the future.
https://www.fema.gov/media-library/assets/documents/31789
According to FEMA, although insurance is the main source of money to get people back on their feet after a disaster, many expenses are not covered by insurance. FEMA will provide disaster assistance to anyone who qualifies, even those without insurance. However, if a person maximizes all the awards they can get from FEMA, California's State Supplemental Grant Program can provide additional assistance on eligible items such as medical care, housing repair, clothing and other necessities. Therefore, although limited, there are programs to help those without insurance. Additionally, as climate change continues to increase the risk and severity of wildfires, I think it is essential that our wildfire agencies are in constant communication and adapting to the new threats. I believe that the CA Strategic Fire Plan should be constantly evaluated to better prevent and respond to wildfires, as well as develop new strategies to address wildfires. In addition, as much of California is federal land, California's firefighting agencies should stay up to date with federal fire policies issued by the Bureau of Land Management and the US Forest Service.
Climate change is real part1237464719. But hey we should just rake the forests. I think we should reduce carbon emissions and overall coal production. Our carbon footprint is significant compared to the rest of the countries in the world. Federal funding should take care of natural disasters in my opinion. California has been struggling for a while, from drought to wildfires. Money can help take care of these things after they've caused havoc, but the important is preventing it from happening.
Climate change is real part1237464719. But hey we should just rake the forests. I think we should reduce carbon emissions and overall coal production. Our carbon footprint is significant compared to the rest of the countries in the world. Federal funding should take care of natural disasters in my opinion. California has been struggling for a while, from drought to wildfires. Money can help take care of these things after they've caused havoc, but the important is preventing it from happening.
I believe that we should stop the climate change and do whatever we can to help those who are in need of shelter and food. I think its a good idea that only one organization, like the Red Cross should be in charge because if too many are involved more money will be lost and it will be too chaotic. However what we should do for the families who don’t have insurance and have lost homes the government should be able to provide that kind of coverage, because if not they would remain homeless for something that isn’t there fault and is more of the government who should work hard to prevent things like this from happening. In my opinion i think it is a good idea to spend a lot now and prevent climate change and its results of natural disasters now rather than fixing every problem one by one, step by step, because this will only lead to the an add up of currency in the future.
The federal government shouldn't have to find other ways to assist in the aftermath of this state tragedy, since there isn't much that the federal government can do to help the uninsured without accumulating more debt, something that it already has a lot of. However, the state government and coordinated volunteer efforts can definitely help those affected by this disaster, and I'm sure that people have become more aware of the possible necessity of buying fire insurance now. It might not be seen as fair for organizations such as Red Cross to take on the most responsibility in providing food and shelter to victims, but such organizations were formed for the sake of providing disaster relief and have accumulated the resources to do so. Meanwhile, the federal, state, and even city governments generally focus on a wider range of issues and need to keep themselves running even when such disasters occur, so sometimes it is necessary. It also might not be fair that victims without insurance have to shoulder the costs of the rebuilding of their homes alone, but it is true that the option of getting insurance has been open to them before this disaster struck, and it isn't feasible for the government or organizations to provide for everything for those unfortunate enough to end up with this problem.
It is good that the federal government is doing what it can for the civilians in California affected by the wildfires, but it understandably can't provide for every single person and shouldn't have to. While the federal and state governments should cover the large-scale projects for the area such as rebuilding, the Red Cross and other charitable organizations should be the ones to help victims with their individual needs. Above all, the devastating effects of the fires should be a warning to California residents to be better prepared for wildfires in the future.
An interesting part of all the fires in California is that much of fires have historically been on federal land. (https://www.redding.com/story/news/2018/11/11/trump-blames-state-fires-but-many-worst-federal-land/1971196002) When Trump tweeted out that "Billions of dollars are given each year, with so many lives lost, all because of gross mismanagement of the forests. Remedy now, or no more Fed payments!" it seemed a little weird that he would threaten to withhold funds for a state that were supposedly being used to mismanage federal land. However, it is a valid statement to say that climate change is causing new situations where California has the face the reality of more frequent forest fires and new policy is needed to deal with this.
While federal government help is useful, it is very limited for all the citizens affected by the wildfires. I think that they could help fund certain organizations like the Red Cross in providing necessities for the people affected. Help provide shelter and homes for more, however, there is not much the federal government can do to help each and every single victim that has been affected by the fires.
Post a Comment