150 BILLION to rebuild LA ~ where's the money going to come from

[LaurieFairyCake]

That's HUGE amounts right?

I can't even conceive how much money that is is it more than our gdp?

Well said - that comment you were addressing was crass in the extreme.

Altadena (just one example) isn't rich.

A lot will doubtless come from FEMA (the Federal Emergency Management Agency), and yes insurers will also have to pay up, but they'll probably then say properties must be brought up to current fire "codes" before they'll insure them again

And since some won't be able to afford that it amounts to just taking the risk and possibly losing everything when the next one blows through

or will they move elsewhere as was suggested earlier this morning, cannot remember by whom, will they leave LA and possibly California for a more secure State and build a new Jerusalem/Hollywood on solid ground

it could change a huge amount.

insurance is predicated on spreading risk.

The more you can identify specific risk, the less insurers will insure unless they are mandated to by law. The oncoming AI+data tsunami is going to make insurance obsolete.

The Stern report (sir Nicholas I believe) calculated this some years ago. It pointed out prevention is cheaper than dealing with the aftermath, and much less distressing of course.

You're exactly right, I wonder how it will all pan out? If for example only the best drivers can get insurance how will people get to work, car sales will drop. Lots of things will surely be shaken up?

Americans seem to love building power lines above ground in dry and windy areas. It will cost a lot to put electrics underground and no one wants to pay.

It's difficult to bury power lines in already built up places, particularly in places where buildings and infrastructure are older. Roads, bridges, sewer lines, water, gas lines, general infrastructure all make it difficult to find space for the underground tunnels required. At some point, they all have to connect to above ground lines, so there can still be outages and then repair is more difficult. And I'm not sure if being underground might make them more vulnerable in earthquakes, but it might.

California is very very wealthy state

with extreme wealth inequality

Can’t imagine the location would necessarily be any better. It’s still California. There are wildfires the length of California, and into Oregon, even into Washington State. People need to head further east.

It seems to be the norm to have electrical wires hanging all over the place everywhere though not just in earthquake prone places in the USA . The cost of rebuilding has to be more.
It’s so bizarre I first thought it was loads of phone lines or something when I saw them!
We have plenty of much older infrastructure in the U.K. and it’s done.

@LaurieFairyCake

"I can't even conceive how much money that is is it more than our gdp?"

Well if you dropped a pound (or dollar) into a very very large jar every second then after 11 days you would have a million pounds (or dollars).

If you kept going then it would take 33 years to get to a billion pounds (or dollars).

To get to £150 billion would take nearly 5,000 years or 3000 BC roughly the time when the construction of Stonehenge started.

The UK GDP is $3.3 trillion or $3,300 billion.

Apparently there was already a high number of climate change migrants in that area already. So some will move again.

Radio 4 had a climate migration expert on.
not only did he say many people in the area had already migrated already due to climate, but he also said that essentially there is no truly safe place anymore. We are at risk of flood, draught, extreme heat, fire etc etc. so, he advises people to stay in the place they love if they can.

Isn’t that partly why Hollywood was built where it was? The land was cheap

I’ve never been to America so this may be really stupid for people who know the area. I am aware there’s a huge number of homeless people around there, are they more town central so less affected or has provision been made for them.

@BourbonsAreOverated quite possibly.
Hollywood (as in the movie industry) started there because year round sunshine meant it was easier to makes films all year round but the city just grew and grew with so many suburbs being built.
The American dream of sunshine and neat modern housing 🙁

The areas in question don't have high homeless populations, they are relatively upmarket and the homeless tend to be located more in the tourist areas, downtown, santa monica etc. There are many shelters set up all across the city right now for all the people experiencing issues due to the fires, so that would also cover homeless needs.

I had a feeling the locations / demographics were probably different, I just couldn’t help thinking of these poor people without the ability to evacuate or shelter.

Yep

Radio 4 had a climate migration expert on. not only did he say many people in the area had already migrated already due to climate, but he also said that essentially there is no truly safe place anymore. We are at risk of flood, draught, extreme heat, fire etc etc. so, he advises people to stay in the place they love if they can.

Makes sense & actually the land is what was expensive so people may have no choice but to rebuilt if the land is less desirable.

Fire investigators literally do investigate why a fire happened, what can be learned from it, and how to prevent future fires. That's their actual job.

And of course you can mitigate anthropogenic climate change.

Sorry @SerendipityJane they definitely do!
There are often prosecutions due to fires being started deliberately or due to negligence.
Fires are often used to destroy evidence of another crime so are always of interest.
Do you remember the tragedy of the fire on escalators at King's Cross? Pretty sure that was investigated.

We even know that the great fire of London started in a bakery. (Prepared to be put right on that, that's what I remember being told in primary school).

So yes, fires are investigated.

As always, it's not as simple as it looks. For one thing, housing can't be built over transmission lines. I'm not sure you really grasp how densely populated these areas are - I can think of nowhere in the UK that's similar.

And, yes, it is done in the UK, but not exclusively, here's the ratio:

(Source, Parliament):

There are 4,500 miles of overhead electricity transmission lines in England and Wales. This contrasts with just over 900 miles of underground cables. 'Undergrounding', the replacement of overhead cables with underground cables, is used in limited circumstances, such as in nationally designated landscapes.20 Feb 2024

There's some interesting information about why it's so difficult in the US on this page.

https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6zgo04/eli5_why_arent_power_lines_in_the_us_burried/

As always, it's not as simple as it looks. For one thing, housing can't be built over transmission lines. I'm not sure you really grasp how densely populated these areas are - I can think of nowhere in the UK that's similar

Los Angeles: just over 3100 people per square km

London 5,600 people per square km
Greater Manchester region, just over 4000
West Midlands, just over 4000
West Yorkshire, 3,600

WHAT!?...how is that?