Hurricane prediction is getting good. Good enough to matter, good enough to warn people about the little things as well as the big things. Good enough to save lives, which is the real yardstick.
I wonder, for someone living on a coastline that stays in the path of a hurricane, what difference do weather satellites and millions of dollars’ worth of meteorological experience make if you don’t use the information they’ve given you?
This is government at its best, doing something that can’t be duplicated by smaller organizations. This is the best use of your tax dollars in spades if you’re a Floridian and in harm’s way. Tomorrow’s hurricane could be aimed at Texas or Alabama or Virginia. Large numbers of the population have built near or on the coastlines. Preserving those investments is in everyone’s interest, even tangentially. Not everyone lives in Tampa, but tens of millions populate both east and west coasts and along the Gulf of Mexico. Those who question the space program find answers here, in the weather satellites that show hurricanes, tornadoes and other weather events.
Here’s where it gets sticky. You look at a population map, and the coasts are densely populated relative to the interior of the country. Change the map to show political party affiliation, and it doesn’t change much. The east and west coasts show overwhelming Democratic population, with the interior mostly Republican. The population most in harm’s way, hurricane-wise, is Democratic. So, if you extend the thinking of what good is information if you don’t use it, should the interior states be paying for the service of hurricane prediction? The truth is, since the parent agency of the National Hurricane Center is the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, it’s all federal, and we’re all paying for it. NOAA is also parent to the National Weather Service, and much (but not all) of the technology that’s aimed at the hurricanes is also used on a daily basis for the weather report for Indiana as well as New York. But, you might say, especially if you live in Kansas and feel safe from the hurricanes, shouldn’t the coasts pay more for NOAA and NHC? What would that be like? A location-based tax hike? Or, more likely, a location-based tax cut in the opposite direction. Granted, Kansas and Oklahoma rely on the NWS for Tornado warnings, but if you really pushed it, you could duplicate the manpower and technology, except the satellites, winding up with a Kansas or Oklahoma Tornado Service if that’s what you thought you needed.
Of course, this whole argument is silly to the average American. The Federal Government does things for all Americans and everyone pays for it the same way. Coastlines are a target for hurricanes, so the NHC exists, and is based in Miami. NOAA is also heavily invested in radar technology all over the tornado alleys of the plains and Midwest. The interstate highway system connects almost everyone and is open to all. Military bases are primarily along the coasts because those are our borders and that’s how we might have been invaded, if that was ever seriously contemplated after the War of 1812 and the Mexican War. We live in the real world where hurricanes don’t care how you vote and the tornadoes don’t either. You don’t try to charge people more for a Federal service because of their location or usage.
It’s during the disaster’s aftermath when I start wondering. It’s tragic, and my Christian heart goes out to them, but is it paying for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) our responsibility when everyone else has to pay for their own insurance? I’ve heard it more than once — that the states use FEMA as a checkbook to pay to clean everything up. Should there be some sort of limit on that? I have to write a check every month for insurance on my house. If I were to cancel it, and my house then burns or is blown away in a tornado, then I would still have to pay a mortgage for a house that no longer existed. Since that’s idiotic behavior, I don’t do that. Who pays the FEMA bill after the hurricane? Our grandchildren and their children. The government is already so debt-ridden that paying it off is not going to happen. That’s when I raise my hand and say that this is at the very least a little unfair. I chose not to settle in Florida because of the higher cost of living there. Saddling taxpayers with refunding FEMA to reimburse those who, in my opinion, acted wrongly, is wrong. My great-grandchildren shouldn’t be given the bill. But, if you finish the analogy and say living in Florida is a mistake, the analogy breaks down. It’s true that FEMA would come in and clean up after a New Madrid earthquake in Missouri that might erase Memphis and devastate a large area around, but that isn’t happening with any regularity.
Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That’s the list. Pursuit. The chase, and its cost, is on you. If living in Florida makes you happy, then you should pay for that pursuit just like I’m paying for my small patch of Mississippi.
- Christopher Reves is a retired pharmacist who lives in Greenwood.
