Most of the noise in cities does come from cars. You're right that cities will never be <35 dBA, but most rural areas are not usually that quiet either. For example, even slight wind will cause ambient noise in wilderness to 40-60 dBA. Cities without cars can easily average <55 dBA. See this video [1] or this research [2] for sources.
Earth science PhD here - you're pretty much right, but Atlantic oceans can still be bad.
Most earthquakes are caused by tectonic plate motion.
The biggest earthquakes (>M9, e.g. Japan 2011) occur at subduction zones where an oceanic plate collides with and dives underneath a continental plate. Japan, South&Central America, New Zealand, and Malaysia are the biggest and most common examples. Two plates pushing against each other allow large energy to build, which can be released suddenly and catastrophically.
Large earthquakes (M7-8, e.g. San Francisco 1906) can still occur along strike-slip faults, where two plates are sliding past each other. However, because the plates are sliding, these faults usually cannot build enough energy for extremely large earthquakes (>M9.0). San Andreas fault in California is the most well known strike-slip fault and runs through both LA and SF, and has caused plenty of damage partly because the faults run directly through population centers.
The Azores lie on top of strike slip and expanding (normal) faults. Thus, they are not likely to experience the largest earthquakes (M9), but could be hit but a M8 which can still be devastating, especially if buildings are not constructed with earthquake safety in mind.
In addition, there is a high risk of any earthquake triggering an underwater landslide since the Azores are a mid-ocean island chain. This could cause a tsunami which could damage far-away locations.
As far as lava/ash risk -- generally the biggest risk is from explosive eruptions forming into a fast-moving cloud of ash and mud called a "pyroclastic flow" or "lahar". [1] These can travel faster than a car and blanket everything in their path in a boiling, burning cloud. Think Mt St Helens or Mt Vesuvius. However, only certain types of volcanoes are at risk of this type of eruption -- Hawaii for example erupts as smooth, oozing lava flows -- and I don't know if the Azores are at risk for this kind of eruption.
Notes on safety:
For earthquake safety, the best cure is preparation. Most injuries and death occur from items falling on top of people during the shaking. Secure shelves and items on walls. Avoid living in structures on poles as they are prone to collapse (e.g. apartments with parking garage on first level). Avoid living in marshy areas or seaside land constructed with landfill (due to liquefaction) or on steep slopes (due to landslides).
For tsunamis, if there is a warning, head to high ground further inland if possible, or move to upper stories of the roof of structures.
Very good point about farming and productivity. I believe US manufacturing didn't decline in output either, just increased productivity and declined in workers. Although essentially all the growth in new manufacturing went overseas I believe.
I've seen other strong studies showing that government cost per-capita is _much_ high for suburban and rural areas. Intuitively this makes sense when considering infrastructure - more people use a road in a city than in a suburb, and vastly more than in a rural area. Yet those roads cost a similar amount to construct and maintain.
One of the best analyses I've seen is from Strong Towns - a blog devoted to building livable and financially solvent towns and cities. In their deep-dive analysis of Lafayette, LA, they find that the only part of the region generating enough revenue to sustain the maintenance costs was the dense old-town city center. [1] Most of the costs examined come from infrastructure (roads, power, gas, water), not social services.
I imagine the calculus is different when considering federal government expenditures (as you point out), as the majority of federal expenditures are towards social security, medicare, medicaid, and the military. However, there is significant federal subsidies to farmers as you point out, and huge sums of cash for highways, power, and other infrastructure.
I think we agree on most practical aspects of this situation.
We both agree that this situation of expensive grid hookups in rural areas is simple economics. We both agree to make it affordable would require a subsidy. Rural residents seem to want this cheaper/subsidized, but several in the article are also happy to build their own infrastructure instead. I think that's great!
It seems where we may have disagreement is around wider political issues regarding perspectives on government, media, and culture. Specifically, I think we have slightly different perspectives and theories about the mindset and views of conservative rural residents.
That's totally fine! However, it feels a bit like we're both talking in circles without a clear topic / thesis or enough personal experience to provide strong insights.
I grew up in a very rural, conservative small town and still talk to many people there.
They loved the $1500 checks in their accounts. They see rising cost of housing and several have suggested government subsidies for homes or a massive government program to build more houses.
I agree people want purpose, but I don't think rural conservatives are actually against government programs or subsidies, as long as it benefits them and is not presented from the perspective of modern culture war and media. They don't like "handouts" but they DO like roads, water, electricity, farm insurance, military bases, post offices, etc.
I understand your point - farming, mining, and manufacturing are all essential economic activities that have largely shifted overseas post-WWII. This has hollowed the rural economy in US and other western nations while also making goods vastly cheaper and bringing billions out of poverty worldwide.
In my mind I am very willing to help and support many parts of a community and society. We need all sorts of work to build a society - finance, tech, manufacturing, non-remunerated work (raising children, etc).
I’m in favor of gov investment in infrastructure as I believe it helps all of us grow. Same with healthcare and education.
But it is _very_ important to make these benefits transparent and clear, otherwise we end up in the situation we now face, where the same voters that would be most helped by these investments argue against such programs and are strongly anti-government (see Trump, Brexit, Jan 6, etc).
I agree that many people move away from cities to "escape", but it's important to recognize that for many decades now, rural residents have received significantly more benefits from the government than they pay in taxes, while urban dwellers pay more in taxes than they receive in benefits. Essentially, those who live in cities are living within their means and subsidizing those who live in rural areas.
From an economic perspective, rural areas are still highly connected and interdependent - think roads, infrastructure, food, water, electricity, internet, transport networks. Those who move from cities to rural areas to "escape the demands of the high-interdependency core" simply shift from majority "producing" to majority "receiving" benefits from our interdependent society.
I'm a huge fan of rural living, but it is expensive. We as a society have decided to subsidize it to various degrees. I'm OK with this, but also think cheap, individual solutions should be used when feasible. For example, sewer lines are very expensive in rural areas, so most houses maintain their own septic tank. Rural houses often use a Propane tank they refill rather than a gas line hookup. They often have their own well for water. Thus, the high grid-connection fees in the article make sense, as rural residents can just build their own off-grid electricity production.
1.41m by 2100 is the projection for “Grand Isle”, the closest location in the model to New Orleans. Sea level and sea level rise is not uniform worldwide, so local predictions are very important. This is also true for temperature and other climate change impacts, and is one of the biggest improvements in the latest IPCC report.
It looks like all model scenarios agree fairly well out to 2100 both in the global projections and in projections for Grand Isle. Thus, I’d wager good money that New Orleans will see 1-2m sea level rise by 2100 regardless of any climate mitigations we perform.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTV-wwszGw8 [2] https://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/dfu/Backgroun...