I do not have links for you, but the last time I checked there was a general consensus among the majority of scientists that given the low percentage of molten lava in the upper chamber and low percentage of molten magma in the lower chamber we would have at least 10K years of low probability of a VEI 8 eruption. An eruption currently may damage part of the park from low basaltic flows and part of the park would be shut down. Should that happen it may impact the park's tourist revenue but the governor is working on diversifying the states income. The risk level of eruption was a decision making factor in my moving so close to Yellowstone.
My only concern is flood plains. I had 8' of water in my basement at the first house I lived in. Technically not in a flood plain but close enough to a river. Never again.
Yeah: common risks across a neighbourhood will usually lead to severe problems trying to claim your cover. And subsequent property resale issues: if insurance is unavailable, a mortgage is unavailable; if a home can't get a mortgage then you can only sell for cash at extreme discounts.
Avoid risky areas unless you can afford to lose your home.
A fair bit of the rich soil in the mid west, west, and north west are from previous volcanic eruptions. Substantial areas have 1 meter or more of high quality soil, which we are squandering by over watering, overly intense agriculture, not preventing erosion, and using too much fertilizer.
Not only is fertilizer very energy intensive to produce, it also contributes to de-oxygenation of lakes, rivers, and the ocean. It's no exaggeration that this might well end civilization on earth. If we lose the oceans (which are already becoming oxygen depleted) it's going to be that much harder to feed everyone.
So I'd consider volcanic ash a pro, not a con. Sure we might lose a single growing season, but could help us for centuries, if properly managed.
Fertilizer isn't just energy intensive, the phosphorus part of it is non renewable. We get it from mining, there are limited deposits, the process of building the deposits happens on geological timescales. My hope is that the running out will be a slow process that comes with a slow price increase so people are eventually incentivized to find alternatives.
Also, the mining process leaves very toxic tailings, but that is true for most mining.
Eventually we'll be mining average crustal rock for phosphorus, at 0.1% concentration, as well as recycling phosphate-containing wastes back to soils. It could be the mineral that sets the minimum global annual mined volume after fossil fuels are done (those currently dominate, ignoring such things as gravel and ground water.)
On the positive side, I believe most phosphate fertilizer is not immediately absorbed by plants, but instead goes into forming relatively insoluble phosphates in the soil (phosphate fertilizer is formed by solubilizing phosphate minerals by treatment with large amounts of acid). This forms a phosphate bank in the soil. Over time, if I understand correctly the residual solubility of these minerals (especially under the influence of organic acids secreted by plant roots) will reduce the need for additional phosphate additions, assuming the soil doesn't erode away.
As far as I remember, the caldera erupting is not an extinction level event (for humans at least)... would be bad for sure, but southern hemisphere would manage I think
We didn't have toilet paper because some people freaked out, you think there's a maintained warehouse of perishable supplies? Or just a big vault of cans somewhere?
No, nations do not have the means to feed their constituents in a nation ending disaster. It's easy to move food from Florida to California in a state sized crises, but the logistics of maintaining a just in case food supply for hundreds of millions distributed around the country? It's a safer bet to assume you'd die in the disaster than to convince people to plan for the future.
Having a supply of something that is suddenly supply constrained is pretty much a literal definition of how to make a profit. No need for a ??? step on that one. Of course you will take a storage cost loss for potentially thousands of years first.
I find this result in researching many things. For instance in nuclear armageddon, the southern hemisphere is relatively ok, temperature and fallout wise. Wondering if I should move there.
pros:
- band aid on global temperatures
- interested in any others commenters may know of
cons:
- several states getting reset
- volcanic ash covering the North American bread basket
- pretty long list really