In response to "Hurricanes and Human Choice" by Roger Pielke Jr. (op-ed, Nov. 1): Unfortunately, Prof. Pielke's rational comments on Hurricane Sandy will be once again lost in the easy sound bites of "climate change" and "global warming."

Prof. Pielke is exactly right when he concludes that the proper course for our country is to adopt both "strategic land use"—i.e., zoning laws that limit rebuilding in flood and storm surge areas—and "structural protection," such as flood walls, dikes, waterproof utility lines, etc.

We will be trillions of dollars better off as a country if we ignore misguided financial schemes such as cap and trade and instead fund real-world solutions that can actually work when faced with 13-foot storm surges.

In addition, the federal government needs to put the National Flood Insurance program on a pricing model that makes it self-sustaining.

This will then price the risks of waterfront properties properly and have the owners who enjoy the benefits pay for the actual costs of flood protection.

Why should inland taxpayers fund every hurricane and every rebuilding with no change in behavior? Of course, the states and localities can manage this risk through their zoning laws and building codes, which is exactly as it should be. If New York and New Jersey are taxing those properties, then they should provide infrastructure that is appropriate.

Bruno S. Schmalhofer

Lancaster, Pa.

Prof. Pielke concisely sums up the choices faced by coastal communities as they rebuild following superstorm Sandy. Because the Northeast will always have large numbers of homes, businesses and critical infrastructure directly in the path of such storms, simply restoring things to what they were before will be to squander a unique opportunity to deal responsibly with the risks of coastal living. This will entail better planning and land-use controls, improved construction techniques and a more direct linkage between the cost of insurance and locational choice. "Sharing" these costs among all policyholders obscures the real risk and encourages poor decision-making.

As Prof. Pielke also notes, just reducing greenhouse-gas emissions today will have little impact in our lifetimes on global phenomena already under way. Although we have a responsibility to future generations, draconian measures to constrain carbon in the short term will only succeed in crippling the economic activity necessary to fund what will need to be done to adapt to near- and medium-term threats.

Richard G. Little

University of Southern California

Los Angeles