Adaped from Robert Whitcomb’s “Digital Diary,’’ in GoLocal24.com

The Boston Guardian ran stories the other week on the minor earthquake (3.6 on the Richter scale) that shook southeastern Massachusetts on Nov. 8 and on the plywood business in Boston. The latter suddenly surged last summer as street-side businesses prepared for vandalism in the social disorders/protests that erupted then.  Some of the plywood went up again in anticipation of a possible Trump re-election. Most of the plywood has since been taken down.

Both cases are examples of how hard it is to decide when and how much to spend to mitigate or prevent damage from rare events, such as destructive civil disorder in cities, or  very rare events such as a powerful earthquake in New England. Boston’s last big quake was way back in 1755, when a tremor estimated to have been higher than 6 on the Richter scale did much damage in eastern Massachusetts. The epicenter was off Cape Ann, so it’s usually called the Cape Ann Earthquake. It was the strongest one recorded so far in Massachusetts.

Naturally, most New Englanders don’t want to spend money on quake insurance, though depending on what kind and size of property you have, it might make sense.

Those threats are hard enough to get people’s attention. It’s much, much harder when it comes to global warming, whose severe effects might not  be noticeable to most people for several decades. Global warming may seem both too vague and big to grasp. It recalls Stalin’s remark that “one death is a tragedy, a million deaths a statistic.’’ (No wonder he didn’t mind ordering the murder of millions.)