6 ms·

What pisses me off is these homeowners are going to expect the federal government to bail them out when their property gets destroyed by climate change. I don'

What pisses me off is these homeowners are going to expect the federal government to bail them out when their property gets destroyed by climate change. I don't mind helping out areas impacted by tornados hurricanes etc but not ignorance.

emodendroket 9y ago
The government has actively encouraged building on buying in these areas for decades. If we can bail out Goldman Sachs and AIG I think maybe we can find it in our hearts to help homeowners mitigate their losses.
- Atheros 9y ago
  The banks paid back the bailout money. These homeowners won't.
- fooey 9y ago
  Here's my prediction. There's a scare and values plummet, so the banks and investors end up with all the houses, who then get bailed out at full "market price" by the very US taxpayers who just lost their homes.
  - emodendroket 9y ago
    Ugh. Yeah that sounds totally likely.
aqme28 9y ago
But most of these houses will be destroyed by hurricanes, not slow creeping gradual flooding.
SomewhatLikely 9y ago
Is it really significantly different than helping out after a hurricane? And unlike a hurricane, the entire country is responsible for creating this problem.
- riskable 9y ago
  It is different. The assumption with hurricanes is that after the storm is gone things can get back to normal if people get some assistance. With climate change things will never "get back to normal" so investing time and money into these places is unwise. It is better to tell people to move now before it's too late. My idea to solve the problem is this: Legally prevent U.S. banks from granting loans to areas that are likely to become unlivable because of climate change in the next 30 years. That way when the problematic areas do become unlivable only foreign banks and rich folks that could purchase homes with cash will have to deal with the economic consequences of their poor decisions.
DubiousPusher 9y ago
So someone who bought a home in 1980 before most people even knew what greenhouse gasses were deserves to lose massive net worth? Because if some ignoramus doesn't come along and buy today, that's what's going to happen to them. We as a society have externalized the costs of carbon emission. That cost is going to fall on someone, whether it's a person who couldn't have known or someone who should've known better it hardly seems reasonably to expect a small group of people to bear the blow.
justinhensley 9y ago
That very well may happen. But in the article posted, it specifically mentions Miami asking for federal money to buyout areas at risk for flooding. The federal government said no.
njharman 9y ago
What pisses me off is the small-government, lower my taxes, SUV driving, Tump voting, homeowners expect government bailouts for the problems they caused/ignored/actively fought against any mitigation of.
- Arizhel 9y ago
  I agree completely. We're talking about Florida here: that state reliably votes for politicians who say that climate change is a "hoax". Let them deal with the flooding on their own.
  - JBReefer 9y ago
    I'm anti-homeowner bailout, but damn, you really think that people that disagree with you politically deserve all that? People, no matter their views, matter.
    - epistasis 9y ago
      Not sure how you get from what he said to people not mattering.
    - Arizhel 9y ago
      I never said they "don't matter", just that they shouldn't be bailed out for their dumb choices. They do not believe that there's any global climate change. They think it's a hoax. They vote for leaders (for the rest of us) who push these anti-scientific views. Then they insist on building expensive houses right on the water. Tell me why I should have any sympathy for them, or why I should help them when their expensive homes get flooded.
      - vermontdevil 9y ago
        Yep. See this: http://www.miamiherald.com/news/state/florida/article13576691.html http://www.miamiherald.com/news/state/florida/article1357669...
      - 9y ago
ergothus 9y ago
While I generally agree with your gut feelings, my logic says otherwise. * some people bought their homes 30+ years ago, when the timeline and exact impact wasn't known (and there was reporting of a potential Ice Age coming, despite that not accurately reflecting the science of the time) * other people have bought since then, but have seen their own politicians telling them it's "in dispute", and the general media just says some people say it's in dispute and others say it isn't. * our school systems do a terrible job of teaching fundamentals, like "what is a theory" to science. Heck, while I believe in climate change and human-caused climate change, including the unprecedented scale, when I've tried to find good answers to skeptical questions...it's hard for the lay person to find. Things like "volcanos put out more CO2 in a year than mankind ever" are apparently false, but it's a lot easier to find that claim than the reverse (and much easier to find the refutation now than even 5 years ago). "Satellite data shows no global warming" is one I still don't quite follow - I get that they tend to pick a range from the last El Nino peak, but I don't know how to reconcile how they can say each successive year has been "the hottest on record" (including beating the previous year) but "satellite temperature measurements have been flat in recent years". If I - a reasonably well-educated person familiar with online research and with ample time on my hands - can't find decisive answers, how can I expect that everyone has? Ultimately, I decide to trust in the overall body of scientists, but that's pretty subjective, and I can't fault the average person that understands science only from mass media for deciding NOT to trust the body of scientists.
- maxerickson 9y ago
  It's possible to provide assistance without that assistance reaching the level of reimbursing people for the full value of lost homes.
- vermontdevil 9y ago
  Or increase the flood insurance premiums to ensure the homeowners are aware of the risks and are contributing to it. Currently Florida has one of the lowest premiums for federally supported flood insurance. Ridiculous. See this from the article: The National Flood Insurance Program is up for reauthorization this year; fiscal conservatives have said they want to use that opportunity to reduce the program’s subsidies, so that people are paying something closer to the full cost of their risk. A cut in federal subsidies would particularly hurt Florida, which despite its exposure pays the lowest average flood-insurance premiums in the country, according to FEMA data.
philipkglass 9y ago
Tornadoes and hurricanes are actually a lot more foreseeable as risks than the effects of AGW. 100 years ago everyone in Florida already knew about hurricanes. It would be disruptive to just yank out support for whole regions. But I feel like you shouldn't get to rebuild structures with government support unless the new ones are no longer vulnerable. Whatever gets rebuilt should be able to survive another event of the kind that destroyed it, plus a safety margin. That may mean that you just can't build the same kinds of structures all across the US. Depending on locale your home might need to survive earthquake, tornado, hurricane, whatever. It might mean that it looks weird and costs more. But being able to build "normal-looking" homes for "normal" prices is a terrible deal if it means that the rest of the country has to pay for reconstruction after nature predictably ruins them.

emodendroket 9y ago

The government has actively encouraged building on buying in these areas for decades. If we can bail out Goldman Sachs and AIG I think maybe we can find it in our hearts to help homeowners mitigate their losses.

Atheros 9y ago
The banks paid back the bailout money. These homeowners won't.
fooey 9y ago
Here's my prediction. There's a scare and values plummet, so the banks and investors end up with all the houses, who then get bailed out at full "market price" by the very US taxpayers who just lost their homes.
- emodendroket 9y ago
  Ugh. Yeah that sounds totally likely.

aqme28 9y ago

But most of these houses will be destroyed by hurricanes, not slow creeping gradual flooding.

SomewhatLikely 9y ago

Is it really significantly different than helping out after a hurricane? And unlike a hurricane, the entire country is responsible for creating this problem.

riskable 9y ago
It is different. The assumption with hurricanes is that after the storm is gone things can get back to normal if people get some assistance. With climate change things will never "get back to normal" so investing time and money into these places is unwise. It is better to tell people to move now before it's too late. My idea to solve the problem is this: Legally prevent U.S. banks from granting loans to areas that are likely to become unlivable because of climate change in the next 30 years. That way when the problematic areas do become unlivable only foreign banks and rich folks that could purchase homes with cash will have to deal with the economic consequences of their poor decisions.

DubiousPusher 9y ago

So someone who bought a home in 1980 before most people even knew what greenhouse gasses were deserves to lose massive net worth? Because if some ignoramus doesn't come along and buy today, that's what's going to happen to them. We as a society have externalized the costs of carbon emission. That cost is going to fall on someone, whether it's a person who couldn't have known or someone who should've known better it hardly seems reasonably to expect a small group of people to bear the blow.

justinhensley 9y ago

That very well may happen. But in the article posted, it specifically mentions Miami asking for federal money to buyout areas at risk for flooding. The federal government said no.

njharman 9y ago

What pisses me off is the small-government, lower my taxes, SUV driving, Tump voting, homeowners expect government bailouts for the problems they caused/ignored/actively fought against any mitigation of.

Arizhel 9y ago
I agree completely. We're talking about Florida here: that state reliably votes for politicians who say that climate change is a "hoax". Let them deal with the flooding on their own.
- JBReefer 9y ago
  I'm anti-homeowner bailout, but damn, you really think that people that disagree with you politically deserve all that? People, no matter their views, matter.
  - epistasis 9y ago
    Not sure how you get from what he said to people not mattering.
  - Arizhel 9y ago
    I never said they "don't matter", just that they shouldn't be bailed out for their dumb choices. They do not believe that there's any global climate change. They think it's a hoax. They vote for leaders (for the rest of us) who push these anti-scientific views. Then they insist on building expensive houses right on the water. Tell me why I should have any sympathy for them, or why I should help them when their expensive homes get flooded.
    - vermontdevil 9y ago
      Yep. See this: http://www.miamiherald.com/news/state/florida/article13576691.html http://www.miamiherald.com/news/state/florida/article1357669...
    - 9y ago

ergothus 9y ago

While I generally agree with your gut feelings, my logic says otherwise. * some people bought their homes 30+ years ago, when the timeline and exact impact wasn't known (and there was reporting of a potential Ice Age coming, despite that not accurately reflecting the science of the time) * other people have bought since then, but have seen their own politicians telling them it's "in dispute", and the general media just says some people say it's in dispute and others say it isn't. * our school systems do a terrible job of teaching fundamentals, like "what is a theory" to science. Heck, while I believe in climate change and human-caused climate change, including the unprecedented scale, when I've tried to find good answers to skeptical questions...it's hard for the lay person to find. Things like "volcanos put out more CO2 in a year than mankind ever" are apparently false, but it's a lot easier to find that claim than the reverse (and much easier to find the refutation now than even 5 years ago). "Satellite data shows no global warming" is one I still don't quite follow - I get that they tend to pick a range from the last El Nino peak, but I don't know how to reconcile how they can say each successive year has been "the hottest on record" (including beating the previous year) but "satellite temperature measurements have been flat in recent years". If I - a reasonably well-educated person familiar with online research and with ample time on my hands - can't find decisive answers, how can I expect that everyone has? Ultimately, I decide to trust in the overall body of scientists, but that's pretty subjective, and I can't fault the average person that understands science only from mass media for deciding NOT to trust the body of scientists.

maxerickson 9y ago
It's possible to provide assistance without that assistance reaching the level of reimbursing people for the full value of lost homes.
vermontdevil 9y ago
Or increase the flood insurance premiums to ensure the homeowners are aware of the risks and are contributing to it. Currently Florida has one of the lowest premiums for federally supported flood insurance. Ridiculous. See this from the article: The National Flood Insurance Program is up for reauthorization this year; fiscal conservatives have said they want to use that opportunity to reduce the program’s subsidies, so that people are paying something closer to the full cost of their risk. A cut in federal subsidies would particularly hurt Florida, which despite its exposure pays the lowest average flood-insurance premiums in the country, according to FEMA data.

philipkglass 9y ago

Tornadoes and hurricanes are actually a lot more foreseeable as risks than the effects of AGW. 100 years ago everyone in Florida already knew about hurricanes. It would be disruptive to just yank out support for whole regions. But I feel like you shouldn't get to rebuild structures with government support unless the new ones are no longer vulnerable. Whatever gets rebuilt should be able to survive another event of the kind that destroyed it, plus a safety margin. That may mean that you just can't build the same kinds of structures all across the US. Depending on locale your home might need to survive earthquake, tornado, hurricane, whatever. It might mean that it looks weird and costs more. But being able to build "normal-looking" homes for "normal" prices is a terrible deal if it means that the rest of the country has to pay for reconstruction after nature predictably ruins them.