3 ms·

They should just go live in that one place where there are no natural disasters or risks from climate change.

by emodendroket 3y ago

the_sleaze9 3y ago
I understand the sarcasm, but gun-to-your-head what do you think that one place would most likely be?
- jedberg 3y ago
  Atlanta. Not a lot of natural disasters there, far enough from the ocean to be insulated from rising sea levels as well as hurricanes. Too warm for ice storms.
  - emodendroket 3y ago
    Hot and humid could be undesirable depending on how much temperatures rise.
- emodendroket 3y ago
  I recall reading several years ago that a climate researcher had chosen the Midwest, which intuitively makes a certain sense — not very hot, no ocean coasts to worry about, lots of fresh water.
  - gensym 3y ago
    As someone from the midwest, I can confirm that midwesterners tend to be pretty smug about climate change. ("It'll make our winters milder!" is a common sentiment.). They probably shouldn't be, though: https://www.chicagomag.com/city-life/june-2017/climate-change-could-make-illinois-dangerously-hot/ https://www.chicagomag.com/city-life/june-2017/climate-chang...
- Schiendelman 3y ago
  The Olympic coast. The smoke tends not to hit, there’s lots of fresh water, and temperatures are mediated by latitude and ocean effect.
  - emodendroket 3y ago
    I wouldn’t be so sure. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/07/20/the-really-big-one https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/07/20/the-really-big...
    - Schiendelman 3y ago
      That piece is so so bad. There were several “wow that’s ridiculous” rebuttals after it was published. Some about how Seattle is really far away from the coast (and therefore would see far less shaking than implied), some about how tsunamis will dissipate in the Sound, some about how we’ve been building everything to survive this for decades. My ex-partner’s a geologist. She hated that article.
      - emodendroket 3y ago
        Not sure how convincing I find assurances that an ex-girlfriend of yours and some other, unnamed people disagreed with it. Either way, it’s a seismically active area, there are volcanoes, there are landslides, and the PNW has not been untouched by wildfires.
mdorazio 3y ago
I think you misunderstood my intent. People should live wherever they want, but should bear the risk-associated cost of that choice. Which is not what happens today - State Farm is exiting the market because CA artificially limited premiums, and Florida keeps bailing out homeowners and insurance companies when hurricanes wreck the coast.
- emodendroket 3y ago
  No, I understood your intent, but I don't really agree that it makes sense to individualize risk like this so that one person gets completely ruined by freak occurrences. Maybe if we're talking about particularly high-risk zones, but the entire state of California, inhabited by 44mn people and spanning more than half the West Coast, should be left out to dry?
  - meragrin_ 3y ago
    > No, I understood your intent Seems to me you did not. > I don't really agree that it makes sense to individualize risk like this so that one person gets completely ruined by freak occurrences. An earthquake in California is not a freak occurrence. A fire in a fire prone area is not a freak occurrence. A hurricane in Florida is not a freak occurrence. A sink hole in Florida is not a freak occurrence. People not living in those areas should not be forced to subsidize those that do. It's not like people are being dropped in large numbers yet or that State Farm was the only insurer. > Maybe if we're talking about particularly high-risk zones, but the entire state of California, inhabited by 44mn people and spanning more than half the West Coast, should be left out to dry? Maybe California makes it too hard to refuse service to only certain people and this is the only way to handle it? Do you honestly believe they would leave money on the table if they didn't have to? There are other insurers there.
  - Schiendelman 3y ago
    They aren’t. This impacts a tiny number of those people - those buying a new policy. It’s just political pressure.
    - 3y ago

They should just go live in that one place where there are no natural disasters or risks from climate change.

the_sleaze9 3y ago

I understand the sarcasm, but gun-to-your-head what do you think that one place would most likely be?

jedberg 3y ago
Atlanta. Not a lot of natural disasters there, far enough from the ocean to be insulated from rising sea levels as well as hurricanes. Too warm for ice storms.
- emodendroket 3y ago
  Hot and humid could be undesirable depending on how much temperatures rise.
emodendroket 3y ago
I recall reading several years ago that a climate researcher had chosen the Midwest, which intuitively makes a certain sense — not very hot, no ocean coasts to worry about, lots of fresh water.
- gensym 3y ago
  As someone from the midwest, I can confirm that midwesterners tend to be pretty smug about climate change. ("It'll make our winters milder!" is a common sentiment.). They probably shouldn't be, though: https://www.chicagomag.com/city-life/june-2017/climate-change-could-make-illinois-dangerously-hot/ https://www.chicagomag.com/city-life/june-2017/climate-chang...
Schiendelman 3y ago
The Olympic coast. The smoke tends not to hit, there’s lots of fresh water, and temperatures are mediated by latitude and ocean effect.
- emodendroket 3y ago
  I wouldn’t be so sure. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/07/20/the-really-big-one https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/07/20/the-really-big...
  - Schiendelman 3y ago
    That piece is so so bad. There were several “wow that’s ridiculous” rebuttals after it was published. Some about how Seattle is really far away from the coast (and therefore would see far less shaking than implied), some about how tsunamis will dissipate in the Sound, some about how we’ve been building everything to survive this for decades. My ex-partner’s a geologist. She hated that article.
    - emodendroket 3y ago
      Not sure how convincing I find assurances that an ex-girlfriend of yours and some other, unnamed people disagreed with it. Either way, it’s a seismically active area, there are volcanoes, there are landslides, and the PNW has not been untouched by wildfires.

mdorazio 3y ago

I think you misunderstood my intent. People should live wherever they want, but should bear the risk-associated cost of that choice. Which is not what happens today - State Farm is exiting the market because CA artificially limited premiums, and Florida keeps bailing out homeowners and insurance companies when hurricanes wreck the coast.

emodendroket 3y ago
No, I understood your intent, but I don't really agree that it makes sense to individualize risk like this so that one person gets completely ruined by freak occurrences. Maybe if we're talking about particularly high-risk zones, but the entire state of California, inhabited by 44mn people and spanning more than half the West Coast, should be left out to dry?
- meragrin_ 3y ago
  > No, I understood your intent Seems to me you did not. > I don't really agree that it makes sense to individualize risk like this so that one person gets completely ruined by freak occurrences. An earthquake in California is not a freak occurrence. A fire in a fire prone area is not a freak occurrence. A hurricane in Florida is not a freak occurrence. A sink hole in Florida is not a freak occurrence. People not living in those areas should not be forced to subsidize those that do. It's not like people are being dropped in large numbers yet or that State Farm was the only insurer. > Maybe if we're talking about particularly high-risk zones, but the entire state of California, inhabited by 44mn people and spanning more than half the West Coast, should be left out to dry? Maybe California makes it too hard to refuse service to only certain people and this is the only way to handle it? Do you honestly believe they would leave money on the table if they didn't have to? There are other insurers there.
- Schiendelman 3y ago
  They aren’t. This impacts a tiny number of those people - those buying a new policy. It’s just political pressure.
  - 3y ago