5 ms·

Leaving it to market also won’t take care of the problem and would instead cause chaos in the home ownership market for no beneficial reason. The market can’t

by dv_dt 2y ago

Leaving it to market also won’t take care of the problem and would instead cause chaos in the home ownership market for no beneficial reason. The market can’t do the correct thing unless the cost is correctly linked to the reason for the increased costs. There needs to be another solution - personally I would think apply a tax to fossil fuels that pays into an insurance fund to partially lower underwriting risk.

whimsicalism 2y ago
We should not tax fossil fuels to subsidize costs for people choosing to live in dangerous regions.
- theossuary 2y ago
  We should if they're the reason the regions are becoming more dangerous.
  - basil-rash 2y ago
    Yes, a person in the inland empire using gas to get to their job far as fuck away because that’s all the house they can afford should clearly be subsidizing some coastal elite’s “I want a house on a cliff overlooking the ocean” insurance. Because fossil fuel use is the direct cause of the house’s instability.
    - vineyardmike 2y ago
      Is there any indication that the high risk properties in California are coastal instead of rural or exurban? Presumably the risk is from fire and that’s disproportionately not going to be in highly developed communities like the coastal regions.
      - danans 2y ago
        > Is there any indication that the high risk properties in California are coastal instead of rural or exurban? https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/03beab8511814e79a0e4eabf0d3e7247/ https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/03beab8511814e79a0e... There is very high fire risk in the coastal hills, which contain the most expensive real estate in CA, but low risk in the adjacent urban areas closer to the water. The exurban areas of CA are in the Central Valley, which has lower fire risk, but very high heat risk. Rural areas can have high or low fire risk, depending on where they are.
    - dv_dt 2y ago
      This seems like a random meme designed to avoid drawing a basic line of responsiblity between fossil fuel emissions and the costs they impose on many people. That's one discussion. Another discussion is if you chose to connect those - then how do you distribute the costs - and some allocation picked to inflame the discussion seems to be avoid the first issue while assuming some particular lopsided distribution.
  - whimsicalism 2y ago
    Frankly, the evidence is not there that these wildfires are being caused by climate change vs cyclical droughts and mismanagement.
- John23832 2y ago
  If global warming caused by C02 emissions is the reason why the place is becoming dangerous, why not? The fact that insurance companies are making changes now shows that this is a more recent trend.
  - lazide 2y ago
    Fire danger in California is mostly due to terrible forest management policies - large scale blanket fire suppression and serious impediments towards logging and brush clearing. Global warming may be what is lighting the match (sometimes - but frankly probably is only a minor influence) however the giant pile of fuel that has been growing for 100 years remains almost completely unabated.
    - John23832 2y ago
      Two things can be true at once. A dog can have ticks and fleas.
      - lazide 2y ago
        A match thrown down in a healthy forest won’t produce a massive apocalyptic firestorm. No matter the time of year. Even back in the 70’s the National Park service in Yosemite knew the existing forest management practice was creating apocalyptic fire risk (and the ‘91 Yosemite fire bore that out) but until very recently, practices across the state have been unchanged. [https://www.nps.gov/yose/learn/nature/firehistory.htm https://www.nps.gov/yose/learn/nature/firehistory.htm] Defacto, walk through the forests in California and the build up of brush is monumental. Along the coasts and in the Sierra Nevada. Many areas are impassible, except those that have burned recently.
    - hackernewds 2y ago
      If that were the case, we could let the trees be logged which I'm sure industries are scrambling to do, seems like a win-win? The fact that it hasn't happened would imply it is not the case.
lolinder 2y ago
> would instead cause chaos in the home ownership market for no beneficial reason. People losing home insurance altogether and being unable to find a replacement is going to be less chaotic for the home ownership market than insurance rates going up?
- basil-rash 2y ago
  If uncertainty about the future value of the home brings prices down I’m all for it.
  - lazide 2y ago
    Anyone with a mortgage is in theory obligated to get insurance asap - or owe the bank the entire outstanding balance. And if the place burns down they are still on the hook for the entire mortgage too. If no one will underwrite? Oh shit.
    - basil-rash 2y ago
      Allow me to shed a tear for these hypothetical mildly inconvenienced landowners.
      - lazide 2y ago
        You mean like the 10’s of thousands of exurb Californians who all the sudden found themselves in ‘high risk urban-wildland fire zones’ after the recent wildfires? Or who found themselves above a fault that no one previously knew about? It’s not theoretical. [https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2021-09-26/california-fire-insurance-moratorium-expire https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2021-09-26/california...]
        basil-rash 2y ago
        Yes those. My family is actually among them, and guess what: our insurance premiums went down, and we're no longer being forced to pay for benefits we would never have actually received. (do you really think insurance companies were going to pay out for a natural disaster? their entire business model is refusing to pay out of they can find a way to weasel out of it. to the point they'll call themselves doctors and tell the real doctors what they can and can't do. the less mandatory insurance the better, such that the market might finally force them to be either helpful or cheap, but certainly not neither.)
kevinpet 2y ago
Brilliant, now it's not just people who live in cities subsidizing rich people who choose to live in high fire risk suburban borders but everyone who drives too.
- vineyardmike 2y ago
  Generally, the people most at risk for fire are not particularly wealthy - they live out in the exurbs. Generally I’m not too supportive of socially subsidizing an expensive lifestyle, but let’s be clear that “everyone who drives” collectively generated this risk through pollution.
  - lolinder 2y ago
    > let’s be clear that “everyone who drives” collectively generated this risk through pollution. No, let's be clear that everyone who lives in the developed and developing world collectively generated this risk by living in said world. In the US, the transportation sector as a whole accounts for only 29% of our collective greenhouse gas emissions [0]. Within that sector, passenger cars only account for 20% of the 29%, or 5.8% of our total greenhouse gas emissions in the country. That's still a lot of greenhouse gases, but it's barely the tip of the iceberg of our total generation in the US, and the US itself only accounts for ~12% of the world's emissions. Picking on passenger cars for pollution is similar to picking on green lawns during drought: sure, it's something that your average Joe can stop doing to feel like they're helping, and people who water their lawns make for a fun villain if you're into that kind of thing, but even if you managed to get that use case down to 0% of what it is currently you wouldn't even have begun to solve the actual problem. [0] https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions#transportation https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emis...
    - khuey 2y ago
      > In the US, the transportation sector as a whole accounts for only 29% of our collective greenhouse gas emissions [0]. Within that sector, passenger cars only account for 20% of the 29%, or 5.8% of our total greenhouse gas emissions in the country. You need to account for light duty trucks here too. Merely including "passenger cars" is wrong since enormous numbers of Americans are driving pickups/SUVs/etc as their personal vehicles. That would push personal transportation to 16.5% of our total GHG emissions.
akira2501 2y ago
> Leaving it to market also won’t take care of the problem Why not?
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
jeffbee 2y ago
I'm in another discussion on this very site where people (admittedly, not you) are arguing that property owners are "housing providers" because they stand between tenants and asset risk. But in this thread you suggest that at the first whiff of risk the state should step in to subsidize the risk of the wealthiest 1% of the state.
- dv_dt 2y ago
  Not the first whiff of risk, a solid look at increasing risk due to climate change. This is one company now, but is an issue which is going to keep hittiong more companies & more home owners.

by dv_dt 2y ago

whimsicalism 2y ago

We should not tax fossil fuels to subsidize costs for people choosing to live in dangerous regions.

theossuary 2y ago
We should if they're the reason the regions are becoming more dangerous.
- basil-rash 2y ago
  Yes, a person in the inland empire using gas to get to their job far as fuck away because that’s all the house they can afford should clearly be subsidizing some coastal elite’s “I want a house on a cliff overlooking the ocean” insurance. Because fossil fuel use is the direct cause of the house’s instability.
  - vineyardmike 2y ago
    Is there any indication that the high risk properties in California are coastal instead of rural or exurban? Presumably the risk is from fire and that’s disproportionately not going to be in highly developed communities like the coastal regions.
    - danans 2y ago
      > Is there any indication that the high risk properties in California are coastal instead of rural or exurban? https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/03beab8511814e79a0e4eabf0d3e7247/ https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/03beab8511814e79a0e... There is very high fire risk in the coastal hills, which contain the most expensive real estate in CA, but low risk in the adjacent urban areas closer to the water. The exurban areas of CA are in the Central Valley, which has lower fire risk, but very high heat risk. Rural areas can have high or low fire risk, depending on where they are.
  - dv_dt 2y ago
    This seems like a random meme designed to avoid drawing a basic line of responsiblity between fossil fuel emissions and the costs they impose on many people. That's one discussion. Another discussion is if you chose to connect those - then how do you distribute the costs - and some allocation picked to inflame the discussion seems to be avoid the first issue while assuming some particular lopsided distribution.
- whimsicalism 2y ago
  Frankly, the evidence is not there that these wildfires are being caused by climate change vs cyclical droughts and mismanagement.
John23832 2y ago
If global warming caused by C02 emissions is the reason why the place is becoming dangerous, why not? The fact that insurance companies are making changes now shows that this is a more recent trend.
- lazide 2y ago
  Fire danger in California is mostly due to terrible forest management policies - large scale blanket fire suppression and serious impediments towards logging and brush clearing. Global warming may be what is lighting the match (sometimes - but frankly probably is only a minor influence) however the giant pile of fuel that has been growing for 100 years remains almost completely unabated.
  - John23832 2y ago
    Two things can be true at once. A dog can have ticks and fleas.
    - lazide 2y ago
      A match thrown down in a healthy forest won’t produce a massive apocalyptic firestorm. No matter the time of year. Even back in the 70’s the National Park service in Yosemite knew the existing forest management practice was creating apocalyptic fire risk (and the ‘91 Yosemite fire bore that out) but until very recently, practices across the state have been unchanged. [https://www.nps.gov/yose/learn/nature/firehistory.htm https://www.nps.gov/yose/learn/nature/firehistory.htm] Defacto, walk through the forests in California and the build up of brush is monumental. Along the coasts and in the Sierra Nevada. Many areas are impassible, except those that have burned recently.
  - hackernewds 2y ago
    If that were the case, we could let the trees be logged which I'm sure industries are scrambling to do, seems like a win-win? The fact that it hasn't happened would imply it is not the case.

lolinder 2y ago

> would instead cause chaos in the home ownership market for no beneficial reason. People losing home insurance altogether and being unable to find a replacement is going to be less chaotic for the home ownership market than insurance rates going up?

basil-rash 2y ago
If uncertainty about the future value of the home brings prices down I’m all for it.
- lazide 2y ago
  Anyone with a mortgage is in theory obligated to get insurance asap - or owe the bank the entire outstanding balance. And if the place burns down they are still on the hook for the entire mortgage too. If no one will underwrite? Oh shit.
  - basil-rash 2y ago
    Allow me to shed a tear for these hypothetical mildly inconvenienced landowners.
    - lazide 2y ago
      You mean like the 10’s of thousands of exurb Californians who all the sudden found themselves in ‘high risk urban-wildland fire zones’ after the recent wildfires? Or who found themselves above a fault that no one previously knew about? It’s not theoretical. [https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2021-09-26/california-fire-insurance-moratorium-expire https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2021-09-26/california...]
      - basil-rash 2y ago
        Yes those. My family is actually among them, and guess what: our insurance premiums went down, and we're no longer being forced to pay for benefits we would never have actually received. (do you really think insurance companies were going to pay out for a natural disaster? their entire business model is refusing to pay out of they can find a way to weasel out of it. to the point they'll call themselves doctors and tell the real doctors what they can and can't do. the less mandatory insurance the better, such that the market might finally force them to be either helpful or cheap, but certainly not neither.)

kevinpet 2y ago

Brilliant, now it's not just people who live in cities subsidizing rich people who choose to live in high fire risk suburban borders but everyone who drives too.

vineyardmike 2y ago
Generally, the people most at risk for fire are not particularly wealthy - they live out in the exurbs. Generally I’m not too supportive of socially subsidizing an expensive lifestyle, but let’s be clear that “everyone who drives” collectively generated this risk through pollution.
- lolinder 2y ago
  > let’s be clear that “everyone who drives” collectively generated this risk through pollution. No, let's be clear that everyone who lives in the developed and developing world collectively generated this risk by living in said world. In the US, the transportation sector as a whole accounts for only 29% of our collective greenhouse gas emissions [0]. Within that sector, passenger cars only account for 20% of the 29%, or 5.8% of our total greenhouse gas emissions in the country. That's still a lot of greenhouse gases, but it's barely the tip of the iceberg of our total generation in the US, and the US itself only accounts for ~12% of the world's emissions. Picking on passenger cars for pollution is similar to picking on green lawns during drought: sure, it's something that your average Joe can stop doing to feel like they're helping, and people who water their lawns make for a fun villain if you're into that kind of thing, but even if you managed to get that use case down to 0% of what it is currently you wouldn't even have begun to solve the actual problem. [0] https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions#transportation https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emis...
  - khuey 2y ago
    > In the US, the transportation sector as a whole accounts for only 29% of our collective greenhouse gas emissions [0]. Within that sector, passenger cars only account for 20% of the 29%, or 5.8% of our total greenhouse gas emissions in the country. You need to account for light duty trucks here too. Merely including "passenger cars" is wrong since enormous numbers of Americans are driving pickups/SUVs/etc as their personal vehicles. That would push personal transportation to 16.5% of our total GHG emissions.

akira2501 2y ago

> Leaving it to market also won’t take care of the problem Why not?

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

jeffbee 2y ago

I'm in another discussion on this very site where people (admittedly, not you) are arguing that property owners are "housing providers" because they stand between tenants and asset risk. But in this thread you suggest that at the first whiff of risk the state should step in to subsidize the risk of the wealthiest 1% of the state.

dv_dt 2y ago
Not the first whiff of risk, a solid look at increasing risk due to climate change. This is one company now, but is an issue which is going to keep hittiong more companies & more home owners.