4 ms·

No, you’re going to see insurance become more expensive and/or more difficult to get if you’re in an affected area. Some have stopped writing policies in Florid

No, you’re going to see insurance become more expensive and/or more difficult to get if you’re in an affected area. Some have stopped writing policies in Florida and California, for different reasons, but both climate change-related. (In California, it’s partially due to local rules that make it difficult for them to factor the actual risk of the property into their pricing, but those rules are supposedly going to be fixed soon.)

silisili 2y ago
Florida's problems are way more due to scam roofing companies than anything climate related.
- bobthepanda 2y ago
  The scam roof companies roll around after every hurricane, which have become more frequent and stronger.
ggm 2y ago
It's my understanding that Close to elections, governments (state and federal) sometimes offer to underwrite the risk so the un-insurable can continue to live there (no insurance? no mortgage) The end result is massive unfunded Civil Engineering burdens the corps of engineers have to design, and try to get built without stuffing up the hydrology for somewhere else. I think New Orleans may be an example of this: If there was will, then "forced depopulation" of the floodzones would be kinder and cheaper but I suspect there isn't will, and so instead the levee system. In Australia, government mandated buybacks are immensely painful. People who want to stay have to leave. People who want to leave are 10cm above a threshold and have to stay. In NZ, during the Christchurch earthquake aftermath, The state allowed stayers and goers to swap assets and payout, so a stayer in a condemned region could give their payout to a goer in a stay region, who didn't want to stay. Not a bad model.
throwup238 2y ago
"For different reasons" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here; Florida's and California's situations are completely different. Significant fractions of Florida depend on the National Flood Insurance Program which has been bailed out by the Federal government to the tune of tens of billions of dollars since Katrina and will only get worse. The California FAIR plan on the other hand is completely funded from premiums and has recently survived several years of catastrophic fires without needing a single penny of state support. The power distribution companies have also completely overhauled the infrastructure state wide, reducing the probability of uncontrolled fires near populated areas. The politics behind California's insurance regulator are a bit of a shitshow at the moment, but the insurers are leaving because of artificial price controls. In Florida, they left long ago because much of the state is fundamentally uninsurable.
soco 2y ago
Even if they take that particular risk into pricing, it will still lead to an increase of insurance prices for everybody because that's how stuff works. So everybody will contribute financially to subsidize at least in part the insurance price for the affected properties.

silisili 2y ago

Florida's problems are way more due to scam roofing companies than anything climate related.

bobthepanda 2y ago
The scam roof companies roll around after every hurricane, which have become more frequent and stronger.

ggm 2y ago

It's my understanding that Close to elections, governments (state and federal) sometimes offer to underwrite the risk so the un-insurable can continue to live there (no insurance? no mortgage) The end result is massive unfunded Civil Engineering burdens the corps of engineers have to design, and try to get built without stuffing up the hydrology for somewhere else. I think New Orleans may be an example of this: If there was will, then "forced depopulation" of the floodzones would be kinder and cheaper but I suspect there isn't will, and so instead the levee system. In Australia, government mandated buybacks are immensely painful. People who want to stay have to leave. People who want to leave are 10cm above a threshold and have to stay. In NZ, during the Christchurch earthquake aftermath, The state allowed stayers and goers to swap assets and payout, so a stayer in a condemned region could give their payout to a goer in a stay region, who didn't want to stay. Not a bad model.

throwup238 2y ago

"For different reasons" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here; Florida's and California's situations are completely different. Significant fractions of Florida depend on the National Flood Insurance Program which has been bailed out by the Federal government to the tune of tens of billions of dollars since Katrina and will only get worse. The California FAIR plan on the other hand is completely funded from premiums and has recently survived several years of catastrophic fires without needing a single penny of state support. The power distribution companies have also completely overhauled the infrastructure state wide, reducing the probability of uncontrolled fires near populated areas. The politics behind California's insurance regulator are a bit of a shitshow at the moment, but the insurers are leaving because of artificial price controls. In Florida, they left long ago because much of the state is fundamentally uninsurable.

soco 2y ago

Even if they take that particular risk into pricing, it will still lead to an increase of insurance prices for everybody because that's how stuff works. So everybody will contribute financially to subsidize at least in part the insurance price for the affected properties.