3 ms·

I'm a little torn here, because I'm not sure that climate change has much to do with this. In other states like Oregon sure, climate change might be reasonably

I'm a little torn here, because I'm not sure that climate change has much to do with this. In other states like Oregon sure, climate change might be reasonably blamed, but in California the insane policies that prevent sufficient controlled burns probably has far more to do with the current crisis. Idiotic forest management since at least 2007 ( https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/2007/a113774.html https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/2007... ) is to blame here with climate change playing second fiddle.

tptacek 2y ago
The causality doesn't have a whole lot to do with the underlying economic problem, which is that you can't "rent-control" the insurance markets; insurance premiums have to float with actuarial risks, or insurers have to leave the market. Rather than climate change, it could just be terrible siting or building standards or regulations; whatever the cause, if an insurer can't put a price on their prediction your building will stay standing, they can't provide you with insurance at all.
- EA-3167 2y ago
  I have no objection to that, the risk needs to be accurately assessed for the model to work. What I object to is how it's being framed as some collective failing of society at large, and therefore nothing can be done. Ideally the small number of people who pushed for these policies would be held liable, but in lieu of that the state government should cover the difference. This would have the benefit of putting pressure on them to enact appropriate forestry and fire management policies, and spread the pain out over the voters who allowed this to happen against widespread expert advice. Other states figured this out a long time ago, there is no magic here.
  - tptacek 2y ago
    Why should states provide taxpayer-funded subsidies for people to site homes in places that are so expensive to insure that insurers literally can't offer insurance under the statute? Two more reasonable outcomes: 1. States forbid construction in those places. 2. States allow construction, but you're on your own re: insurance. Of course, the ideal outcome would be: 3. States allow construction, and insurers are allowed to underwrite.
    - EA-3167 2y ago
      I think the state should subsidize insurance for an issue their negligence and political tribalism have allowed to reach predictably disastrous levels. I don't think that the cost of the home should be a factor, the homeowner played no role in the aforementioned disaster unless it's a policy they voted for. I would be personally shocked if "forestry" was at the top of many voter's issue list, more likely those policies just came along as a package with others. It's also worth saying that in your 3 scenarios the outcomes are: 1. Fires still start there because the conditions which cause those fires have little, if anything, to do with the presence of that construction. Said fires would move far more rapidly through the usual untended scrub brush than it does through large, built-up areas. Now you have the same fire problem, but in a slightly different area. 2. That seems like a recipe to make it into even more of an exclusive enclave for the super-rich. Who else can afford to eat that sort of risk, shrug, and rebuild? 3. Then we're back at the start, where the negligent policies of a series of state governments produces a terrible outcome for homeowners who are not the cause of the problem. I propose a more functional response: Let the state pay for its mistake, and require that they follow the plans of states like Oregon, Texas, and Florida, and use controlled burns appropriately! They'll be incentivized to do so as a means to keep their liability to fire insurance down, and as a bonus homeowners won't have to live through cycles of being burned out and returning. And again, just because THIS time the fire primarily impacted the rich, doesn't mean that's how it always has been or will be.
      - tptacek 2y ago
        You're saying "the state", but what that really means is that taxpayers who chose to live in places insurers can underwrite will subsidize the homes of people who chose to live in places so dangerous insurers literally can't underwrite. There's no bogeyman you can isolate and punish here; when the state subsidizes things, redistributive policy occurs. This seems like a deeply broken redistribution! How about a simpler response: let insurers underwrite.
      - seanmcdirmid 2y ago
        These fires happened (at least originally) in the hills of LA where lots of rich people live. You aren't getting them in dense urban areas where more normal people can afford to live. I don't think we should be subsidizing that. Yes, if you want to live in LA foothills like Bel Air (not affected by the current fire, but hit by fires before), you are going to have to pay more for fire insurance. It just goes with the price of the view.
bigfatkitten 2y ago
There is a common misconception that prescribed burns are a magic bullet, and that if you could just magically burn all the things all the time you wouldn't have major fires. They wouldn't have mattered at all as far as the Palisades fire is concerned. LA had a ton of rain in Feb-Mar 2024 which resulted in massive fuel growth. That rain stopped in a hurry, plunging the region straight into drought. That fuel has since cured over summer and become available to fire. Once it ignited, it was driven by extreme winds and there was no stopping it. Given the circumstances, when do you suggest prescribed burns could've been conducted?
- kylehotchkiss 2y ago
  Winter 2022-2023 was wet too. Two years of wet winters finally had their wrath.

tptacek 2y ago

The causality doesn't have a whole lot to do with the underlying economic problem, which is that you can't "rent-control" the insurance markets; insurance premiums have to float with actuarial risks, or insurers have to leave the market. Rather than climate change, it could just be terrible siting or building standards or regulations; whatever the cause, if an insurer can't put a price on their prediction your building will stay standing, they can't provide you with insurance at all.

EA-3167 2y ago
I have no objection to that, the risk needs to be accurately assessed for the model to work. What I object to is how it's being framed as some collective failing of society at large, and therefore nothing can be done. Ideally the small number of people who pushed for these policies would be held liable, but in lieu of that the state government should cover the difference. This would have the benefit of putting pressure on them to enact appropriate forestry and fire management policies, and spread the pain out over the voters who allowed this to happen against widespread expert advice. Other states figured this out a long time ago, there is no magic here.
- tptacek 2y ago
  Why should states provide taxpayer-funded subsidies for people to site homes in places that are so expensive to insure that insurers literally can't offer insurance under the statute? Two more reasonable outcomes: 1. States forbid construction in those places. 2. States allow construction, but you're on your own re: insurance. Of course, the ideal outcome would be: 3. States allow construction, and insurers are allowed to underwrite.
  - EA-3167 2y ago
    I think the state should subsidize insurance for an issue their negligence and political tribalism have allowed to reach predictably disastrous levels. I don't think that the cost of the home should be a factor, the homeowner played no role in the aforementioned disaster unless it's a policy they voted for. I would be personally shocked if "forestry" was at the top of many voter's issue list, more likely those policies just came along as a package with others. It's also worth saying that in your 3 scenarios the outcomes are: 1. Fires still start there because the conditions which cause those fires have little, if anything, to do with the presence of that construction. Said fires would move far more rapidly through the usual untended scrub brush than it does through large, built-up areas. Now you have the same fire problem, but in a slightly different area. 2. That seems like a recipe to make it into even more of an exclusive enclave for the super-rich. Who else can afford to eat that sort of risk, shrug, and rebuild? 3. Then we're back at the start, where the negligent policies of a series of state governments produces a terrible outcome for homeowners who are not the cause of the problem. I propose a more functional response: Let the state pay for its mistake, and require that they follow the plans of states like Oregon, Texas, and Florida, and use controlled burns appropriately! They'll be incentivized to do so as a means to keep their liability to fire insurance down, and as a bonus homeowners won't have to live through cycles of being burned out and returning. And again, just because THIS time the fire primarily impacted the rich, doesn't mean that's how it always has been or will be.
    - tptacek 2y ago
      You're saying "the state", but what that really means is that taxpayers who chose to live in places insurers can underwrite will subsidize the homes of people who chose to live in places so dangerous insurers literally can't underwrite. There's no bogeyman you can isolate and punish here; when the state subsidizes things, redistributive policy occurs. This seems like a deeply broken redistribution! How about a simpler response: let insurers underwrite.
    - seanmcdirmid 2y ago
      These fires happened (at least originally) in the hills of LA where lots of rich people live. You aren't getting them in dense urban areas where more normal people can afford to live. I don't think we should be subsidizing that. Yes, if you want to live in LA foothills like Bel Air (not affected by the current fire, but hit by fires before), you are going to have to pay more for fire insurance. It just goes with the price of the view.

bigfatkitten 2y ago

There is a common misconception that prescribed burns are a magic bullet, and that if you could just magically burn all the things all the time you wouldn't have major fires. They wouldn't have mattered at all as far as the Palisades fire is concerned. LA had a ton of rain in Feb-Mar 2024 which resulted in massive fuel growth. That rain stopped in a hurry, plunging the region straight into drought. That fuel has since cured over summer and become available to fire. Once it ignited, it was driven by extreme winds and there was no stopping it. Given the circumstances, when do you suggest prescribed burns could've been conducted?

kylehotchkiss 2y ago
Winter 2022-2023 was wet too. Two years of wet winters finally had their wrath.