3 ms·

And the western US with their fires? Or the southern east coast that also gets hit with hurricanes? How about the increased flooding in the midwest? New constru

And the western US with their fires? Or the southern east coast that also gets hit with hurricanes? How about the increased flooding in the midwest? New construction size has increased across the US too. It's not a single zone.

toomuchtodo 1y ago
Red states and the Federal Government don’t believe in climate change. Let them cover their own climate costs. California alone sends $86B to the Federal government. The moral hazard is covering the cost of bad faith actors acting in bad faith. Bootstraps and all that.
- giantg2 1y ago
  CA can't even get their own house in order. If they were serious, they would apply the wildlands fire code to all the new construction in LA after the recent fires, but they won't. The real moral hazard is thinking the risks, costs, and benefits are as clear cut as you're making them... plus the non-starter about implying not paying taxes.
  - toomuchtodo 1y ago
    They’re the world’s fourth largest economy (behind the US, China, and Germany), they’ll be fine economically. Red states actively choose to ignore climate change, with Texas going so far as to attempting to disadvantage renewables while supporting fossil fuels [1]. Florida’s insurance market is functionality insolvent [2]; they extend and pretend. Why would we financially help folks who don't believe in the active climate crisis? Vote for folks who dismantle FEMA? Vote for folks who rollback the inflation reduction act and climate mitigation spending [3]? Vote for folks who rollback vehicle emissions standards? Enjoy your vote. Better luck next time. [1] https://prospect.org/environment/2025-06-05-texas-legislature-beats-back-assault-on-clean-energy/ https://prospect.org/environment/2025-06-05-texas-legislatur... [2] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2024-04-24/home-insurance-with-lax-oversight-hides-florida-climate-risk https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2024-04-24/home-insu... | https://archive.today/g8Ic5 https://archive.today/g8Ic5 [3] https://www.lw.com/en/insights/one-big-beautiful-bill-new-law-disrupts-clean-energy-investment https://www.lw.com/en/insights/one-big-beautiful-bill-new-la...
    - giantg2 1y ago
      I'm not sure what you're even going off on at this point. You completely ignored my comment about how CA is handling things like fire code and fire insurance. It seems like youre just trying to start a political flame war.
      - toomuchtodo 1y ago
        I'm unsure how this isn't political. Some states are economic engines of the US, some states are net takers of resources. States that have resources by way of being economic engines should protect themselves from the coming impact of climate change (if one doesn't believe in climate change, or the impending risk it presents, don't bother replying, there is no common ground to be had). That's it, that's the thesis. How California is handling fire code and mitigation currently is somewhat immaterial; more importantly, they have the resources by way of their economy to fix the problem if and when they choose to (to spend to de-risk against fire risk). They have the economy of a developed nation state. They can spend whatever is required when they decide to appropriately spend. If you don't have the resources to defend against climate risk, or don't believe in the risk, you have little recourse against it. This could've been a collective action problem at the nation state level; it no longer is due to political choices by people who believe a global climate phenomenon is a hoax. So those who can afford it must go it alone for the foreseeable future.
        giantg2 1y ago
        So according to you CA has the resources to rebuild themselves and should protect themselves, but you consider it immaterial that they are choosing not to protect themselves with fire code and insurance changes? This sounds classist - we can do whatever we want because we have money, but we don't want to pay taxes because that might help other states that are also making suboptimal choices. But both Florida and Texas (your examples) are also donor states. It's hard to find what the basis is for your thesis when it seems to be applied irrespective of the facts.
        toomuchtodo 1y ago
- caligirla 1y ago
  So, you believe that people with higher incomes and greater social standing should be permitted to make suboptimal choices with regard to climate sustainability? Is it really just a class thing more than the scientific implications of changing climate?
BobaFloutist 1y ago
I agree that we also shouldn't be subsidizing the insurance of California houses built in the exceptionally flammable urban wild-land interface
- bevhill 1y ago
  California supplies a significant percentage of the federal budget -- more than your state in all probability. And our insurance industry is the fourth biggest in the world. We can afford to build anywhere we want, and any FEMA funding we get is just our own taxes repaid to us. Get good or get over it.
  - giantg2 1y ago
    This is a short sighted view. Fire insurance in CA is high cost, if you can even get it. Many people would not in fact be able to afford building anywhere. The subsidy argument doesn't have to be at the federal level be even within the state from low risk to high risk areas.
  - BobaFloutist 1y ago
    > California supplies a significant percentage of the federal budget -- more than your state in all probability Exactly as much as my state, as it so happens.
- kibwen 1y ago
  Seconded.
throw0101d 1y ago
> And the western US with their fires? Or the southern east coast that also gets hit with hurricanes? How about the increased flooding in the midwest? * Don't build in the WUI. Enforce/enact building codes that take into account NFPA's Firewise USA. * Don't build on the coast. Enforce/enact building codes that take into account IBHS FORTIFIED techniques. * Don't allow building / residency permits in floodplains.
- giantg2 1y ago
  The problem is mostly the existing homes. Things like flood zones have been increased in size. People rebuild on previous home sites, but code doesn't require those hardened techniques. You could build a house in a fire zone if you use the right materials and landscaping.
  - snapplebobapple 1y ago
    Insurance, homes, etc. are flows for the purposes of this analysis and so they aren't really that big a problem. Change the codes, so the stupid can't be recreated and it will handle itself as the old stuff is destroyed and not rebuilt/rebuilt in a way that can handle the reality of the situation with minimal insurance claim. Even if the rate of disaster doubles it's still an insurable problem in this setup and within 20-30 years the problem handles itself through natural aging out plus insurable destruction of the old stuff. The key is to make it very easy to rebuild whatever you want within the constraint of new codes that ensure your building can handle its environment. If we let a california happen and hold everything up in development hell so almost nothing is being rebuilt six months to a year after the destruction is the real economy killer that is relevant here.

toomuchtodo 1y ago

Red states and the Federal Government don’t believe in climate change. Let them cover their own climate costs. California alone sends $86B to the Federal government. The moral hazard is covering the cost of bad faith actors acting in bad faith. Bootstraps and all that.

giantg2 1y ago
CA can't even get their own house in order. If they were serious, they would apply the wildlands fire code to all the new construction in LA after the recent fires, but they won't. The real moral hazard is thinking the risks, costs, and benefits are as clear cut as you're making them... plus the non-starter about implying not paying taxes.
- toomuchtodo 1y ago
  They’re the world’s fourth largest economy (behind the US, China, and Germany), they’ll be fine economically. Red states actively choose to ignore climate change, with Texas going so far as to attempting to disadvantage renewables while supporting fossil fuels [1]. Florida’s insurance market is functionality insolvent [2]; they extend and pretend. Why would we financially help folks who don't believe in the active climate crisis? Vote for folks who dismantle FEMA? Vote for folks who rollback the inflation reduction act and climate mitigation spending [3]? Vote for folks who rollback vehicle emissions standards? Enjoy your vote. Better luck next time. [1] https://prospect.org/environment/2025-06-05-texas-legislature-beats-back-assault-on-clean-energy/ https://prospect.org/environment/2025-06-05-texas-legislatur... [2] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2024-04-24/home-insurance-with-lax-oversight-hides-florida-climate-risk https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2024-04-24/home-insu... | https://archive.today/g8Ic5 https://archive.today/g8Ic5 [3] https://www.lw.com/en/insights/one-big-beautiful-bill-new-law-disrupts-clean-energy-investment https://www.lw.com/en/insights/one-big-beautiful-bill-new-la...
  - giantg2 1y ago
    I'm not sure what you're even going off on at this point. You completely ignored my comment about how CA is handling things like fire code and fire insurance. It seems like youre just trying to start a political flame war.
    - toomuchtodo 1y ago
      I'm unsure how this isn't political. Some states are economic engines of the US, some states are net takers of resources. States that have resources by way of being economic engines should protect themselves from the coming impact of climate change (if one doesn't believe in climate change, or the impending risk it presents, don't bother replying, there is no common ground to be had). That's it, that's the thesis. How California is handling fire code and mitigation currently is somewhat immaterial; more importantly, they have the resources by way of their economy to fix the problem if and when they choose to (to spend to de-risk against fire risk). They have the economy of a developed nation state. They can spend whatever is required when they decide to appropriately spend. If you don't have the resources to defend against climate risk, or don't believe in the risk, you have little recourse against it. This could've been a collective action problem at the nation state level; it no longer is due to political choices by people who believe a global climate phenomenon is a hoax. So those who can afford it must go it alone for the foreseeable future.
      - giantg2 1y ago
        So according to you CA has the resources to rebuild themselves and should protect themselves, but you consider it immaterial that they are choosing not to protect themselves with fire code and insurance changes? This sounds classist - we can do whatever we want because we have money, but we don't want to pay taxes because that might help other states that are also making suboptimal choices. But both Florida and Texas (your examples) are also donor states. It's hard to find what the basis is for your thesis when it seems to be applied irrespective of the facts.
        toomuchtodo 1y ago
caligirla 1y ago
So, you believe that people with higher incomes and greater social standing should be permitted to make suboptimal choices with regard to climate sustainability? Is it really just a class thing more than the scientific implications of changing climate?

BobaFloutist 1y ago

I agree that we also shouldn't be subsidizing the insurance of California houses built in the exceptionally flammable urban wild-land interface

bevhill 1y ago
California supplies a significant percentage of the federal budget -- more than your state in all probability. And our insurance industry is the fourth biggest in the world. We can afford to build anywhere we want, and any FEMA funding we get is just our own taxes repaid to us. Get good or get over it.
- giantg2 1y ago
  This is a short sighted view. Fire insurance in CA is high cost, if you can even get it. Many people would not in fact be able to afford building anywhere. The subsidy argument doesn't have to be at the federal level be even within the state from low risk to high risk areas.
- BobaFloutist 1y ago
  > California supplies a significant percentage of the federal budget -- more than your state in all probability Exactly as much as my state, as it so happens.
kibwen 1y ago
Seconded.

throw0101d 1y ago

> And the western US with their fires? Or the southern east coast that also gets hit with hurricanes? How about the increased flooding in the midwest? * Don't build in the WUI. Enforce/enact building codes that take into account NFPA's Firewise USA. * Don't build on the coast. Enforce/enact building codes that take into account IBHS FORTIFIED techniques. * Don't allow building / residency permits in floodplains.

giantg2 1y ago
The problem is mostly the existing homes. Things like flood zones have been increased in size. People rebuild on previous home sites, but code doesn't require those hardened techniques. You could build a house in a fire zone if you use the right materials and landscaping.
- snapplebobapple 1y ago
  Insurance, homes, etc. are flows for the purposes of this analysis and so they aren't really that big a problem. Change the codes, so the stupid can't be recreated and it will handle itself as the old stuff is destroyed and not rebuilt/rebuilt in a way that can handle the reality of the situation with minimal insurance claim. Even if the rate of disaster doubles it's still an insurable problem in this setup and within 20-30 years the problem handles itself through natural aging out plus insurable destruction of the old stuff. The key is to make it very easy to rebuild whatever you want within the constraint of new codes that ensure your building can handle its environment. If we let a california happen and hold everything up in development hell so almost nothing is being rebuilt six months to a year after the destruction is the real economy killer that is relevant here.