5 ms·

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 fi

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
        Yes, I am saying if you have the economic resources as a state, you should not help other states economically that do not believe in climate change (within the context of climate mitigation spending and transfers). Why would you help people working against you or who don't believe in what you're defending against?
        giantg2 1y ago
        Money is fungible, taxes don't work that way, both of your examples of FL and TX produce more fed tax revenue than they receive, so it's hard to see how you think this would apply.
        toomuchtodo 1y ago
        States can increase their income taxes, which can be deducted against federal income taxes. This keeps the tax revenue internal to the state and avoids sending it to a federal government who would spend the tax revenue suboptimally. These funds can be spent on climate mitigation programs within a state. If your state has no income tax and relies on the federal government, that’s unfortunate (I suppose increasing property and sales tax is an option, if not regressive). SALT limits have been bumped to $40k from $10k: https://www.nerdwallet.com/article/taxes/salt-tax-deduction https://www.nerdwallet.com/article/taxes/salt-tax-deduction Lots of ways to make this work with policy.

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
      Yes, I am saying if you have the economic resources as a state, you should not help other states economically that do not believe in climate change (within the context of climate mitigation spending and transfers). Why would you help people working against you or who don't believe in what you're defending against?
      - giantg2 1y ago
        Money is fungible, taxes don't work that way, both of your examples of FL and TX produce more fed tax revenue than they receive, so it's hard to see how you think this would apply.
        toomuchtodo 1y ago
        States can increase their income taxes, which can be deducted against federal income taxes. This keeps the tax revenue internal to the state and avoids sending it to a federal government who would spend the tax revenue suboptimally. These funds can be spent on climate mitigation programs within a state. If your state has no income tax and relies on the federal government, that’s unfortunate (I suppose increasing property and sales tax is an option, if not regressive). SALT limits have been bumped to $40k from $10k: https://www.nerdwallet.com/article/taxes/salt-tax-deduction https://www.nerdwallet.com/article/taxes/salt-tax-deduction Lots of ways to make this work with policy.