this post was submitted on 20 Jul 2023
103 points (100.0% liked)
Politics
10181 readers
13 users here now
In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it's a political happening, you can post it here.
Guidelines for submissions:
- Where possible, post the original source of information.
- If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
- Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
- Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
- Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
- Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The problem isn’t that things get “permanently” destroyed, but that we let people keep re-building where there is only a matter of time before it gets taken out again.
Some places have higher risks, others have guarantees of outcome, the only unknown is the timeframe.
I recall a case from Norway where someone’s house was taken by what was deemed a “100-year” flood, ie. it’s only that large every 100 years.
The insurance company and the government was happy to have them rebuild in the same location only for it to be taken out by the next event 5-10 years later.
That’s not viable for anyone. Risk to life, and the cost to the society.
The house I grew up in is over 200 years old, and has been where it’s at for more than 130 years now.
It’s survived at least 10 hurricanes, and will likely stand there for another 100 years unless someone decides to tear it down or the water level rises too much. But at least it’s a good 20 meters above sea level.
It isn't going to be politically popular for a community to support not rebuilding in case of a natural disaster. That community will take political measures to engage in self preservation.
The insurance market is leaving Florida and the government is stepping in.
“the right thing to do” is often not politically popular.
The problem is that it’s often really hard to measure what the right thing to do even was. Ie. in retrospect. Even more difficult up front.
Insurance is usually problematic too, in such matters. Your house insurance pays for a new house, in the same location. “Same” house.
Usually needs to be fairly exceptional to get something else.
So, if you wanted to get out of Dodge you’re still stuck with the same house, might not afford selling and relocating.
And even if you did you need a job. So might your spouse.
So far some of the observable effects of climate change is more frequent and stronger hurricanes and tornados.
While it’s obviously not popular, I believe we need to start taking relocating the most vulnerable areas. Some people have already relocated, others will. There are those that never will, but in-between there’s a lot of people who’ll probably suffer greatly if is not arranged before it’s “too late”.
Insurance companies pulling out is like rats leaving a sinking ship. It should be an alarming warning sign when insurance is no longer a viable business.
Obviously they would stay in the market if it was financially viable. Doesn’t matter if the margin is low, 1% of something is more than 100% of nothing.
It might still be on the plus-side today, but a sinking ship is also still floating.
I didn't make the statement to argue their point, but to explain the politics.