Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
For those that live in those areas, sadly you have really two choices. Move. Or go without insurance.
It sucks but that's reality. The government couldn't even afford to cover those homes. If it were one home in a danger zone then it would be feasible. But with the number of homes, businesses and other buildings it just isn't feasible. We need to start working to get these people out of there. If we start now it can in theory be done but the longer we wait the more impossible it will become.
I'm sure you know we're not going to do the right thing for anyone in the coming years. We won't do anything to avoid the disaster and we won't give a shit when disaster strikes others either. Greed and selfishness will be the end of us. We'll all just say "Thank God it wasn't me" until eventually it is.
Very true
Laughs in Dutch Deltaworks.
The government would easily be able to fix this, by properly protecting the city from the ocean by building adequate protection measures. But it failed to do so.. and this is the result. The constituents voted for short term cost savings over long term viability of some of their large population centers.
Unfortunately we don't currently have a Dutch government that believes in climate change, luckily our water defense is managed by an even older branch of government that does still know it's core function.
Bold of you to assume that the coral basin of Florida an Louisiana would not let water bubble up from the soil as it rises.
Why? It's not as if this problem is unique. Other environments, other challenges. It's not as if that is not a solvable issue.
You just reminded me that there's a version of Pandemic inspired by this, it's actually really fun
This is the thing I wish we could see more of. Why are people stuck on this idea that they have a "right" to live in the spaces even though the economics say otherwise? It's time to rebuild our urban cores and keep everyone out of the forests except for recreation.
You have a right to live there. I have no problem with people living in these areas.
What I disagree with is the expectation that the rest of society pay for that right when it’s an area that you know will get damaged.
With insurance (not that I’m in favor of private enterprise profiting off your potential for catastrophe) that cost was spread out over you and your neighbors, maybe even some of the rest of the insurers customers, with increased premiums.
But if you choose to stay in a known disaster-prone area where homes are expected to be wrecked fairly regularly, society (the taxpayer) shouldn’t be on the hook for that.
(I say “fairly regularly” I don’t mean someplace that might get a random tornado, but places that are regularly impacted by hurricanes such as the East/southeastern coastal areas, flooding along the Mississippi, etc.)
I'm not sure about Louisiana but where I live, you can't get a mortgage if you can't get insurance. That means in order to move, you have to find a buyer that will pay cash.
Otherwise you're screwed.
They could form a co-op and insure each other. Except the insurance companies bought state legislators (at rock-bottom prices!) and made that illegal.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I like when people think outside of the box
but let's think about that concept.
you , myself, and 22 others live in a high risk flood zone. the insurance companies won't insure us because of the high risk.
if we (the 24) try to insure ourselves, there is no way to gather enough premiums to offset the losses.
think about it, the insurance companies will insure LARGE numbers of homes. then use the premiums to pay for losses on a few of those homes. so when someones house burns down or gets destroyed by a flood there is money in the bank to cover the loss. but since it is a smaller number of people putting in premiums, there is a smaller amount of money in the pot to cover the loss.
all the homes are in a high risk flood zone, it wouldn't take much for all the homes (in the co-op) to be destroyed in the same flood to wipe out the pile of cash and not have a way to rebuild.
i like your idea but the end result makes in a solution that just won't work. sorry.
If we start now it can in theory be done but the longer we wait the more impossible it will become.
While I agree with your assessment this is a statement about mitigating the damages of climate change that has been repeated for at least 40+ years. And... well... we've seen how well that's turned out.
I was under the impression that insurance was needed to secure a mortgage. I live in an area that doesn’t have these issues but my mortgage provider was very clear to me that home insurance was a requirement of the mortgage. Maybe it was the mortgage provider I used? I thought everyone had that requirement. I live in an area with just about zero natural disaster concern or climate change concern.
For those that live in those areas
Which areas? There's almost nowhere that coverage won't be a problem because of climate change within the next decade.
There are areas that will be much worse. In Minnesota we will see some issues but trust me, we basically won’t see massive flooding. The tornadoes might and probably will get worse but we won’t see entire towns removed because of flooding or massive fires. Iowa, North and South Dakota, Wisconsin will also be fine.
It’s low lying coastal area that will get crushed. Also going to (for example) the East side of California could be problem areas. We will have to live in a smaller section of area.
Not sure who downvoted you though
Tornadoes have definitely destroyed entire towns. And recently. So I would say Minnesota is at risk from that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_Western_Kentucky_tornado
As for who downvoted me... probably some idiot who doesn't believe in climate change.
Fair enough entire towns have been wiped out. Can't argue that but on the big picture side of things, I'd say coastal areas are going to get hit way worse
Way worse for sure. I'm just pointing out that almost everywhere will have to deal with climate disasters bad enough that it will destroy the home insurance industry.
Insurance rates are the true Canary of Collapse. If the money men have calculated that certain areas are going to quickly become unlivable, then people should listen.
Of course it's not trivial to just pack up your life and move but it's about to become super necessary, unfortunately.
Yeah but just picking up your life and leaving isn't always a possibility simply because you have so much investment already where you're at. I mean how the hell do you get any of the money that you have invested in the home... it's uninsurable who do you sell it to.?
You're completely right. Many people are about to get totally financially ruined at a minimum. There's going to be a lot of climate refugees from these areas who've lost everything.
Eventually someone is left holding the bag on any house really. Unless the property increases in value past the value of the house, then it can be torn down and a new house built while keeping the price comparable to other nearby homes.
Yes but in this context it about the scope of the situation. You are not talking about just one person left holding the bag. We are talking about entire towns soon maybe states. At what point do we actually step in as a country . you have huge swaths of people that are not going to be capable of financially moving on because they have sunk all of their everything into that ground and you're telling them they have to basically abandon it. That will not go well.
Herrera shopped around for a new plan, but he struggled to find a policy. Louisiana Citizens, the insurer of last resort for property owners in the state, was out of the question. It would have cost more than $7,000 annually. Herrera eventually found a policy with a small company in the state that charged him $4,930 annually — a 208% increase from what he paid in 2022.
There were at least 2 options $5000–$7000. Sell to someone at a discount with the understanding that buyer is willing and able to bear at least $5000 in annual insurance costs. Do this before its actually uninsurable.
It’s almost like the insurance industry is unsustainable in a world where catastrophe is the norm.
Exactly. It won't be long before there will be very few places where insuring homes that aren't at risk of weather disasters due to climate change will be possible.
Hot take: all severe/extreme-risk flood zone properties should be immediately rezoned to disallow residential use. Current residents would be able to stay where they are, however any flood zone property put up for sale should be sold for either recreational or agricultural use, otherwise acquired by the government to be restored to a riparian ecosystem. Better to take the financial hit of property value decrease now and start dismantling high-risk development than realize the loss suddenly after the next big flood washes the entire neighborhood away. Additionally, creating more dedicated wetlands may even mitigate how far-reaching that next flood is and help protect properties that would have otherwise gotten inundated.
I think a major problem with this approach is that many of the people that'll be displaced are poor and devaluing their land before kicking them out is only going to make that worse. I also think rebuilding homes in areas where it's going to get demolished again by another storm in 5 years is yet another terrible approach.
Perhaps it's best to let them get an insurance payout for their home and then gently nudge them into taking that cash and moving somewhere else.
That's why I included the option to sell to the government (kind of like a voluntary eminent domain program).
My take on this is that the root cause, like many other significant problems that we are seeing, is clearly wealth inequality. Yes, climate change is a big factor but, if the populace was readily able to afford replacement of homes impacted by natural (and human-augmented) disasters, insurance would have no problem. With how expensive homes have become due to artificially-constrained supplies, insurance companies have become an absolute necessity to mitigate homeownership risks and, when they pay out, and up needing to fork over more cash.
Please don't misconstrue this as support for the insurance industry. They are just necessary at this time for people to manage risks in areas that cost far more than they should (healthcare, transportation, homes, etc).
Good, this will get people to start moving away from being under water and from wildfire zones. This is the beginning of the necessary movement, if it has to begin this way, then so be it.
It fucking sucks that here in CA, the entire state is losing insurers despite the fact that a huge chunk of the population lives in coastal areas with no danger of wildfires.
Presumably state laws prohibit discrimination, so their only choice is to cover everywhere in the state or nowhere
None that I could find.
I honestly think the insurance companies are taking advantage of this to try to force changes to the California insurance regulation, which is quite strict regarding cost increases to consumers. It's the only reason I could think of that they would pull out of the entire state and not just the dangerous areas. It's 2024, the data exists to an excruciating level.
I've concluded this as well.
These folks are losing their insurance. But even those of us who live in safe areas with little to no history or indicators of disaster are still seeing rates skyrocket. Mine were raised 30% this year and I have no risk of flooding or wildfire, and very low risk of storm or earthquake damage. Crime in my neighborhood is the lowest in the region (kind of surprising considering it’s very working class mixed with lots of low income housing), and has no history of damage to the property at all. But still, 30% hike with no reason given. My car insurance jumped 25% too.
I feel like the right half of neoliberals love insurance. Such a great component of capitalism.
So this should be their signal to start buying into climate change. Right?
There's a simple solution here...take away these comp abilities to offer car insurance.... it's not as if their profits are non existent.
N a t i o n a l i z e
I cannot think of something I want nationalized less than home insurance. Climate change means that some areas are actually much riskier than they were before and the truth is some portion of households are going to become uninsurable and others are going to become expensive. Option 1: The expense of insurance and risk can be priced into the property at time of sale to a buyer willing to bear the cost. Option 2: If we are going to give free money to these people when their house is destroyed with government subsidized insurance to cover disasters it should be on condition of condemning uninsurable properties not rebuilding them multiple times.
counterpoint: similar to how nationalizing health insurance has lead states around the world to take safety and health seriously as a cost saving measure, nationalizing home insurance would lead to climate change being taken seriously as a cost saving measure.