Perhaps the most interesting part of the article:

  • fine_sandy_bottom@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    The cost of insurance needs to equal the risk though.

    If a house is going to get burned down every year, who pays to re-build it?

    It isn’t practical to expect everyone to move out of florida, but climate change is impractical.

    • Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      17 hours ago

      Thats why i pointed at building codes. Require building that will survive the threat. Then people will have to pay more for them which discourages people from building in those areas at least.

        • Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          6 hours ago

          No it doesn’t. Those people need to be essentially bailed out if/when their house is destroyed. Most of them had no idea what they were getting into when they bought it. And we bail out companies, so why not people. But that buy out should be to buy the land for a reasonable price, or if they want to rebuild, they will have to sink extra money of thier own into meeting the requirements of new buildings for that area. In some areas they may want to incentivize rebuilding to the new standard, in some they wouldn’t. Insurance as it is now, only pays to rebuild such that it can burn down again. So even raising the price on that doesn’t solve the problem. It will just end up with the cost of insurance being wrapped into the mortgage eventually.