So your answer is that the average person in socal should just be put in finacial ruin if a fire burns down their house. If insurance is super expensive they won’t be able to sell it, because no one could afford the insurance. They can’t afford it either, but can’t move without selling it. Once thier house does burn down, and they have no where to live, they won’t be able to work, and will eventually be poor enough for welfare and such. So we will be paying for them anyway. But at least your way they are destitue.
And it is easy to say it was predictable after it happened. I don’t think anyone predicted this level of devastation in LA. Fires in the surrounding hills sure. But not through dense residential areas like that.
And given the motivation, engineers can build a house that can withstand just about anything.
They are worth nil if no one will buy them. And if the insurance will be significantly more, who would buy it? The owners would probably still owe money on the mortgage if they managed to sell it, which many couldn’t afford. Banks would probably refuse to loan to people buying those houses further reducing who might buy it, which further reduces the value. So people won’t be able to sell them making them effectively worth nil.
And in your scenario, those lots of people losing money… why should they be average citizens. They didn’t cause climate change. That was the oil and manufacturing industry who knew decades ago what they were doing. And instead of try to come up with solutions, produced propaganda to hide the facts and discredit anyone who tried to point it out. Maybe they should be the ones to lose a lot of money. They sure made and continue to make more than enough to buy those houses outright.
I honestly find it odd that you keep referring to my comments as my scenario as though this is some weirdo conspiracy I’ve dreamed up. In my opinion, your solution is impracticable. Sure, you should assist those adversely effected by climate change, but paying to rebuild their houses to be flood and fire proof is an absurd notion.
Yes private citizens are going to lose a lot of money and experience a lot of hardship as a result of climate change. It’s well established science that many areas will experience more severe weather. There are very likely to be severe water shortages, and extensive famine.
You are right of course that corporations should bear the responsibility and the cost but given the political landscape in 2025 that’s just not going to happen. Populations the world over are sliding to the right, electing governments who will reduce regulations and support further concentration of wealth.
So your answer is that the average person in socal should just be put in finacial ruin if a fire burns down their house. If insurance is super expensive they won’t be able to sell it, because no one could afford the insurance. They can’t afford it either, but can’t move without selling it. Once thier house does burn down, and they have no where to live, they won’t be able to work, and will eventually be poor enough for welfare and such. So we will be paying for them anyway. But at least your way they are destitue.
And it is easy to say it was predictable after it happened. I don’t think anyone predicted this level of devastation in LA. Fires in the surrounding hills sure. But not through dense residential areas like that.
And given the motivation, engineers can build a house that can withstand just about anything.
That’s not my answer at all.
These houses will be more difficult to insure and less desirable and worth less as a result. Not worth nil, just worth significantly less.
Engineers can build amazing things, but most people probably don’t want to pay for a submersible house or a fire proof house.
Yes lots of people will lose a lot of money. Climate change is going to be a rough ride.
They are worth nil if no one will buy them. And if the insurance will be significantly more, who would buy it? The owners would probably still owe money on the mortgage if they managed to sell it, which many couldn’t afford. Banks would probably refuse to loan to people buying those houses further reducing who might buy it, which further reduces the value. So people won’t be able to sell them making them effectively worth nil.
And in your scenario, those lots of people losing money… why should they be average citizens. They didn’t cause climate change. That was the oil and manufacturing industry who knew decades ago what they were doing. And instead of try to come up with solutions, produced propaganda to hide the facts and discredit anyone who tried to point it out. Maybe they should be the ones to lose a lot of money. They sure made and continue to make more than enough to buy those houses outright.
I honestly find it odd that you keep referring to my comments as my scenario as though this is some weirdo conspiracy I’ve dreamed up. In my opinion, your solution is impracticable. Sure, you should assist those adversely effected by climate change, but paying to rebuild their houses to be flood and fire proof is an absurd notion.
Yes private citizens are going to lose a lot of money and experience a lot of hardship as a result of climate change. It’s well established science that many areas will experience more severe weather. There are very likely to be severe water shortages, and extensive famine.
You are right of course that corporations should bear the responsibility and the cost but given the political landscape in 2025 that’s just not going to happen. Populations the world over are sliding to the right, electing governments who will reduce regulations and support further concentration of wealth.