> “Extending mandatory coverage to all property owners,” in line with the approach taken in New Zealand, “could become thinkable in a way that it never has been before.”
I'm not sure that's the correct solution here. Giving people flood insurance when they build on the beach in Florida is just a bad idea. There is going to be a flood claim; it's not really insuring against a risk, you know the risk is going to happen several times while they own the house.
Pretty sure the actual solution is earlier in the article. Update the flood maps to reflect the current risk. Sure, people might not be able to afford a property (from the extra insurance requirement) in a flood zone; but from what I can see in the article, people can't afford to rebuilt after Helene so all they did was move the affordability issue from when they bought the house to when Helene hit.
I feel like I'm missing something. Wouldn't this be something to price into coverage? If it's a high risk, premiums up to 1/x of the home value. Don't like it? You can't afford to own the house.
In New Zealand after the Christchurch earthquake, the government condemned entire suburbs and made it illegal to build there.
They then initiated an inspection of every multi-storey building, and allocated an NBS rating. Some buildings were condemned, and other buildings must be strengthened. It's almost impossible to sell these affected buildings.
So in the US for a national insurance scheme to work, the government would need to actively remove high risk properties.
New Zealand also has no state governments, just one national government. So it's much easier for them to implement these sorts of policies.
I don't think the people in North Carolina are in any way a flood zone - meaning most rainfalls and storms will not and has not caused flooding there in the history of that location.
Merely extending flood insurance is not the solution. There should be a national pool of money available for climate disasters that can be disbursed every year to the major disaster incidents. This money can be raised from corporations or insurance companies or executives or any other pots of wealth.
The problem with a national climate disaster relief fund is that there is no incentive structure to push people to protect their property or migrate to less risky areas. We have areas that are destroyed every other year but people keep on rebuilding.
Perhaps as an alternative there could be a national fund with risk adjusted fees that is mandatory in cities that receive services.
It should be funded by a carbon tax… the root cause of the more rapid and intense climate change.
Gas and carbon emitting electricity sources should be a LOT more expensive than they are. That would then push more people to EVs and renewables even faster and if there is demand than economies of scale will be reached and the prices of EVs and renewables will fall even further.
Ah yes, people who are currently struggling with the prices of eggs and other necessities will run out and buy an EV tomorrow (absent infrastructure improvements of course) if only we increase their electricity bill too as a form of punitive social tax. Let's also not forget to twist whilst squeezing their testicles.
Compare: "How dare you start fining anybody who poops in the local water supply! Some poor villagers can't afford to dig their own latrines! You monster!"
You're presenting a false dilemma: We can have laws against inflicting harm on other people through pollution and do more to help the poor. Granting a special license to pollute is not a reasonable way to fix chronic poverty anyway.
While we're at this rethink, let us also consider the wisdom of stretching infrastructure miles into the countryside without pricing it in to utility services.
No, it should trigger a national rethink on where we allow people to keep rebuilding over and over - or at least provide public services and funding - local, state, or federal for those areas.
> “Extending mandatory coverage to all property owners,” in line with the approach taken in New Zealand, “could become thinkable in a way that it never has been before.”
I'm not sure that's the correct solution here. Giving people flood insurance when they build on the beach in Florida is just a bad idea. There is going to be a flood claim; it's not really insuring against a risk, you know the risk is going to happen several times while they own the house.
Pretty sure the actual solution is earlier in the article. Update the flood maps to reflect the current risk. Sure, people might not be able to afford a property (from the extra insurance requirement) in a flood zone; but from what I can see in the article, people can't afford to rebuilt after Helene so all they did was move the affordability issue from when they bought the house to when Helene hit.
> There is going to be a flood claim;
I feel like I'm missing something. Wouldn't this be something to price into coverage? If it's a high risk, premiums up to 1/x of the home value. Don't like it? You can't afford to own the house.
In New Zealand after the Christchurch earthquake, the government condemned entire suburbs and made it illegal to build there.
They then initiated an inspection of every multi-storey building, and allocated an NBS rating. Some buildings were condemned, and other buildings must be strengthened. It's almost impossible to sell these affected buildings.
So in the US for a national insurance scheme to work, the government would need to actively remove high risk properties.
New Zealand also has no state governments, just one national government. So it's much easier for them to implement these sorts of policies.
I don't think the people in North Carolina are in any way a flood zone - meaning most rainfalls and storms will not and has not caused flooding there in the history of that location.
Merely extending flood insurance is not the solution. There should be a national pool of money available for climate disasters that can be disbursed every year to the major disaster incidents. This money can be raised from corporations or insurance companies or executives or any other pots of wealth.
The problem with a national climate disaster relief fund is that there is no incentive structure to push people to protect their property or migrate to less risky areas. We have areas that are destroyed every other year but people keep on rebuilding.
Perhaps as an alternative there could be a national fund with risk adjusted fees that is mandatory in cities that receive services.
It should be funded by a carbon tax… the root cause of the more rapid and intense climate change.
Gas and carbon emitting electricity sources should be a LOT more expensive than they are. That would then push more people to EVs and renewables even faster and if there is demand than economies of scale will be reached and the prices of EVs and renewables will fall even further.
Ah yes, people who are currently struggling with the prices of eggs and other necessities will run out and buy an EV tomorrow (absent infrastructure improvements of course) if only we increase their electricity bill too as a form of punitive social tax. Let's also not forget to twist whilst squeezing their testicles.
Compare: "How dare you start fining anybody who poops in the local water supply! Some poor villagers can't afford to dig their own latrines! You monster!"
You're presenting a false dilemma: We can have laws against inflicting harm on other people through pollution and do more to help the poor. Granting a special license to pollute is not a reasonable way to fix chronic poverty anyway.
While we're at this rethink, let us also consider the wisdom of stretching infrastructure miles into the countryside without pricing it in to utility services.
No, it should trigger a national rethink on where we allow people to keep rebuilding over and over - or at least provide public services and funding - local, state, or federal for those areas.