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.
Your reading into my choice of the word scenario too much. I just needed a word for the line of events that occur as a result of your plan.
Over the years, I have seen a fair number of articles about patterns found when looking at the houses that don’t burn down when a wild fire passes through. California apparently has some regulations and even does inspections for plant placement around houses in high risk zones. Oregon will do a free assessment and if you qualify, give you a small tax credit for making improvements to refuce your risk. These though are just the cheapest things that can be implemented. Expanding that into construction standards is what I think the best plan is.
And while I agree with your assessment of the political climate, the supreme court recently allowed Hawaii to sue some companies essentially for the effects of climate change. I was surprised by this, but that means at least states could sue to pay for programs to buyout homeowners.
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.
Your reading into my choice of the word scenario too much. I just needed a word for the line of events that occur as a result of your plan.
Over the years, I have seen a fair number of articles about patterns found when looking at the houses that don’t burn down when a wild fire passes through. California apparently has some regulations and even does inspections for plant placement around houses in high risk zones. Oregon will do a free assessment and if you qualify, give you a small tax credit for making improvements to refuce your risk. These though are just the cheapest things that can be implemented. Expanding that into construction standards is what I think the best plan is.
And while I agree with your assessment of the political climate, the supreme court recently allowed Hawaii to sue some companies essentially for the effects of climate change. I was surprised by this, but that means at least states could sue to pay for programs to buyout homeowners.