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.
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.