America's coastal cities are a hidden time bomb

[FINate]

I'm not even shocked anymore. Yes, it's tragic and I feel bad for everyone impacted by this. Yet also frustrated that we keep watching the same movie on repeat. Building in drought-prone fire-adapted ecosystems evolved to burn, in dense vegetation, on mountains with a known history of high down-slope winds. Why is this surprising to anyone?

Current estimate is over 10,000 structures burned, at a loss of around $150 billion.

Whatever the fires don't destroy the subsequent debris flows will finish off, things like roads and other infrastructure.

There's very real concern that the FAIR insurance plan will reach its breaking point.

I've read that Pacific Palisades is more-or-less destroyed. Local governments should refuse building permits for such areas. People should take their insurance payouts and move somewhere more reasonable. Turn it into public mountain biking/hiking trails.

As discussed already in this thread, no city or area is immune to natural disasters. But our current patterns of building into the WUI and along the coast (esp. in hurricane country) are completely absurd. I guess the lesson repeats as necessary.

It’s well established that the oil & gas companies knew that climate change was real over 50 years ago. In fact, a lot of the original climate science originated from within Exxon and the American Petroleum Institute. Then these companies spent the last 50+ years lying about it in order to avoid responsibility.

In the mean time, the science of climate attribution has come a long ways. It is possible to quantify how much more likely events like this are because of climate change, and how much different companies have contributed to the problem.

I’d like to see California and other western states set up a program to backstop property insurance, funded by the oil and gas companies that made it happen.

I don’t think this will ever happen, but it would be the most fair outcome. Everyone’s insurance rates are going through the roof, and we know exactly which companies caused it.   Why shouldn’t they pay?

It's worth a try. But even if successful, a one-time settlement isn't going to cover the ongoing costs of climate change. Maybe the funds could be used to help cover the cost of resettling people to lower risk areas.

[FINate]

Current estimate is over 10,000 structures burned, at a loss of around $150 billion.

I've seen this same number in the news as well, but cannot wrap my head around it.  Insurance pays for the value of the structure, not the entire property.  Since most of the value of a home there seems to be the land, that shouldn't be included in these damage estimates.  Let's say the average house costs $1 million to rebuild (I think this should be a conservatively high number), that would place total insurance payout at $10 billion.  How do these estimates of loss come up 15x higher than that?

Yeah, good point, and I don't know. Maybe this is a wildly inflated figure, or perhaps the cost to rebuild is a lot higher than the structure itself (cleanup, rebuilding water systems, etc.).

[NorCal]

I'm not even shocked anymore. Yes, it's tragic and I feel bad for everyone impacted by this. Yet also frustrated that we keep watching the same movie on repeat. Building in drought-prone fire-adapted ecosystems evolved to burn, in dense vegetation, on mountains with a known history of high down-slope winds. Why is this surprising to anyone?

Current estimate is over 10,000 structures burned, at a loss of around $150 billion.

Whatever the fires don't destroy the subsequent debris flows will finish off, things like roads and other infrastructure.

There's very real concern that the FAIR insurance plan will reach its breaking point.

I've read that Pacific Palisades is more-or-less destroyed. Local governments should refuse building permits for such areas. People should take their insurance payouts and move somewhere more reasonable. Turn it into public mountain biking/hiking trails.

As discussed already in this thread, no city or area is immune to natural disasters. But our current patterns of building into the WUI and along the coast (esp. in hurricane country) are completely absurd. I guess the lesson repeats as necessary.

It’s well established that the oil & gas companies knew that climate change was real over 50 years ago. In fact, a lot of the original climate science originated from within Exxon and the American Petroleum Institute. Then these companies spent the last 50+ years lying about it in order to avoid responsibility.

In the mean time, the science of climate attribution has come a long ways. It is possible to quantify how much more likely events like this are because of climate change, and how much different companies have contributed to the problem.

I’d like to see California and other western states set up a program to backstop property insurance, funded by the oil and gas companies that made it happen.

I don’t think this will ever happen, but it would be the most fair outcome. Everyone’s insurance rates are going through the roof, and we know exactly which companies caused it.   Why shouldn’t they pay?

It's worth a try. But even if successful, a one-time settlement isn't going to cover the ongoing costs of climate change. Maybe the funds could be used to help cover the cost of resettling people to lower risk areas.

Many states already are suing the oil & gas companies over climate change. I don’t know how likely they are to succeed. I don’t think any of the lawsuits are insurance related though.

I just ask myself why states are relying on the courts and multi-year (if not multi-decade) litigation when they could simply use their taxing or regulatory authority.

[corgiegirl]

I'm not even shocked anymore. Yes, it's tragic and I feel bad for everyone impacted by this. Yet also frustrated that we keep watching the same movie on repeat. Building in drought-prone fire-adapted ecosystems evolved to burn, in dense vegetation, on mountains with a known history of high down-slope winds. Why is this surprising to anyone?

Current estimate is over 10,000 structures burned, at a loss of around $150 billion.

Whatever the fires don't destroy the subsequent debris flows will finish off, things like roads and other infrastructure.

There's very real concern that the FAIR insurance plan will reach its breaking point.

I've read that Pacific Palisades is more-or-less destroyed. Local governments should refuse building permits for such areas. People should take their insurance payouts and move somewhere more reasonable. Turn it into public mountain biking/hiking trails.

As discussed already in this thread, no city or area is immune to natural disasters. But our current patterns of building into the WUI and along the coast (esp. in hurricane country) are completely absurd. I guess the lesson repeats as necessary.

I've read that home insurance companies started pulling out of insuring Palisades only a few months ago: that should have been a warning to the inhabitants of the level of risk they were under, but non-one seems to have seen it that way, or done anything about it.

I suppose they might insure rebuilding against fire until the brush regrows and becomes dangerous again, and perhaps require concrete walls and roofs rather than timber frames and shingles?  But I can't imagine any insurance company in the area will want to insure against the inevitable mudslides next time it rains heavily.

[corgiegirl]

I'm not even shocked anymore. Yes, it's tragic and I feel bad for everyone impacted by this. Yet also frustrated that we keep watching the same movie on repeat. Building in drought-prone fire-adapted ecosystems evolved to burn, in dense vegetation, on mountains with a known history of high down-slope winds. Why is this surprising to anyone?

Current estimate is over 10,000 structures burned, at a loss of around $150 billion.

Whatever the fires don't destroy the subsequent debris flows will finish off, things like roads and other infrastructure.

There's very real concern that the FAIR insurance plan will reach its breaking point.

I've read that Pacific Palisades is more-or-less destroyed. Local governments should refuse building permits for such areas. People should take their insurance payouts and move somewhere more reasonable. Turn it into public mountain biking/hiking trails.

As discussed already in this thread, no city or area is immune to natural disasters. But our current patterns of building into the WUI and along the coast (esp. in hurricane country) are completely absurd. I guess the lesson repeats as necessary.

It’s well established that the oil & gas companies knew that climate change was real over 50 years ago. In fact, a lot of the original climate science originated from within Exxon and the American Petroleum Institute. Then these companies spent the last 50+ years lying about it in order to avoid responsibility.

In the mean time, the science of climate attribution has come a long ways. It is possible to quantify how much more likely events like this are because of climate change, and how much different companies have contributed to the problem.

I’d like to see California and other western states set up a program to backstop property insurance, funded by the oil and gas companies that made it happen.

I don’t think this will ever happen, but it would be the most fair outcome. Everyone’s insurance rates are going through the roof, and we know exactly which companies caused it.   Why shouldn’t they pay?

It's worth a try. But even if successful, a one-time settlement isn't going to cover the ongoing costs of climate change. Maybe the funds could be used to help cover the cost of resettling people to lower risk areas.

Many states already are suing the oil & gas companies over climate change. I don’t know how likely they are to succeed. I don’t think any of the lawsuits are insurance related though.

I just ask myself why states are relying on the courts and multi-year (if not multi-decade) litigation when they could simply use their taxing or regulatory authority.

The oil and gas companies are just the suppliers, it's us the general public that are the users.  The oil and gas companies don't even need to push their products any more, we are all addicted and keep filling up our gas tanks even knowing that we are killing the planet, and eventually most of humanity, by doing so.

I saw in a news report some footage of Palisades before the fire, presenting it as a sort of paradise.  All I saw was the endless parade of cars passing by on Sunset and the PCH, burning the fuels that will make coastal California uninhabitable at some point in the future, and in some places maybe already have.

[GilesMM]

Current estimate is over 10,000 structures burned, at a loss of around $150 billion.

I've seen this same number in the news as well, but cannot wrap my head around it.  Insurance pays for the value of the structure, not the entire property.  Since most of the value of a home there seems to be the land, that shouldn't be included in these damage estimates.  Let's say the average house costs $1 million to rebuild (I think this should be a conservatively high number), that would place total insurance payout at $10 billion.  How do these estimates of loss come up 15x higher than that?

Yeah, good point, and I don't know. Maybe this is a wildly inflated figure, or perhaps the cost to rebuild is a lot higher than the structure itself (cleanup, rebuilding water systems, etc.).

My insurer insists our home would cost 4X what we paid for it (12 months ago) to rebuild.  I can't wrap my head around that and don't like the premiums but an estimate from another insurer was signficantly higher.

[GilesMM]

I'm not even shocked anymore. Yes, it's tragic and I feel bad for everyone impacted by this. Yet also frustrated that we keep watching the same movie on repeat. Building in drought-prone fire-adapted ecosystems evolved to burn, in dense vegetation, on mountains with a known history of high down-slope winds. Why is this surprising to anyone?

Current estimate is over 10,000 structures burned, at a loss of around $150 billion.

Whatever the fires don't destroy the subsequent debris flows will finish off, things like roads and other infrastructure.

There's very real concern that the FAIR insurance plan will reach its breaking point.

I've read that Pacific Palisades is more-or-less destroyed. Local governments should refuse building permits for such areas. People should take their insurance payouts and move somewhere more reasonable. Turn it into public mountain biking/hiking trails.

As discussed already in this thread, no city or area is immune to natural disasters. But our current patterns of building into the WUI and along the coast (esp. in hurricane country) are completely absurd. I guess the lesson repeats as necessary.

I've read that home insurance companies started pulling out of insuring Palisades only a few months ago: that should have been a warning to the inhabitants of the level of risk they were under, but non-one seems to have seen it that way, or done anything about it.

I suppose they might insure rebuilding against fire until the brush regrows and becomes dangerous again, and perhaps require concrete walls and roofs rather than timber frames and shingles?  But I can't imagine any insurance company in the area will want to insure against the inevitable mudslides next time it rains heavily.

You really can't get insurance against mud slides - it is not available except maybe Lloyds of London.


New construction in LA will almost certainly be more fire resistant, particularly roof and exterior wall materials.  Homes will need a 5-10 foot perimeter free of shrubbery, trees and wooden fences.  Decks need to be fire-proof.  Attics need cinder-screens. 

[GilesMM]

I'm not even shocked anymore. Yes, it's tragic and I feel bad for everyone impacted by this. Yet also frustrated that we keep watching the same movie on repeat. Building in drought-prone fire-adapted ecosystems evolved to burn, in dense vegetation, on mountains with a known history of high down-slope winds. Why is this surprising to anyone?

Current estimate is over 10,000 structures burned, at a loss of around $150 billion.

Whatever the fires don't destroy the subsequent debris flows will finish off, things like roads and other infrastructure.

There's very real concern that the FAIR insurance plan will reach its breaking point.

I've read that Pacific Palisades is more-or-less destroyed. Local governments should refuse building permits for such areas. People should take their insurance payouts and move somewhere more reasonable. Turn it into public mountain biking/hiking trails.

As discussed already in this thread, no city or area is immune to natural disasters. But our current patterns of building into the WUI and along the coast (esp. in hurricane country) are completely absurd. I guess the lesson repeats as necessary.

It’s well established that the oil & gas companies knew that climate change was real over 50 years ago. In fact, a lot of the original climate science originated from within Exxon and the American Petroleum Institute. Then these companies spent the last 50+ years lying about it in order to avoid responsibility.

In the mean time, the science of climate attribution has come a long ways. It is possible to quantify how much more likely events like this are because of climate change, and how much different companies have contributed to the problem.

I’d like to see California and other western states set up a program to backstop property insurance, funded by the oil and gas companies that made it happen.

I don’t think this will ever happen, but it would be the most fair outcome. Everyone’s insurance rates are going through the roof, and we know exactly which companies caused it.   Why shouldn’t they pay?

It's worth a try. But even if successful, a one-time settlement isn't going to cover the ongoing costs of climate change. Maybe the funds could be used to help cover the cost of resettling people to lower risk areas.

Many states already are suing the oil & gas companies over climate change. I don’t know how likely they are to succeed. I don’t think any of the lawsuits are insurance related though.

I just ask myself why states are relying on the courts and multi-year (if not multi-decade) litigation when they could simply use their taxing or regulatory authority.

The oil and gas companies are just the suppliers, it's us the general public that are the users.  The oil and gas companies don't even need to push their products any more, we are all addicted and keep filling up our gas tanks even knowing that we are killing the planet, and eventually most of humanity, by doing so.

I saw in a news report some footage of Palisades before the fire, presenting it as a sort of paradise.  All I saw was the endless parade of cars passing by on Sunset and the PCH, burning the fuels that will make coastal California uninhabitable at some point in the future, and in some places maybe already have.

If the desire is to reduce consumption of oil and gas, it should be heavily taxed.  $10/gallon gasoline, diesel and jet fuel.  $10/mmcf gas for your furnace, water heater, dryer and stove.  Severely curb driving, air travel and shipping. Anything with plastic in it would need to triple or more in price to discourage people.  The resulting inflation would be crushing but perhaps curb consumption.

[NorCal]

I'm not even shocked anymore. Yes, it's tragic and I feel bad for everyone impacted by this. Yet also frustrated that we keep watching the same movie on repeat. Building in drought-prone fire-adapted ecosystems evolved to burn, in dense vegetation, on mountains with a known history of high down-slope winds. Why is this surprising to anyone?

Current estimate is over 10,000 structures burned, at a loss of around $150 billion.

Whatever the fires don't destroy the subsequent debris flows will finish off, things like roads and other infrastructure.

There's very real concern that the FAIR insurance plan will reach its breaking point.

I've read that Pacific Palisades is more-or-less destroyed. Local governments should refuse building permits for such areas. People should take their insurance payouts and move somewhere more reasonable. Turn it into public mountain biking/hiking trails.

As discussed already in this thread, no city or area is immune to natural disasters. But our current patterns of building into the WUI and along the coast (esp. in hurricane country) are completely absurd. I guess the lesson repeats as necessary.

It’s well established that the oil & gas companies knew that climate change was real over 50 years ago. In fact, a lot of the original climate science originated from within Exxon and the American Petroleum Institute. Then these companies spent the last 50+ years lying about it in order to avoid responsibility.

In the mean time, the science of climate attribution has come a long ways. It is possible to quantify how much more likely events like this are because of climate change, and how much different companies have contributed to the problem.

I’d like to see California and other western states set up a program to backstop property insurance, funded by the oil and gas companies that made it happen.

I don’t think this will ever happen, but it would be the most fair outcome. Everyone’s insurance rates are going through the roof, and we know exactly which companies caused it.   Why shouldn’t they pay?

It's worth a try. But even if successful, a one-time settlement isn't going to cover the ongoing costs of climate change. Maybe the funds could be used to help cover the cost of resettling people to lower risk areas.

Many states already are suing the oil & gas companies over climate change. I don’t know how likely they are to succeed. I don’t think any of the lawsuits are insurance related though.

I just ask myself why states are relying on the courts and multi-year (if not multi-decade) litigation when they could simply use their taxing or regulatory authority.

The oil and gas companies are just the suppliers, it's us the general public that are the users.  The oil and gas companies don't even need to push their products any more, we are all addicted and keep filling up our gas tanks even knowing that we are killing the planet, and eventually most of humanity, by doing so.

I saw in a news report some footage of Palisades before the fire, presenting it as a sort of paradise.  All I saw was the endless parade of cars passing by on Sunset and the PCH, burning the fuels that will make coastal California uninhabitable at some point in the future, and in some places maybe already have.

I have no dispute with the idea that individual consumers need to make massive changes. I know I sometimes come off as a preachy environmentalist in these forums encouraging people to do exactly that.

My belief in financial consequences for suppliers doesn’t come from the idea that we should ignore consumer responsibility. It comes from the industry running a multi-decade and massively expensive public deception campaign designed to prevent us from doing anything about climate change.

The industry could have come out 40 YEARS ago and said “uh, we have a problem”. We could have gotten in front of it back then by investing in alternatives. They chose to lie to the public instead.  The majority of emissions in our atmosphere have happened in the last 20 years. Even small changes to emissions growth trajectories in the 80’s or 90’s would have dramatically reduced the climate impacts we’re feeling today.

[GuitarStv]

I'm not even shocked anymore. Yes, it's tragic and I feel bad for everyone impacted by this. Yet also frustrated that we keep watching the same movie on repeat. Building in drought-prone fire-adapted ecosystems evolved to burn, in dense vegetation, on mountains with a known history of high down-slope winds. Why is this surprising to anyone?

Current estimate is over 10,000 structures burned, at a loss of around $150 billion.

Whatever the fires don't destroy the subsequent debris flows will finish off, things like roads and other infrastructure.

There's very real concern that the FAIR insurance plan will reach its breaking point.

I've read that Pacific Palisades is more-or-less destroyed. Local governments should refuse building permits for such areas. People should take their insurance payouts and move somewhere more reasonable. Turn it into public mountain biking/hiking trails.

As discussed already in this thread, no city or area is immune to natural disasters. But our current patterns of building into the WUI and along the coast (esp. in hurricane country) are completely absurd. I guess the lesson repeats as necessary.

It’s well established that the oil & gas companies knew that climate change was real over 50 years ago. In fact, a lot of the original climate science originated from within Exxon and the American Petroleum Institute. Then these companies spent the last 50+ years lying about it in order to avoid responsibility.

In the mean time, the science of climate attribution has come a long ways. It is possible to quantify how much more likely events like this are because of climate change, and how much different companies have contributed to the problem.

I’d like to see California and other western states set up a program to backstop property insurance, funded by the oil and gas companies that made it happen.

I don’t think this will ever happen, but it would be the most fair outcome. Everyone’s insurance rates are going through the roof, and we know exactly which companies caused it.   Why shouldn’t they pay?

It's worth a try. But even if successful, a one-time settlement isn't going to cover the ongoing costs of climate change. Maybe the funds could be used to help cover the cost of resettling people to lower risk areas.

Many states already are suing the oil & gas companies over climate change. I don’t know how likely they are to succeed. I don’t think any of the lawsuits are insurance related though.

I just ask myself why states are relying on the courts and multi-year (if not multi-decade) litigation when they could simply use their taxing or regulatory authority.

The oil and gas companies are just the suppliers, it's us the general public that are the users.  The oil and gas companies don't even need to push their products any more, we are all addicted and keep filling up our gas tanks even knowing that we are killing the planet, and eventually most of humanity, by doing so.

I saw in a news report some footage of Palisades before the fire, presenting it as a sort of paradise.  All I saw was the endless parade of cars passing by on Sunset and the PCH, burning the fuels that will make coastal California uninhabitable at some point in the future, and in some places maybe already have.

I have no dispute with the idea that individual consumers need to make massive changes. I know I sometimes come off as a preachy environmentalist in these forums encouraging people to do exactly that.

My belief in financial consequences for suppliers doesn’t come from the idea that we should ignore consumer responsibility. It comes from the industry running a multi-decade and massively expensive public deception campaign designed to prevent us from doing anything about climate change.

The industry could have come out 40 YEARS ago and said “uh, we have a problem”. We could have gotten in front of it back then by investing in alternatives. They chose to lie to the public instead.  The majority of emissions in our atmosphere have happened in the last 20 years. Even small changes to emissions growth trajectories in the 80’s or 90’s would have dramatically reduced the climate impacts we’re feeling today.

Oil and gas companies are the reason that climate change deniers exist at all.  They were astroturfed in by O&G, are now a permanent part of any dialogue regarding the climate change mitigation, and have been an insurmountable force in political opposition to change.  Their lobbying talking points have entirely taken over the current governing political party in the US, and the likely next governing political party in Canada.

While I agree that individuals certainly play some part in this story, the impact of deliberate actions taken by oil and gas companies cannot be understated and shouldn't be underplayed.

[tj]

Some context from a fire scientist / emeritus professor at ASU:

  "The astonishing thing is not that Los Angeles burns but that so much of its development has enhanced rather than blunted the threat from fire. For decades a preference for exposed-wood structures, including shake-shingle roofing, ensured that houses were maximally primed to burn.  Public forests and parks meant quasi-natural landscapes would not pave over the fire threat by converting brushlands to brick and concrete; rather, new development carried the problem into fresh lands.  Suburbs pushed up slopes, over alluvial fans, and against regrowing fuels.  It was as though the city's fringe had taken on the properties of its celebrated chaparral. It promoted fire, it burned, it regrew.

      The unholy mingling of built and natural landscapes guaranteed that fire protection was compromised in its very constitution. Cities want no fire; many countrysides need fire, and if mild fires are suppressed, the unburned fuel encourages monsters. If every urban fire that is put out is a problem solved, many wildland fires put out are problems put off. Urban fire services are ineffective in wildlands, and wildland fire brigades are helpless within the city; the two fire services have almost nothing in common except that both have been asked to stand between the hammer of flaming winds and the anvil of urban life and counter the blows."

https://www.stephenpyne.com/blog/posts/45668

When are we going to declare areas in the wildland-fire interface uninhabitable?

probably never unfortunately. People here in SoCal want their houses and so move out of flatter more dense areas to relatively inexpensive little tract homes in the foothills like in Altadena.  Rich people want their houses too but bigger and with more land around so off into the hillsides and dry barren wild-ish lands they go. They've lost thousands of homes in Altadena, many owned by working class people, and thousands more in wealthy coastal towns like Pacific Pallisades and Malibu. Last I heard Altadena lost 4,000 to 6,ooo homes and businesses and the coasts well over a thousand. So maybe there will be 10s of thousands by the end of it. The wealthy will just rebuild and the  poor home owners of all the little tract homes clustered together will just rebuild too because no one want to live closer to DTLA in a tiny condo. And then, once we get some rain, there will be the big mudslides.

Altadena ain't cheap. The cheapest listing I saw there was $850k.

[tj]

I'm not even shocked anymore. Yes, it's tragic and I feel bad for everyone impacted by this. Yet also frustrated that we keep watching the same movie on repeat. Building in drought-prone fire-adapted ecosystems evolved to burn, in dense vegetation, on mountains with a known history of high down-slope winds. Why is this surprising to anyone?

Current estimate is over 10,000 structures burned, at a loss of around $150 billion.

Whatever the fires don't destroy the subsequent debris flows will finish off, things like roads and other infrastructure.

There's very real concern that the FAIR insurance plan will reach its breaking point.

I've read that Pacific Palisades is more-or-less destroyed. Local governments should refuse building permits for such areas. People should take their insurance payouts and move somewhere more reasonable. Turn it into public mountain biking/hiking trails.

As discussed already in this thread, no city or area is immune to natural disasters. But our current patterns of building into the WUI and along the coast (esp. in hurricane country) are completely absurd. I guess the lesson repeats as necessary.

Where exactly could they build? There's nowhere left to bulld anywhere near there.

[FINate]

I'm not even shocked anymore. Yes, it's tragic and I feel bad for everyone impacted by this. Yet also frustrated that we keep watching the same movie on repeat. Building in drought-prone fire-adapted ecosystems evolved to burn, in dense vegetation, on mountains with a known history of high down-slope winds. Why is this surprising to anyone?

Current estimate is over 10,000 structures burned, at a loss of around $150 billion.

Whatever the fires don't destroy the subsequent debris flows will finish off, things like roads and other infrastructure.

There's very real concern that the FAIR insurance plan will reach its breaking point.

I've read that Pacific Palisades is more-or-less destroyed. Local governments should refuse building permits for such areas. People should take their insurance payouts and move somewhere more reasonable. Turn it into public mountain biking/hiking trails.

As discussed already in this thread, no city or area is immune to natural disasters. But our current patterns of building into the WUI and along the coast (esp. in hurricane country) are completely absurd. I guess the lesson repeats as necessary.

Where exactly could they build? There's nowhere left to bulld anywhere near there.

You build up. Urban infill. An old/dated single family home gets replaced with a four plex. Larger lots get apartments.

[uniwelder]

Current estimate is over 10,000 structures burned, at a loss of around $150 billion.

I've seen this same number in the news as well, but cannot wrap my head around it.  Insurance pays for the value of the structure, not the entire property.  Since most of the value of a home there seems to be the land, that shouldn't be included in these damage estimates.  Let's say the average house costs $1 million to rebuild (I think this should be a conservatively high number), that would place total insurance payout at $10 billion.  How do these estimates of loss come up 15x higher than that?

Yeah, good point, and I don't know. Maybe this is a wildly inflated figure, or perhaps the cost to rebuild is a lot higher than the structure itself (cleanup, rebuilding water systems, etc.).

My insurer insists our home would cost 4X what we paid for it (12 months ago) to rebuild.  I can't wrap my head around that and don't like the premiums but an estimate from another insurer was signficantly higher.

I think I might have found the answer---- It sounds like total losses, which include enconomic, are being used for the $150 billion estimate.  Actual insurance payout sounds like it is expected to be $20 billion, based on an announcement by JP Morgan.

[ChpBstrd]

I wonder if anyone saw the LA fire soon after it started and then shorted the insurance companies before today's drop?

[Villanelle]

Current estimate is over 10,000 structures burned, at a loss of around $150 billion.

I've seen this same number in the news as well, but cannot wrap my head around it.  Insurance pays for the value of the structure, not the entire property.  Since most of the value of a home there seems to be the land, that shouldn't be included in these damage estimates.  Let's say the average house costs $1 million to rebuild (I think this should be a conservatively high number), that would place total insurance payout at $10 billion.  How do these estimates of loss come up 15x higher than that?

The contents of the home would go a long way toward bumping up those totals.  A $15m home in PP likely had a closet full of 5-figure handbags and Prada throw pillows and Limited Edition Rolex's (or whatever it is the wealthy wear in their wrists.)  Then there's the five six-figure cars that burned in the garage. 

[deborah]

It costs a lot when fire destroys parts of a city. 400 houses were destroyed by fire in my city of 300,000 people a bit over 20 years ago. It took a year of dump trucks removing the debris every day (I think our government paid for this). The fires destroyed infrastructure, including electricity (sub stations, poles and wires), water (our dams had ash in them, making the water unfit for human consumption), and sewage. Life was pretty difficult, even for the people whose property wasn’t affected, for most of the following year. We also needed a lot of people to come in to fix things, and no housing for them.

Then there’s all the repairs needed for structures that were still standing.

[NorCal]

Current estimate is over 10,000 structures burned, at a loss of around $150 billion.

I've seen this same number in the news as well, but cannot wrap my head around it.  Insurance pays for the value of the structure, not the entire property.  Since most of the value of a home there seems to be the land, that shouldn't be included in these damage estimates.  Let's say the average house costs $1 million to rebuild (I think this should be a conservatively high number), that would place total insurance payout at $10 billion.  How do these estimates of loss come up 15x higher than that?

The contents of the home would go a long way toward bumping up those totals.  A $15m home in PP likely had a closet full of 5-figure handbags and Prada throw pillows and Limited Edition Rolex's (or whatever it is the wealthy wear in their wrists.)  Then there's the five six-figure cars that burned in the garage.

I saw that $150B number. I also saw a much more sober number (in comparison) where an analyst bumped their estimate from $10B to $20B based on the fires progression. Those are still massive numbers, but much more believable.

[uniwelder]

Current estimate is over 10,000 structures burned, at a loss of around $150 billion.

I've seen this same number in the news as well, but cannot wrap my head around it.  Insurance pays for the value of the structure, not the entire property.  Since most of the value of a home there seems to be the land, that shouldn't be included in these damage estimates.  Let's say the average house costs $1 million to rebuild (I think this should be a conservatively high number), that would place total insurance payout at $10 billion.  How do these estimates of loss come up 15x higher than that?

The contents of the home would go a long way toward bumping up those totals.  A $15m home in PP likely had a closet full of 5-figure handbags and Prada throw pillows and Limited Edition Rolex's (or whatever it is the wealthy wear in their wrists.)  Then there's the five six-figure cars that burned in the garage.

I saw that $150B number. I also saw a much more sober number (in comparison) where an analyst bumped their estimate from $10B to $20B based on the fires progression. Those are still massive numbers, but much more believable.

I had written an updated posting between the one quoted and now.  JP Morgan is the group giving the $20 billion estimate for insurance payouts (I think total insurance loss), which I assume covers the Prada handbags contained within those homes, and probably all those cars.  I had read elsewhere there might be $60 billion in economic losses, which then means another $70 billion towards everything else.  I had read the average home value in Pacific Palisades was about $3.5 million (not sure what portion of that is land value) and Easton was around $1.5 million. 

[Glenstache]

I'd imagine a lot of the houses in the Pacific Palisades have rebuild costs far in excess of $1M. After the Tubbs fire in 2017 burned down the neighborhood I grew up in ( a mere 5,000 structures in all), there were a lot of things I had not really thought about. House fires leave a nasty, contaminated mess behind. The Army Corps of Engineers came through neighborhoods en masse with excavators removing foundations (fire had rendered them weak and destroyed), and the uppoer part of the soil that was full of dioxins, furans and other fun stuff. They made truly giant piles of concrete that have slowly been getting recycled into new roadways, etc. This takes time, even with the efficiencies that come with collective action like that, and must be done before rebuilding can start. The local planning department developed an expedited permit approval process for existing plans that met code. Our 2,000 sf ranch house was likely to be around 750k to rebuild circa 2019, and the Pacific Palisades houses were quite a bit nicer and in a higher COL area. It was maybe 7ish years before all of the various insurance and lawsuits associated with that fire were settled and we were able to sell the lot. There are carrying costs with not being able to do much with an asset until then. One upshot is that the new owners appear to have been finally breaking ground around thansgiving this year. Aside from just building a new box on a lot, the whole character of the neighborhood is different. The majority of trees are simply gone and the aesthetic is frankly pretty ugly now. I am not sure how this impacts property values given how much of the area was impacted. This will play out in PP over the coming years, as well. The massive reduction in housing stock led to a lot of people leaving the area and the homeless population ballooned. My dad was fortunate enough to live in a trailer in my brother's front yard for a couple of years until buying a house. The people at the lower end of the economic spectrum will be hit the hardest, as per usual.

I don't see any silver lining in this and hope that things get under control and damage to people and property is minimized as much as possible. I also hope that the area has lessons learned for the next time this happens... and there will be a next time and time after that.

[tooqk4u22]

$20B or whatever is a ton of $$, but where do 10,000 families go to ride out the very long period of restoration in an area that is already starved of housing.  Not to mention all the construction labor that will have to come in from other areas...where will they be houses. 

$20B+ sounds like a lot but is still less than hurricane Milton that hit Florida last year and way less than the $200B that Katrina cost in 2005 ($330B in today's $).

I think a big difference as eluded too above is that when hurricanes hit they don't necessarily destroy entire structures and areas. Sure they are flooded and roofs are gone, but foundations, walls and overall structure generally is workable so restoration is a bit easier. 

Also, how many of the 10k houses are actually under insured  for cost to replace due to inflation and possibly for enhanced building codes that may be good for long term but will certainly cost more.  There were still a lot of "tear down" homes where the land was most of the value. 

No doubt vultures will be circling as the land/areas will still be highly sought after.

[spartana]

Some context from a fire scientist / emeritus professor at ASU:

  "The astonishing thing is not that Los Angeles burns but that so much of its development has enhanced rather than blunted the threat from fire. For decades a preference for exposed-wood structures, including shake-shingle roofing, ensured that houses were maximally primed to burn.  Public forests and parks meant quasi-natural landscapes would not pave over the fire threat by converting brushlands to brick and concrete; rather, new development carried the problem into fresh lands.  Suburbs pushed up slopes, over alluvial fans, and against regrowing fuels.  It was as though the city's fringe had taken on the properties of its celebrated chaparral. It promoted fire, it burned, it regrew.

      The unholy mingling of built and natural landscapes guaranteed that fire protection was compromised in its very constitution. Cities want no fire; many countrysides need fire, and if mild fires are suppressed, the unburned fuel encourages monsters. If every urban fire that is put out is a problem solved, many wildland fires put out are problems put off. Urban fire services are ineffective in wildlands, and wildland fire brigades are helpless within the city; the two fire services have almost nothing in common except that both have been asked to stand between the hammer of flaming winds and the anvil of urban life and counter the blows."

https://www.stephenpyne.com/blog/posts/45668

When are we going to declare areas in the wildland-fire interface uninhabitable?

probably never unfortunately. People here in SoCal want their houses and so move out of flatter more dense areas to relatively inexpensive little tract homes in the foothills like in Altadena.  Rich people want their houses too but bigger and with more land around so off into the hillsides and dry barren wild-ish lands they go. They've lost thousands of homes in Altadena, many owned by working class people, and thousands more in wealthy coastal towns like Pacific Pallisades and Malibu. Last I heard Altadena lost 4,000 to 6,ooo homes and businesses and the coasts well over a thousand. So maybe there will be 10s of thousands by the end of it. The wealthy will just rebuild and the  poor home owners of all the little tract homes clustered together will just rebuild too because no one want to live closer to DTLA in a tiny condo. And then, once we get some rain, there will be the big mudslides.

Altadena ain't cheap. The cheapest listing I saw there was $850k.

Not cheap by most of the US standards but cheap by LA standards. While watching the houses burn there they were mostly in working class area of 1000 SF foot older tract homes and many of the business were immigrant owned. Compared to Pacfic Pallisades giant hillside mcmansions of 10,000 SF luxury homes worth millions.

And that's compared to the"average" houses I've been looking at in Huntington - 1200 SF or less 1960s tract homes several miles from the beach  - which go for around $1.5 million. It's crazy here. I do wonder if these fires (now 6 of them and some still growing) will cause housing prices to increase or decrease?

[Glenstache]

@spartana this will cause prices to increase in the near term. I doubt there are 10k houses on the market nearby.

[spartana]

@spartana this will cause prices to increase in the near term. I doubt there are 10k houses on the market nearby.

That's what I figured too. Too many places lost and rebuilding, if even possible, will take a l9ng l9ng time. Plus the fires are still moving and now it Looks like the Pallisades fire is encroaching on THE 405 and May potentially cross it into the very populated areas.

[spartana]

They now have mandatory evacuation orders for Brentwood (near by Getty Center etc too). More very very wealthy homes may go and next stop is Beverly Hills.  And now Encino, Tarzana and some off/on ramps to the 405 and 101. Westwood, West LA and a ton of other populated metro area LA is nearby. Getting scary. 

[tj]

They now have mandatory evacuation orders for Brentwood (near by Getty Center etc too). More very very wealthy homes may go and next stop is Beverly Hills.  And now Encino, Tarzana and some off/on ramps to the 405 and 101. Westwood, West LA and a ton of other populated metro area LA is nearby. Getting scary.

The Palisades fire doesn't appear to have hit any new structures on the north or east, but it'll all depend on the winds! Yikes.

KABC hasn't gone to commercial in at least 3 hours.

[moneytaichi]

A friend's mom lost her home in the palisades fire last week. Just posted a thread to ask advices for LA fire insurance settlement: https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/advice-for-la-fire-insurance-settlement/

Any help will be deeply appreciated as it's really overwhelming for my friend. Thank you so much!

[twinstudy]

Many states already are suing the oil & gas companies over climate change. I don’t know how likely they are to succeed. I don’t think any of the lawsuits are insurance related though.

I just ask myself why states are relying on the courts and multi-year (if not multi-decade) litigation when they could simply use their taxing or regulatory authority.

As a tort lawyer, the idea of suing a company for climate change seems to me to be fanciful...there are so many hurdles in terms of the duty of care and remoteness. In Australia there's even been climate litigation directed at the federal government for doing specific things within its powers (like approving new coal mines or something...I can't remember) and failing its duty to future generations...it's all a bit wild. I must say this is not why I studied tort law!

[GilesMM]

Many states already are suing the oil & gas companies over climate change. I don’t know how likely they are to succeed. I don’t think any of the lawsuits are insurance related though.

I just ask myself why states are relying on the courts and multi-year (if not multi-decade) litigation when they could simply use their taxing or regulatory authority.

As a tort lawyer, the idea of suing a company for climate change seems to me to be fanciful...there are so many hurdles in terms of the duty of care and remoteness. In Australia there's even been climate litigation directed at the federal government for doing specific things within its powers (like approving new coal mines or something...I can't remember) and failing its duty to future generations...it's all a bit wild. I must say this is not why I studied tort law!

Such suits have been filed in a couple dozen jurisdictions (states, counties).  I'm not aware that any have made meaningful progress but you never know these days with American judges and juries.


https://zerocarbon-analytics.org/archives/energy/latest-trends-in-climate-litigation-against-fossil-fuel-companies#:~:text=The%20oil%20companies%20are%20being,(Climate%20Integrity%2C%202024).


I'm not clear what the goal is as it is a little to late to reverse the damage of the last 50 years.  Shutting down oil and gas production now would be fairly disruptive to the world economy in terms of transportation and use of plastics.

[NorCal]

Many states already are suing the oil & gas companies over climate change. I don’t know how likely they are to succeed. I don’t think any of the lawsuits are insurance related though.

I just ask myself why states are relying on the courts and multi-year (if not multi-decade) litigation when they could simply use their taxing or regulatory authority.

As a tort lawyer, the idea of suing a company for climate change seems to me to be fanciful...there are so many hurdles in terms of the duty of care and remoteness. In Australia there's even been climate litigation directed at the federal government for doing specific things within its powers (like approving new coal mines or something...I can't remember) and failing its duty to future generations...it's all a bit wild. I must say this is not why I studied tort law!

I’ll leave opinions on how likely these suits are to succeed to the lawyers. I’ve heard opinions that range from unlikely to highly likely.

I mostly hear the lawsuits being compared to the litigation against big tobacco companies. It’s probably an imperfect metaphor, but still somewhat relevant. They seem to hinge upon a few key pieces:

1.  Did these companies know the harm their products were causing and hide it?  The answer is a resounding yes here.
2.  Can specific levels of emissions be attributed to each company?  The answer is yes for the big companies. There are records of oil and gas production going back to the Standard Oil days.
3.  Can the damages from these disasters be directly attributed to climate change?  The answer is maybe.  The science has gotten pretty good on climate attribution. Scientists can quantify how much more likely certain weather conditions are compared to pre-industrial data, and how much more powerful storms statistically are. However, I list this as a “maybe”, because if there’s one thing the O&G companies are good at, it’s casting doubt on science.


https://www.npr.org/2023/01/12/1148376084/exxon-climate-predictions-were-accurate-decades-ago-still-it-sowed-doubt

I also just read about laws in NY and Vermont that are using their taxing authority to fund climate programs. So it is possible at the state level.

https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-hochul-signs-landmark-legislation-creating-new-climate-superfund

[spartana]

They now have mandatory evacuation orders for Brentwood (near by Getty Center etc too). More very very wealthy homes may go and next stop is Beverly Hills.  And now Encino, Tarzana and some off/on ramps to the 405 and 101. Westwood, West LA and a ton of other populated metro area LA is nearby. Getting scary.

The Palisades fire doesn't appear to have hit any new structures on the north or east, but it'll all depend on the winds! Yikes.

KABC hasn't gone to commercial in at least 3 hours.

Winds have been howling again this morning, at least in OC, but some 70 plus mph winds in LA county. So things might get bad again. I guess they expect them to last until Weds night. But the 24/7 news coverage has died down now.

[ChpBstrd]

Many states already are suing the oil & gas companies over climate change. I don’t know how likely they are to succeed. I don’t think any of the lawsuits are insurance related though.

I just ask myself why states are relying on the courts and multi-year (if not multi-decade) litigation when they could simply use their taxing or regulatory authority.

As a tort lawyer, the idea of suing a company for climate change seems to me to be fanciful...there are so many hurdles in terms of the duty of care and remoteness. In Australia there's even been climate litigation directed at the federal government for doing specific things within its powers (like approving new coal mines or something...I can't remember) and failing its duty to future generations...it's all a bit wild. I must say this is not why I studied tort law!

I’ll leave opinions on how likely these suits are to succeed to the lawyers. I’ve heard opinions that range from unlikely to highly likely.

I mostly hear the lawsuits being compared to the litigation against big tobacco companies. It’s probably an imperfect metaphor, but still somewhat relevant. They seem to hinge upon a few key pieces:

1.  Did these companies know the harm their products were causing and hide it?  The answer is a resounding yes here.
2.  Can specific levels of emissions be attributed to each company?  The answer is yes for the big companies. There are records of oil and gas production going back to the Standard Oil days.
3.  Can the damages from these disasters be directly attributed to climate change?  The answer is maybe.  The science has gotten pretty good on climate attribution. Scientists can quantify how much more likely certain weather conditions are compared to pre-industrial data, and how much more powerful storms statistically are. However, I list this as a “maybe”, because if there’s one thing the O&G companies are good at, it’s casting doubt on science.


https://www.npr.org/2023/01/12/1148376084/exxon-climate-predictions-were-accurate-decades-ago-still-it-sowed-doubt

I also just read about laws in NY and Vermont that are using their taxing authority to fund climate programs. So it is possible at the state level.

https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-hochul-signs-landmark-legislation-creating-new-climate-superfund

Isn't it curious how our concept of liability in no way falls upon the consumers of fossil fuels who actually burn the stuff or create the demand that causes there to be corporations? I.e. it couldn't be that each of us who fill up our oversized cars and go driving around for shopping or entertainment had a hand in the destruction of an American city, right?

The obvious projection and hand-washing among people who care is part of why so many people don't take climate change seriously.

[GuitarStv]

Isn't it curious how our concept of liability in no way falls upon the consumers of fossil fuels who actually burn the stuff or create the demand that causes there to be corporations? I.e. it couldn't be that each of us who fill up our oversized cars and go driving around for shopping or entertainment had a hand in the destruction of an American city, right?

The obvious projection and hand-washing among people who care is part of why so many people don't take climate change seriously.

I think that this is more pragmatism than anything else.

We know now that telling a large group of people that they all have to pull together and do their part to help with climate change results in zero measurable beneficial action.  There are a lot of reasons why this is the case:
- It directly conflicts with the (much better funded) advertising messages that they receive hundreds of times a day.
- There is no accountability and thus no individual level repercussions for failing to do so, while there is economic, social, and personal benefit in not carrying through.
- In many cases the information is not available for a consumer to make a sound climate choice.  If you want to buy a pair of pants, it's very, very, very hard to figure out exactly what the environmental impact of the pair of pants you see on the rack is.  Even going home and doing hours of research online . . . it's nigh impossible to determine if one pair of pants is better than the other environmentally.  Many companies also participate in extensive greenwashing to further muddy the waters.
- In many cases there is no sound choice to be made.  It is not possible to buy an environmentally friendly cell phone.  Full stop.
- Individuals are poor, and most are incapable of paying the liability costs of their actions post hoc.

Shifting blame to a focus on individuals is a long standing tactic of the oil and gas industry.  Perhaps the most obvious instance of this was British Petroleum's creation of the 'Carbon Footprint' in the early 2000s, but it has been going on long before as well.  Collective action is necessary to address climate change.  Starting with the companies who have become rich by selling the worst carbon polluting stuff is not a perfect solution by any means, but seems like a logical place to start.

[ChpBstrd]

Isn't it curious how our concept of liability in no way falls upon the consumers of fossil fuels who actually burn the stuff or create the demand that causes there to be corporations? I.e. it couldn't be that each of us who fill up our oversized cars and go driving around for shopping or entertainment had a hand in the destruction of an American city, right?

The obvious projection and hand-washing among people who care is part of why so many people don't take climate change seriously.

I think that this is more pragmatism than anything else.

We know now that telling a large group of people that they all have to pull together and do their part to help with climate change results in zero measurable beneficial action.  There are a lot of reasons why this is the case:
- It directly conflicts with the (much better funded) advertising messages that they receive hundreds of times a day.
- There is no accountability and thus no individual level repercussions for failing to do so, while there is economic, social, and personal benefit in not carrying through.
- In many cases the information is not available for a consumer to make a sound climate choice.  If you want to buy a pair of pants, it's very, very, very hard to figure out exactly what the environmental impact of the pair of pants you see on the rack is.  Even going home and doing hours of research online . . . it's nigh impossible to determine if one pair of pants is better than the other environmentally.  Many companies also participate in extensive greenwashing to further muddy the waters.
- In many cases there is no sound choice to be made.  It is not possible to buy an environmentally friendly cell phone.  Full stop.
- Individuals are poor, and most are incapable of paying the liability costs of their actions post hoc.

Shifting blame to a focus on individuals is a long standing tactic of the oil and gas industry.  Perhaps the most obvious instance of this was British Petroleum's creation of the 'Carbon Footprint' in the early 2000s, but it has been going on long before as well.  Collective action is necessary to address climate change.  Starting with the companies who have become rich by selling the worst carbon polluting stuff is not a perfect solution by any means, but seems like a logical place to start.

Raising the sales tax on fossil fuels to reduce demand and compensate for losses would be a very pragmatic step, and also in line with economic theory. However, it's politically impossible. Consumers won't tolerate it - including the same consumers who are concerned about climate change. Better to shift the blame to the corporations who sold you what you decided to buy (the SUV plus 1,000 gallons of gasoline per year).

[GilesMM]

Isn't it curious how our concept of liability in no way falls upon the consumers of fossil fuels who actually burn the stuff or create the demand that causes there to be corporations? I.e. it couldn't be that each of us who fill up our oversized cars and go driving around for shopping or entertainment had a hand in the destruction of an American city, right?

The obvious projection and hand-washing among people who care is part of why so many people don't take climate change seriously.

I think that this is more pragmatism than anything else.

We know now that telling a large group of people that they all have to pull together and do their part to help with climate change results in zero measurable beneficial action.  There are a lot of reasons why this is the case:
- It directly conflicts with the (much better funded) advertising messages that they receive hundreds of times a day.
- There is no accountability and thus no individual level repercussions for failing to do so, while there is economic, social, and personal benefit in not carrying through.
- In many cases the information is not available for a consumer to make a sound climate choice.  If you want to buy a pair of pants, it's very, very, very hard to figure out exactly what the environmental impact of the pair of pants you see on the rack is.  Even going home and doing hours of research online . . . it's nigh impossible to determine if one pair of pants is better than the other environmentally.  Many companies also participate in extensive greenwashing to further muddy the waters.
- In many cases there is no sound choice to be made.  It is not possible to buy an environmentally friendly cell phone.  Full stop.
- Individuals are poor, and most are incapable of paying the liability costs of their actions post hoc.

Shifting blame to a focus on individuals is a long standing tactic of the oil and gas industry.  Perhaps the most obvious instance of this was British Petroleum's creation of the 'Carbon Footprint' in the early 2000s, but it has been going on long before as well.  Collective action is necessary to address climate change.  Starting with the companies who have become rich by selling the worst carbon polluting stuff is not a perfect solution by any means, but seems like a logical place to start.

Raising the sales tax on fossil fuels to reduce demand and compensate for losses would be a very pragmatic step, and also in line with economic theory. However, it's politically impossible. Consumers won't tolerate it - including the same consumers who are concerned about climate change. Better to shift the blame to the corporations who sold you what you decided to buy (the SUV plus 1,000 gallons of gasoline per year).

Blame the automakers?  And shipbuilders?  And airplane manufacturers?

[tooqk4u22]

Blame the plants and animals that died millions of years ago....they are the true villains as if not for them there would be no fossil fuels!

The issue isn't necessarily with fossil fuels, it is with how efficiently they are consumed and captured - neither of which have been maximized.   

As for CA fires and rebuilding, buildings can likely be rebuilt with increased fire resiliency but if not mandated by insurance companies or local regulation will individuals actually be willing to absorb the increased costs?  Can they even afford it if they wanted to?

After the coastal areas of NJ were devastated by Hurricane Sandy the cost of flood/wind insurance was astronomical and most a choice to pay for flood insurance (if they wanted it) or raise their houses above the flood levels, the cost of which was about 2x the annual flood premium (two year pay back while costly is a no brainer).

As for rebuilding.....yup, everthing was rebuilt bigger, better and more expensive than ever, I suspect the same will happen in CA within a few years.  And when the next super hurricane hits NJ all the headlines will read "Costliest ever on record!"    It's not always or entirely due to climate change....when the population increases in high risk areas and the homes go from 900sf salt boxes to 3-4 story 4,000sf homes - then yeah its going to cost more.

[sonofsven]

My ex sister in law bought a nice house in one of the canyons above Malibu about five years ago; I was shocked.
I asked her if she was worried about fires? She said that her little canyon road had never had a fire. But I told her I thought it was only a matter of time.
Looks like I was right, unfortunately.
Luckily she sold it two years ago!
Every time there's a big CA fire I imagine a contingent of people saying "fuck it! Let's move to the rainy Oregon Coast!"

[GuitarStv]

Isn't it curious how our concept of liability in no way falls upon the consumers of fossil fuels who actually burn the stuff or create the demand that causes there to be corporations? I.e. it couldn't be that each of us who fill up our oversized cars and go driving around for shopping or entertainment had a hand in the destruction of an American city, right?

The obvious projection and hand-washing among people who care is part of why so many people don't take climate change seriously.

I think that this is more pragmatism than anything else.

We know now that telling a large group of people that they all have to pull together and do their part to help with climate change results in zero measurable beneficial action.  There are a lot of reasons why this is the case:
- It directly conflicts with the (much better funded) advertising messages that they receive hundreds of times a day.
- There is no accountability and thus no individual level repercussions for failing to do so, while there is economic, social, and personal benefit in not carrying through.
- In many cases the information is not available for a consumer to make a sound climate choice.  If you want to buy a pair of pants, it's very, very, very hard to figure out exactly what the environmental impact of the pair of pants you see on the rack is.  Even going home and doing hours of research online . . . it's nigh impossible to determine if one pair of pants is better than the other environmentally.  Many companies also participate in extensive greenwashing to further muddy the waters.
- In many cases there is no sound choice to be made.  It is not possible to buy an environmentally friendly cell phone.  Full stop.
- Individuals are poor, and most are incapable of paying the liability costs of their actions post hoc.

Shifting blame to a focus on individuals is a long standing tactic of the oil and gas industry.  Perhaps the most obvious instance of this was British Petroleum's creation of the 'Carbon Footprint' in the early 2000s, but it has been going on long before as well.  Collective action is necessary to address climate change.  Starting with the companies who have become rich by selling the worst carbon polluting stuff is not a perfect solution by any means, but seems like a logical place to start.

Raising the sales tax on fossil fuels to reduce demand and compensate for losses would be a very pragmatic step, and also in line with economic theory. However, it's politically impossible. Consumers won't tolerate it - including the same consumers who are concerned about climate change. Better to shift the blame to the corporations who sold you what you decided to buy (the SUV plus 1,000 gallons of gasoline per year).

A tax on fossil fuels makes lots of sense.  As you mentioned though, it's politically impossible because it's too easy a target.  In Canada, the Liberals implemented a carbon tax that's revenue neutral . . . the proceeds are split up and returned to citizens equally, so if you use more carbon you pay more and if you use less you actually get money back.  Didn't matter, massively unpopular.  And 'axe the tax' has become a rallying cry for our Conservative party . . . and a message heavily funded/backed by our oil and gas companies.

[twinstudy]

Isn't it curious how our concept of liability in no way falls upon the consumers of fossil fuels who actually burn the stuff or create the demand that causes there to be corporations? I.e. it couldn't be that each of us who fill up our oversized cars and go driving around for shopping or entertainment had a hand in the destruction of an American city, right?

The obvious projection and hand-washing among people who care is part of why so many people don't take climate change seriously.

I think that this is more pragmatism than anything else.

We know now that telling a large group of people that they all have to pull together and do their part to help with climate change results in zero measurable beneficial action.  There are a lot of reasons why this is the case:
- It directly conflicts with the (much better funded) advertising messages that they receive hundreds of times a day.
- There is no accountability and thus no individual level repercussions for failing to do so, while there is economic, social, and personal benefit in not carrying through.
- In many cases the information is not available for a consumer to make a sound climate choice.  If you want to buy a pair of pants, it's very, very, very hard to figure out exactly what the environmental impact of the pair of pants you see on the rack is.  Even going home and doing hours of research online . . . it's nigh impossible to determine if one pair of pants is better than the other environmentally.  Many companies also participate in extensive greenwashing to further muddy the waters.
- In many cases there is no sound choice to be made.  It is not possible to buy an environmentally friendly cell phone.  Full stop.
- Individuals are poor, and most are incapable of paying the liability costs of their actions post hoc.

Shifting blame to a focus on individuals is a long standing tactic of the oil and gas industry.  Perhaps the most obvious instance of this was British Petroleum's creation of the 'Carbon Footprint' in the early 2000s, but it has been going on long before as well.  Collective action is necessary to address climate change.  Starting with the companies who have become rich by selling the worst carbon polluting stuff is not a perfect solution by any means, but seems like a logical place to start.

Raising the sales tax on fossil fuels to reduce demand and compensate for losses would be a very pragmatic step, and also in line with economic theory. However, it's politically impossible. Consumers won't tolerate it - including the same consumers who are concerned about climate change. Better to shift the blame to the corporations who sold you what you decided to buy (the SUV plus 1,000 gallons of gasoline per year).

I would be more than happy to see the cost of fuel triple. Likewise the cost of all similar consumption. But as you say, most consumers will bitch and moan.  It would be nice to see energy bills follow an exponential curve- it might cost $10 to use x kW of power, then $100 to use 2x and $1000 to use 3x. But again, people bitch and moan. The solutions to climate change are right in front of us.

[GuitarStv]

Isn't it curious how our concept of liability in no way falls upon the consumers of fossil fuels who actually burn the stuff or create the demand that causes there to be corporations? I.e. it couldn't be that each of us who fill up our oversized cars and go driving around for shopping or entertainment had a hand in the destruction of an American city, right?

The obvious projection and hand-washing among people who care is part of why so many people don't take climate change seriously.

I think that this is more pragmatism than anything else.

We know now that telling a large group of people that they all have to pull together and do their part to help with climate change results in zero measurable beneficial action.  There are a lot of reasons why this is the case:
- It directly conflicts with the (much better funded) advertising messages that they receive hundreds of times a day.
- There is no accountability and thus no individual level repercussions for failing to do so, while there is economic, social, and personal benefit in not carrying through.
- In many cases the information is not available for a consumer to make a sound climate choice.  If you want to buy a pair of pants, it's very, very, very hard to figure out exactly what the environmental impact of the pair of pants you see on the rack is.  Even going home and doing hours of research online . . . it's nigh impossible to determine if one pair of pants is better than the other environmentally.  Many companies also participate in extensive greenwashing to further muddy the waters.
- In many cases there is no sound choice to be made.  It is not possible to buy an environmentally friendly cell phone.  Full stop.
- Individuals are poor, and most are incapable of paying the liability costs of their actions post hoc.

Shifting blame to a focus on individuals is a long standing tactic of the oil and gas industry.  Perhaps the most obvious instance of this was British Petroleum's creation of the 'Carbon Footprint' in the early 2000s, but it has been going on long before as well.  Collective action is necessary to address climate change.  Starting with the companies who have become rich by selling the worst carbon polluting stuff is not a perfect solution by any means, but seems like a logical place to start.

Raising the sales tax on fossil fuels to reduce demand and compensate for losses would be a very pragmatic step, and also in line with economic theory. However, it's politically impossible. Consumers won't tolerate it - including the same consumers who are concerned about climate change. Better to shift the blame to the corporations who sold you what you decided to buy (the SUV plus 1,000 gallons of gasoline per year).

I would be more than happy to see the cost of fuel triple. Likewise the cost of all similar consumption. But as you say, most consumers will bitch and moan.  It would be nice to see energy bills follow an exponential curve- it might cost $10 to use x kW of power, then $100 to use 2x and $1000 to use 3x. But again, people bitch and moan. The solutions to climate change are right in front of us.

I think if we wanted conservation, we would make utility bills fully usage dependent.  You use more, you pay more.  You use less, you pay less.  No fixed charges - just roll them into the rest of the pricing.

Right now, fixed costs on my electricity bill outweigh usage costs by a factor of about 2:1.  With some difficult sacrifice I could probably cut our electricity usage in half . . . but it would keep our bills at more than 80% of their current price.  So how do I sell that effort to my family or other people?

[Cassie]

The news last night said there were 8 different fires. It really makes you wonder if some of them aren’t arson. As Spartana mentioned there’s many homes of regular people that were destroyed.

4 years ago I bought a condo right in town in Reno thinking I was fairly safe from fires. This summer we had record winds and low humidity and a fire started close to town that they couldn’t control. It was near very expensive homes but also expected to head my way. People were evacuated just a few miles from me.

Luckily the winds shifted and took the fire up the mountain where there weren’t any structures to burn. The day after it started we were still at risk so I cancelled all my plans in case I had to evacuate with my dogs. I wasn’t taking the risk of not being able to get back to them.

[ChpBstrd]

@Cassie 's non-coastal story makes me think about how cities have relocated over time.

Originally they were built along rivers and harbors, because there was no inland transportation infrastructure. Rivers can flood and harbors are vulnerable to hurricanes, but people knew this and generally and *with exceptions* picked high ground next to the water or low ground next to the mountains as the locations for their settlements. Certainly some cities still flooded but back in those days people did not desire to live right on the beaches or up in the windy mountains that are covered with flammable scrub brush.

Yes, New Orleans is one of America's first cities, and was built on low ground because military factors were more important than flood resistance. Other old harbor cities built at low elevation include Savanah GA and Tampa FL - and land subsidence has been a factor with all 3 of these. But given the choice, early settlers always picked the highest ground in the harbor area and expanded in a direction away from the water.

But America's old-school cities such as Boston, Indianapolis, St. Louis, Chicago, Detroit, Buffalo, Atlanta, Memphis, Cleveland, etc. are not places you ever hear about natural disasters. That's because the people who settled these places - all near a river or harbor - generally cared about flooding and fire risks.

Now everyone seems to want to live near the beach or in the mountains - places considered relatively undesirable a hundred and fifty years ago. Part of this is the vacation industry selling us on the idea that these places are fun. Another part is the economy's detachment from agriculture, and thus our ability to live on agriculturally unproductive land. A third component is Americans' desire to flee the crime and dysfunction of other Americans, which only seems to have became a factor in the mid-20th century.

The introduction and continued improvement of work-from-home technology has over the past 5 years and over the next 15 years will change the calculus. You no longer need to pay extraordinary amounts to live in an elite location or suffer a long commute to escape inner-city crime and dysfunction. In a small midwestern town far away from predictable fires and hurricanes, you can earn a large salary, own your own home, and maybe even achieve FIRE. When this becomes more attractive than the traffic jams of LA or the hurricane-prone beaches of Florida, then the pendulum will swing the other direction.

[Cassie]

Reno is not in the mountains. It’s in a valley surrounded by mountains. I spent half my life in Wisconsin a hour from Chicago. The Midwest has it’s own weather problems such as occasional tornados, bad thunderstorms and snow storms that are dangerous to drive in. People get injured and die all the time in weather related accidents. I have also lived in upstate New York and Texas and Kansas. All of them have weather related problems.

 Nothing like driving around after a tornado and all that is left is the bathroom toilet that was in the basement. I told my kids to always go there during a tornado. We were sleeping through tornados so bought a weather radio that would come on and wake us up. We put all the kids bedrooms in the basement so they were safer. It was a new house so had a ladder in every room down there so escaping was easy during a fire. Kansas and Texas were my least favorite places to live because of tornados. We clocked a lot of basement time.

[GilesMM]

Reno is not in the mountains. It’s in a valley surrounded by mountains. I spent half my life in Wisconsin a hour from Chicago. The Midwest has it’s own weather problems such as occasional tornados, bad thunderstorms and snow storms that are dangerous to drive in. People get injured and die all the time in weather related accidents. I have also lived in upstate New York and Texas and Kansas. All of them have weather related problems.

 Nothing like driving around after a tornado and all that is left is the bathroom toilet that was in the basement. I told my kids to always go there during a tornado. We were sleeping through tornados so bought a weather radio that would come on and wake us up. We put all the kids bedrooms in the basement so they were safer. It was a new house so had a ladder in every room down there so escaping was easy during a fire. Kansas and Texas were my least favorite places to live because of tornados. We clocked a lot of basement time.

I would take a tornado or snow storm over a 100 mph fire storm every time.

[2sk22]

Reno is not in the mountains. It’s in a valley surrounded by mountains. I spent half my life in Wisconsin a hour from Chicago. The Midwest has it’s own weather problems such as occasional tornados, bad thunderstorms and snow storms that are dangerous to drive in. People get injured and die all the time in weather related accidents. I have also lived in upstate New York and Texas and Kansas. All of them have weather related problems.

 Nothing like driving around after a tornado and all that is left is the bathroom toilet that was in the basement. I told my kids to always go there during a tornado. We were sleeping through tornados so bought a weather radio that would come on and wake us up. We put all the kids bedrooms in the basement so they were safer. It was a new house so had a ladder in every room down there so escaping was easy during a fire. Kansas and Texas were my least favorite places to live because of tornados. We clocked a lot of basement time.

I would take a tornado or snow storm over a 100 mph fire storm every time.

I live in an inner suburb of New York City in New Jersey. My wife will be retiring soon and we considered many alternative locations to retire but ultimately the risks were not worth it. So we have decided to stay where we are.

t's not that there are no risks - chance of extreme rain events is increasing and summer heat will become progressively worse every year. Also we pay more in property taxes than to most of you. However we found the alternatives to be much worse and, anyway, the winters have become noticeably milder in the thirty years we have lived in the area.

[Zamboni]

I've read that Pacific Palisades is more-or-less destroyed. Local governments should refuse building permits for such areas. People should take their insurance payouts and move somewhere more reasonable. Turn it into public mountain biking/hiking trails.

Unfortunately those local governments rely on those expensive housing areas for their income. I just watched a local new broadcast from that area where they interviewed the property tax assessor and he noted:
#1) Yes, you still have to pay your property tax if your house just burned down
#2) Yes, you can fill out forms to apply for relief from the tax. But that relief is only for the tax on the structure itself, not the land.
#3) He noted the tax assessor considers about 2/3 of the assessed value as being the value of the land and not the building, and they do not plan to change that . . . so see #1.

While I personally love the idea of turning the destroyed areas into public lands, the governments will allow redevelopment so they can maintain the tax revenue.

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” -Upton Sinclair

[horsemom]

Reno is not in the mountains. It’s in a valley surrounded by mountains. I spent half my life in Wisconsin a hour from Chicago. The Midwest has it’s own weather problems such as occasional tornados, bad thunderstorms and snow storms that are dangerous to drive in. People get injured and die all the time in weather related accidents. I have also lived in upstate New York and Texas and Kansas. All of them have weather related problems.

 Nothing like driving around after a tornado and all that is left is the bathroom toilet that was in the basement. I told my kids to always go there during a tornado. We were sleeping through tornados so bought a weather radio that would come on and wake us up. We put all the kids bedrooms in the basement so they were safer. It was a new house so had a ladder in every room down there so escaping was easy during a fire. Kansas and Texas were my least favorite places to live because of tornados. We clocked a lot of basement time.

I would take a tornado or snow storm over a 100 mph fire storm every time.

I live in an inner suburb of New York City in New Jersey. My wife will be retiring soon and we considered many alternative locations to retire but ultimately the risks were not worth it. So we have decided to stay where we are.

t's not that there are no risks - chance of extreme rain events is increasing and summer heat will become progressively worse every year. Also we pay more in property taxes than to most of you. However we found the alternatives to be much worse and, anyway, the winters have become noticeably milder in the thirty years we have lived in the area.

We live in the same area.  Five years ago, I was convinced that we would move upon retirement to a more affordable (and potentially warmer) area.  We've since decided that the relatively low risk of catastrophic weather events, excellent healthcare, and community of friends and family outweigh the atrocious property taxes...  We also plan to stay put albeit in a smaller home after the kids have flown the coup.

[GilesMM]

I've read that Pacific Palisades is more-or-less destroyed. Local governments should refuse building permits for such areas. People should take their insurance payouts and move somewhere more reasonable. Turn it into public mountain biking/hiking trails.

Unfortunately those local governments rely on those expensive housing areas for their income. I just watched a local new broadcast from that area where they interviewed the property tax assessor and he noted:
#1) Yes, you still have to pay your property tax if your house just burned down
#2) Yes, you can fill out forms to apply for relief from the tax. But that relief is only for the tax on the structure itself, not the land.
#3) He noted the tax assessor considers about 2/3 of the assessed value as being the value of the land and not the building, and they do not plan to change that . . . so see #1.

While I personally love the idea of turning the destroyed areas into public lands, the governments will allow redevelopment so they can maintain the tax revenue.

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” -Upton Sinclair

The city and state plan to fast track permitting and rebuilding. Insurers will not pay for upgrades to make structures fire resistant so the state is trying to figure out how to help.

[Embok]

I live in a small 100 year old house in Ventura, and have been watching the fires closely, and housing some Fire refugees here. 

We intentionally bought a house that is up the hill about a mile from the ocean, but down the hill from the super expensive areas that are higher fire risk because they are in the WUI.  Ventura also has earthquake faults running through it, and barrancas (dry rivers with flood risk), so we bought as far away from those as possible.

Why did we decide to buy in Ventura, with its risks? 

Well, we are both still working in jobs that require us to be in Los Angeles fairly often.  Ventura is about 1.5 to 2 hours drive away. Just tolerable.  There’s also a train into downtown LA, which we occasionally can use (if a meeting is in Downtown Los Angeles and in the middle of the day, so the train times work).

Like many of the outer areas of the LA metro sprawl, Ventura is significantly less expensive than most parts of LA.  Still HCOLA, but much more tolerable as the house prices are lower.

Our daughter (only child) and son in law live in LA. So do most of our friends (though lately, as they retire, several have moved to lower COLAs).  Being near to our kid and her husband is probably our most important priority.

Our doctors are in LA. Given that both DH and I have had serious health issues, now resolved for the time being, that continuity of care is important.

We have renovated our house to upgrade wiring, added solar and a battery, done foundation, drainage, and earthquake retrofitting work, and are working on improving the fire safety of the landscaping.  All of this is expensive!  And time consuming.  None of the work (other than the landscaping) can be seen.  (Our goal is to fully transition our cars to electric cars soon, but so far that has been prohibitively expensive.)  So I understand first hand why people who need to work in LA or other big cities don’t just do all the necessary work to minimize all their risks.

The theory of insurance is that everyone pays a little bit to cover the few who have a disaster occur. I’m happy every year I pay insurance but don’t have to make a claim. But with the higher risks of wildfires, floods, hurricanes and the like, and the higher costs to rebuild in HCOLAs, I think it is likely that insurance rates will continue to go up.  Unfortunately, the citizenry of the USA has just voted in an Administration that has no interest whatsoever in taking prophylactic measures to reduce the risks of climate change across the country.

[Embok]

Maybe a program of state funded loans, like second mortgages, to rebuild using more fore safe materials would help the fire victims to do so.