America's coastal cities are a hidden time bomb

[Michael in ABQ]

On track for 3C of global heating by the end of this century -

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/nov/20/world-facing-hellish-3c-of-climate-heating-un-warns-before-cop28

I'm old, and used to think things wouldn't have got too bad by the end of my natural life span.  I no longer think that.  I think climate change will kill a significant proportion of people alive today.

Are you really that pessimistic that you don't think people can adapt? Crops will still grow even if it's a little warmer. Rain will still fall. The seas aren't going to swallow up the entire world coastline overnight. Some areas will be affected more than others, but we will adapt.

Who knows what technological innovations will be made in the next few decades. If fusion power can be harnessed it would eliminate the need for coal and other carbon producing fuels for power generation. I just listened to a podcast about a company that has created a new process to use calcium silicate (a common rock) for making cement instead of limestone (calcium carbonate). Cement production alone accounts for 8% of global CO2 emissions, much of it due to the process of driving CO2 out of calcium carbonate to make calcium. This new process results in a byproduct that actually absorbs CO2. It will take decades to adopt this new process globally (in theory it should be cheaper than the current process) but similar things are occurring in other industries.

[former player]

People who think technology can solve this problem don't understand that technology hasn't even provided clean water to 2 billion people yet or 4 billion with proper toilet provision.

And at the other end of the scale the richest 1% are beyond the control of any national government: technology isn't going to stop them emitting greenhouse gases at whatever rate they want.

Climate change is not a technology problem, it's a people problem, and that's why there are no solutions.

[GilesMM]

People who think technology can solve this problem don't understand that technology hasn't even provided clean water to 2 billion people yet or 4 billion with proper toilet provision.

And at the other end of the scale the richest 1% are beyond the control of any national government: technology isn't going to stop them emitting greenhouse gases at whatever rate they want.

Climate change is not a technology problem, it's a people problem, and that's why there are no solutions.

Clean water is an economic scarcity problem, not a technology problem.


But a related point is that the energy transition is going to be expensive.  Billions of people who need affordable energy will be relying on fossil fuels for a while.  China is commissioning an average of two new filthy coal-fired power plants per week.  They are nowhere near the transition to cleaner natural gas, much less renewable energies.

[former player]

People who think technology can solve this problem don't understand that technology hasn't even provided clean water to 2 billion people yet or 4 billion with proper toilet provision.

And at the other end of the scale the richest 1% are beyond the control of any national government: technology isn't going to stop them emitting greenhouse gases at whatever rate they want.

Climate change is not a technology problem, it's a people problem, and that's why there are no solutions.

Clean water is an economic scarcity problem, not a technology problem.

Clean water and sanitation is a people problem: solutions are available and affordable and are not implemented. Climate change is also a people problem: solutions are available and are affordable and are not implemented.

Just look at the people on this forum: all relatively rich, all well educated, all well informed, all conscious of and regulating their spending to a greater or lesser degree.  And yet, still driving long distances for pleasure, flying long distances for pleasure, living in (and creating) bigger spaces than they need, buying carbon heavy out of season foods and new technology.  All of us every day contributing more than our fair share to climate change.  None of us prepared to make major change on our own account, and none of us voting for politicians who are willing and able to make those changes for us.

Examples of those behaviours are all over every single journal on the forum, so it's undeniable.  Some people forgo some of them, but no-one forgoes all of them and forgoing all of them is the only thing that currently gets us to carbon neutral, and as matters stand is the only thing that will.  And it's not going to happen, because that's how humans, individually and en masse, are.

[GilesMM]

People who think technology can solve this problem don't understand that technology hasn't even provided clean water to 2 billion people yet or 4 billion with proper toilet provision.

And at the other end of the scale the richest 1% are beyond the control of any national government: technology isn't going to stop them emitting greenhouse gases at whatever rate they want.

Climate change is not a technology problem, it's a people problem, and that's why there are no solutions.

Clean water is an economic scarcity problem, not a technology problem.

Clean water and sanitation is a people problem: solutions are available and affordable and are not implemented. Climate change is also a people problem: solutions are available and are affordable and are not implemented.

Just look at the people on this forum: all relatively rich, all well educated, all well informed, all conscious of and regulating their spending to a greater or lesser degree.  And yet, still driving long distances for pleasure, flying long distances for pleasure, living in (and creating) bigger spaces than they need, buying carbon heavy out of season foods and new technology.  All of us every day contributing more than our fair share to climate change.  None of us prepared to make major change on our own account, and none of us voting for politicians who are willing and able to make those changes for us.

Examples of those behaviours are all over every single journal on the forum, so it's undeniable.  Some people forgo some of them, but no-one forgoes all of them and forgoing all of them is the only thing that currently gets us to carbon neutral, and as matters stand is the only thing that will.  And it's not going to happen, because that's how humans, individually and en masse, are.

You are right. The solution to climate change is very affordable. We all go back to living in tents or caves, cooking on campfires, and living directly off the land. What could be cheaper?

[former player]

People who think technology can solve this problem don't understand that technology hasn't even provided clean water to 2 billion people yet or 4 billion with proper toilet provision.

And at the other end of the scale the richest 1% are beyond the control of any national government: technology isn't going to stop them emitting greenhouse gases at whatever rate they want.

Climate change is not a technology problem, it's a people problem, and that's why there are no solutions.

Clean water is an economic scarcity problem, not a technology problem.

Clean water and sanitation is a people problem: solutions are available and affordable and are not implemented. Climate change is also a people problem: solutions are available and are affordable and are not implemented.

Just look at the people on this forum: all relatively rich, all well educated, all well informed, all conscious of and regulating their spending to a greater or lesser degree.  And yet, still driving long distances for pleasure, flying long distances for pleasure, living in (and creating) bigger spaces than they need, buying carbon heavy out of season foods and new technology.  All of us every day contributing more than our fair share to climate change.  None of us prepared to make major change on our own account, and none of us voting for politicians who are willing and able to make those changes for us.

Examples of those behaviours are all over every single journal on the forum, so it's undeniable.  Some people forgo some of them, but no-one forgoes all of them and forgoing all of them is the only thing that currently gets us to carbon neutral, and as matters stand is the only thing that will.  And it's not going to happen, because that's how humans, individually and en masse, are.

You are right. The solution to climate change is very affordable. We all go back to living in tents or caves, cooking on campfires, and living directly off the land. What could be cheaper?

A silly response.  Why would we not continue to live in the houses we already have?  Why campfires?  Why living directly off the land?  When instead it's entirely possible, with suitable economic and social incentives, to use existing housing more efficiently, to use renewably-generated electricity to cook with and to eat local and seasonal foods.

[Jon Bon]

Climate change is also a people problem: solutions are available and are affordable and are not implemented.

I think they were responding to this comment. Yes the the billion people in the developed would could probably offset their carbon use by MASSIVE changes to lifestyle, spending, policy, infrastructure etc. This would not be cheap or easy.

However there are 4 billion people in Africa, India, and China who want to have electricity, they want AC when its hot, and refrigeration for their food, clean water, and medicines. They don't care if the power comes from solar panels or coal or burning tires.

[GilesMM]

People who think technology can solve this problem don't understand that technology hasn't even provided clean water to 2 billion people yet or 4 billion with proper toilet provision.

And at the other end of the scale the richest 1% are beyond the control of any national government: technology isn't going to stop them emitting greenhouse gases at whatever rate they want.

Climate change is not a technology problem, it's a people problem, and that's why there are no solutions.

Clean water is an economic scarcity problem, not a technology problem.

Clean water and sanitation is a people problem: solutions are available and affordable and are not implemented. Climate change is also a people problem: solutions are available and are affordable and are not implemented.

Just look at the people on this forum: all relatively rich, all well educated, all well informed, all conscious of and regulating their spending to a greater or lesser degree.  And yet, still driving long distances for pleasure, flying long distances for pleasure, living in (and creating) bigger spaces than they need, buying carbon heavy out of season foods and new technology.  All of us every day contributing more than our fair share to climate change.  None of us prepared to make major change on our own account, and none of us voting for politicians who are willing and able to make those changes for us.

Examples of those behaviours are all over every single journal on the forum, so it's undeniable.  Some people forgo some of them, but no-one forgoes all of them and forgoing all of them is the only thing that currently gets us to carbon neutral, and as matters stand is the only thing that will.  And it's not going to happen, because that's how humans, individually and en masse, are.

You are right. The solution to climate change is very affordable. We all go back to living in tents or caves, cooking on campfires, and living directly off the land. What could be cheaper?

A silly response.  Why would we not continue to live in the houses we already have?  Why campfires?  Why living directly off the land?  When instead it's entirely possible, with suitable economic and social incentives, to use existing housing more efficiently, to use renewably-generated electricity to cook with and to eat local and seasonal foods.

Because you can't really have your cake and eat it too.  Way too large a fraction of the lifestyle of living in that house and filling it with things requires petroleum-derivatives to either make those things or lubricate those things.


https://innovativewealth.com/inflation-monitor/what-products-made-from-petroleum-outside-of-gasoline/

[former player]

People who think technology can solve this problem don't understand that technology hasn't even provided clean water to 2 billion people yet or 4 billion with proper toilet provision.

And at the other end of the scale the richest 1% are beyond the control of any national government: technology isn't going to stop them emitting greenhouse gases at whatever rate they want.

Climate change is not a technology problem, it's a people problem, and that's why there are no solutions.

Clean water is an economic scarcity problem, not a technology problem.

Clean water and sanitation is a people problem: solutions are available and affordable and are not implemented. Climate change is also a people problem: solutions are available and are affordable and are not implemented.

Just look at the people on this forum: all relatively rich, all well educated, all well informed, all conscious of and regulating their spending to a greater or lesser degree.  And yet, still driving long distances for pleasure, flying long distances for pleasure, living in (and creating) bigger spaces than they need, buying carbon heavy out of season foods and new technology.  All of us every day contributing more than our fair share to climate change.  None of us prepared to make major change on our own account, and none of us voting for politicians who are willing and able to make those changes for us.

Examples of those behaviours are all over every single journal on the forum, so it's undeniable.  Some people forgo some of them, but no-one forgoes all of them and forgoing all of them is the only thing that currently gets us to carbon neutral, and as matters stand is the only thing that will.  And it's not going to happen, because that's how humans, individually and en masse, are.

You are right. The solution to climate change is very affordable. We all go back to living in tents or caves, cooking on campfires, and living directly off the land. What could be cheaper?

A silly response.  Why would we not continue to live in the houses we already have?  Why campfires?  Why living directly off the land?  When instead it's entirely possible, with suitable economic and social incentives, to use existing housing more efficiently, to use renewably-generated electricity to cook with and to eat local and seasonal foods.

Because you can't really have your cake and eat it too.  Way too large a fraction of the lifestyle of living in that house and filling it with things requires petroleum-derivatives to either make those things or lubricate those things.


https://innovativewealth.com/inflation-monitor/what-products-made-from-petroleum-outside-of-gasoline/

That depends on the house, and on what's in it, and how people live in that house.  I suspect that you are thinking of North America.  Almost no-one else in the world lives in the wasteful and extravagant ways of North America.

[former player]

Climate change is also a people problem: solutions are available and are affordable and are not implemented.

I think they were responding to this comment. Yes the the billion people in the developed would could probably offset their carbon use by MASSIVE changes to lifestyle, spending, policy, infrastructure etc. This would not be cheap or easy.

However there are 4 billion people in Africa, India, and China who want to have electricity, they want AC when its hot, and refrigeration for their food, clean water, and medicines. They don't care if the power comes from solar panels or coal or burning tires.

Which, again, is why climate change is a people problem not a technology problem, and why the human world is on an unstoppable path to disaster.

[bacchi]

Because you can't really have your cake and eat it too.  Way too large a fraction of the lifestyle of living in that house and filling it with things requires petroleum-derivatives to either make those things or lubricate those things.


https://innovativewealth.com/inflation-monitor/what-products-made-from-petroleum-outside-of-gasoline/

That depends on the house, and on what's in it, and how people live in that house.  I suspect that you are thinking of North America.  Almost no-one else in the world lives in the wasteful and extravagant ways of North America.

Australia does. :)

But you're right. There's a huge gap between living in tents and lowering our emissions enough to stop global warming. The changes required aren't all that massive either.

To paraphrase an MMM line, "One can live a rich, fulfilling, life even when living sustainably."

[deborah]

Because you can't really have your cake and eat it too.  Way too large a fraction of the lifestyle of living in that house and filling it with things requires petroleum-derivatives to either make those things or lubricate those things.


https://innovativewealth.com/inflation-monitor/what-products-made-from-petroleum-outside-of-gasoline/

That depends on the house, and on what's in it, and how people live in that house.  I suspect that you are thinking of North America.  Almost no-one else in the world lives in the wasteful and extravagant ways of North America.

Australia does. :)

But you're right. There's a huge gap between living in tents and lowering our emissions enough to stop global warming. The changes required aren't all that massive either.

To paraphrase an MMM line, "One can live a rich, fulfilling, life even when living sustainably."

That’s interesting. Where do you get those figures? For instance,

https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Australia/United-States/Environment seems to say otherwise.

People who think technology can solve this problem don't understand that technology hasn't even provided clean water to 2 billion people yet or 4 billion with proper toilet provision.

And at the other end of the scale the richest 1% are beyond the control of any national government: technology isn't going to stop them emitting greenhouse gases at whatever rate they want.

Climate change is not a technology problem, it's a people problem, and that's why there are no solutions.

Clean water is an economic scarcity problem, not a technology problem.

Clean water and sanitation is a people problem: solutions are available and affordable and are not implemented. Climate change is also a people problem: solutions are available and are affordable and are not implemented.

Just look at the people on this forum: all relatively rich, all well educated, all well informed, all conscious of and regulating their spending to a greater or lesser degree.  And yet, still driving long distances for pleasure, flying long distances for pleasure, living in (and creating) bigger spaces than they need, buying carbon heavy out of season foods and new technology.  All of us every day contributing more than our fair share to climate change.  None of us prepared to make major change on our own account, and none of us voting for politicians who are willing and able to make those changes for us.

Examples of those behaviours are all over every single journal on the forum, so it's undeniable.  Some people forgo some of them, but no-one forgoes all of them and forgoing all of them is the only thing that currently gets us to carbon neutral, and as matters stand is the only thing that will.  And it's not going to happen, because that's how humans, individually and en masse, are.

I agree. There’s a lot of nuance in these things.

I chose to live in the ACT (a territory, rather than a state), where we pay for 100% renewable electricity, because the government we elected has paid for all our electricity needs to be generated by renewables from power plants they’ve built in multiple locations in Australia. However, all our electricity comes from the state we’re surrounded by (NSW), which means the electricity we actually receive is 70% non renewable. Of course, one third of Australian homes have solar panels, leading the world. The states and territories are having problems with the power grid because of the amount.
 
The ACT is governed by a Green/Labor coalition, and has been for many years. We have quite a number of climate friendly policies, and have been mocked by the media for them (we were paying more for our electricity than anyone else because of having so many renewables, until the oil price increase a couple of years ago). Our federal representatives are all left wing, so we have done as much as we can to get climate friendly politicians. The current federal government has increased our climate friendly policies dramatically, and is trying to turn around years of climate sceptic federal government. And yet they’ve increased oil and gas exploration.

I halved my water and energy usage some years ago when I made some changes to my house, but I still live in a large house. I do fly. When I fly, I pay more because I tick the carbon offsets box, but is my flight actually carbon neutral? I’ve recently been on a couple of cruises with companies who are certified as having zero emissions, but do they really? In theory, this means that my recent travel was carbon neutral, but any is worse than doing none at all. I grow a lot of my vegetables, and usually have grown more than half of what’s in my meal, but not the meat, which is the most problematic. I have 23 different fruit trees on my suburban land, so I’m self sufficient in fruit, and also have done a reasonable amount to increase my tree canopy. I’ve changed the water flow of my land, so rain takes longer to leave it, and just soaks into the ground. This enabled me to disconnect my storm water (reducing pollution in the river system). The ACT has also built large wetlands to increase the quality of our stormwater and reduce downstream water pollution.

[bacchi]

Because you can't really have your cake and eat it too.  Way too large a fraction of the lifestyle of living in that house and filling it with things requires petroleum-derivatives to either make those things or lubricate those things.


https://innovativewealth.com/inflation-monitor/what-products-made-from-petroleum-outside-of-gasoline/

That depends on the house, and on what's in it, and how people live in that house.  I suspect that you are thinking of North America.  Almost no-one else in the world lives in the wasteful and extravagant ways of North America.

Australia does. :)

But you're right. There's a huge gap between living in tents and lowering our emissions enough to stop global warming. The changes required aren't all that massive either.

To paraphrase an MMM line, "One can live a rich, fulfilling, life even when living sustainably."

That’s interesting. Where do you get those figures? For instance,

https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Australia/United-States/Environment seems to say otherwise.

Hmm, the numbers are all over the place. For example, the World Bank has Australia and Canada, per capita, ranked higher than the US.* The European Commission's EDGAR has similar numbers.** The original source I found, which I can't find now, had an order of Australia-US-Canada. It must come down to methodology.

It doesn't matter of course. Most of the forum members are in the top 3 worse polluters (per capita and ignoring the tiny countries) and changing the habits of the US has a far much larger impact because of its population.

Back to the topic at hand -- insurance companies, in the interest of profits, may be forcing otherwise reluctant people to come to terms with reality. I'm sure some of the rebuilders in Paradise, California are regretting their decision.



* https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC?most_recent_value_desc=true
** https://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/report_2023?vis=ghgpop#emissions_table

[Dicey]

This is also happening in areas at high risk for wildfire in CA.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/fire-prone-california-homeowners-left-insurance-companies-drop/story?id=104946925

Increasing premiums 10x to reflect the actual risks due to climate change is one way of pricing in the real cost of living in the forest. I sorta feel bad for the people now looking at $13k/year for premiums. Yet on the other hand, this whole "WE WILL REBUILD! $TOWN STRONG" mentality needs to end. When fire rips thought a community like Paradise, people need to take the hint and use their insurance proceeds to move someplace more reasonable.

You could argue the greater Pacific Northwest should be redlined except in safe concrete cities.  However, most of the fires in recent years have been linked back to electrical lines.  If PG&E and others (who have lost some big lawsuits on this already) would keep their lines clear of trees, it would make a big difference.

PG&E's requested 13% rate hike just got approved...

[Jon Bon]

This is also happening in areas at high risk for wildfire in CA.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/fire-prone-california-homeowners-left-insurance-companies-drop/story?id=104946925

Increasing premiums 10x to reflect the actual risks due to climate change is one way of pricing in the real cost of living in the forest. I sorta feel bad for the people now looking at $13k/year for premiums. Yet on the other hand, this whole "WE WILL REBUILD! $TOWN STRONG" mentality needs to end. When fire rips thought a community like Paradise, people need to take the hint and use their insurance proceeds to move someplace more reasonable.

You could argue the greater Pacific Northwest should be redlined except in safe concrete cities.  However, most of the fires in recent years have been linked back to electrical lines.  If PG&E and others (who have lost some big lawsuits on this already) would keep their lines clear of trees, it would make a big difference.

PG&E's requested 13% rate hike just got approved...

Keeping lines clear of trees is an admirable goal, but would that not be like asking department of transportation to keep all of their roads clear of potholes? Just not possible right? I mean trees grow, like all the time. And there are 100,000 of miles of line right?

I looked it up, 108,000 miles of lines. Or > around the earth 4 times.  I mean yeah starting fires sucks. But if you want power you have to accept at some point lines are gonna fall down right? Shit I had my lines fall down in my back yard 2 years ago and I live in the middle of a city.

[Jakestersquat]

I have some Annect-data regarding the tree trimming. Havuing build and maintained power lines on PG&E property homeowner are often very vocal about not letting us trim the trees even when it’s clear encroaching on our right of way. Can’t count how many times a job has been cancelled bc a homeowner refuses to let us on property to do maintenance. PG&E is scared of any negative press (not defending them they’ve certainly earned their reputation)

[sonofsven]

The corporate owned power monopoly in my state (Oregon) has changed their maintenance, according to the power guys I talk to. I build houses and I talk to the guys that do the hook up.
This particular worker was near retirement and was totally fed up with it. According to him they quit doing routine tree trimming like the PUD across the river (different state) to save money.
Instead, they just wait for a big storm event, which is pretty often on the OR coast, and then they bring in crews from all across the West to clean it up and hook up the power.
The crews don't particularly mind because they get big overtime pay, but us locals pay the price as the power is out more often and longer.
He said when he was starting out he thought the PUD's were kind of a two bit operation, because they didn't have the big $ to spend, but after 30 years he sees it differently.
To add, Oregon had a ballot measure to allow formation of PUD's years ago which failed after concerted effort by the existing powerco.
Lol, you should hear what the CenturyLink guys think about CenturyLink; NSFW.

[brandon1827]

I work at a 5-county electric coop in northern middle TN. We have a hefty ROW budget each year and spend a great deal of time, energy, & money working to keep the trees trimmed back off of the lines...but as @Jakestersquat said, if a member won't allow us on the property there's not much we can do. There are lots of people here that feel like even routine maintenance work to keep the entire grid healthy is an invasion of their privacy and won't allow us to keep the trees trimmed back. We had a guy visit a location two weeks ago and a customer let a dog loose and it attacked him. He spent several days in the hospital and had to have surgery on his hand. I wish I could say that was an isolated incident, but unfortunately our guys have to be prepared for anything when we're just trying to keep everyone's power on

[GilesMM]

The corporate owned power monopoly in my state (Oregon) has changed their maintenance, according to the power guys I talk to. I build houses and I talk to the guys that do the hook up.
This particular worker was near retirement and was totally fed up with it. According to him they quit doing routine tree trimming like the PUD across the river (different state) to save money.
Instead, they just wait for a big storm event, which is pretty often on the OR coast, and then they bring in crews from all across the West to clean it up and hook up the power.
The crews don't particularly mind because they get big overtime pay, but us locals pay the price as the power is out more often and longer.
He said when he was starting out he thought the PUD's were kind of a two bit operation, because they didn't have the big $ to spend, but after 30 years he sees it differently.
To add, Oregon had a ballot measure to allow formation of PUD's years ago which failed after concerted effort by the existing powerco.
Lol, you should hear what the CenturyLink guys think about CenturyLink; NSFW.

The Oregon PUC requires PGE to trim trees.  They outsource a lot of the work.  In most areas they trim every 2-3 years.  They use Asplundh crews in our area.  I hate how they trim the trees in some cases, but it is nice to have electricity.  Trimming keeps tree branches away from lines but storms often knock entire trees down onto the lines so cleanup is required. 

[ChpBstrd]

The solution is to bury power lines, but that is a large upfront expense and comes with its own set of problems such as interference with plumbing systems and regions of solid rock.

[GilesMM]

The solution is to bury power lines, but that is a large upfront expense and comes with its own set of problems such as interference with plumbing systems and regions of solid rock.

Very large cost, as in doubling or tripling your rates for a decade or more.

[brandon1827]

The solution is to bury power lines, but that is a large upfront expense and comes with its own set of problems such as interference with plumbing systems and regions of solid rock.

We began burying all of our lines on new constructions several years back, but it will take an enormous amount of time for that to provide a significant impact for us

[FINate]

The solution is to bury power lines, but that is a large upfront expense and comes with its own set of problems such as interference with plumbing systems and regions of solid rock.

Very large cost, as in doubling or tripling your rates for a decade or more.

Plus, buried lines are more expensive to repair and have a shorter lifespan: https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=7250

Utilities can, and should, do a better job clearing vegetation. Property owners that don't allow access should be held liable if their actions contribute to a fire. This is the kind of nuts-and-bolts thing that gets overlooked because it isn't sexy, but it can be done. PG&E has increased clearing, while also making their fault tolerance detection more sensitive.

But none of this will fix inherently extreme fire danger. Lots of fuel, dry conditions, wind, terrain... one spark (e.g. dry lightning) and it all goes up in flames. Prescribed burns and mechanical clearing can help. But really the only sensible thing is to stop building in the forest. 

[sonofsven]

The corporate owned power monopoly in my state (Oregon) has changed their maintenance, according to the power guys I talk to. I build houses and I talk to the guys that do the hook up.
This particular worker was near retirement and was totally fed up with it. According to him they quit doing routine tree trimming like the PUD across the river (different state) to save money.
Instead, they just wait for a big storm event, which is pretty often on the OR coast, and then they bring in crews from all across the West to clean it up and hook up the power.
The crews don't particularly mind because they get big overtime pay, but us locals pay the price as the power is out more often and longer.
He said when he was starting out he thought the PUD's were kind of a two bit operation, because they didn't have the big $ to spend, but after 30 years he sees it differently.
To add, Oregon had a ballot measure to allow formation of PUD's years ago which failed after concerted effort by the existing powerco.
Lol, you should hear what the CenturyLink guys think about CenturyLink; NSFW.

The Oregon PUC requires PGE to trim trees.  They outsource a lot of the work.  In most areas they trim every 2-3 years.  They use Asplundh crews in our area.  I hate how they trim the trees in some cases, but it is nice to have electricity.  Trimming keeps tree branches away from lines but storms often knock entire trees down onto the lines so cleanup is required.

I'm sure Pacific Power (the utility in question) is required to trim trees, too.
The man I spoke with claimed they were doing the bare minimum, with local skeleton crews, to save money. Then, when the inevitable storm knocks down the under trimmed trees, they call in outside crews.
I imagine his complaint was mainly the decrease in local jobs maintaining the lines.  A "jobs program", in other words.

Another funny thing happened on this particular job. We ran utilities underground a few thousand feet to a three house development. When the lineman was doing the hookup at the highway power pole to our conduit, a lady stopped and began filming him, she was sure he was up to no good "because 5G".

[ChpBstrd]

The solution is to bury power lines, but that is a large upfront expense and comes with its own set of problems such as interference with plumbing systems and regions of solid rock.

Very large cost, as in doubling or tripling your rates for a decade or more.

Plus, buried lines are more expensive to repair and have a shorter lifespan: https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=7250

Utilities can, and should, do a better job clearing vegetation. Property owners that don't allow access should be held liable if their actions contribute to a fire. This is the kind of nuts-and-bolts thing that gets overlooked because it isn't sexy, but it can be done. PG&E has increased clearing, while also making their fault tolerance detection more sensitive.

But none of this will fix inherently extreme fire danger. Lots of fuel, dry conditions, wind, terrain... one spark (e.g. dry lightning) and it all goes up in flames. Prescribed burns and mechanical clearing can help. But really the only sensible thing is to stop building in the forest.

One issue is the amount of land which must be cleared to support one house in the woods. If you are clearing an acre of forest to build your home, you then have to think about clearing a utility path through the forest that is about 10 meters wide, and might extend for hundreds or thousands of meters. If the house is any significant distance from the nearest road, you've cut down more forest for the power line than you did for the house and yard. And you've created a reoccurring maintenance issue that perhaps justifies ownership of an expensive tractor to keep that vegetation beat back. That's a LOT of reoccurring cost and labor for the privilege of living in the middle of nowhere.

This raises the question: why is it so valuable to live in the middle of nowhere? This has something to do with the way the United States has utterly failed - or refused - to address social problems like drug use, mental illness, violent crime, urban poverty, cultural dysfunction, and pollution. That's what you're getting away from when you choose to live in a forest with a thousand meters of electrical line supplying your home, cut through acre upon acre of land. It also has something to do with the way the US subsidizes fossil fuels, road construction and maintenance, and rural electrification. Rural people don't have to pay the full costs of the roads, power lines, or telecom lines they depend on because these costs are subsidized by cities.

[bacchi]

The Senate is questioning whether Citizen's, Florida's state insurer, has enough assets to cover a major hurricane (hint: it doesn't). This is actually proactive of the feds; usually, they'd just ignore the underfunding/underplanning and accept a plea from a state when SHTF.

Two years ago, Citizens wrote that if the state was hit by a 1-in-100-year storm, Florida insurance holders “would have been on the hook for $24 billion in assessments tacked onto monthly premiums for years.” As the number of Citizens policies have grown, reports from reinsurance companies Munich Re and Swiss Re have found that number could be much higher, anywhere from $36-$162 billion dollars, depending on how severe a future hurricane could be.

Cash and the estimated market value of Citizens’ invested assets totaled $8,470,680 at December 31, 2022,
marking a decrease of $802,168 from December 31, 2021.

$36B (at best) vs $8.5B...yeah, that looks like it's underfunded. Hurricane Ian, as an example, cost insurers $63B and another $52B was uninsured.

I'd guess that Florida is a hurricane or 3 from a tipping point. There might be a mass migration to the interior or there might be an exodus due to premiums being as much as a mortgage. Home costs will decrease, wiping out a lot of equity.

[ChpBstrd]

The Senate is questioning whether Citizen's, Florida's state insurer, has enough assets to cover a major hurricane (hint: it doesn't). This is actually proactive of the feds; usually, they'd just ignore the underfunding/underplanning and accept a plea from a state when SHTF.

Two years ago, Citizens wrote that if the state was hit by a 1-in-100-year storm, Florida insurance holders “would have been on the hook for $24 billion in assessments tacked onto monthly premiums for years.” As the number of Citizens policies have grown, reports from reinsurance companies Munich Re and Swiss Re have found that number could be much higher, anywhere from $36-$162 billion dollars, depending on how severe a future hurricane could be.

Cash and the estimated market value of Citizens’ invested assets totaled $8,470,680 at December 31, 2022,
marking a decrease of $802,168 from December 31, 2021.

$36B (at best) vs $8.5B...yeah, that looks like it's underfunded. Hurricane Ian, as an example, cost insurers $63B and another $52B was uninsured.

I'd guess that Florida is a hurricane or 3 from a tipping point. There might be a mass migration to the interior or there might be an exodus due to premiums being as much as a mortgage. Home costs will decrease, wiping out a lot of equity.

The Citizens thing was an attempted political band-aid that was doomed from the start. There will have to be a federal bailout after the first hurricane.

I find it interesting how thoughtful people have been saying for literally decades that FL's coastal cities are a hidden time bomb. They've long been dismissed as doomers. In the meantime, climate change went from "just a theory" to economic reality. I.e. if the predictions of the doomers were just scare-mongering, then the insurance market would not be where it is now. Now we're seeing 50% more category 4 and 5 hurricanes than we had just 20 years before - and that's as measured in 2013!

I also find it interesting how correct I was when I noted many years ago how illogical it was to build houses out of sticks in a tropical climate like Florida's where hurricanes should be assumed normal weather. When I was a kid watching the aftermath of Andrew in 1992 I thought to myself that surely this would change people's behavior forever, and surely all new houses would be solid poured concrete. Surely they'd learned the lessons of the 3 little pigs. Well, nope!

So after all this being right... how bold is it to say something like "It is foolish to live in a stick house within 100 miles of the Gulf Coast because there will soon be no way to insure it." or "It is foolish to live less than 10 meters above sea level."? The opinion may be unpopular, but look at how accurate all the previous warnings have been.

[LaineyAZ]

It's the "federal bailout" expectation that drives me nuts. 

In 2015 Florida government environmental workers were not even allowed to say the words "climate change" or "global warming."    So now when the inevitable happens they call the federal government - i.e., the rest of us who pay taxes - to rescue them yet again.  Just infuriating.

[NorCal]

https://www.news-journalonline.com/story/news/local/volusia/2023/11/30/daytona-beach-shores-condo-owners-563-insurance-increase-theft/71694368007/

Here's a new article about Florida insurance.

No one is going to bail these condo owners out, and there's no magic policy fix.  These condos are simply uninsurable at prices the residents can bear. 

I personally think it's time for anyone that has property in an insurance-stressed location to start looking for alternative locations.  This is a problem with no realistic solution and it will get much much worse.  Many of these homes will eventually be unsellable.

I'm going to be having some interesting conversations over the holidays.  My dad has two properties that are at pretty extreme risk for California wildfires.  Both are adjacent to dry grasslands.  I know I'd move if I were in his position, but he has no interest. 

[Jon Bon]

I find it interesting how thoughtful people have been saying for literally decades that FL's coastal cities are a hidden time bomb. They've long been dismissed as doomers. In the meantime, climate change went from "just a theory" to economic reality. I.e. if the predictions of the doomers were just scare-mongering, then the insurance market would not be where it is now. Now we're seeing 50% more category 4 and 5 hurricanes than we had just 20 years before - and that's as measured in 2013!

I also find it interesting how correct I was when I noted many years ago how illogical it was to build houses out of sticks in a tropical climate like Florida's where hurricanes should be assumed normal weather. When I was a kid watching the aftermath of Andrew in 1992 I thought to myself that surely this would change people's behavior forever, and surely all new houses would be solid poured concrete. Surely they'd learned the lessons of the 3 little pigs. Well, nope!

So after all this being right... how bold is it to say something like "It is foolish to live in a stick house within 100 miles of the Gulf Coast because there will soon be no way to insure it." or "It is foolish to live less than 10 meters above sea level."? The opinion may be unpopular, but look at how accurate all the previous warnings have been.

Ill push back some.

Yes if memory serves 1992 was basically when building codes came to (most of) Florida. Up until then you could build a house the same way as you could in Nebraska. So now they build much differently there. However I am sure there is a lot of older building that will not hold up to a decent sized storm.

That being said, wood is incredibly strong! Have you even been able to pull apart a 2x4? Not snap mind you, but pull it apart? How about plywood? Its strong as heck! What are not strong are the fasteners. Nails bend and can be pulled apart pretty easily. Screw while stronger, are way more expensive and can snap (thus why nails are favored, to bend not break)

Now houses are still made out of wood, but basically the bottom of the house is bolted to the foundation, and all top and bottom plates are connected to the studs with steel. Often with aptly named hurricane hangers. This makes a house extremely strong with a very small increase in cost.

I've even heard of guys bolting their top plate to the foundation with a long thru bolt making a nearly invincible structure. Adding extra nails and thicker sheeting also goes a long way. The next step to avoid any lateral movement to stripe the house with diagonal  rolls of steel nailed off to the studs.

All of these building techniques are not expensive, not expensive at all! But until they are/were mandated by code it was not done.

Obviously none of this is gonna help if it floods, but elevation is elevation.

I guess TLDR yeah I would still build a house in Florida, AND I would expect to pay a shitload for insurance.

[ChpBstrd]

I find it interesting how thoughtful people have been saying for literally decades that FL's coastal cities are a hidden time bomb. They've long been dismissed as doomers. In the meantime, climate change went from "just a theory" to economic reality. I.e. if the predictions of the doomers were just scare-mongering, then the insurance market would not be where it is now. Now we're seeing 50% more category 4 and 5 hurricanes than we had just 20 years before - and that's as measured in 2013!

I also find it interesting how correct I was when I noted many years ago how illogical it was to build houses out of sticks in a tropical climate like Florida's where hurricanes should be assumed normal weather. When I was a kid watching the aftermath of Andrew in 1992 I thought to myself that surely this would change people's behavior forever, and surely all new houses would be solid poured concrete. Surely they'd learned the lessons of the 3 little pigs. Well, nope!

So after all this being right... how bold is it to say something like "It is foolish to live in a stick house within 100 miles of the Gulf Coast because there will soon be no way to insure it." or "It is foolish to live less than 10 meters above sea level."? The opinion may be unpopular, but look at how accurate all the previous warnings have been.

Ill push back some.

Yes if memory serves 1992 was basically when building codes came to (most of) Florida. Up until then you could build a house the same way as you could in Nebraska. So now they build much differently there. However I am sure there is a lot of older building that will not hold up to a decent sized storm.

That being said, wood is incredibly strong! Have you even been able to pull apart a 2x4? Not snap mind you, but pull it apart? How about plywood? Its strong as heck! What are not strong are the fasteners. Nails bend and can be pulled apart pretty easily. Screw while stronger, are way more expensive and can snap (thus why nails are favored, to bend not break)

Now houses are still made out of wood, but basically the bottom of the house is bolted to the foundation, and all top and bottom plates are connected to the studs with steel. Often with aptly named hurricane hangers. This makes a house extremely strong with a very small increase in cost.

I've even heard of guys bolting their top plate to the foundation with a long thru bolt making a nearly invincible structure. Adding extra nails and thicker sheeting also goes a long way. The next step to avoid any lateral movement to stripe the house with diagonal  rolls of steel nailed off to the studs.

All of these building techniques are not expensive, not expensive at all! But until they are/were mandated by code it was not done.

Obviously none of this is gonna help if it floods, but elevation is elevation.

I guess TLDR yeah I would still build a house in Florida, AND I would expect to pay a shitload for insurance.

Even if the walls and roof rafters stay attached to the foundation, what do you have at the end of the storm? It won't be a livable house. It'll be a house that needs a new roof, new siding or brick veneer, new windows, and new sheetrock + flooring due to water intrusion. If it has a garage door, that goes quickly and creates a scoop to catch more air. $100k - $150k in damage is practically unavoidable.

I have doubts about whether even the best built stick house could withstand a direct hit from a category 4-5 eye wall, so it would always be advisable to evacuate inland, at a cost of - what? - $1k per hurricane.

On the other hand, people in the Caribbean live with poured concrete walls and a poured concrete roof slab. If you shutter the windows you can safely ride out any storm and you'll have minimal repairs to do after the storm, if anything. With these sorts of houses there are usually no insurance claims, and no need to insure them. So they work well for people who can't afford insurance and have nowhere they can go to evacuate. For them, hurricanes are a way of life and the death counts area usually low.

The downside is that concrete slabs are poor insulators, so if you run the air conditioning like Americans do, you'd pay a high price. That's what this comes down to, IMO.

[MrGreen]

I find it interesting how thoughtful people have been saying for literally decades that FL's coastal cities are a hidden time bomb. They've long been dismissed as doomers. In the meantime, climate change went from "just a theory" to economic reality. I.e. if the predictions of the doomers were just scare-mongering, then the insurance market would not be where it is now. Now we're seeing 50% more category 4 and 5 hurricanes than we had just 20 years before - and that's as measured in 2013!

I also find it interesting how correct I was when I noted many years ago how illogical it was to build houses out of sticks in a tropical climate like Florida's where hurricanes should be assumed normal weather. When I was a kid watching the aftermath of Andrew in 1992 I thought to myself that surely this would change people's behavior forever, and surely all new houses would be solid poured concrete. Surely they'd learned the lessons of the 3 little pigs. Well, nope!

So after all this being right... how bold is it to say something like "It is foolish to live in a stick house within 100 miles of the Gulf Coast because there will soon be no way to insure it." or "It is foolish to live less than 10 meters above sea level."? The opinion may be unpopular, but look at how accurate all the previous warnings have been.

Ill push back some.

Yes if memory serves 1992 was basically when building codes came to (most of) Florida. Up until then you could build a house the same way as you could in Nebraska. So now they build much differently there. However I am sure there is a lot of older building that will not hold up to a decent sized storm.

That being said, wood is incredibly strong! Have you even been able to pull apart a 2x4? Not snap mind you, but pull it apart? How about plywood? Its strong as heck! What are not strong are the fasteners. Nails bend and can be pulled apart pretty easily. Screw while stronger, are way more expensive and can snap (thus why nails are favored, to bend not break)

Now houses are still made out of wood, but basically the bottom of the house is bolted to the foundation, and all top and bottom plates are connected to the studs with steel. Often with aptly named hurricane hangers. This makes a house extremely strong with a very small increase in cost.

I've even heard of guys bolting their top plate to the foundation with a long thru bolt making a nearly invincible structure. Adding extra nails and thicker sheeting also goes a long way. The next step to avoid any lateral movement to stripe the house with diagonal  rolls of steel nailed off to the studs.

All of these building techniques are not expensive, not expensive at all! But until they are/were mandated by code it was not done.

Obviously none of this is gonna help if it floods, but elevation is elevation.

I guess TLDR yeah I would still build a house in Florida, AND I would expect to pay a shitload for insurance.

Even if the walls and roof rafters stay attached to the foundation, what do you have at the end of the storm? It won't be a livable house. It'll be a house that needs a new roof, new siding or brick veneer, new windows, and new sheetrock + flooring due to water intrusion. If it has a garage door, that goes quickly and creates a scoop to catch more air. $100k - $150k in damage is practically unavoidable.

I have doubts about whether even the best built stick house could withstand a direct hit from a category 4-5 eye wall, so it would always be advisable to evacuate inland, at a cost of - what? - $1k per hurricane.

On the other hand, people in the Caribbean live with poured concrete walls and a poured concrete roof slab. If you shutter the windows you can safely ride out any storm and you'll have minimal repairs to do after the storm, if anything. With these sorts of houses there are usually no insurance claims, and no need to insure them. So they work well for people who can't afford insurance and have nowhere they can go to evacuate. For them, hurricanes are a way of life and the death counts area usually low.

The downside is that concrete slabs are poor insulators, so if you run the air conditioning like Americans do, you'd pay a high price. That's what this comes down to, IMO.

If a picture is worth a thousand words, this is it. Concrete house in Mexico beach survives Hurricane Matthew virtually untouched in 2018. The rest of the town was scoured to the ground.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/mexico-beach-home-survives-hurricane-michael-virtually-untouched/story?id=58505662

[Jon Bon]

I find it interesting how thoughtful people have been saying for literally decades that FL's coastal cities are a hidden time bomb. They've long been dismissed as doomers. In the meantime, climate change went from "just a theory" to economic reality. I.e. if the predictions of the doomers were just scare-mongering, then the insurance market would not be where it is now. Now we're seeing 50% more category 4 and 5 hurricanes than we had just 20 years before - and that's as measured in 2013!

I also find it interesting how correct I was when I noted many years ago how illogical it was to build houses out of sticks in a tropical climate like Florida's where hurricanes should be assumed normal weather. When I was a kid watching the aftermath of Andrew in 1992 I thought to myself that surely this would change people's behavior forever, and surely all new houses would be solid poured concrete. Surely they'd learned the lessons of the 3 little pigs. Well, nope!

So after all this being right... how bold is it to say something like "It is foolish to live in a stick house within 100 miles of the Gulf Coast because there will soon be no way to insure it." or "It is foolish to live less than 10 meters above sea level."? The opinion may be unpopular, but look at how accurate all the previous warnings have been.

Ill push back some.

Yes if memory serves 1992 was basically when building codes came to (most of) Florida. Up until then you could build a house the same way as you could in Nebraska. So now they build much differently there. However I am sure there is a lot of older building that will not hold up to a decent sized storm.

That being said, wood is incredibly strong! Have you even been able to pull apart a 2x4? Not snap mind you, but pull it apart? How about plywood? Its strong as heck! What are not strong are the fasteners. Nails bend and can be pulled apart pretty easily. Screw while stronger, are way more expensive and can snap (thus why nails are favored, to bend not break)

Now houses are still made out of wood, but basically the bottom of the house is bolted to the foundation, and all top and bottom plates are connected to the studs with steel. Often with aptly named hurricane hangers. This makes a house extremely strong with a very small increase in cost.

I've even heard of guys bolting their top plate to the foundation with a long thru bolt making a nearly invincible structure. Adding extra nails and thicker sheeting also goes a long way. The next step to avoid any lateral movement to stripe the house with diagonal  rolls of steel nailed off to the studs.

All of these building techniques are not expensive, not expensive at all! But until they are/were mandated by code it was not done.

Obviously none of this is gonna help if it floods, but elevation is elevation.

I guess TLDR yeah I would still build a house in Florida, AND I would expect to pay a shitload for insurance.

Even if the walls and roof rafters stay attached to the foundation, what do you have at the end of the storm? It won't be a livable house. It'll be a house that needs a new roof, new siding or brick veneer, new windows, and new sheetrock + flooring due to water intrusion. If it has a garage door, that goes quickly and creates a scoop to catch more air. $100k - $150k in damage is practically unavoidable.

I have doubts about whether even the best built stick house could withstand a direct hit from a category 4-5 eye wall, so it would always be advisable to evacuate inland, at a cost of - what? - $1k per hurricane.

On the other hand, people in the Caribbean live with poured concrete walls and a poured concrete roof slab. If you shutter the windows you can safely ride out any storm and you'll have minimal repairs to do after the storm, if anything. With these sorts of houses there are usually no insurance claims, and no need to insure them. So they work well for people who can't afford insurance and have nowhere they can go to evacuate. For them, hurricanes are a way of life and the death counts area usually low.

The downside is that concrete slabs are poor insulators, so if you run the air conditioning like Americans do, you'd pay a high price. That's what this comes down to, IMO.

I have zero doubt there would be substantial damage from a direct hit from a class 4-5 hurricane. Your number does not seam that far off. Stick frame or concrete. I assume the windows are going to be the weak point, but again have no idea ( I know building but not Florida). 

Most folks in the Caribbean countries make < $500 a month. So I don't think a house you buy/rent on that salary would do so well in a hurricane.
(https://www.statista.com/statistics/950903/average-salary-latin-america-by-country-2020/)

Unfortunately there is tons of death and destruction from hurricanes in the Caribbean countries. I just don't think the western media cares. Honestly this is something that I have not read about but in doing a bit of research for this post is pretty damn eye opening. Yes I am sure the 1% of 1% in the Caribbean live in hurricane proof houses, but sadly the vast majority do not.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_deadliest_tropical_cyclones

Jeanne and Maria both killed single digits in the States and thousands on the islands. Could be isolated incidents, but not surprisingly deadly hurricanes are pretty isolated to poorer countries.


But back to the topic of building, the old adage is that you can make a house 50% stronger by increasing cost by 5%. I think that 100% should be required for any new build that is anywhere near the coast. People are not going to stop wanting to live in beautiful places. Insurance will eventuality get so expensive, that people will go to self insured, which I think is probably a good thing!

[ChpBstrd]

Reuters Headline:
U.S. property reinsurance rates rise by up to 50% on Jan 1-broker says

U.S. property catastrophe reinsurance rates rose by as much as 50% on Jan. 1, 2024 for policies previously hit by natural catastrophes... But reinsurance rates were unchanged for some clients who were not exposed to natural disasters last year, the report showed.

Global property catastrophe reinsurance rates rose by as much as 30% on Jan. 1 for policies previously hit by losses, reinsurance broker Guy Carpenter, part of Marsh McLennan, said in a separate report last week.

Aviation reinsurance rates rose by as much as 25%, the Gallagher Re report said.

In the marine market, war risk premiums for ships to enter the Red Sea have risen tenfold since the outbreak of the Israel-Hamas conflict

If these reinsurance rate hikes filter down to the rates paid by homeowners and drivers, it will break a lot of people. It seems the whole burden will fall on people or properties which have ever filed a claim. However, things like rents, airfare, and the price of goods will also rise based on the higher cost of insuring things like apartment buildings, airplanes, ships, and trucks. Eventually this becomes a key driver of inflation, like oil prices.

Now seems like a good time to jettison hard assets that require insurance (big houses, expensive cars, extra cars, boats, etc.) and shift to paper assets. This point is especially salient after the recent run-ups in the prices of real estate and used cars. As insurance costs bite into affordability, the value of such things should be expected to go down instead of up.

[GilesMM]

If these reinsurance rate hikes filter down to the rates paid by homeowners and drivers, it will break a lot of people. It seems the whole burden will fall on people or properties which have ever filed a claim. However, things like rents, airfare, and the price of goods will also rise based on the higher cost of insuring things like apartment buildings, airplanes, ships, and trucks. Eventually this becomes a key driver of inflation, like oil prices.

Now seems like a good time to jettison hard assets that require insurance (big houses, expensive cars, extra cars, boats, etc.) and shift to paper assets. This point is especially salient after the recent run-ups in the prices of real estate and used cars. As insurance costs bite into affordability, the value of such things should be expected to go down instead of up.

Every time is a good time to eliminate "big houses, expensive cars, extra cars, boats, etc.", but not sure I would shift to "paper assets".  Maybe just a regular house in a low-risk walkable area, a bike, and an Uber account.

[ChpBstrd]

If these reinsurance rate hikes filter down to the rates paid by homeowners and drivers, it will break a lot of people. It seems the whole burden will fall on people or properties which have ever filed a claim. However, things like rents, airfare, and the price of goods will also rise based on the higher cost of insuring things like apartment buildings, airplanes, ships, and trucks. Eventually this becomes a key driver of inflation, like oil prices.

Now seems like a good time to jettison hard assets that require insurance (big houses, expensive cars, extra cars, boats, etc.) and shift to paper assets. This point is especially salient after the recent run-ups in the prices of real estate and used cars. As insurance costs bite into affordability, the value of such things should be expected to go down instead of up.

Every time is a good time to eliminate "big houses, expensive cars, extra cars, boats, etc.", but not sure I would shift to "paper assets".  Maybe just a regular house in a low-risk walkable area, a bike, and an Uber account.

Agreed, but there are a lot of people on this forum who are hard-asset rich and need to understand the warning that their insurance costs are about to rocket. Owning too much house or an extra vacation house has been financially rewarding for the past few years, and lots of people have been pushed into fancy new cars by the state of the used car market. This is their warning that the insurance company is coming with very bad news.

[MrGreen]

If these reinsurance rate hikes filter down to the rates paid by homeowners and drivers, it will break a lot of people. It seems the whole burden will fall on people or properties which have ever filed a claim. However, things like rents, airfare, and the price of goods will also rise based on the higher cost of insuring things like apartment buildings, airplanes, ships, and trucks. Eventually this becomes a key driver of inflation, like oil prices.

Now seems like a good time to jettison hard assets that require insurance (big houses, expensive cars, extra cars, boats, etc.) and shift to paper assets. This point is especially salient after the recent run-ups in the prices of real estate and used cars. As insurance costs bite into affordability, the value of such things should be expected to go down instead of up.

Every time is a good time to eliminate "big houses, expensive cars, extra cars, boats, etc.", but not sure I would shift to "paper assets".  Maybe just a regular house in a low-risk walkable area, a bike, and an Uber account.

Agreed, but there are a lot of people on this forum who are hard-asset rich and need to understand the warning that their insurance costs are about to rocket. Owning too much house or an extra vacation house has been financially rewarding for the past few years, and lots of people have been pushed into fancy new cars by the state of the used car market. This is their warning that the insurance company is coming with very bad news.

This feels pretty timely for us. We plan to sell one rental this summer, though it's the one least at risk of anything and pretty inexpensive to insure. Selling it would give us enough cash to pay off the mortgage on our primary residence if we decided it was worth self-insuring, being in a higher hurricane risk area.

We have another rental in the same county as our residence that is subject to the same wind & hail rules. I've been debating internally whether we should sell it and be free of that risk, especially since the builder used 3-tab shingles and that will increase the likelihood of water intrusion during a high wind event.

If we self-insure our primary residence, it would be good to go through another round of purging since we've moved twice in the last two years. Only keeping what we really need would pay priceless dividends if we ever found ourselves in the unfortunate situation of having a hurricane related loss. Most folks don't think about this stuff but I don't want a natural disaster to upend our lives for a year or longer if we can help it.

[FINate]

This seems to mostly concern policies that were hit with catastrophes in 2023:

But reinsurance rates were unchanged for some clients who were not exposed to natural disasters last year, the report showed.

This is exactly what should happen. Reinsurance should be higher in places/industries with higher risk.

I guess one could sell all hard assets, but that doesn't eliminate risk. Even cash has risk.

IMO a better strategy is to hold assets in places with lower risk. Don't buy a house in the forest, especially the western US. Don't buy a beach house. Avoid flood plains. Owning expensive property near a major fault line probably isn't a great idea (looking at you CA, which is overdue).

It's easy to look up the rate of natural disasters per US city. As long as the insurance market is functional (i.e. there's some competition), insurance costs with be in line with the lower risk.

[FINate]

RE looking up an area's risk: FEMA National Risk Index map I would click the "Census Tract View" to get more granular data as some counties are rather large.

[2sk22]

RE looking up an area's risk: FEMA National Risk Index map I would click the "Census Tract View" to get more granular data as some counties are rather large.

This was fascinating! I have to agree that switching to the Census Tract View makes a huge difference in my area (northeastern NJ). There are some towns along the Hackensack River that have flooded frequently. There are also other towns like mine which are well above any flooding level, even in 2100 projections.

[FINate]

RE looking up an area's risk: FEMA National Risk Index map I would click the "Census Tract View" to get more granular data as some counties are rather large.

This was fascinating! I have to agree that switching to the Census Tract View makes a huge difference in my area (northeastern NJ). There are some towns along the Hackensack River that have flooded frequently. There are also other towns like mine which are well above any flooding level, even in 2100 projections.

Yes, the higher granularity helps. Some things still get lost in the aggregate in larger census tracts (very low population areas), so you still need to use your head.

Generally, the upper Midwest, and inland parts of the Northeast and Southeast are very low risk.

Pockets of the Intermountain West are also low risk, but you have to be selective. Mostly this comes down to living in larger urban areas (low fire risk) and away from seismically active areas.

Between volcanoes, earthquakes, wildfire, tsunami, coastal flooding, and landslides, much of the West Coast is a disaster waiting to happen. That's just the reality of living on the ring of fire. California offers earthquake insurance through the California Earthquake Authority (not sure what OR or WA offers), but when we lived there I was shocked at how few people had earthquake insurance. The lowest risk areas of CA are some of the cities in the Central Valley: Sacramento, Stockton, Fresno.

Out west it's worth drilling down into wildfire risk. Click on the red Risk Index drop down and select Wildfire. Throughout the west you see islands of blue/white (low/no risk) in a sea of yellow and red (moderate to very high risk). These are urban areas, usually in valleys surrounded by less fuel. If you really want to live in the forest in the west, the lowest risk places for this are west of the cascades in OR/WA (lots of rain) and parts of the Idaho panhandle (lots of snow, short summers).

[FINate]

As many predicted on this thread, insurance rates are starting to affect home values: Insurers such as State Farm and Allstate are leaving fire- and flood-prone areas. Home values could take a hit

Porter said First Street Foundation’s research in California concluded that “the moment that an individual gets a non-renewal letter from the private insurance market, they essentially lose 12% of their property value.”

I think this is the first time I've seen this quantified so directly. On a median priced home in CA this is an immediate $100k drop, all because of a letter in the mail.

[GilesMM]

...

Between volcanoes, earthquakes, wildfire, tsunami, coastal flooding, and landslides, much of the West Coast is a disaster waiting to happen. That's just the reality of living on the ring of fire. California offers earthquake insurance through the California Earthquake Authority (not sure what OR or WA offers), but when we lived there I was shocked at how few people had earthquake insurance. The lowest risk areas of CA are some of the cities in the Central Valley: Sacramento, Stockton, Fresno.

...

EQ insurance doesn't add a lot of value. The premiums are high and the deductibles usually 15% of home value.  Many homeowner's policies would cover broken windows or fire resulting from an EQ.  What's left is cracked drywall and pulverized glass figurine collections, which shouldn't reach the deductible.  Otherwise, total destruction of the home is pretty hard to do (unless there is a landslide, which is not typically covered by EQ except in CA where it can't be excluded but if you have landslide risk you may want separate coverage if it rains and the hill slips without an EQ as we saw in Los Angeles last week).  A year or two of EQ premiums would be better spend on seismic retrofits like bolting the house to the foundation or adding 3/4" plywood to the cripple wall.

[ChpBstrd]

As many predicted on this thread, insurance rates are starting to affect home values: Insurers such as State Farm and Allstate are leaving fire- and flood-prone areas. Home values could take a hit

Porter said First Street Foundation’s research in California concluded that “the moment that an individual gets a non-renewal letter from the private insurance market, they essentially lose 12% of their property value.”

I think this is the first time I've seen this quantified so directly. On a median priced home in CA this is an immediate $100k drop, all because of a letter in the mail.

It makes sense.

I find it fascinating how "sticky" real estate prices are. Rising mortgage and insurance rates should lower prices, because they affect the total cost of ownership. However, prices have not fallen proportionally to these costs.

Perhaps the sales clearing today are to people who strongly believe they will be able to refi the mortgage soon, and their insurance will stay flat for the next several years.

How long will it take to clear the market of this group of buyers? Stated another way - how long can mortgages and insurance stay high until expectations become locked in?

[FINate]

As many predicted on this thread, insurance rates are starting to affect home values: Insurers such as State Farm and Allstate are leaving fire- and flood-prone areas. Home values could take a hit

Porter said First Street Foundation’s research in California concluded that “the moment that an individual gets a non-renewal letter from the private insurance market, they essentially lose 12% of their property value.”

I think this is the first time I've seen this quantified so directly. On a median priced home in CA this is an immediate $100k drop, all because of a letter in the mail.

It makes sense.

I find it fascinating how "sticky" real estate prices are. Rising mortgage and insurance rates should lower prices, because they affect the total cost of ownership. However, prices have not fallen proportionally to these costs.

Perhaps the sales clearing today are to people who strongly believe they will be able to refi the mortgage soon, and their insurance will stay flat for the next several years.

How long will it take to clear the market of this group of buyers? Stated another way - how long can mortgages and insurance stay high until expectations become locked in?

I think this quote from the article helps explain it:

“Risk management does not come into play until it’s entirely too late when it comes to individual personal property purchasing,” Kevelighan said. “It comes into play when the mortgage provider needs you to go get it.”

“And that’s the first time when a consumer even begins to think about where they’re living and what the risks might be,” he said. “The cost reflects that risk. That should be an alarm to tell them that they’re living in a risky place and then ask themselves: How could I reduce that risk? Or do I need to think about living somewhere else?”

A lot of people really want to live in the forest or right on the coast. Yet only very recently has insurance become a major factor, and it will take time for this new reality to sink in. At some point collective views on these high risk areas will shift and be seen as less desirable. In the meantime, the market will continue to educate homeowners.

[ChpBstrd]

As many predicted on this thread, insurance rates are starting to affect home values: Insurers such as State Farm and Allstate are leaving fire- and flood-prone areas. Home values could take a hit

Porter said First Street Foundation’s research in California concluded that “the moment that an individual gets a non-renewal letter from the private insurance market, they essentially lose 12% of their property value.”

I think this is the first time I've seen this quantified so directly. On a median priced home in CA this is an immediate $100k drop, all because of a letter in the mail.

It makes sense.

I find it fascinating how "sticky" real estate prices are. Rising mortgage and insurance rates should lower prices, because they affect the total cost of ownership. However, prices have not fallen proportionally to these costs.

Perhaps the sales clearing today are to people who strongly believe they will be able to refi the mortgage soon, and their insurance will stay flat for the next several years.

How long will it take to clear the market of this group of buyers? Stated another way - how long can mortgages and insurance stay high until expectations become locked in?

I think this quote from the article helps explain it:

“Risk management does not come into play until it’s entirely too late when it comes to individual personal property purchasing,” Kevelighan said. “It comes into play when the mortgage provider needs you to go get it.”

“And that’s the first time when a consumer even begins to think about where they’re living and what the risks might be,” he said. “The cost reflects that risk. That should be an alarm to tell them that they’re living in a risky place and then ask themselves: How could I reduce that risk? Or do I need to think about living somewhere else?”

A lot of people really want to live in the forest or right on the coast. Yet only very recently has insurance become a major factor, and it will take time for this new reality to sink in. At some point collective views on these high risk areas will shift and be seen as less desirable. In the meantime, the market will continue to educate homeowners.

I suppose as a cheap bastard I cannot imagine people making a big real estate or automotive purchase without thinking through the costs of insurance, taxes, and energy. In my mind, all these costs are fairly transparent, and anyone in these markets should be aware of the rising trend.

Reality for other people, however, looks a lot more emotion-driven and impulsive. Sort of like the various "house hunters" reality TV shows where the ditzy buyers pick the house with the brightest paint color because they like all the "natural light" and it's $150,000 more than the house with the beige interior. We never hear about how their finances are going after making that choice on a whim, within a week, after looking at only 3 houses.

Apparently the insurance actuaries are a bit irrational too if they are only now incorporating climate change into their pricing after suffering staggering losses in Western forests and Gulf coasts.

Perhaps the classic saying should be rephrased: Prices can remain irrational long enough to trick lots of people into buying something which will leave them insolvent.

[2sk22]

An interesting discussion on Bogleheads about the current realities of home insurance for a single family home in south Florida: https://www.bogleheads.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=424251

Many people are moving to home insurance that does not cover storm/wind/surge damage apparently.

[FINate]

An interesting discussion on Bogleheads about the current realities of home insurance for a single family home in south Florida: https://www.bogleheads.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=424251

Many people are moving to home insurance that does not cover storm/wind/surge damage apparently.

Interesting thread, thanks for the link. Lots of comments from people essentially saying insurance companies are signaling that your home is not suitable for long-term habitation, so move. And yet it seems OP, like so many in their situation, doesn't see it. For example, the premise of the question about paying the higher premium vs. maybe saving money by self insuring. Essentially asking if one can outsmart the insurance companies -- really ridiculous when you think about it because it's a bet on getting lucky and beating the odds in an unknowable future.

[bacchi]

An interesting discussion on Bogleheads about the current realities of home insurance for a single family home in south Florida: https://www.bogleheads.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=424251

Many people are moving to home insurance that does not cover storm/wind/surge damage apparently.

Interesting thread, thanks for the link. Lots of comments from people essentially saying insurance companies are signaling that your home is not suitable for long-term habitation, so move. And yet it seems OP, like so many in their situation, doesn't see it. For example, the premise of the question about paying the higher premium vs. maybe saving money by self insuring. Essentially asking if one can outsmart the insurance companies -- really ridiculous when you think about it because it's a bet on getting lucky and beating the odds in an unknowable future.

The OP is missing the forest for the trees. All of that talk about "land value" if the house is destroyed but this poster brings up the obvious.

If the house were totaled in a major storm, I suspect the value of the land as a building lot would plummet. That land value might be a valid estimate now, before the storm. It could be far less afterward.

[Villanelle]

It seems like we are in a window--how large a window is hard to say--where these homes (and the land) still have all or most of their value. 

We are selling our CA rental.  There are many reasons, but insurance and climate change are just one of them.  We haven't (yet) seen huge insurance increases.  And our property is inland and up hill so it is unlikely to flood.  But fire is a real risk.  It feels like right now, we can still get a premium for SoCal living.  I don't expect that to last forever, as the weather continues to change, making it less desirable, and the insurance prices continue to increase.  Happy to be getting out this summer.