Wir sind es gewohnt, dass die meisten Klimaschutzmaßnahmen im Hinblick auf die Reduzierung von CO2 stattfinden. Bald stehen wir vor einer neuen Vorgehensweise: dem kontrollierten Rückzug.
In den USA könnten die potenziellen Schäden durch durch den Klimawandel verstärkte Überschwemmungen, Hurrikane und Waldbrände in den kommenden Jahren eine Billion US-Dollar übersteigen. Das ergab ein Bericht einer Versicherungsgesellschaft aus dem Jahr 2018 Ein einzelner Hurrikan der Kategorie 5, der Miami trifft, könnte Schäden in Höhe von 1,35 Billionen US-Dollar verursachen.
Immer mehr private Versicherungsunternehmen weigern sich, sich darauf einzulassen. Ist die Antwort eine öffentliche Versicherung? Warum sollten Wähler in „sicheren“ Gebieten für Menschen bezahlen, die sich bewusst dafür entscheiden, in vom Klimawandel gefährlichen Gebieten zu leben? Vielleicht ist ein „kontrollierter Rückzug“ in sicherere Gebiete die realistischere Option.
Einige Politiker haben versucht, sich so zu verhalten, als gäbe es keinen Klimawandel. Aber dieses Spiel wird nicht mehr lange funktionieren, diese Probleme werden bald unvermeidbar.
The insurance market will soon force politicians to confront the realities of 'managed retreat' due to climate change. In the US, tens of millions of people live in disaster prone areas that will soon be uninsurable.
byu/lughnasadh inFuturology
10 Comments
Everyone knew this would happen but still stuck their collective heads in sand about climate change.
Climate refugees are going to become a real thing in the next 10-20 years as it becomes unbearable and/or uninsurable.
Properties in those areas where wildfires can be a risk realistically can only have larger fire breaks cut in to mitigate. But wildfires are only one aspect of the issue
Insurence companies trying to run for the door, attempting to get out of paying the premiums people have paid into for a reason.
Speaking from a US based perspective, I think Damage control will be the overall arching theme for the many in the next four years, complete with an already declining quality of life that declines even faster.
I urge everyone to make smart financial decisions, and get their affairs in order, because it’s going to be a rough one for many.
Increased intensity of hurricanes and storm surge flooding. Increased power and frequency of tornadoes (only specific places in the world). Wildfires, ecosystems collapse, uninhabitable temperatures…
This isn’t stopping any time soon, and with AI driving a new source of massive energy consumption, im even less hopeful.
Profits above all else fails when you cling to them so long you destroy the system you’re leeching off of.
And of course the rich will easily be able to relocate and secure themselves for a while longer, while the poor end up homeless and in debt, and eventually dead as the crisis really intensifies.
Or people could realize we don’t need insurance companies to share liability. It’s actually very simple and straightforward for most things once you hit the rule of large number. Car. Home. Health. Renters. Whatever.
We. Don’t. Need. Insurance. Companies.
I mean given how they handle covid, wealth inequality, and other stuff I imagine their response will be the same: address nothing in a serious manner, at best you get a non solution that never passes, at worst you get distracted with whatever group is the scapegoat this time.
Whole country collapsing bc nobody can see beyond capitalism & profit motive.
How is this even legal when people are required to have insurance.
It’s always been the way that conservatives only ever understand the effect of their atrocious policy positions when it directly fucks themselves over. They never learn and they never understand otherwise.
Checks my current health care insurance policy.
Nope, gonna stay broke
public insurance is still subject to economic laws.
if you are going to provide public insurance, by definition, it’s going to be cheaper than private insurance, meaning its price is lower than the actual cost. so who is paying for this? other tax payers.
with public insurance, it will also be an incentive for people to continue staying in risky areas, when they would have been priced out if private insurance were allowed to increase their premiums.
then there’s another issue of whether the government will actually let people without public insurance lose their property, the political outcry of poor homeless people hurt by natural disasters out of their control would be huge. this is another moral hazard of government insurance.
what should happen is insurance companies be left free to do their business. in california, the government doesnt allow insurance companies to use catastrophic models because the premiums under that model would be too much. the government also restricts how much a company can increase its premiums, often with months of administrative obstacles. then there’s also the government insurance schemes already in place that disincentive people to use their own money for insurance.
another factor is the government inaction and even detrimental policies dealing with the increasing threats. california would rather pump water into the sea to reduce salt content for delta smelts.
in 2019, la department of water and power wanted to widen fire access roads and replace old wooden utility poles with steel ones, but the project was stopped by conservationists politicians because of the concern around saving some milkvetch plants. this plant actually requires heat for germination, so wildfires are its method of survival.
you would think one method of controlling bushfires is in doing controlled burns to clear out the underbrush. but back in october last year, the federal forest service actually stopped controlled burns when it is the crucial time for such actions.