Submitted by Gari_305 t3_119wid5 in Futurology
Comments
hardcory00 t1_j9oj44e wrote
And the gov’t keeps subsidizing flood insurance in high risk zones that private companies won’t touch for obvious good reason, so many people may feel more comfortable living in those places than they otherwise would without affordable flood insurance.
TrueMrSkeltal t1_j9s6ovb wrote
I’m glad they are, will make it easier to scoop up properties in the upper midwest
ArchitectNebulous t1_j9s1au4 wrote
If I could afford to move away from a desert, I would.
face_eater_5000 t1_j9s26hx wrote
I sympathize with you, but I'm talking about people willingly moving from environmentally more protected places like the Midwest, northern New England, and parts of NY state and PA to places like Arizona, most of Florida, Southeast Texas, and the West Coast. I think in 10-15 years, there will be a huge turnaround as temperatures rise even more, communities start fighting over water, and fires, hurricanes and other crazy weather events wreak havoc on communities.
AtlanticRomantic t1_j9wskmr wrote
I live in Texas and a massive number of people are moving here from California. In terms of climate change, they're "jumping from the frying pan into the fire." Texas is going to be one of the worst places to be when climate change starts hitting really hard. I would leave if I could afford it.
AdmirableTea3144 t1_j9om2jq wrote
And yet people are moving to Miami! If home insurers factored in climate change risk into their premiums, the majority wouldn’t be able to afford home coverage in South Florida.
OriginalCompetitive t1_j9ow2xm wrote
Insurers do factor climate risk in to premiums.
Truth_is_Liberal t1_j9p14jr wrote
We do, and that's one reason even car insurance is so expensive in FL. It's still not expensive enough though. The rest of us are subsidizing Florida residents through higher premiums than we deserve.
I have tons of sympathy for the people of Florida, but their government can go fuck itself. Every single climate change denier there should get strapped to a palm tree during the next hurricane.
AdmirableTea3144 t1_j9ox3qi wrote
Can you get flood insurance in Florida?
illapa13 t1_j9pdg6y wrote
Despite the memes. Floridians aren't stupid. Huge sections the state are built to resist hurricanes and a ridiculous amount of canals have been built to redirect stormwater away from homes.
Ever since hurricane Andrews leveled South Florida in 1992 we've changed how we build homes specially to survive up to category 3 storms. We have some of the best building codes in the country.
Also in Florida yes you can definitely get flood insurance assuming your house is not built in a flood zone and in all our insurance policies hurricane damage is specifically in a separate section.
OriginalCompetitive t1_j9oxis6 wrote
Depends where you live, I’m sure.
In-Cod-We-Thrust t1_j9rmm85 wrote
5 digit deductibles are common, as well.
AwkwardPregame t1_j9q11wl wrote
That awkward moment that someone knows the first thing about actuators and insurance
PepperoniFogDart t1_j9qpe93 wrote
If there’s one thing insurance companies spend heaps of cash on, it’s analytical modeling to mitigate risk.
StampYoPassport t1_j9q76ii wrote
Climate change is false, now excuse me while I enjoy this perfectly normal February 23rd on a beautiful 67F day here in South Eastern Pennsylvania.
SettleDownAlready t1_j9qzksk wrote
I enjoyed it too but that crazy cherry tree around the corner blossoming?
Bewaretheicespiders t1_j9q8met wrote
Thats weather. Not saying climate change is false, because it isnt, but its unrelated to a hot winter day the same way its not disproved by a cold summer day.
DrMushroomStamp t1_j9qokl4 wrote
Just had a whole month of 50s and a few 60s in a area I have lived for 40 years.
Used to be a a whole lotta snow to play in around here when I was younger.
I grew up sledding this entire month and building snow forts.
Gari_305 OP t1_j9ocpb2 wrote
From the Article
>We as Americans don’t often hear about this chaotic process of displacement and relocation, but the scale of movement is already overwhelming: more than 3 million Americans lost their homes to climate disasters last year, and a substantial number of those will never make it back to their original properties. Over the coming decades, the total number of displaced will swell by millions and tens of millions, forcing Americans from the most vulnerable parts of the country into an unpredictable, quasi-permanent exile from the places they know and love.
>
>This migration won’t be a linear movement from point A to point B, and neither will it be a slow march away from the coastlines and the hottest places. Rather, the most vulnerable parts of the United States will enter a chaotic churn of instability as some people leave, others move around within the same town or city, and still others arrive only to leave again. In parts of California that are ravaged by wildfire, disaster victims will vie against millions of other state residents for apartments in the state’s turbulent housing market. In cities like Miami and Norfolk, where sea levels are rising, homeowners may watch their homes lose value as the market shies away from flood-prone areas. The effects will be different in every place, but almost everywhere the result will be the same: safe shelter will get scarcer and more expensive, loosening people’s grip on the stability that comes with a permanent home.
[deleted] t1_j9r1ivu wrote
[deleted]
LanghamP_ t1_j9owawh wrote
I don't think suburbanites should get even more handouts.
>The private insurance industry and the private housing market also push people out of their homes. In California, for instance, the large insurers have stopped offering fire insurance to people who live in the riskiest areas, or have raised costs to unaffordable levels, forcing homeowners to reconsider whether they can afford to stay where they are. Many of the places that are most vulnerable to disasters are also experiencing a severe housing shortage, which makes recovery almost impossible.
The federal government has the resources to help address this chaos. Lawmakers could ramp up programs that protect against floods and fires. They could give people money to relocate from vulnerable homes or to find new jobs if climate change makes their old jobs impossible or dangerous. Meanwhile, the White House could take a leading role in planning for future migration, incentivizing growth in places that are less vulnerable and easing the transition away from the riskiest places.
The severe housing shortage is that of zoning laws that make it impossible to build anything but single family detached housing...and now you want us to insure and replace that at great cost?
Bewaretheicespiders t1_j9q4wdv wrote
I dont hate on subburbs, but I do agree that local problems need to be solved with local funds.
Same for the "incentivizing growth in places"... its not up to the White House to decide where people should go. Tenth amendment and all.
PastTense1 t1_j9q43q8 wrote
"more than 3 million Americans lost their homes to climate disasters last year."
I just don't believe this. Could someone provide the specific data?
Bewaretheicespiders t1_j9q7vqd wrote
They take every single natural event as a "climate disaster". The bulk of which are Florida hurricanes, according to other sources stating the same number. But of course they had "climate disasters" long before we started burning coal.
DudeMcGuyMan t1_j9tancr wrote
>But of course they had "climate disasters" long before we started burning coal.
....with much less intensity & frequency.
Florida was hit several times this year, and the severity is more than it has been
Bewaretheicespiders t1_j9tye87 wrote
You still can't count all of them as if they were caused by climate change. Its like Covid, you dont count all deaths, you count excess deaths.
DudeMcGuyMan t1_j9u66qq wrote
> Its like Covid, you dont count all deaths, you count excess deaths.
Alright, what amount of these are you trying to label as "climate disasters" and how many more are you trying to label as "weather disasters", if that's what you're trying to get at? Or are you just trying to dismiss the increase of these events due to climate change?
Bewaretheicespiders t1_j9ubwcp wrote
No, I dont dismiss the increase. Its something difficult to measure though because they are on very long cycles and we just dont have records for that long. You also cannot only measure the number of, say, hurricanes. Because a strong hurricane in the Altantic pulls cold water from deeper and will reduce the chance of another atlantic hurricane afterwards. But a Gulf of Mexico hurricane will not have this effect because of warmer, shallower water. See how complicated this gets? You can't measure damage either because development increases. Im saying this is complicated and important and outlandish, misleading claims dont help the cause.
Im not a climate change denier, Im a data scientist that likes proper science.
-Ch4s3- t1_j9saeiv wrote
It is a Guardian opinion piece…
applemanib t1_j9raa8t wrote
No. Because it is bullshit. The article itself didn't even site a source. There's no chance almost 1% of all Americans were displaced from climate. It even sounds made up.
SnooConfections6085 t1_j9pffiv wrote
People settling in different areas of the US isn't really a big deal. Very little infrastructure is expected to last a super long time.
There is overall plenty of land.
Some people that chose poorly when investing in land are going to lose money. Big whoop.
(Don't get me wrong, I'm a green, but we don't really sell this all that well, moving is pretty easy in the US, and people that own land in flood zones are basically lumped in with smokers when it comes to violin playing for risky behavior by everyone else. Living (purchasing land...) in a climate risk area is a choice).
WillBottomForBanana t1_j9qazgm wrote
>moving is pretty easy in the US
except for the most vulnerable who could most benefit from moving.
FuturologyBot t1_j9ofoew wrote
The following submission statement was provided by /u/Gari_305:
From the Article
>We as Americans don’t often hear about this chaotic process of displacement and relocation, but the scale of movement is already overwhelming: more than 3 million Americans lost their homes to climate disasters last year, and a substantial number of those will never make it back to their original properties. Over the coming decades, the total number of displaced will swell by millions and tens of millions, forcing Americans from the most vulnerable parts of the country into an unpredictable, quasi-permanent exile from the places they know and love.
>
>This migration won’t be a linear movement from point A to point B, and neither will it be a slow march away from the coastlines and the hottest places. Rather, the most vulnerable parts of the United States will enter a chaotic churn of instability as some people leave, others move around within the same town or city, and still others arrive only to leave again. In parts of California that are ravaged by wildfire, disaster victims will vie against millions of other state residents for apartments in the state’s turbulent housing market. In cities like Miami and Norfolk, where sea levels are rising, homeowners may watch their homes lose value as the market shies away from flood-prone areas. The effects will be different in every place, but almost everywhere the result will be the same: safe shelter will get scarcer and more expensive, loosening people’s grip on the stability that comes with a permanent home.
Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/119wid5/the_american_climate_migration_has_already_begun/j9ocpb2/
cantwejustbefiends t1_j9r1kkm wrote
Yeah great, 3 million Americans is a lot of Americans. But this is a typical problem, we need to know the rate of change not a single years worth. They claim that number is going to keep increasing, which is most likely true, but if migration has already started than show us a number that at least shows that to be true. Not saying it isn’t happening, just that this is a common way to argue something but doesn’t show what they want it to.
Mundane_Reality8461 t1_j9sd4v1 wrote
Perhaps 3m evacuated, but certainly not displaced
Author makes it sound like tent cities rolling across the nation like a traveling carnival.
This type of opinion hyperbole is exactly why people do not consider real journalism when discussing the communities in Alaska that have actually had to move affecting a very small number of people. People who now have homes up hill and are not displaced
Test19s t1_j9oyxbb wrote
Thank Allah that the USA and Canada have lots of sparsely populated and temperate areas to house domestic and foreign climate migrants (unless we have another baby boom and/or the newcomers are unable to fully integrate).
Bewaretheicespiders t1_j9q46xh wrote
Its disingenuous to put that solely on climate. California for example is horribly overpopulated and has terrible environmental and social policies and I say there would be an internal exodus away from it with or without climate change.
The fact that the two States that receive the largest internal migration are two of the hottest States should be a big red flag that there are other, more important factors in play.
Tech_Philosophy t1_j9qpgnv wrote
> California for example is horribly overpopulated and has terrible environmental and social policies and I say there would be an internal exodus away from it with or without climate change.
Hey aunt Erma, I didn't know you had a Reddit account! Love you!!
[deleted] t1_j9qyvlx wrote
[removed]
face_eater_5000 t1_j9oguuk wrote
Yeah, but dummies keep moving to places with the worst climate change projections.