You're refuting a lot of established facts about the risks of climate change, in a way that seems indicative of a certain ideology. Can you explain more what your position is?

▲

adrianN 8 months ago | parent [-]

My position is that climate change is an existential threat to civilization, but buildings are not at a risk that would make them uninsurable. We build cities both in very wet and very hot and dry climates without much trouble. Those are engineering problems we can solve without much trouble.

▲

llamaimperative 8 months ago | parent [-]

But with lots more money, which is what insurance deals with

Of course they’re insurable at some premium. The question is whether there is any premium someone is willing to pay that can also cover the risk.

	▲	notabee 8 months ago \| parent [-]
		It's also a social coordination problem. For example a neighborhood where all the homes have to be fire resistant is going to fare a lot better, and probably be cheaper for the individual home owners to build and insure, than the one fire-resistant home in a neighborhood of tinder boxes. I don't think the prognosis is good for the U.S. in that regard. We have very little social cohesion and a lot of parties interested in making the situation worse for their own benefit.