but it's all good. They will all be just fine.

Does Neil approve of his music being used with such stupid AI video?

Agree with you.

Insurance companies won't even bother with high risk areas anymore. It's no longer an issue of pricing, but an issue of refusing to offer coverage. The cost is so high now, you are better off to just toss money into a bank account to rebuild later, if you decide to do so. At least all that gets destroyed will be less likely to happen again.

What I think is going to happen is that the huge migration happening now of people moving to places like Arizona, Florida (1,000 people a day) and other SE coastal areas is going to halt abruptly and reverse flow. But they'll lose money on their homes if they didn't outright lose it and they won't be able to move very far.

It's criminal for builders to keep luring people into these areas that have ongoing flood events. Not even related to hurricanes or storms, just sunny day flooding due to limestone substrate, depleting aquifers and sinking city situations, oh and rising seas, they completely cover up with beach "nourishment" programs.

...but wild fire prone areas as well. I don't have and neither do any of my nieghbors have an insurance policy. You can pay the cost for another home in 10 years, so it doesn't make sense. We are less than a mile from a lake in a wooded area, that normally would cost a fortune. But because no one will insure here, except for the last resort state carier, the values are super low. You basically have to come in on a "all cash" offer.

Look at Vermont (my old home state).

I don't live in NC but I bought flood insurance for the first time in my life last year because of the Helene damage in NC (my family's state) and it was not too expensive. I don't live in a flood plain or zone. But I live downhill from folks and I have creeks nearby. So I bought a policy.

Last edited Mon Sep 22, 2025, 10:05 AM - Edit history (1)

The concept of a "risk pool" is to cover everyone, regardless of the risk (within certain limits, of course). Insurance companies achieve this by grouping all individuals together in a risk pool, to spread the costs of insuring the riskiest members across the entire population of insureds, thus preventing insurance companies from excluding high-risk individuals which would negatively affect the economy.

Insurance works on the (reasonable) expectation that most insureds will never file claims within the policy period, offsetting the higher costs of those who will sustain losses. By creating a single, large pool, the financial burden is distributed across a broader population, which ideally stabilizes premiums for everyone. This has been a fundamental concept in the insurance industry from the beginning, but climate change is altering that equation.

Adverse selection occurs when higher risk entities are more likely to buy insurance coverage, while the lower risks, who often cannot afford coverage because of high premiums, choose to opt-out. This pushes up the average cost for those who remain in the risk pool, creating a "premium spiral" that eventually makes coverage unaffordable for almost everyone. That's what's happening in the property insurance market now.

Mandated universal risk pools mitigate this by requiring everyone to purchase insurance, and requiring insurers to cover everyone at affordable prices (within certain limits). This is how automobile insurance works; every vehicle owner is required by law to purchase insurance, guaranteeing coverage for everyone at an affordable price (within certain limits). Property insurance doesn't work like auto insurance; only those with mortgages are required by lenders to purchase insurance to protect their lenders' interests.

For the property insurance market to remain viable, governments will likely be forced to mandate coverage for every property owner, and to subsidize part of the risk. That won't be popular with "free market" Republicans, or their voters.

He does his homework.

... not the end of the discussion.

In particular, topics of this conversation need to include responsibility, accountability, and mitigation.

We humans need to ensure that such calamities do not impact deep future generations as they will the species of the next 200 years. Willingly pushing for or engaging in the policies that caused the incoming climate crisis must become a hard cultural taboo - like poisoning a well or kidnapping children. Such advocates and practitioners must be shunned by default if life, let alone human civilization, is to continue.

have been saying for many years now. Al Gore ring a bell?

Yet Americans just wave off climate kooks and attack the messengers.

What you say about justice is true but it will never happen because people like Musk and Thiel own and run the world.

And that includes the US

I'm tempted to name one certain person here.

Yes, it is too late...







https://rapidclimatechange.org/

I don't buy that.

to prevent it and we see no signs of that happening.

Those who aren’t are the ones who have given up.

Possibly earlier. Still though, we can slow it down.

You like to be contrarian, so let's examine your comments: "I think it was too late in 1950" then "Possibly earlier. Still though, we can slow it down."

What happened in 1950 regarding this discussion?

How can we slow it down?

What's the purpose of posting such things other than to sow some kind of seed of discontent or disagreement with my post?

How can we slow it down? Seems pretty obvious. Continue what we have been doing since the 80's, be green (and try and be greener). Of course, it wasn't until later that green really became a thing. If we hadn't started with green initiatives throughout the world, we'd probably be much, much worse than we are today.

I honestly have no idea why you think I'm disagreeing with you. You think it's too late, I think it's too late. See? We agree.

The big problem is that China’s economic boom has pretty much put the nail in the coffin to any efforts to slow it down.

No idea where that is coming from. Most of the increase in CO2 emissions has been since 1950.

"Slow it down?" What do you propose?

https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions

It has bee "too late" for quite a while now.

We are too far into climate failure to stop it now, about all we can do is adapt and try to slow it down. They will never give up their greed and allow anything really meanngful.

Personally my house is on solar abot 70% of the time for now until I complete our setup. Takes time as I am doing it myself and keeping the cost down to an affordable range.

our GQP/corporate owned leaders and others lacked the will to force change because of fear of disruption and backlash and the fear of losing the bushels of money from political donations.

Truth.

The upheaval of modern agriculture will bring mass starvation events as more and more formerly fertile farmland disappears. This will trigger waves of population migrations and political instability (war?) as more unstable nations collapse from their inability to provide for their citizens. I'm old but I pity the younger generation having to inherit this dystopian future currently in the making. No wonder there are so many nihilists among us.

With all these "alternate realities" existing - people living in internet bubbles, people living in real life religious cults (churches), and the non-stop lies from the rightwing nut jobs...

A very sizable number of Americans have no idea what is happening with the global climate changes and what is coming.

At approximately 50 minutes into this video Colonel Larry Wilkerson, Colin Powell's chief of staff, says that a NASA climatologist told him that under a worst case scenario by 2100 there would only be enough arable land on the planet for 400 million people. This video is more than a decade old and we have seen that we keep hitting the mark for the IPCC worst case scenarios.
Rising sea level is already a problem for places like Miami, Kolkata, Lagos, Shanghai, etc. but by the time enough anthropogenic energy has been released into our biosphere to raise sea level two meters, enough energy will have been released into the atmosphere to cause serial cereal grain harvest failures and the starvation of billions. Only about 3% of anthropogenic energy released goes into melting ice. The latent heat of fusion of water means that this small amount causes only slow sea level rise. Even with ice shelf destabilization the real danger for most of humanity is starvation.

It's been too late for awhile now.

The first Earth Day occurred on April 22, 1970, organized by Wisconsin Senator Gaylord Nelson to raise public awareness about environmental pollution. Inspired by a Santa Barbara oil spill and the student anti-war movement, Nelson's idea for campus teach-ins evolved into a national demonstration involving 20 million Americans, leading to the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and landmark environmental legislation. -Google AI

Every damn time we tried to make change, the Republicans mocked it and received enough support to diminish the scope of the problem. Jimmy Carter himself tried with solar water heaters until Reagan mocked them and took them out. By doing so he threw a permanent wrench to the 30+% who never believe anything a democrat says or does.

Perhaps I missed the fight for climate by the GOP/MAGA. I don't think so.

Check every politicians bank before and after serving in Washington. Those petrodollars were more important to old fucking politicians.

The planet will be fine.

Humans on the other hand, not so much.

Evolve or die.

kill most life on earth. Every bit we can do to slow warming even now will make a better future possible.

it's incredibly harmful to say it's too late because then people just give up.

the way that mainstream climate scientists have been handling the situation, changing the baseline from 1780 to early 1800's to mid 1800's to 1880-1920, now saying that we need an average over a decade, these tactics don't seem helpful to me. I've been following anthropogenic climate change since Dr Hansen testified before Congress in 1988. He seemed at least as concerned then as most climate scientists today. Continually raising the baseline so that we never hit 1.5°C has not been a good strategy, in my opinion.

I think that scientists need to say that we have lost the ability to save x (give specific examples) but that we still can save x (give specific examples), but only if we lower fossil fuel emissions, and decrease livestock emissions.

Most of the planet's governments reduced to dictators and warlords like Somalia in the 90's. Advanced civilization holding on by a thread in northern regions.

Mass starvation that kills billions by the end of the century.

A mass extinction event that will rival the meteorite impact that took out the dinosaurs.

Possible nuclear war between nations fighting for dwindling natural resources.

when there isn’t one. People will put off making efforts to prepare for what’s coming.

Without enough water, there is no food, in short, no civilization.

No life period

I think a lot of these ceo motherfuckers are at best nihilists at worse psychopaths waiting for a disaster to prove they are superior because they prepared. But eventually they’ll die too.

Just because their demise comes 24 hours after ours, their “superiority” only gave them an extra day to contemplate the inevitable.

Even more important than the mentioned famine conditions is the added factor of the growing global drought. Aquifers are receding in many heavily populated areas. World leaders should be making cooperative contingency plans for fast-tracking global desalination facility investments and other ways to increase water supplies. I can just imagine a time when a billionaire tries to buy a gallon of water on the black market for a pound of gold!

They are, according to the ones I talked to, seeing it as that which will sustain their agriculture, and thus ensure their food supply. If reports of quiet meetings between Israelis and Saudis are true, I’ll bet that fresh water and using some of their vast oil wealth to built desalinization facilities were on the agenda. Food crops don’t grow if irrigated by oil, gold or sea water.

Important post!
Thank you.

And their actuaries are telling them where to drop property insurance coverage.

Your high property insurance rates will soon be no property insurance offers at all.

Insurance Companies aren't going to lose money on climate change, they just are going to: 1. Raise rates HIGH. 2. Add exclusions. 3. Drop coverage in vulnerable areas.

the longer we wait to address the problem, the more it is going to cost.

development of carbon extraction technology.

when the measure of will exists.