Post by robeiae on Nov 28, 2016 9:02:46 GMT -5
Read this piece: Perils of Climate Change Could Swamp Coastal Real Estate.
The contention within:
People are eschewing real estate along the coast because of climate change.
From the piece:
That's just a sample. The piece cites a lot of facts and then makes conclusions like the one above (that is to say, conclusions that don't actually follow from the facts given). And just for good measure, the piece names Donald Trump as--somehow--making this all that much worse. Deep within the piece, after lots of the above, there's an "oh, and flood insurance" moment.
Now read this piece: Shoreline Gentry are Fake Climate Victims.
From it:
That's it. That's all there is, here. This has zero to do with climate change. Zero. Climate change isn't why flood insurance is so high. It's because of hurricanes and other storms, coupled with the ridiculous cost of rebuilding after such disasters. And the government HAS MAD IT WORSE by involving itself in the insurance industry. Now it's stepping back--as it should--and there are going to be a lot of growing pains from that. Because even the above is wrong: the premiums aren't getting closer to the "true cost" of risk, they're getting closer to the inflated cost of risk. But eventually, it should self-correct.
Regardless, this isn't a climate change story. It just isn't. Making it in to one is just yellow journalism, imo. And at The Times, no less...
The contention within:
People are eschewing real estate along the coast because of climate change.
From the piece:
Over the past five years, home sales in flood-prone areas grew about 25 percent less quickly than in counties that do not typically flood, according to county-by-county data from Attom Data Solutions, the parent company of RealtyTrac. Many coastal residents are rethinking their investments and heading for safer ground.
That's just a sample. The piece cites a lot of facts and then makes conclusions like the one above (that is to say, conclusions that don't actually follow from the facts given). And just for good measure, the piece names Donald Trump as--somehow--making this all that much worse. Deep within the piece, after lots of the above, there's an "oh, and flood insurance" moment.
Now read this piece: Shoreline Gentry are Fake Climate Victims.
From it:
Only in the second half of a 3,099-word opus is the truth not so much revealed as hinted. Halting and piecemeal reform of the federal flood-insurance subsidy program that has so benefited wealthy seaside homeowners is why beach-front housing prices are being reset.
A Sarasota couple found it harder to sell their Florida house when shoppers noticed a $7,000 annual flood insurance bill. “This experience will become more common, economists say, as the federal government shifts away from subsidizing flood insurance rates to get premiums closer to reflecting the true market cost of the risk,” the paper notes in passing.
A Sarasota couple found it harder to sell their Florida house when shoppers noticed a $7,000 annual flood insurance bill. “This experience will become more common, economists say, as the federal government shifts away from subsidizing flood insurance rates to get premiums closer to reflecting the true market cost of the risk,” the paper notes in passing.
That's it. That's all there is, here. This has zero to do with climate change. Zero. Climate change isn't why flood insurance is so high. It's because of hurricanes and other storms, coupled with the ridiculous cost of rebuilding after such disasters. And the government HAS MAD IT WORSE by involving itself in the insurance industry. Now it's stepping back--as it should--and there are going to be a lot of growing pains from that. Because even the above is wrong: the premiums aren't getting closer to the "true cost" of risk, they're getting closer to the inflated cost of risk. But eventually, it should self-correct.
Regardless, this isn't a climate change story. It just isn't. Making it in to one is just yellow journalism, imo. And at The Times, no less...
