• technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    edit-2
    18 hours ago

    Everybody’s “mad” at insurance companies for telling people the truth and refusing to lose money on obviously doomed Malibu.

    But it’s the landlords who will continue to exploit the fuck out of LA.

  • GreatAlbatrossA
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    22 hours ago

    “What if we built a private water distribution system, that took priority over regular people’s supply, then charged for access during wildfires?”

    • itslilith@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      15 hours ago

      I’m of two minds about this. If an area is extremely disaster-prone, you shouldn’t build there. But it sucks to already live there, and not get insured. I’d be fine if there were no new insurance contacts on new houses being built.

      Another, local example: in Germany, a few years ago there was a catastrophic flood that killed several people and destroyed many houses located in a river valley, because the river had been artificially narrowed and straightened. With looming climate change there was already talks about flooding risk and insurance covering. After the disaster, a decent chunk of people planned to rebuild their houses in the exact same spots. Some were not even insured, and relied on government disaster relief money, afaik

  • I_Has_A_Hat@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    41
    ·
    2 days ago

    Well, not the fires specifically, but the US has already begun the steps to monetize climate change. Why do you think there’s a sudden interest in Canada and Greenland? That melting permafrost is gonna open up a lot of resources.