[greenthrow]

An hour in and nobody in these comments is addressing climate change? The risks of drought and the resulting fire or hurricanes and floods is much higher than it has been in recorded history in these areas because of climate change. Should people be forced to abandon their homes because the fossil fuel companies lied and misled the public and bought out our governments for the last 50 years?

IMHO we should be seizing the fossil fuel companies' assets and using them for disaster relief around the world due to the catastrophe they have deliberately caused.

The talk about insurance rates is a deliberate distraction.

[ericd]

We need a high per-ton carbon tax, with all revenue dividended out per-capita to offset the inflation. This would eliminate the green premium on a great number of clean alternatives and avoid the problems of the government picking where to invest, letting the market handle that instead.

And if those companies don't find other things to do (they'd be quite good at geothermal, or durable carbon sequestration, with all their drilling and fracking expertise), then they'll go bankrupt without needing to do anything so extreme as nationalizing/seizing/whatever.

[apsec112]

If you ask Americans to vote to make gas more expensive to stop climate change (eg. the Washington carbon tax referenda), they say no. America burns lots of fossil fuels because it's what the voters want. If every private fossil fuel company shut down tomorrow, there would be riots in the streets, and then oil and gas would be imported from abroad.

[pkaye]

Makes sense since even the French people protested a carbon tax back in 2019.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-46460445

[greenthrow]

Did you miss the part where I said the public has been lied to for the past 50 years?

I didn't say we shut off all the gas pumps tomorrow. It will obviously take time to transition off. I said we seize their assets and use the proceeds for climate relief. We can keep the revenue coming and using the profits for disaster relief while we transition off fossil fuels. It's not that hard to understand.

[nullc]

What evidence do you have that these fires have anything to do with climate change? They appear to be adequately explained by the known behavior of the region, and to the extent that they're not the radical increases in habitation and the systematic suppression of small fires is enough to cover any gap.

Ironically there is a great case that varrious environmental groups that vigorously opposed controlled burns are among the greatest proximal human causes of the current situation. If careful analysis concluded so, would you support seizing their assets for use as disaster relief?

[greenthrow]

The frequency and intensity of droughts in the area has increased due to climate change. The increased winds is due to climate change. It is obvious. It is not explained by "radical population increase".

Stop trying to distract with fossil fuel propaganda trying to distract with everthing else they can. Yes controlled burns still happen but it is also understandable that people would be jumpy about them with the problems fire has been causing in that area in recent years.

[WaltPurvis]

Some relevant reading:

https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2025/01/the-role-of-clima...

[SoftTalker]

The Los Angeles fires are not really about climate change. There have been wildfires there for centuries, it's part of the ecosystem.

[selimthegrim]

The Santa Anas getting stronger is very much related to climate change.

[greenthrow]

Yes I remember as a kid in the 80s when wildfires woukd devastate LA every year. Oh wait no it did not happen until recently.

Yes wildfires do happen in nature. No this is not normal for this area. Yes it is about climate change. Stop believinf fossil fuel company propaganda.

[ggm]

Don't agree. Well partially. I also think the privatise the profits socialise the losses story is strong, and the coal and oil interests should pony up more remediation costs.

But insurance is one of the best signals we have to true risk/consequence/likelihood, which commercial interests pay attention to

The best long term outcome here would be rebuilding safer but the downside will be "which excludes the poor" -that's where I think state and federal policy should apply the lever: require socialised housing outcomes.

Price controls on insurance forces socialised losses. Better is some middle ground: mandate insurance, demand adequate mitigations and defences. But losing the price signal is bad.

[greenthrow]

The losses were already socialized without the controls. Look at how the insurance companies always behave in these situations. They always find a way to stick the public with the bill. Don't listen to the corporate talking points. The price controls may have been stupid but they are a distraction.

[x0x0]

> The risks of drought and the resulting fire or hurricanes and floods is much higher than it has been in recorded history in these areas because of climate change

I saw an article on npr [1] which basically agrees with the chart on the blogpost. I 1980, there were 3 disasters a year that cost $1B, inflation adjusted. In 2024, 24. The second chart in the npr article is pretty terrifying.

[1] https://www.npr.org/2024/10/08/nx-s1-5143320/hurricanes-clim...

[AlexandrB]

Without accounting for population growth in high risk areas this is meaningless. If the population and housing units in a floodplain doubles, a $500M 1980s disaster becomes a $1B 2024 disaster. That's not to mention the above-inflation increase in the cost of housing which probably bumps these numbers up as well.