Re: Charlaticians like Lara and Newsom, this is not just "when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail." It's screaming "climate change!" and hoping nobody looks under the covers and does what you just did.
And to note, you didn’t touch on california politicians themselves increasing the risk by choking funding for control burns, brush clearing, fire fighting, water distribution, water capture etc.
Lots of spelling and context errors in this one, must be a busy week.
As usual the problem is politicians more interested in virtue signaling instead of fixing actual issues.
And once again, this is all occurring because of all the climate/insane screaming and cauterwalling about climate/emergency.
If Chris Wright and Trump force a public debate on the data of climate and we end this emergency nonsense so we can get back to sensible change, that will be the biggest positive.
Look forward to see Roger participate in that, hoping to see Piltdown forced to participate with nowhere to hide.
Realtor.com delineates wildfire risks for properties these days. Our old place in the Sierra foothills is currently rated at 8, Severe Fire Factor Risk(TM). No wonder Nationwide tried to cancel our Farm policy in 2020 and 2021! They had to offer us a policy as wildfires were occurring in our county at our renewal time (Caldor Fire). The web site noted- A) a "41.87% chance of a fire in the next 30 years with the risk increasing due hotter and drier condition. B) a "17% likelihood of complete destruction given a wildfire in 30 years."
I am sure Nationwide was glad they didn't have our property on their books in 2022, as we sold the homestead at the end of 2021. The Mosquito Fire started in a gorge in September of 2022 a few miles due north of the homestead. The topography of the ignition location is very similar to the ignition spot of the Camp fire that devastated Paradise, CA back in 2018.
The owner of our old place was familiar with the fire risk in the area as he was a local. My wife recalls that the FAIR plan contract we were offered back in 2020 excluded wildfires caused by utility equipment. I didn't save a copy of the contract so I can't verify the veracity of the limitation.
Roger: There are many things a homeowner might be able to do to reduce risk that won't necessarily reduce the cost of home insurance. IIRC, the risk of damage to roofs, and then to interior contents, is one of the biggest risks for any home sited above any plausible storm surge, but nothing in the building code defines a roof with superior ability to resist high winds. Many roofs need to be replaced every two decades, but will upgrading to a fire resistant roof lower insurance costs? When windows get broken by flying debris, embers can get into homes and start fires that threaten neighboring homes. Wouldn't it make sense for the government to play a role in defining what constitutes a safer home and then insisting that insurance companies provide rate reductions consistent with lower claims?
I thought this idea for a mandatory public multi-peril plan made a lot of sense (provided it was well-managed at arm’s length from the government)…
“A better solution may be to introduce a mandatory insurance plan that covers damages for any natural disaster. Forcing homeowners to take on multi-peril insurance coverage pools the risks across all households and types of liabilities and leads to more affordable premiums – albeit subsidies may still be needed for some high-risk households. Since everybody in Canada faces some sort of natural disaster risk, it would be fairer than a non-mandatory single-risk insurance plan.”
I'd be curious how much a cities preparedness to mitigate or avoid such disasters play into risk evaluation. If basic measures to mitigate the risk of wildfires like regular controlled burns, eliminating wooden electricity poles or an adequately prepared emergency response system are factored into the equation-could this potentially help lower insurance rates?
When a lot of little piglets build their houses using straw or sticks (or wooden joists and wall boards, as is the American tradition for one-family houses), they are bound to succumb to the big, bad wildfire.
Had a similar fire erupted in the Mediterranean Basin, where the little piglets prefer to build with mortar and bricks, the damage would have been a lot less.
Just examine aerial photos of the stricken areas and see what kind of houses are still standing.
Roger, A similar socialization of risk is involved in Federal Flood insurance. When I first moved to the Texas Gulf Coast, in 1975, the coast of Galveston Island, Galveston Bay and the hamlets nearby were covered with flimsy fishing shacks because everybody knew the next hurricane would sweep them away. Then after Hurricane Allen hit in 1980, there was a public outcry for flood insurance to protect against losses. Over the years, the houses along the south shore of Galveston Island ceased to be fishing shacks and, in time, became mega-mansions. Now when hurricanes damage these grand structures, federal flood insurance kicks, the owners who enjoyed those houses are made whole by taxes extorted from prairie dwellers in Oklahoma, Kansas, Illinois, Green Mountain dwellers in New Hampshire... people who never tasted the shrimp cooked on the barbies by the Gulf. So the cost of risky behavior is spread broadly while the rewards are hoarded by the few. No justice in that, not that I can see.
“…there is no guarantee that the experiences of the past twenty years would accurately characterize current or future risk.” Nicely said, but where have I read that before? Oh yes, mutual fund disclaimers but substitute in “return” for “risk”. As for replacement values, it’s one thing when a single house burns down, but when 1000 (Colorado Marshall fire) or now the Palisade and Eaton fires, well, just try and pre-estimate those greatly elevated costs. Finally, your comment about higher insurance costs driving down home prices is exactly what should happen. Unfortunately, the good that Prop 13 did in CA was carried too far with Prop 103. And now CO is near its own Prop 13 moment, partly due to “climate change” increasing insurance rates.
Late here but incredibly well done, Roger.
Re: Charlaticians like Lara and Newsom, this is not just "when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail." It's screaming "climate change!" and hoping nobody looks under the covers and does what you just did.
Brilliant. +100.
And to note, you didn’t touch on california politicians themselves increasing the risk by choking funding for control burns, brush clearing, fire fighting, water distribution, water capture etc.
They blow up more damns then they build.
Lots of spelling and context errors in this one, must be a busy week.
As usual the problem is politicians more interested in virtue signaling instead of fixing actual issues.
And once again, this is all occurring because of all the climate/insane screaming and cauterwalling about climate/emergency.
If Chris Wright and Trump force a public debate on the data of climate and we end this emergency nonsense so we can get back to sensible change, that will be the biggest positive.
Look forward to see Roger participate in that, hoping to see Piltdown forced to participate with nowhere to hide.
My version of climate justice.
Thank you for an excellent insight into the California insurance situation.
There is a typo in your Adam Smith excerpt: you wrote "usurers" where Smith had "insurers".
Good spot!
Realtor.com delineates wildfire risks for properties these days. Our old place in the Sierra foothills is currently rated at 8, Severe Fire Factor Risk(TM). No wonder Nationwide tried to cancel our Farm policy in 2020 and 2021! They had to offer us a policy as wildfires were occurring in our county at our renewal time (Caldor Fire). The web site noted- A) a "41.87% chance of a fire in the next 30 years with the risk increasing due hotter and drier condition. B) a "17% likelihood of complete destruction given a wildfire in 30 years."
I am sure Nationwide was glad they didn't have our property on their books in 2022, as we sold the homestead at the end of 2021. The Mosquito Fire started in a gorge in September of 2022 a few miles due north of the homestead. The topography of the ignition location is very similar to the ignition spot of the Camp fire that devastated Paradise, CA back in 2018.
The owner of our old place was familiar with the fire risk in the area as he was a local. My wife recalls that the FAIR plan contract we were offered back in 2020 excluded wildfires caused by utility equipment. I didn't save a copy of the contract so I can't verify the veracity of the limitation.
10 years ago. For a long time I think they have had a conscious policy to exclude any opinions or facts that are contrary to their views.
This one I still remember as emblematic of the NYT...
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/04/climate/roger-federer-loss-heat.html#:~:text=Federer%2C%20who%20is%20ranked%20No,was%20no%20circulation%20at%20all.%E2%80%9D
They agreed with you then, so that doesn't count!!
Pretty sure my last NYT piece related to climate or energy was 2011 during the great light bulb wars
https://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/11/opinion/11pielke.html
Have you ever seen a NYT article or opinion piece that aligned with your thinking on climate change?
Not many
Certainly not recently
Shellenberger and Nordhaus come to mind
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/09/opinion/global-warming-scare-tactics.html
Have you seen today's NYT guest essay by former California Insurance Commissioner Dave Jones?
Just looked it up, thanks!
And it is quite detached from reality
Hard to believe this type of stuff makes the "paper of record"
But also easy to believe in 2025!
Roger: There are many things a homeowner might be able to do to reduce risk that won't necessarily reduce the cost of home insurance. IIRC, the risk of damage to roofs, and then to interior contents, is one of the biggest risks for any home sited above any plausible storm surge, but nothing in the building code defines a roof with superior ability to resist high winds. Many roofs need to be replaced every two decades, but will upgrading to a fire resistant roof lower insurance costs? When windows get broken by flying debris, embers can get into homes and start fires that threaten neighboring homes. Wouldn't it make sense for the government to play a role in defining what constitutes a safer home and then insisting that insurance companies provide rate reductions consistent with lower claims?
I thought this idea for a mandatory public multi-peril plan made a lot of sense (provided it was well-managed at arm’s length from the government)…
“A better solution may be to introduce a mandatory insurance plan that covers damages for any natural disaster. Forcing homeowners to take on multi-peril insurance coverage pools the risks across all households and types of liabilities and leads to more affordable premiums – albeit subsidies may still be needed for some high-risk households. Since everybody in Canada faces some sort of natural disaster risk, it would be fairer than a non-mandatory single-risk insurance plan.”
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/gift/e7d4b719c42e2835c46f49765877c8d31b29b6de017fa4d93991b82b62d9fa92/U7SYHVILGRBQJLXNUC4YSP34OY/
Anti-market government makes the people suffer the consequences of its beliefs.
I've heard all about how "climate change" caused these fires... So I have a few questions:
1. How does climate change spur spontaneous combustion? (i.e., how did CC ignite these fires in the first place)?
2. If the climate weren't changing, would the Santa Ana winds cease to exist?
3. If the climate weren't changing, would the buildings in LA become more fire resistant?
I'd be curious how much a cities preparedness to mitigate or avoid such disasters play into risk evaluation. If basic measures to mitigate the risk of wildfires like regular controlled burns, eliminating wooden electricity poles or an adequately prepared emergency response system are factored into the equation-could this potentially help lower insurance rates?
When a lot of little piglets build their houses using straw or sticks (or wooden joists and wall boards, as is the American tradition for one-family houses), they are bound to succumb to the big, bad wildfire.
Had a similar fire erupted in the Mediterranean Basin, where the little piglets prefer to build with mortar and bricks, the damage would have been a lot less.
Just examine aerial photos of the stricken areas and see what kind of houses are still standing.
Roger, A similar socialization of risk is involved in Federal Flood insurance. When I first moved to the Texas Gulf Coast, in 1975, the coast of Galveston Island, Galveston Bay and the hamlets nearby were covered with flimsy fishing shacks because everybody knew the next hurricane would sweep them away. Then after Hurricane Allen hit in 1980, there was a public outcry for flood insurance to protect against losses. Over the years, the houses along the south shore of Galveston Island ceased to be fishing shacks and, in time, became mega-mansions. Now when hurricanes damage these grand structures, federal flood insurance kicks, the owners who enjoyed those houses are made whole by taxes extorted from prairie dwellers in Oklahoma, Kansas, Illinois, Green Mountain dwellers in New Hampshire... people who never tasted the shrimp cooked on the barbies by the Gulf. So the cost of risky behavior is spread broadly while the rewards are hoarded by the few. No justice in that, not that I can see.
“…there is no guarantee that the experiences of the past twenty years would accurately characterize current or future risk.” Nicely said, but where have I read that before? Oh yes, mutual fund disclaimers but substitute in “return” for “risk”. As for replacement values, it’s one thing when a single house burns down, but when 1000 (Colorado Marshall fire) or now the Palisade and Eaton fires, well, just try and pre-estimate those greatly elevated costs. Finally, your comment about higher insurance costs driving down home prices is exactly what should happen. Unfortunately, the good that Prop 13 did in CA was carried too far with Prop 103. And now CO is near its own Prop 13 moment, partly due to “climate change” increasing insurance rates.