The government should institute a "you broke it, you bought it" policy with big oil companies, and tax the shit out of them to fund the second tier insurance that insurance companies use in order to hedge their own bets. Offer THAT insurance at a low fixed rate on the condition that insurance companies pass that stability on to consumers.
this post was submitted on 12 Aug 2023
62 points (98.4% liked)
Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.
5053 readers
385 users here now
Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.
As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades:
How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:
Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:
Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
You have been banned from c/Conservative.
To be fair society benefited along with the companies. We should institute a carbon tax on all transactions - not just punish the energy companies.
Insurance rates should be higher in high risk areas. This is the most straight forward way to keep people from building in high risk areas. I really don't think we should subsidize Joe shmoe's insurance on the third rebuilding of his house.
To be actually fair, these companies lied to the rest of us about the environmental damage they were doing, and have caused an untold number of deaths via the effects of climate change, with that number poised to shoot up exponentially.
The executives of those companies endangered our global ecosystem. It may even be the case that they have set us on a path to extinction.
They should all be in jail for life. Their companies should have been seized by the government and converted with all speed to renewable energy.
It's nothing short of suicidal insanity that that didn't happen the moment we discovered what they knew and hid from the world.
After all, corporations are people. Prison time.
This is what the articles mean when they say that the poor will bear the brunt of climate change.
Can't afford to abandon your home and start from scratch in another state? Good luck being homeless.
There will have to be some systematic changes on a federal level to help this crisis. Either relocating people from high-risk areas, or rethinking the role of private insurance in our lives.
Federal goverment has been back stopping entire charade for decades as is.
Rich people with ocean front property must no suffer.
You know who can pay those high prices. The companies that are buying up all the houses for resale or whatever. And I'm willing to bet that they get a nice fat reduction in the insurance bill.
Obviously this is where the government needs to step in, but honestly that won't happen. Not even gonna fantasize about that.
Who are the companies then reselling the houses to?
They rent them out.
Conservative ding bat Ben Shapiro told people just sell them and move. Sell them to who Ben?
This is easy! You sell your house to a wealthy landlord and watch it get turned into a rental. And then you watch it sit vacant for a year because the landlord is asking triple a mortgage payment/month and a $300 application fee.
So as stupid as the position generally was, what he was saying is sea level rise and major climate shifts are not immediate, so as it starts getting bad, a person sells their home (for less that they bought it for) and the next person has it worse (but still "habitable") and sells it for less than they bought it for, and by the time it gets to the last seller who can't sell it to anyone, it's not worth much anyway.
Basically, if you have a nice home and make decent money, the house can keep getting passed to poorer and poorer people until only the poorest homeowner gets completely screwed, and that's okay because that's how the market goes.
His position wasn't stupid, it was evil.
Edit: though to add, if insurance companies won't offer insurance, his point is irrelevant, because you can't finance a house without insurance, and that makes that seller the end owner.
While I agree with you, I think you're giving him too much credit. Ben doesn't seem like someone who puts much thought into what drivels from his mouth. He just wants to "win" the "debate"
While I know it wasn't the point he was trying to make, but it's a related point: a house really shouldn't be a commodity to be profited from. It should be an investment in your own future housing, not a way to make money. Anything else you buy, you expect to sell for less than you paid, but somehow you should always profit from selling your house? That's why we're in the current situation where young people can't afford a house. Because unless you build it yourself, you're paying for someone else to profit off their investment that they paid someone else to profit off before them, and we're expected to keep that train going with housing prices constantly going up.