This is like @GavinNewsom saying I don’t want the democratically elected California government shaping our collective preferences for how live amid climate change. It’s cool if private insurance companies do it for us.
-
-
Show this thread
-
Combined with this from the other day, I’m like, uh.... so we’re gonna let PG&E off the hook and let Californians continue building out in the fire zones? Coo coo.https://twitter.com/nytimesbusiness/status/1117599699295457280?s=21 …
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Kim-Mai, how would we surface the best arguments (pro, con, or otherwise relating to) on this issue? Is that something that's desirable?
-
Yes we need to have this debate *now*
- 4 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
is homeowner insurance not factoring in the risk? if the odds of death / total property destruction are that high, i don’t understand why the cost to insure wouldn’t be prohibitively expensive
-
It probably will become prohibitively expensive over time. (Although people don’t generally buy earthquake insurance here....)
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
The building code for those areas is pretty rigid FYI. You can’t just build a tinderbox next to a forest in CA.
-
Honestly, with the scale and speed of modern wildfire, it may not really matter whether you go wood shingle or stucco. The state is ecologically built to burn, as it has done so over hundreds of years and will continue to do so at a more aggressive pace.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Wouldn’t that be a government over-reach for an individual preference vs the common good. Climate change affects everyone. Where you live affects the individual. We can’t go around telling everyone they have to live in flat paved suburbia because it’s safer.
-
We can make them pay for proper infrastructure though.
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.