• krashmo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    3 months ago

    When you frame it that way it sounds simple. Go find the map that clearly defines which places aren’t either of those things currently and aren’t expected to turn into one or the other due to climate change.

    Spoiler alert: there’s not very many of those places and they definitely can’t take in all the people who would need to move there in order to make this problem irrelevant.

    • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      Spoiler alert: there’s not very many of those places and they definitely can’t take in all the people who would need to move there in order to make this problem irrelevant.

      There are huge portions of the middle of the country that qualify as “not in a flood zone” and “not in a wildfire risk area”. Even if there aren’t enough homes in these places now, when you house burns down or floods where it is, how about not rebuilding it in the same fire for flood prone place?

      • WalnutLum@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 months ago

        Usually insurance doesn’t pay for you to relocate across the US. It pays for very specific repairs to your house (that they try and get out of).

        You’re not going to be able to slap your forehead and go “woopsie” when the flood comes. And you’re not going to be able to sell your house either because the fish people aren’t into real estate yet.

      • BradleyUffner@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 months ago

        There are huge portions of the middle of the country that qualify as “not in a flood zone” and “not in a wildfire risk area”.

        Tornadoes?