London is at much more risk of flooding. Parts of London were built on wetlands not much above sea level, and there’s a big river running right through the middle.
You're refuting a lot of established facts about the risks of climate change, in a way that seems indicative of a certain ideology. Can you explain more what your position is?
My position is that climate change is an existential threat to civilization, but buildings are not at a risk that would make them uninsurable. We build cities both in very wet and very hot and dry climates without much trouble. Those are engineering problems we can solve without much trouble.
London is at much more risk of flooding. Parts of London were built on wetlands not much above sea level, and there’s a big river running right through the middle.
1666 has entered the chat.
You're refuting a lot of established facts about the risks of climate change, in a way that seems indicative of a certain ideology. Can you explain more what your position is?
My position is that climate change is an existential threat to civilization, but buildings are not at a risk that would make them uninsurable. We build cities both in very wet and very hot and dry climates without much trouble. Those are engineering problems we can solve without much trouble.
But with lots more money, which is what insurance deals with
Of course they’re insurable at some premium. The question is whether there is any premium someone is willing to pay that can also cover the risk.
1 reply →