Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
<<The next bill from your homeowner’s insurance company could trigger sticker shock. Premium costs are soaring by hundreds and even thousands of dollars.>>
Even though FEMA is increasing its flood insurance rates, many policies will remain heavily subsidized and will take 5-10 years of anticipated premium hikes to reduce the subsidies.
<<Rates are expected to keep rising as well, with increases expected every year until flood insurance premiums are deemed risk commensurate.
The NFIP said it could take 5 years for half of their policies to be correctly priced, while up to 90% could be properly priced within a decade....
FEMA’s new pricing sends a signal that, in order to be covered, property owners in catastrophe exposed zones are going to have to pay rates commensurate with the levels of risk they are exposed to. Something we expect to see more broadly adopted and a factor that is already behind a lot of the firming of both insurance and reinsurance rates in recent years.>>
Why are persons who can afford insurance premiums reflecting the risks posed by the their properties receiving federal subsidies??? A financially strapped Congress likely will ask this question sooner rather than later.
Left unsaid in the above article is that risks will be increasing significantly over the next decade, as increasing ocean heat content and accelerating sea level rise takes hold. What are proper flood insurance premiums for properties sitting 1-2 feet above sea level? Will anyone insure them?
Surely, higher insurance costs will pass through mortgage escrow accounts, condo monthly fees, etc., impacting housing affordability and mortgage eligibility.
And if FEMA and insurance companies suffer catastrophic losses due a Cat 5 hurricane slamming into a heavily developed coastal region, expect the insurance premium squeeze to intensify greatly.
Floridians will learn the cost of ignoring scientists and financial experts such as Spencer Glendon. Attempts to put the genie back in the bottle will prove fruitless, and there will be great remorse that Florida didn't join other coastal states such as California in attempting to mitigate fossil fuel emissions and climate change when such efforts could have protected Florida from more imminent catastrophe.
Personally, I wonder when even the climate change deniers stop laughing, or, more likely, just disappear.
Personally, I wonder when even the climate change deniers stop laughing, or, more likely, just disappear.
Who here is denying that climate change is a thing? Why do you keep repeating that? I haven't seen anyone indicate that it doesn't exist.
We are laughing at your obsession with these doomsday scenarios with regard to Florida, and the fact that you are so obsessed with the state, while residing in your Ohio home.
Personally, I wonder when YOU will just... disappear.
We know what climate change is. We don't need 100 wall-of-text posts of redundancy disrupting the forums. The only user I can think of who seems to enjoy this, for some reason, is a certain mod that is quick to delete posts or suspend user accounts the minute they say something you don't like.
Even if every single Floridian agreed with WRNative and we all converted our homes to solar power and drove electric cars it would not make a dent on the sea level rise he's predicting. Florida has approximately 23 million people and there are probably 6 billion others out there polluting the planet. Go to China sometime if you want to see some real pollution. I've been there and I've seen nothing here in Florida that comes anywhere near those levels.
<<The next bill from your homeowner’s insurance company could trigger sticker shock. Premium costs are soaring by hundreds and even thousands of dollars.>>
Even though FEMA is increasing its flood insurance rates, many policies will remain heavily subsidized and will take 5-10 years of anticipated premium hikes to reduce the subsidies.
<<Rates are expected to keep rising as well, with increases expected every year until flood insurance premiums are deemed risk commensurate.
The NFIP said it could take 5 years for half of their policies to be correctly priced, while up to 90% could be properly priced within a decade....
FEMA’s new pricing sends a signal that, in order to be covered, property owners in catastrophe exposed zones are going to have to pay rates commensurate with the levels of risk they are exposed to. Something we expect to see more broadly adopted and a factor that is already behind a lot of the firming of both insurance and reinsurance rates in recent years.>>
Why are persons who can afford insurance premiums reflecting the risks posed by the their properties receiving federal subsidies??? A financially strapped Congress likely will ask this question sooner rather than later.
Left unsaid in the above article is that risks will be increasing significantly over the next decade, as increasing ocean heat content and accelerating sea level rise takes hold. What are proper flood insurance premiums for properties sitting 1-2 feet above sea level? Will anyone insure them?
Surely, higher insurance costs will pass through mortgage escrow accounts, condo monthly fees, etc., impacting housing affordability and mortgage eligibility.
And if FEMA and insurance companies suffer catastrophic losses due a Cat 5 hurricane slamming into a heavily developed coastal region, expect the insurance premium squeeze to intensify greatly.
Floridians will learn the cost of ignoring scientists and financial experts such as Spencer Glendon. Attempts to put the genie back in the bottle will prove fruitless, and there will be great remorse that Florida didn't join other coastal states such as California in attempting to mitigate fossil fuel emissions and climate change when such efforts could have protected Florida from more imminent catastrophe.
Personally, I wonder when even the climate change deniers stop laughing, or, more likely, just disappear.
Who declared Spencer Glendon a financial expert? Who believes his opinions on climate change are expertly derived? Why should anyone care about his, or your, alarmist biases?
Who declared Spencer Glendon a financial expert? Who believes his opinions on climate change are expertly derived? Why should anyone care about his, or your, alarmist biases?
Let's see, I guess you believe that the NASDAQ interviewed Glendon on the subject of climate change and capitalism because he was an outspoken, know-nothing poster in a city-data.com forum? Or don't you know anything about the NASDAQ?
Did you somehow miss the discussion of Glendon's background in post 29? Here's a link from that post. Suggest you click on it and read it.
Glendon earned a PhD in economics from Harvard. He spent 18 years working for Wellington Management, the renown Boston investment firm with over $1 trillion of assets under management (you do understand it's $1 trillion with a "t," not $1 billion with a "b," or "1" million with an "m"). Glendon rose to the position of Director of Investment Research at Wellington.
Apparently after receiving a liver transplant, Glendon retired from Wellington and began collaborating in 2017 with the Woodwell Climate Research Center, reportedly one of the nation's premier climate research centers. From the above link:
<<Beginning in 2017, Spencer devoted himself exclusively to collaborating with Woodwell Climate and others to research the effects of climate change on civilization and share those findings publicly. In 2020, he founded Probable Futures – which aims to change how we think about, talk about, and plan for the future of our society and our planet. Probable Futures, in partnership with Woodwell Climate, is building better frameworks, tools, and storytelling to help people prepare for—and choose between—the futures that the climate offers us.>>
A website that Glendon is developing with Woodwell and others to inform the public about the future impacts of climate change -- "Probable Futures" -- is entering beta testing. As a result, likely Glendon will become even more prominent and influential in the months and years ahead. Of course, this is bad news who don't want persons expressing any alarmist views about the impact of climate change on Florida.
Here's a thoughtful essay by Glendon about the project from a few weeks ago, for those who actually read thoughtful materials of substance. In the essay, Glendon reflects on his life and some of his professional experiences.
<<The name I kept coming back to is the one we settled on: Probable Futures. The plural Futures conveyed the existence of a range of future outcomes, while Probable indicated that this range should be used as a guide: Some futures have zero probability, others are likely, and still others have low probabilities but would be so catastrophic that ignoring them would be negligent. I didn’t want this endeavor to be optimistic or pessimistic, but instead frank about the range of outcomes we face and encouraging to anyone who wants to participate in creating the future we and our successors will live in. I thought of “encouragement” literally: to give people courage....
[Novelist Amitav] Ghosh puts it this way: “If there is any one thing that global warming has made perfectly clear, it is that to think about the world only as it is amounts to a formula for collective suicide.” We have to start envisioning the probable futures toward which we are racing. >>
Glendon, as he explains in the essay, pretty much prescribes to the philosophy of Doc Brown at the end of the "Back to the Future Part III," emphasis added:
<<As the brilliant Doc Brown said – “It means your future hasn’t been written YET. No one’s has. Your future is whatever you make it. So make it a good one.”
Yet Glendon never retreats from his admittedly alarmist argument that Florida's future will be one of wealth destruction over the next 1-2 decades, and maybe sooner rather than later, but he still believes humanity has some hope of salvaging something from the onslaught of climate change.
And, according to his essay, Probable Futures will provide high-tech tools to allow individuals at any location to assess the most probable futures for that location given various climate change scenarios. Such a tool, based on Glendon's repeated warnings, likely will not bode well for those attempting to sugar coat Florida's future amid climate change.
<<What we hope to do, as I said at the outset, is encourage imagination and engagement. The Probable Futures team is building tools to provide the bounds for that imagination. These tools will allow anyone anywhere to see weather outcomes in any given place when the world is 1.5°C, 2.0°C, 2.5°C, and 3.0°C warmer than the historical climate. Maps of various measures of heat, cold (and its absence), drought, precipitation, and other phenomena will vivify a future few have seen. The data have robustly high resolution. Nothing like these tools exists for planning and assessment of risk, infrastructure, agriculture, and lots of other things, and our tools will be global, providing world-class science to poor and rich communities and institutions alike for free. >>
Again, Probable Futures is entering beta testing. Actually, Probable Futures is seeking volunteers to participate in the beta testing (see the end of his essay), where Glendon writes:
<<Contemplating probable futures leads them to the insight John Holdren of the Woodwell Climate Research Center offered in 2007, “We basically have three choices, mitigation, adaptation, and suffering. We’re going to do some of each. The question is what the mix is going to be. The more mitigation we do, the less adaptation will be required, and the less suffering there will be....”
Probable Futures will present vivid portrayals of how the world will likely be and feel at 1.5°C, 2.0°C, 2.5°C, and 3.0°C. These small-sounding numbers are actually different futures altogether. Having passed 1.2°C this year, 1.5°C is just around the corner, so it is a near-certain future; 2.5°C is likely even if humans act quickly and decisively; and 3°C and higher are likely to cause so much radical change on Earth that they are almost impossible to imagine. We are hopeful that by helping people imagine 3.0°C and higher levels now, society acts to make forecasts of those temperatures look pessimistic in hindsight.>>
Several times in these forums you've attempted to discredit Spencer Glendon. This time, you've actually led me to do some research that I probably wouldn't have done, and which I personally find extremely useful.
However, in the future, when you want to know who somebody is, especially if you don't want to read post links served to you on a silver platter, try using an internet tool called the Google search engine. Very quickly, here are some additional links that you would have discovered.
Are you aware of the American Museum of Natural History? (Hint: ever see any of the "Night at the Museum" movies?)
Sanibel's elevation is 3 feet, not atypical for Florida's barrier islands.
Unlike southern Florida, New York City is built on granite, not porous limestone, and actually plans sea wall and other mitigation projects to defend its low-lying areas from sea level rise. These projects wouldn't work in much of Florida due to the porous limestone.
Once Probable Futures is a functioning website, if it's as good as Glendon believes, it will be interesting to explore the possible fates of coastal cities in the U.S. and elsewhere.
BTW, I personally suspect that persons will bail out of coastal cities throughout the U.S. As in Miami Beach, someone has to pay the coast of sea rise mitigation projects.
Let's see, I guess you believe that the NASDAQ interviewed Glendon on the subject of climate change and capitalism because he was an outspoken, know-nothing poster in a city-data.com forum? Or don't you know anything about the NASDAQ?
Did you somehow miss the discussion of Glendon's background in post 29? Here's a link from that post. Suggest you click on it and read it.
Glendon earned a PhD in economics from Harvard. He spent 18 years working for Wellington Management, the renown Boston investment firm with over $1 trillion of assets under management (you do understand it's $1 trillion with a "t," not $1 billion with a "b," or "1" million with an "m"). Glendon rose to the position of Director of Investment Research at Wellington.
Apparently after receiving a liver transplant, Glendon retired from Wellington and began collaborating in 2017 with the Woodwell Climate Research Center, reportedly one of the nation's premier climate research centers. From the above link:
<<Beginning in 2017, Spencer devoted himself exclusively to collaborating with Woodwell Climate and others to research the effects of climate change on civilization and share those findings publicly. In 2020, he founded Probable Futures – which aims to change how we think about, talk about, and plan for the future of our society and our planet. Probable Futures, in partnership with Woodwell Climate, is building better frameworks, tools, and storytelling to help people prepare for—and choose between—the futures that the climate offers us.>>
A website that Glendon is developing with Woodwell and others to inform the public about the future impacts of climate change -- "Probable Futures" -- is entering beta testing. As a result, likely Glendon will become even more prominent and influential in the months and years ahead. Of course, this is bad news who don't want persons expressing any alarmist views about the impact of climate change on Florida.
Here's a thoughtful essay by Glendon about the project from a few weeks ago, for those who actually read thoughtful materials of substance. In the essay, Glendon reflects on his life and some of his professional experiences.
<<The name I kept coming back to is the one we settled on: Probable Futures. The plural Futures conveyed the existence of a range of future outcomes, while Probable indicated that this range should be used as a guide: Some futures have zero probability, others are likely, and still others have low probabilities but would be so catastrophic that ignoring them would be negligent. I didn’t want this endeavor to be optimistic or pessimistic, but instead frank about the range of outcomes we face and encouraging to anyone who wants to participate in creating the future we and our successors will live in. I thought of “encouragement” literally: to give people courage....
[Novelist Amitav] Ghosh puts it this way: “If there is any one thing that global warming has made perfectly clear, it is that to think about the world only as it is amounts to a formula for collective suicide.” We have to start envisioning the probable futures toward which we are racing. >>
Glendon, as he explains in the essay, pretty much prescribes to the philosophy of Doc Brown at the end of the "Back to the Future Part III," emphasis added:
<<As the brilliant Doc Brown said – “It means your future hasn’t been written YET. No one’s has. Your future is whatever you make it. So make it a good one.”
Yet Glendon never retreats from his admittedly alarmist argument that Florida's future will be one of wealth destruction over the next 1-2 decades, and maybe sooner rather than later, but he still believes humanity has some hope of salvaging something from the onslaught of climate change.
And, according to his essay, Probable Futures will provide high-tech tools to allow individuals at any location to assess the most probable futures for that location given various climate change scenarios. Such a tool, based on Glendon's repeated warnings, likely will not bode well for those attempting to sugar coat Florida's future amid climate change.
<<What we hope to do, as I said at the outset, is encourage imagination and engagement. The Probable Futures team is building tools to provide the bounds for that imagination. These tools will allow anyone anywhere to see weather outcomes in any given place when the world is 1.5°C, 2.0°C, 2.5°C, and 3.0°C warmer than the historical climate. Maps of various measures of heat, cold (and its absence), drought, precipitation, and other phenomena will vivify a future few have seen. The data have robustly high resolution. Nothing like these tools exists for planning and assessment of risk, infrastructure, agriculture, and lots of other things, and our tools will be global, providing world-class science to poor and rich communities and institutions alike for free. >>
Again, Probable Futures is entering beta testing. Actually, Probable Futures is seeking volunteers to participate in the beta testing (see the end of his essay), where Glendon writes:
<<Contemplating probable futures leads them to the insight John Holdren of the Woodwell Climate Research Center offered in 2007, “We basically have three choices, mitigation, adaptation, and suffering. We’re going to do some of each. The question is what the mix is going to be. The more mitigation we do, the less adaptation will be required, and the less suffering there will be....”
Probable Futures will present vivid portrayals of how the world will likely be and feel at 1.5°C, 2.0°C, 2.5°C, and 3.0°C. These small-sounding numbers are actually different futures altogether. Having passed 1.2°C this year, 1.5°C is just around the corner, so it is a near-certain future; 2.5°C is likely even if humans act quickly and decisively; and 3°C and higher are likely to cause so much radical change on Earth that they are almost impossible to imagine. We are hopeful that by helping people imagine 3.0°C and higher levels now, society acts to make forecasts of those temperatures look pessimistic in hindsight.>>
Several times in these forums you've attempted to discredit Spencer Glendon. This time, you've actually led me to do some research that I probably wouldn't have done, and which I personally find extremely useful.
However, in the future, when you want to know who somebody is, especially if you don't want to read post links served to you on a silver platter, try using an internet tool called the Google search engine. Very quickly, here are some additional links that you would have discovered.
Are you aware of the American Museum of Natural History? (Hint: ever see any of the "Night at the Museum" movies?)
Sanibel's elevation is 3 feet, not atypical for Florida's barrier islands.
Unlike southern Florida, New York City is built on granite, not porous limestone, and actually plans sea wall and other mitigation projects to defend its low-lying areas from sea level rise. These projects wouldn't work in much of Florida due to the porous limestone.
Once Probable Futures is a functioning website, if it's as good as Glendon believes, it will be interesting to explore the possible fates of coastal cities in the U.S. and elsewhere.
BTW, I personally suspect that persons will bail out of coastal cities throughout the U.S. As in Miami Beach, someone has to pay the coast of sea rise mitigation projects.
Also, Sanibel is a freaking resort. Barely anyone lives there.
LOL
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
