It’s possible that solve the hurricane problems with proper building regulations and lower the risk of huge wildfires with controlled burning. But the US as always prefers to pretend that there’s nothing to be done when other parts of the world has figured it out.

We have cyclones here similar to the hurricanes in the US and usually it just blows over some trees maybe causes a power outage. The absolute worst I have experienced was 3 days without power. I have never seen a house destroyed by a cyclone here.

As for wildfires, they do unfortunately claim a few houses most years.

Honest question. Why when people describe wood framed homes do they always phrase it like houses made from "firewood", "sticks", "twigs" etc? It at least for me always detracts from the argument at hand. You could just as easily build a wood framed home with an exterior shell that is fire resistant using modern materials or brick.

To be fair we are talking about an area of the country that is prone to seismic activity, it does limit the building materials.

Perhaps what should be more commonly accepted is that the US is a land of great natural beauty! And large tracts of it should be left to nature.

What's the average monthly leccy bill in Phoenix during the summer? $400?

Where does LA get most of its water? Local sources? I don't think that's the case.

New Orleans is a future Atlantis.

San Francisco is a city built by Monty Python. Don't build it there it'll fall down, but I built it anyway, and it fell down, so I built it again...

Do we know why the insurance companies can't simply raise the insurance price to match the risks in those areas that are prone to natural disasters? I mean in general, not as in California where the government imposes strange policies. Speaking of the policy, why wouldn't California allow the insurance company raise the premium by region? Doesn't such policy benefit the rich at the cost of the poor as the rich love to live by the hills, lakes, or beaches, which is very much against the ideology of California?

I would assume that earthquake insurance in japan is a reasonable model for "world insurance".

It looks like it's a reinsurance program:

https://www.mof.go.jp/english/policy/financial_system/earthq...

So, I think the answer is "no".

America isn't the only place having an uptick in extreme weather events, though.

One thing I haven't seen mentioned in here is the ornamental planting of non-native plants all over LA, like eucalyptus which is highly flammable, as opposed to the native coastal oak, which is not. All those iconic, non-native palm trees are fire hazards.

A key issue in the LA fires was bad management at all levels of government that could have prevented an order of magnitude of the damage (If procedures from the past were followed).

As for the hurricanes, stop allowing builders to build SFH in areas that are at or below sea level. They're going to flood. Period. That's not sustainable from an insurance perspective.

> nor build houses made from firewood in an area prone to wildfires.

The alternative is to build quadruple-the-price houses out of brick in an area prone to earthquakes.

It's much easier to repair/replace the former. And theoretically would be easier to avoid, if the fed would clean up the brush wood in their land (or give it back to the state, so they can manage it).

pretty much any area can get flooded though by freak rainfall

>don't live on a hurricane highway nor build houses made from firewood in an area prone to wildfires

Fireproof concrete bunkers would be worse for insurance because when the firestorm blows through and shatters the 7-centimeter windows slits your fireproof design calls for and ignites the interior you have to demolish steel reinforced concrete with machinery instead of knocking down wood with a sledgehammer and muscles.

A Caterpillar D9 is more expensive per day than a migrant laborer.

There are so many images of concrete buildings being burned out that if I search "california fires" the 9th image is of a steel-reinforced concrete building has ~10 meter fire jets blowing out one of its windows.

We're bad at so very many things while thinking we're the best at everything.

Meh, couple this with articles about drone inspection of roofs and properties, and the trend of insurance getting harder to come by emerges.

I'm always baffled at the fact that Americans don't build houses out of bricks.

I read those arguments of the advantages this method has, especially financial ones, but to me it's nonsense considering that it would prevent an endless number of problems that cause the total loss.

I still remember when New Orleans was hit with by Katrina, large parts of the suburbs where houses where made by wood and plastic where destroyed, yet downtown where buildings where made of bricks required maintenance, sometimes little of it, but none faced a total loss.

There were houses that survived recent wildfires because they were built to be in a fire zone and survive fires. I’m sure there was damage but nowhere near total loss.

I’m sure when homes are rebuilt the majority will not be fire resistant.

It’s possible to build for hurricanes and floods too but few do it. They build houses that get blown away and then tap insurance.

Insurance rates for properties not built to withstand the stresses of their environment will go up.

Climate change enters the chat...

[dead]

[flagged]

I hope you don't get downvoted for stating the obvious. This tendency of equating the US to the world happens so frequently and it is 99% a non-US person pointing it out.

You also have to exclude areas that are now in flood planes (most cities), subject to freezing when the infrastructure can’t handle it (all of Texas), tornado prone (everywhere in the US(?)), and consider that the wildfire risk area for the US has expanded dramatically in the last few years.

For example, there was a red flag warning that ran from Colorado to Texas at the beginning of this month.