Climate Change, Yes and No

2 thoughts on “Climate Change, Yes and No”

  1. Australia rationalized their water rights after their epic drought by trying to encourage better use with market signaling. Unlike other Western states, California doesn’t even regulate well usage, which affects surface water too. Or even impose any oil excise tax on a permanently depleting resource.

    I have no doubt private insurance companies will force changes. But mandated coverage as you describe thru federal flood insurance already keeps too many structures in harms way. Tales of houses being rebuilt multiple times are increasing. Even with the subsidy, premiums aren’t cheap. I hope this model doesn’t spread to other risks.

  2. Or, if California were part of the United States, you could fund farms in parts of the country with excess water (like upstate NY) and stop trying to do agriculture in deserts. But nooooo.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.