[TreeBeard]

Much of the debate on alleviating the effects of climate change focuses on cost. Rather than dealing with the costs, deniers are doing their best to stonewall any real action and passing the cost on to their children and grandchildren.

It seems though that their strategy may be flawed, as the effects of Climate Change is going to have an effect on their pocket book sooner than anticipated. In an article in Bloomberg a month or two ago, it set out a dire scenario on the devastation climate change is having and will have on coastal real estate. I have attached a link to this article.

As waters rise and weather patterns change or become more extreme, property values will fall. Lenders are now openly discussing doing away with thirty year mortgages in coastal areas and insurance companies are beginning to raise flood insurance to unheard of levels. In one article I read a coastal town in Virginia, flood insurance already exceeds $6,000.00 per annum and are rising.

Lenders and Insurance companies are basing future models and practices on the effects of anthropogenic climate change.

The issue whether anthropogenic climate change is real has been settled if you look at the actions of lenders and insurance companies , who are not in the business of basing projections on fantasies or "fake science".

The question is why, as Florida residents who may live on or near the coast, many of you continue to oppose action on climate change. Also, do these events concern you?


https://www.bloomberg.com/news/featu...tal-homeowners

[bbronston]

I understand the concept that carbon emissions may be responsible, in part, for rising temperatures but I have yet to read of any evidence or any study that goes so far as to state that reducing emissions will have a reverse affect. It always seems to be implied and it is certainly intuitive but, to my knowledge, there's no proof that cutting emissions will change the direction of climate change which, as we all know, happens anyway on an ongoing basis just as it always has.

I am not a denier, per se, but I'm not convinced that the Paris Accord (which seems like a total screw job for us) is the answer. I do believe that it wouldn't hurt to develop alternate sources of energy but I don't believe that carbon-based sources should be shut off. I do believe that there should be incentives for restricting emissions but I don't think industries should be shut down and money should flow from one country (i.e. the people who pay taxes) to another based on carbon consumption just because it makes for good appearances. Redistributing tax payer earnings is their apparent goal because the carbon goals are a joke.

I see people who mock others arguing that they "deny science" yet they don't question the science on its merits or ask why it is OK to make drastic policy decisions with no science to back those up. I love science but I am the first to admit that science (even science that is regarded as completely infallible in its time) has a track record of being turned upside down. I'd just like to see those answers first before large numbers of people lose their livelihoods and whole industries get shut down. I'd like to see proof that shipping our wealth to other nations will keep the seas from rising.

As for banks and insurance companies, I don't see them as an indication of anything. They'll reduce their risk and increase their profit any way they can because that is why they exist in the first place. If building so close to the water's edge becomes a problem, people will stop living there. The same would happen for all other manner of deleterious changes on the face of the earth, as it has for centuries. I don't want it to happen but I'm not going to lose sleep over it.

[TreeBeard]

Thank you for your response. I take issue with you that cutting emissions will not change the direction of climate change as CO2 and other greenhouse gasses are well known to be the cause of global warming. Even if all C02 emission were to halt tomorrow, global warming would continue before eventually declining. Not taking any action, will only have a worse effect in the near and far future.

The Paris Accords as flawed as they are, are a first step in addressing climate issues. China is spending a great deal of money now to combat its emissions as it sees its economic future threatened by climate change.

But going to specifically to Florida, there will be a time when lenders and insurance companies will just stop doing business in Florida coastal communities as well as coastal communities throughout the country. It is easy to say that well "people will stop living there" but at what cost to those people. As a realtor, you know that the biggest asset most people have is their home. If the home loses value, there goes a good deal of their life savings. My understanding is that Florida realtors are being educated on the issues we are discussing here.

None of these changes will affect the homeowner today or tomorrow, but depending on where you live in Florida you will see these changes sooner rather than later.

[bbronston]

I didn't say that reduced emissions won't change the direction of climate change. I said I've seen no proof, no study, and no evidence that it will. As I said, intuitively one might assume that to be true but I believe that is a big leap when it comes to making the kinds of policies that we saw in the last administration. Still, I agree we (i.e. Industry) should do what can be done to reduce as long as it doesn't impose hardships on them or kill jobs. I think government should incentivize these things, too, but I also believe in low debt and balanced budgets.

If lenders decide to stop lending, cash buyers will be the only ones buying. Some might say that's a good thing. They might self insure. That's fine with me. The water height projections (and that is only what they are) are of a pretty minor order of magnitude and I perceive hysteria in some comments that are either politically motivated or a repetition of someone else's politically motivated opinions. That doesn't mean they are wrong but it doesn't make them right, either. I just don't see an imminent drop in access or property values. And, since I recognize that there are both long term and short term threats to access and property values aside from sea level change, I guess I just view it as one of many factors to be considered when deciding where to purchase property.

[expatCA]

Originally Posted by bbronston

I didn't say that reduced emissions won't change the direction of climate change. I said I've seen no proof, no study, and no evidence that it will. As I said, intuitively one might assume that to be true but I believe that is a big leap when it comes to making the kinds of policies that we saw in the last administration. Still, I agree we (i.e. Industry) should do what can be done to reduce as long as it doesn't impose hardships on them or kill jobs. I think government should incentivize these things, too, but I also believe in low debt and balanced budgets.

If lenders decide to stop lending, cash buyers will be the only ones buying. Some might say that's a good thing. They might self insure. That's fine with me. The water height projections (and that is only what they are) are of a pretty minor order of magnitude and I perceive hysteria in some comments that are either politically motivated or a repetition of someone else's politically motivated opinions. That doesn't mean they are wrong but it doesn't make them right, either. I just don't see an imminent drop in access or property values. And, since I recognize that there are both long term and short term threats to access and property values aside from sea level change, I guess I just view it as one of many factors to be considered when deciding where to purchase property.

In addition the sea level rise issue as to a major impact on FL, is mostly opinion as to how fast, with speculation ranging from 60 years to 2000. All from respected science sources.

[bbronston]

If we were living 2-3000 years ago and had built up the real estate along the coasts then as we have now, we'd have experienced pretty significant flooding between then and now. Florida has been changing coastlines as the waters have risen and fallen for 10,000 years.

Taking reasonable steps is, well, reasonable. Believing that we have the power to influence the changes in sea levels is not only arrogant, it is foolhardy. People who elect to make their homes in places where they expect nature to have no impact are in for a rude awakening.

[LKJ1988]

Already seen big changes in our weather since i started keeping records in the late 70's. A easy 5ft rise within 70 years. We are past the tipping point.

[Fredesch]

I live near the ocean and most folks in my neighborhood are concerned about climate change and some are 80 years old. I would expect there is more correlation between education level and opinions on climate change than there is on proximity to the ocean.

[BNBR]

Originally Posted by LKJ1988

Already seen big changes in our weather since i started keeping records in the late 70's. A easy 5ft rise within 70 years. We are past the tipping point.

Lol.

[bbronston]

Originally Posted by LKJ1988

Already seen big changes in our weather since i started keeping records in the late 70's. A easy 5ft rise within 70 years. We are past the tipping point.

NOAA's data must be way off, then. Their website shows that data collected from points along Florida's east coast suggest sea level increases of between .76 and 1.21 feet over 100 years.

https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sl.../sltrends.html