Yep, in New Zealand, we're already looking at managed retreat in seaside / riverside communities that are proving untenable in the face of increasing erosion/flooding events due to climate change.
We have a national disaster insurance entity[0], but coverage from them is tied to insurance from an insurance company. So as insurers start to refuse to insure houses at proven high risk of natural disaster, then the EQC coverage isn't applicable either.
It will suck for some communities, but it's the reality of climate change that some of those changes are gong to suck.
And I just can't believe that California, like Australia, has allowed so much residential development in ecosystems where fire is a natural part. Not sure if it's the triumph of hope over facts, or just plain ostriching.
We have a national disaster insurance entity[0], but coverage from them is tied to insurance from an insurance company. So as insurers start to refuse to insure houses at proven high risk of natural disaster, then the EQC coverage isn't applicable either.
It will suck for some communities, but it's the reality of climate change that some of those changes are gong to suck.
And I just can't believe that California, like Australia, has allowed so much residential development in ecosystems where fire is a natural part. Not sure if it's the triumph of hope over facts, or just plain ostriching.
[0]: https://www.eqc.govt.nz/about-eqc/