Yes, there is deferral to agencies, but that doesn't mean a lawsuit cannot succeed if they are failing to follow their enabling legislation. The term "sustainable" implies something in law. Has the agency tried to define it yet?
This post sadly misses the mark. The insurance market is collapsing and tightening lending does nothing to address that. Absolutely nothing.
We should force the fossil fuel industry to pay insurance companies for the increase in premiums due to increased climate risk and ensure that homeowners purchasing insurance don't pay for those costs nor have their policies canceled.
In addition we need legislation that forbids lenders from foreclosing on homeowners who are unable to afford the steep increase in rates.
Disagree. Tightening lending will reduce the potential for massive losses that would almost certainly have to be nationalized in the same ways as during the 2008 financial collapse. Of course, a tighter insurance market could also lead to serious financial repercussions, but if we simply bury our heads in the sand, the problem will get worse, and worse....
Yes, the oil industry should pay, but good luck getting that through Congress. Lawsuits, maybe, but good luck getting those past a corrupted Supreme Court.
Apparently you don't understand the real estate market.
If a buyer cannot obtain insurance, they cannot get a loan. Period.
Furthermore lenders look at the total monthly cost to the buyer when evaluating mortgage eligibility. It's called PITI, principal, interest, taxes and insurance. Therefore, high insurance rates decrease the buyer's ability to purchase a property.
Once you understand this then you realize that lending reforms are meaningless unless the home insurance markets are stabilized.
Actually, I'm in the real estate business so I do understand it. But here's the thing -- we're confronted with a Hobson's choice.
The first choice is forcing insurers to hold down insurance costs somehow (but the "how" is another huge problem). If so, increased catastrophic losses will likely bankrupt any insurers who remain in certain regions. To prevent that, States (or Congress) would need to effectively go into the re-insurance business, socializing the costs. When there's a catastrophic loss, then the States or Congress would be paying out the funds and in the case of States, it may mean increasing taxes or cutting other services. This would be a pretty massive government intervention, something Democrats might support.
The other choice of mandated tighter lending based on environmental risk factors would be to avoid putting States or Congress into the reinsurance business, meaning that homeowners in safer areas are not unwittingly covering the risks from unsafe areas. This is a more conservative, Republican approach.
Yes, there is deferral to agencies, but that doesn't mean a lawsuit cannot succeed if they are failing to follow their enabling legislation. The term "sustainable" implies something in law. Has the agency tried to define it yet?
This post sadly misses the mark. The insurance market is collapsing and tightening lending does nothing to address that. Absolutely nothing.
We should force the fossil fuel industry to pay insurance companies for the increase in premiums due to increased climate risk and ensure that homeowners purchasing insurance don't pay for those costs nor have their policies canceled.
In addition we need legislation that forbids lenders from foreclosing on homeowners who are unable to afford the steep increase in rates.
Disagree. Tightening lending will reduce the potential for massive losses that would almost certainly have to be nationalized in the same ways as during the 2008 financial collapse. Of course, a tighter insurance market could also lead to serious financial repercussions, but if we simply bury our heads in the sand, the problem will get worse, and worse....
Yes, the oil industry should pay, but good luck getting that through Congress. Lawsuits, maybe, but good luck getting those past a corrupted Supreme Court.
Apparently you don't understand the real estate market.
If a buyer cannot obtain insurance, they cannot get a loan. Period.
Furthermore lenders look at the total monthly cost to the buyer when evaluating mortgage eligibility. It's called PITI, principal, interest, taxes and insurance. Therefore, high insurance rates decrease the buyer's ability to purchase a property.
Once you understand this then you realize that lending reforms are meaningless unless the home insurance markets are stabilized.
Actually, I'm in the real estate business so I do understand it. But here's the thing -- we're confronted with a Hobson's choice.
The first choice is forcing insurers to hold down insurance costs somehow (but the "how" is another huge problem). If so, increased catastrophic losses will likely bankrupt any insurers who remain in certain regions. To prevent that, States (or Congress) would need to effectively go into the re-insurance business, socializing the costs. When there's a catastrophic loss, then the States or Congress would be paying out the funds and in the case of States, it may mean increasing taxes or cutting other services. This would be a pretty massive government intervention, something Democrats might support.
The other choice of mandated tighter lending based on environmental risk factors would be to avoid putting States or Congress into the reinsurance business, meaning that homeowners in safer areas are not unwittingly covering the risks from unsafe areas. This is a more conservative, Republican approach.
The bottom line is that neither choice is good.