←back to thread

Is the world becoming uninsurable?

(charleshughsmith.substack.com)
478 points spking | 9 comments | | HN request time: 0.438s | source | bottom
Show context
Animats ◴[] No.42734092[source]
Not uninsurable, but buildings are going to have to become tougher.

It's happened before. Chicago's reaction to the Great Fire was simple - no more building wooden houses. Chicago went all brick. Still is, mostly.

The trouble is, brick isn't earthquake resistant. Not without steel reinforcement.

I live in a house built of cinder block filled with concrete reinforced with steel. A commercial builder built this as his personal residence in 1950. The walls look like a commercial building. The outside is just painted cinder block. Works fine, survived the 1989 earthquake without damage, low maintenance. It's not what most people want today in the US.

replies(18): >>42734105 #>>42734140 #>>42734173 #>>42734290 #>>42734511 #>>42734544 #>>42734644 #>>42734673 #>>42734722 #>>42734995 #>>42735134 #>>42735677 #>>42736159 #>>42736211 #>>42736562 #>>42736923 #>>42741822 #>>42744129 #
_tariky ◴[] No.42734644[source]
In Yugoslavia, in 1969, one of the biggest earthquakes occurred, destroying several cities. After that, the country’s leaders decided to change building codes. Even today, although Yugoslavia no longer exists, the countries that adopted those codes have homes capable of withstanding earthquakes up to 7.5 on the Richter scale.

My main point is that if we face major natural disasters, we need to take action to mitigate their impact in the future. As a foreigner, it seems to me that Americans prioritize building cheap homes over constructing better and more resilient ones.

replies(8): >>42734751 #>>42734754 #>>42734965 #>>42735033 #>>42735056 #>>42736986 #>>42742129 #>>42744757 #
1. Theodores ◴[] No.42734754[source]
In 1666 London had a bit of a problem with fire, after that some building codes were introduced. Buildings made entirely from wood were not allowed and roofs had to have a parapet.

If you don't know what a parapet is, take a look up to the roofs on London's older buildings, the front wall rises up past the bottom of the roof. If there is a fire in the building then the parapet keeps the burning roof inside the footprint of the building rather than let it 'slide off' to set fire to the property on the other side of the street.

The parapet requirement did not extend to towns outside London, which makes me wonder why.

The answer to that is to see what goes on in the USA. After a natural disaster they just pick themselves up and keep going. Florida was obliterated in 2024 but nobody cared after a fortnight. Same with the current wild fires, nobody will care next week, it will be forgotten, even though having one's home destroyed might be considered deeply traumatic.

I think that the key to change is to not have too many natural disasters, ideally nobody has living memory of the last fire/flood/earthquake/pandemic/alien invasion/plague of locusts so that there is no point of reference or 'compassion fatigue'. Only then can there be a fair expectation of political will and the possibility of change.

replies(2): >>42735355 #>>42735392 #
2. SturgeonsLaw ◴[] No.42735355[source]
> ideally nobody has living memory of the last [...]

Funny, I would have said the exact opposite. If people forget how bad things were, they seem more likely to repeat them.

Nazism, for one. And the rise in antivax sentiment - people today have never come across an iron lung, which is a testament to medical technology, but it means some silly opinions get way more traction than they should.

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" - George Santayana

replies(1): >>42736591 #
3. andsoitis ◴[] No.42735392[source]
> Florida was obliterated in 2024

That’s an huge exaggeration. FL was not obliterated in 2024.

Stats:

Total storms 18

Hurricanes 11

Major hurricanes (Cat. 3+) 5

Total fatalities 401

Total damage $128.072 billion

(Third-costliest tropical cyclone season on record)

replies(3): >>42735503 #>>42736615 #>>42736618 #
4. swiftcoder ◴[] No.42735503[source]
The weird part of living near the tropics is we all look at that and go "not too bad a hurricane season". Everyone not-from-the-tropics stares at your list in horror.
5. Theodores ◴[] No.42736591[source]
Yours is an interesting point as I am now questioning:

> "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" - George Santayana

I have expressed that idea with different attribution before now, but, on reflection, it is a 'trite quote' that can be trotted out far too easily!

6. Theodores ◴[] No.42736615[source]
I forgot that any exaggeration is not allowed on HN!

128 billion dollars is equivalent to 200,000 homes, or even more, which does not represent total obliteration, however, if that level of devastation happened in the UK, the only comparison would be what the Luftwaffe did during WW2.

replies(1): >>42738732 #
7. addicted ◴[] No.42736618[source]
That damage is like 10% of Florida’s GDP.

That’s absolutely nuts.

It’s also a lot worse than the pure numbers suggest because the damage here is taking away actual built up stock, so capacity for generating future GDP. And the GDP in Florida includes a lot of economic activity used to rebuild after past damage.

And all of this without Miami even being flooded out of existence. Miami can’t even build dikes due to the porous ground it’s built on.

8. andsoitis ◴[] No.42738732{3}[source]
> 128 billion dollars is equivalent to 200,000 homes, or even more, which does not represent total obliteration,

As of 2023, FL has over 10.4 million homes.

> however, if that level of devastation happened in the UK, the only comparison would be what the Luftwaffe did during WW2.

If you are referring to The Blitz, the numbers I have access to is that over 1.1 million homes and flats were destroyed in London alone.

replies(1): >>42742188 #
9. Theodores ◴[] No.42742188{4}[source]
Those 1.1 million homes were destroyed over a period of years, not days.