Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

'Point of no return': New Orleans relocation must start now due to sea level

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 230 posts

Re: 'Point of no return': New Orleans relocation must start now due to sea level

#191

Post by misiti3780 »

estearum wrote: post #181
misiti3780 wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's two monte carlo models that get refreshed every few years.

[Edit] The following comment can be read very snarkily but that is not the intention. I'm legitimately interested + curious: Very interesting! Does it affect the point that insurers (even if not actuaries) put a high price on this risk and that the price is subsequently suppressed by government insurance subsidies?

Local governments have obvious incentives to encourage building, but the state of Florida itself does subsidize flood and hurricane insurance.

If you own a house or building in Florida and have a mortgage, you're required to carry it. Here's how a policy gets priced:

You go to a retail broker with your info. They pass it to a wholesaler, who puts the submission out into the market for quotes. Any carrier or MGA that wants the business prices the CAT and AOP (non-CAT) portions separately. Actuaries build models for the AOP side, while Verisk and Moody's model the CAT portion. Those two numbers get added together, plus some fees — and that's your annual premium.

From there, the insurers buy reinsurance on their portfolios. The reinsurers run those same models, do their magic, and come up with their own price.

Just an example, because no major hurricanes have hit the south east in a while, premiums are down 30% right now. All of the insurance companies are getting squeezed.

Re: 'Point of no return': New Orleans relocation must start now due to sea level

#192

Post by snowpid »

criddell wrote: post #179
snowpid wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is very fascinating from a cultural viewpoint. Some cities in Europe are important just for the history and not economy like Venice, or lesser extent Rome. When the Russian attack started, people moaned about the old buildings and the culture in Kyiv. (Ofcourse the attack itself was inmoral). What I get is New Orleans has an unique culture and history. Most people in the US dont think it is worth to preserve?

Most people in the US think everybody should have access to basic healthcare but we haven't been able to make that happen. Something like saving New Orleans probably doesn't stand a chance.

I mean this is a sign of the flawed political process. But even in a working democracy if people arent interested, politican mostly wont care. So Americans dont think New Orleans is worth to preserve?

Re: 'Point of no return': New Orleans relocation must start now due to sea level

#195

Post by dragonwriter »

iamnothere wrote: post #93
dragonwriter wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The absence of a legal mechanism does not imply the absence of a mechanism (or even the absence of a peaceful mechanism.) While there is a legal process for amending the Constitution which, as you note, is likely intractable in the status quo conditions, Constitutional change—whether peaceful (even if there is the implicit consequence of force if compromise is not reached) or not—historically and globally is often an…

A sufficient crisis could trigger an Article V convention, which already has a large amount of states pledged to join, but the changes coming out of such a convention probably aren’t going to be good for the public.

An Article V convention is a legal process and Amendments proposed by such a convention have the same ratification threshold (which is the barrier, not the proposal threshold in Congress) as Amendments that are Congressionally proposed.

Now, an Art V convention could be seized on as an opportunity for organizing extralegal change, but then Art V process obviously isn’t necessary precondition for that, just a potential opportunity.

Re: 'Point of no return': New Orleans relocation must start now due to sea level

#196

Post by sjs382 »

selimthegrim wrote: post #185
JojoFatsani wrote: post #106

NOLA is worth saving.

You and I and egypturnash know this but good luck with the rest of this crowd.

The energy, the community, the corruption, the vibrance, the hopelessness, the resilience, the city that care forgot. You can't relocate New Orleans.

I know it's "gatekeeping" but it's so difficult to talk about with those who haven't had their every day consumed by it.

Re: 'Point of no return': New Orleans relocation must start now due to sea level

#197

Post by sjs382 »

snowpid wrote: post #164
TitaRusell wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reality is that New Orleans is simply not important enough. Even the biggest ultra conservative GOP voting redneck will have to admit that America can't survive without NYC which is why it will get it's seawall.

This is very fascinating from a cultural viewpoint. Some cities in Europe are important just for the history and not economy like Venice, or lesser extent Rome. When the Russian attack started, people moaned about the old buildings and the culture in Kyiv. (Ofcourse the attack itself was inmoral). What I get is New Orleans has an unique culture and history. Most people in the US dont think it is worth to preserve?

When you look at who the rest of Louisiana voted for, they don't even want to preserve New Orleans. They're literally terrified of it and were elected on the promise to subjugate it.

What they really want to preserve is stuff like this: https://www.youtube.com/live/mHljI5JbnTM?si=dReL9sZKiqtNlvpr...

Re: 'Point of no return': New Orleans relocation must start now due to sea level

#198

Post by rayiner »

wat10000 wrote: post #186
rayiner wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it's an emotional obsession with small percentages of the population that makes it impossible to discuss realistic solutions to problems that affect everyone. New Orleans is going to be underwater. That problem won't just affect poor people, it will affect everyone. So the first order of business is to encourage anyone who can do so to leave New Orleans to go somewhere that isn't underwater. That's the policy tha…

What is there to discuss? If you have the ability to move away, then you move away, done. We aren't discussing this particular group because we're a too emotional to think straight. We're discussing this group because it's the one that will bear the brunt of the suffering and it's the one where there isn't an obvious "just let them figure it out and it'll be fine" solution.

You’re both undervaluing and overvaluing collective action at the same time. We know from experience with people in disaster-prone areas that the majority aren’t going to do that. They’re going to stay, and when the disaster comes, it will be a huge problem and they’ll demand the Army Corps of Engineers performs some miracle to help them.

Re: 'Point of no return': New Orleans relocation must start now due to sea level

#199

Post by criddell »

snowpid wrote: post #192
criddell wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most people in the US think everybody should have access to basic healthcare but we haven't been able to make that happen. Something like saving New Orleans probably doesn't stand a chance.

I mean this is a sign of the flawed political process. But even in a working democracy if people arent interested, politican mostly wont care. So Americans dont think New Orleans is worth to preserve?

I've been reading more about New Orleans situation this morning and my thinking is changing. It would be nice if we could preserve it, but I didn't really understand how bad the situation is. I don't think it's possible and spending should be focused on relocating people from the area.

New Orleans is probably going to be a fairly small island 20 miles offshore that gets drowned by hurricanes every few years.

Re: 'Point of no return': New Orleans relocation must start now due to sea level

#200

Post by jermaustin1 »

bayarearefugee wrote: post #190
foobarian wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Systemically, the problem is that there needs to be a last person, and yet people leaving expect market value for their homes which normally happens by selling to the next person. The last person can currently only get the money if a disaster strikes and insurance pays out. To do it ahead of schedule, insurance would have to pay out sooner, which means there would have to be some kind of government intervention to ma…

> The last person can currently only get the money if a disaster strikes and insurance pays out. Usually there is no insurance. The insurance industry, for all of its other faults, is one of the few left that still deals in reality instead of vibes so they aren't going to give you affordable insurance against floods/hurricanes/etc in these areas with any real coverage.

They aren't going to give you affordable insurance even in places that don't generally get hit by floods/hurricanes/etc.

I have a house in Louisiana (up "north") - outside of a couple tornados every few years, and the heavy rains of a hurricane every few years, it is a fairly "safe" place. Never been a claim against the property, or any immediate neighbors. We aren't in a floodplain of any sort, and are on top of a hill that is around 120 feet above the closest creek.

My premium has gone up 250% over the last 3 years (after being steady for a decade). Shopping around, they are even higher. I think they are finally starting to catch up with where they needed to be for years, but I can't help but feel I'm offsetting the people "down south" with their more expensive property that is literally underwater.

Post reply on HN