Florida’s response to Hurricane Ian illustrates how governments are making it harder to adjust to climate change by subsidizing the insurance market.
One of the classic rejoinders to worries about climate change is the claim that people can move out of highly vulnerable areas into safer areas. Maybe the world would not be willing to accept hundreds of millions of climate change refugees, but within the US, perhaps people can move from storm-prone Florida to the northern Midwest, or to wherever might prove appropriate, including safer parts of Florida.
The US has a longstanding tradition of individual mobility, and many parts of the country have the space and infrastructure for additional residents.
However, for such migration to have any effect on the costs of climate change, price signals have to be active and relatively undistorted. A set of market prices has to be giving people impetus to leave one place for another, but policymakers have not been letting insurance markets perform their proper work in this regard.
The market for Florida property insurance is in pretty bad shape. This year six relevant insurance companies went insolvent, and Florida’s underwriting losses have run more than US$1 billion for each of the last two years. Not surprisingly, insurers have been cutting back their coverage in the state, or leaving altogether. The end result is that homeowners are finding it much harder to get coverage and finding it much more expensive when they do. None of this should come as a surprise, given the immense damage wrought by Hurricane Ian and previous storms.
The rising prices for insurance are a potential market signal. Such a prod, if and when it comes, is a harsh one. Who wants to have to dig up roots and leave home because they cannot get homeowner’s insurance? That is what at least one part of adjustment to climate change looks like, but there are greater burdens in this world than moving from Florida to Minneapolis, Minnesota, or even northern Arkansas.
Yet politics is stifling market adjustments. Florida has a state-run insurer of last resort, Citizens Property Insurance Corp. Not surprisingly, that insurer has financial problems of its own, and in May Florida Governor Ron DeSantis oversaw an additional US$2 billion in reinsurance support for the company’s efforts. Therefore, the state government is stifling the market signals that might induce some of the state’s homeowners to leave for drier pastures.
Do not put your hopes in the Florida gubernatorial election. DeSantis’ Democratic Party rival Charlie Crist has criticized the governor for not doing more on the property insurance front and has proposed 90-day emergency insurance coverage for residents. That would stifle market incentives even more.
It is easy to see why political incentives are leaning this way. Some people are willing to pay exorbitant prices for insurance, or give up their homes and not leave the state — and then vote against incumbents. Even if some people leave the state with a minimum of fuss — and do not vote in the meantime — a declining population and tax revenue is hardly a recipe for political success.
Property insurance also typically does not cover damage from flooding, which is especially relevant in current circumstances. Florida property owners are thus likely to be applying to the federal government for aid. That would in turn raise the question of whether any politician can play tough when the potential for discontent is so high. Would US President Joe Biden hold firm where DeSantis has not, or would he prefer to step in as the savior for Florida?
Storms are the primary issue today, but insulation from market signals is a more general problem for climate change issues. There is a risk of drought in many parts of the country, including the southwest. Many of those same parts of the country have underinvested in water conservation because they have received water subsidies for so long.
Climate change is typically considered an example of market failure, and it is easy to see why, given that individuals and institutions do not fully internalize the costs of their carbon emissions. Yet markets may be able to handle climate change better than their reputation suggests. There are many modes of market adjustment, and one of them is prices, including prices for insurance.
Politics is not allowing markets to operate. Americans are getting some of the worst features of markets, while being denied their better virtues.
Tyler Cowen is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist. He is a professor of economics at George Mason University and writes for the blog Marginal Revolution. He is coauthor of Talent: How to Identify Energizers, Creatives, and Winners Around the World. This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
In a stark reminder of China’s persistent territorial overreach, Pema Wangjom Thongdok, a woman from Arunachal Pradesh holding an Indian passport, was detained for 18 hours at Shanghai Pudong Airport on Nov. 24 last year. Chinese immigration officials allegedly informed her that her passport was “invalid” because she was “Chinese,” refusing to recognize her Indian citizenship and claiming Arunachal Pradesh as part of South Tibet. Officials had insisted that Thongdok, an Indian-origin UK resident traveling for a conference, was not Indian despite her valid documents. India lodged a strong diplomatic protest, summoning the Chinese charge d’affaires in Delhi and demanding
The wrap-up press event on Feb. 1 for the new local period suspense film Murder of the Century (世紀血案), adapted from the true story of the Lin family murders (林家血案) in 1980, has sparked waves of condemnation in the past week, as well as a boycott. The film is based on the shocking, unsolved murders that occurred at then-imprisoned provincial councilor and democracy advocate Lin I-hsiung’s (林義雄) residence on Feb. 28, 1980, while Lin was detained for his participation in the Formosa Incident, in which police and protesters clashed during a pro-democracy rally in Kaohsiung organized by Formosa Magazine on Dec.
Watching news footage of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) officials shaking hands and exchanging pleasantries with their counterparts across the Taiwan Strait, I could not help but feel a profound sense of temporal displacement. As a member of the generation born after the lifting of martial law and raised under modern civic education, I truly want to ask the KMT: “Do you not see who the true villain is?” In 1949, the Chinese Communist Party used a bloody civil war to drive the KMT into exile in Taiwan. In the decades that followed, it has sought to completely erase the existence
President William Lai (賴清德) on Sunday congratulated Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi and her Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) on their historic landslide victory in Japan’s general election. The LDP secured the largest single-party majority in post-World War II Japan, winning 316 seats. The win is expected to strengthen ties with Japan’s allies and potentially deter Chinese aggression in the region. American Institute in Taiwan Director Raymond Greene on Monday said that under Takaichi’s leadership, he anticipates deeper coordination among the US, Japan and Taiwan to promote regional stability and prosperity. US President Donald Trump has also shown his strong support for Takaichi,
RSS