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.
Monday was the 37th anniversary of former president Chiang Ching-kuo’s (蔣經國) death. Chiang — a son of former president Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石), who had implemented party-state rule and martial law in Taiwan — has a complicated legacy. Whether one looks at his time in power in a positive or negative light depends very much on who they are, and what their relationship with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is. Although toward the end of his life Chiang Ching-kuo lifted martial law and steered Taiwan onto the path of democratization, these changes were forced upon him by internal and external pressures,
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (傅?萁) has caused havoc with his attempts to overturn the democratic and constitutional order in the legislature. If we look at this devolution from the context of a transition to democracy from authoritarianism in a culturally Chinese sense — that of zhonghua (中華) — then we are playing witness to a servile spirit from a millennia-old form of totalitarianism that is intent on damaging the nation’s hard-won democracy. This servile spirit is ingrained in Chinese culture. About a century ago, Chinese satirist and author Lu Xun (魯迅) saw through the servile nature of
In their New York Times bestseller How Democracies Die, Harvard political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt said that democracies today “may die at the hands not of generals but of elected leaders. Many government efforts to subvert democracy are ‘legal,’ in the sense that they are approved by the legislature or accepted by the courts. They may even be portrayed as efforts to improve democracy — making the judiciary more efficient, combating corruption, or cleaning up the electoral process.” Moreover, the two authors observe that those who denounce such legal threats to democracy are often “dismissed as exaggerating or
The National Development Council (NDC) on Wednesday last week launched a six-month “digital nomad visitor visa” program, the Central News Agency (CNA) reported on Monday. The new visa is for foreign nationals from Taiwan’s list of visa-exempt countries who meet financial eligibility criteria and provide proof of work contracts, but it is not clear how it differs from other visitor visas for nationals of those countries, CNA wrote. The NDC last year said that it hoped to attract 100,000 “digital nomads,” according to the report. Interest in working remotely from abroad has significantly increased in recent years following improvements in
RSS