But isn't the issue that I may have been living in an area for decades and because the government didn't correctly price/deter externalities, now I can't afford to live somewhere? The companies lobbying for the abilities to pollute and otherwise add risk to the world can afford to pay the higher insurance rates. The folks who live in the areas they put at risk often can't.
Insurance costs rising are a good signal, but they're essentially a way to tax normal people for the faults of governments and major companies. It does reflect the real risk, but it's not like the fact of people living in most of these areas is the reason the area is risky.
>they're essentially a way to tax normal people for the faults of governments and major companies
But it's a great way to deliver the signal that '(Climate) RISK IS INCREASING' directly to the voters. If the government socialises the losses, society won't learn the harsh lessons about our changing world quickly enough.
Maybe, but these subsidies to insurance are the result of voters complaining! The folks they complained to just took the easy way out and instead of annoying powerful entities and forcing them to treat the climate better, they just messed up the insurance market and spread the risk around.
The same people who have the power to fix it always have and they've almost always taken the easy way out. The few times anyone's tried to do real changes on these issues, the other externalities of the changes has usually led to voters rejecting them.