5 Filters

US Home Insurers Are Leaving Climate Risk Areas

Those who have to pay for climate change are not arguing about whether it’s happening. They can see the trends as clear as… well, anyone who looks at the data.

Next year is predicted to be the hottest year humanity has ever seen…


Can’t help but think that a part of this is because it’s California and that makes it expensive to begin with. There’s a $2.50 difference between the cheapest and most expensive gallon in the US. California wins most expensive, and by some margin.

Also, no one gets into the insurance business to be paying out.

Will see if I can find the prices for fuel in the us and cross reference insurance cost differences.


As I suspected.

Cheapest state in US for petrol is Mississippi.

House insurance in Mississippi.

Hi Aly, you say ‘anyone who looks at the data’…

Since you have looked at the data referenced in the article yourself can you please post the original report on which what I would call a ‘climate alarmist’ news article is based?

And also, if possible, who funded the report and who funded the organization that created the report?

That would allow perhaps a more objective response to the accuracy of the story. Thanks in advance!


1 Like

Hi Everyman

There is a lot of data published literally every week throughout the world. It’s not one report funded by some shady group like the heartland institute. It’s an ocean of terrifying data.

If you’re serious about looking at some of the data then I’ll make an effort over the next few weeks/months to gather some together for you. It’s a lot of work as there is a lot to go through, so if you’re really not that interested or unlikely to actually read it, then please just let me know.

As far as the specific actuarial models that the insurance companies are using to realise that things are getting worse and making their whole business unprofitable, then, no, those models are proprietary and I have no access.

But I do know if there was a way for these companies to make money on their models, they would. And they usually hire good modellers to try and understand the risks they are taking. During my PhD and in my professional work I’ve met a few if them. They know their way around the tail end of a probability distribution.

Sometimes profits speaks louder than the opinion pieces…



That’s a strange response Aly, you suggested that

This suggested to me that you yourself had looked ‘at the data’, which apparently isn’t the case, in terms of the article you posted as evidence for your point of view. And then you say to me ‘if you’re serious about looking at some of the data…’! Surely you should show yourself ‘serious about looking at the data’ before demanding that of me, shouldn’t you? And I simply asked for the report upon which the news article was based. That’s all I asked for and you have diverted the question to an ‘ocean of data’.

Let’s keep in mind, one of the main focuses of this site is media criticism. Did you apply basic principles of media criticism to the article you posted? That was the point of my original response. Again, I’m not talking about ‘oceans of data’. I’m talking about a specific article you yourself posted.

So, since you seem not interested in looking at it, I’ll do it.

You linked to an article from Naked Capitalism. That article with a byline from Yves Smith linked to ANOTHER article from Open Democracy by Chrissy Stroop. That article links to a report from something called the First Street Foundation, which seems to be the evidentiary source for the article which you posted.

If we go to the ‘About’ section for First Street Foundation we find this: First Street Foundation Mission
Make climate risk accessible, easy to understand and actionable for individuals, governments, and industry.

A changing climate is impacting the risks facing American properties, communities, and businesses as perils like flood, fire, heat, and other perils t become more common, and more severe.

At the risk of stating the obvious, this is clearly NOT an objective organization. They have already ASSUMED that ‘The Climate is Changing’. And note that they have ASSUMED they are not talking about WEATHER, they are talking about CLIMATE.

You doubtless don’t see how sneaky this is, though those who question the dominant State/Corporate narrative DO see it. In the past we talked about WEATHER, floods, wildfires, hurricanes, etc were aspects of the WEATHER. Now that word has magically disappeared and we talk about CLIMATE instead, which, lo and behold, FITS EXACTLY with the State/Corporate narrative being pushed worldwide.

So, simply by taking the time to dig through the article YOU posted (not me) we learn that the ‘report’ in question comes from an organization that ALREADY accepts the State/Corporate ‘climate’ narrative.

Weather ‘disasters’ have ALWAYS occurred, they are a major topic of humanity’s cultural library of stories.

Now these disasters are being seamlessly woven into a State/Corporate narrative about so called ‘climate change’ and the goal of this narrative is justify the impoverishment and enslavement of much of humanity. Those who promote this narrative are quite open about that.

Wildfires, winds, floods, who is to say they are a result of ‘climate change’? Every single disaster these days is linked by the media to ‘climate change’. No evidence required. The people at the First Street Foundation simply assume the disasters they talk about are a result of ‘climate change’.

So in fact the article you linked to proves nothing that you want it to prove. Zero. Zilch. Because the report that the article is based on assumes, without any discussion, or evidence, YOUR point of view. And note, First Street Foundation could have written the exact same report and just called it ‘Severe Weather Risk’ for homeowners in the USA. And, once again, severe weather risk has ALWAYS been around. ALWAYS. Why should we allow the elite to weaponize the weather, via the media especially, in order to take away our human rights?


Hi Everyman

I think I didn’t understand you. Thanks for clarifying.

I follow your analysis of the article but I think you miss the point. The part of the article that I was highlighting was the report that insurance companies are moving out of states being hit hard by extreme weather events such as floods, hurricanes and forest fires.

I wasn’t suggesting that the article was the source of proof that floods, hurricanes or forest fires are being triggered by climate change. I was interested in it’s reporting on activity by insurance companies

One reason that insurance companies are moving out, as reported in the article, is that their own risk models are showing that as climate change accelerates, it will be more and more costly for them to operate in states hit in this way. Extreme weather events are predicted to get worse. So they are leaving.

Again, the article was not the source of those risk models. It was simply a report of the consequences of those models for the insurance companies and homeowners in those states.

The consequences of those models are obvious to anyone who has been following the data on climate change these last few decades. Extreme weather events have been predicted to get much worse as the earth warms, and so they are. Hence my statement above. Hence, also, the reason that insurance companies aren’t trying to argue that climate change isn’t real… unlike the big oil companies over the last couple decades. It’s costing them too much already.

That was the point of my post

When you asked me for data, I thought you were actually interested in data concerning the link between extreme weather events and climate change, hence my offer of collating some of it for you, if you were really interested in reading it.

Of course a random article in OpenDemocracy isn’t the source of that data. I don’t know what smoking gun you think you’ve found here by saying that it doesn’t prove what I’m saying… the only point it was making was that insurance companies’ models have shown them that climate change makes certain areas uninsurable. So they’re pulling out.

However, my offer still stands. If you really are interested in seeing the data around these things, and how terrifyingly bad the future is likely to get, I will make an effort and collect some here. It will take time and effort, though, as I said. I’ll let you decide how interested in data you are. A critical media analysis of an OpenDemocracy article won’t get you very far down that road, sadly. I will say, the closer you look at climate change data, the more depressed you’re likely to get. Maybe relevant, maybe not.

Your point about weather being changeable and extreme events being normal is not adequate to explain the long term trends currently being observed. Long term trends in weather is a pretty decent definition of climate, and that’s what we’re concerned with. Presumably those same companies were operating profitably over the last many decades in those states. They cannot now. Something is changing, and that’s not explained by changeable weather.

If you were interested, I’m pretty sure you could check to see whether such disasters are trending worse with time, over, say, the last 100 years. If storms are getting stronger, floods worse, wildfires more common and bigger…

Why indeed? It’s not something that I’m suggesting should happen.


1 Like

If there is an ocean of terrifying data it just shows how desperate the NWO is. For me, it’s a bit like the plandemic. Everyday (if one reads the Daily Heil or watches BBC or Sky News), there is another terrifying new Convid variant or an impending plandemic of a previously unheard of disease.

Of course the ocean of data saying that it is all BS, or explaining why for example, the Australian wildfires are a result of poor land management, is simply cancelled, or downgraded by Google, Facebook, Youtube and completely ignored by the lamestream media.

There is in fact, ‘an ocean’ of climate data either debunking the lamestream narrative, or proving it’s all a load of shite, except one will never find it via a Google search.


Hi Aly, I question how carefully you read the article your posted, or how carefully you investigated the organization which published the report upon which the article is based. I’ll explain below, responding to, please note, your own words.

First, think about how ridiculous this concept is. If risk is higher why would not the insurance companies simply raise their rates? But you repeat, without question, and without proof, the false assertion that insurance companies are ‘moving out’.

Even the wildly fear mongering slanted article you posted proves you wrong, do you realize that?

“Insurers are taking note, and many homeowners in high-risk areas – also including parts of the south, west, and midwest – are now finding themselves without access to affordable insurance.”

Did you note that adjective? ‘affordable’. That is completely a subjective concept, and perhaps all it means, we don’t know, is that people have less money to spend on insurance. But the point is that it DOES NOT mean, as you asserted, that insurers are ‘moving out’. When the article summarizes some of the report upon which the article is based the writer repeats, ‘unaffordable’ and ‘insurers refused to renew’. NOT and I repeat NOT what you asserted above that insurance companies are ‘moving out’.

The reporting on activity by insurance companies refers to a report which does NOT state, as you asserted, that insurers are ‘moving out’.

You repeat again ‘moving out’. That is simply not true Aly, even based on the slanted article to which you refer. And you also refer to the insurance companies ‘own risk models’, which is NOT TRUE as proven by the very article you posted and the report upon which that article is based. The report DOES NOT COME from the insurance companies. It is NOT, as you claim, their OWN risk models. Did you check out the organization which produced the report? I did (see below).

No, it was a report of the possible future consequences of those models. Look at the language the writer uses, as is typical of so many fear mongering climate change zealot journalists:

“Over the next few yearswill spiral into a potentially catastrophic cycle. Not only will some Americans be forced to abandon their homes, but the housing…will likely stand empty (as long as homes continue to stand at all), all of which will further drive demand up in a housing market that already prices out far too many people.” This is prophetic fear mongering Aly, do you really not see that?

“America is headed for a climate insurance bubble” Note the confident prophecy, ‘is headed for’

“First Street’s modelling predicts further significant increases by 2053.” By 2053??? This is on the same level as people who base their arguments on the Book of Revelations prophecy.

“Americans will be facing an outright catastrophe.” Note the future tense.

“will be affected by the looming crisis” Note the future tense.

“will be there when the climate shit really starts to hit the fan.” Note the future tense.

No, they are NOT ‘pulling out’. This is completely an assertion on your part, based on zero evidence from the article and report you cited. Nothing is ‘uninsurable’. And it’s NOT the “insurance company’s models”, that is proven by the very article you posted.

I think Aly I have convincingly completely invalidated your argument. But let’s look at this organization which produced the report on which the fear mongering article was based, and let’s look again at the article itself.

Let’s look at the boss of First Street:


Matthew Eby is the Founder and CEO of First Street Foundation, a research and technology nonprofit working to define America’s climate risk. Under Matthew’s leadership, the Foundation created a first-of-its-kind, peer-reviewed flood model, wildfire model, and extreme heat model to calculate the past, present, and future climate risk of every property in the United States. The Foundation has also calculated the associated economic damage for every property and made all of this data available through Risk Factor, a consumer facing website that is directly integrated for every property on websites such as Realtor.com and Redfin. Matthew holds an Honors Business Commerce degree and an MBA from McMaster University in Canada.

Matthew is a recognized business leader with global experience. He has worked and lived in Toronto, Tokyo, London, Atlanta, and New York. Before creating the First Street Foundation, Matthew founded and served as CEO of Anthro, a digital marketing agency serving social good and non-profit organizations. Before that, he was the Senior Vice President of Consumer and Brand Marketing for The Weather Company, where he managed a portfolio of brands including The Weather Channel (digital and broadcast) and the Weather Underground.

Who is this guy? He’s a marketing guy. What exactly is he marketing in this report? He’s marketing a justification for insurance companies to raise their rates, using his company’s ‘report’ as a justification. And he’s marketing ‘climate change’ fear mongering, to appeal to the current State/Corporate ‘climate change’ narrative.

And let’s look at the article you posted more carefully, what is the fear mongering journalist doing exactly? In one short article she brings in homelessness, the federal reserve raising rates, a ‘climate change insurance bubble’, “right-wing attacks on the rights of women and trans people”, wildfires in Maui; hottest July, hottest August, I mean she pushes ALL the buttons!

And what is her solution to this ‘crisis’ she is pushing? Ah, now that’s interesting:

"The best way to mitigate the damage would be for municipal and state governments to start working with the federal government now toward sustainable, high-density development, and for the federal government to prepare to bail out not (or not just) the ‘too big to fail’ banks and insurers that will be affected by the looming crisis, but also the ordinary Americans who will be most devastatingly affected.

Direct cash payments from the federal government improved millions of Americans’ lives during the pandemic. We can only hope the political will to directly provide housing and cash will be there when the climate shit really starts to hit the fan."

She’s pushing ‘sustainable, high density development’ ie ‘15 minute cities’, ie urban prisons for the proletariat.

She wants to bail ouf the banks and insurance companies (she says ‘NOT JUST’).

And she’s pushing the ‘pandemic solution’, which sent billions if not trillions to the corporate sector and in fact is a direct CAUSE of the INFLATION which she refers to earlier as the cause of higher interest rates and thus less affordable housing she is supposedly against! It’s completely, profoundly illogical. Her ‘solution’ will make inflation worse! And we all know, given the political power as it currently stands, her ‘solution’ will mean more money for the State/Corporate/Non Gov sector. Including the marketing company whose report she based her article on!

So Aly, far from proving your assertions about climate change and the insurance companies, the article proves EXACTLY what ‘climate dissidents’ say again and again: the climate change narrative is a justification for a giant fear mongering scam whose victims will be the working class and the middle class who will face MORE exploitation from the elite the who are promoting the climate change narrative.

And sure, post any of your proof that you have for your argument, I just hope it’s of better quality than what you posted above!

1 Like

When you look at most insurance policies they will require the insured to deduct from any claim they make from the insurer all payments recieved from other sources to mitigate the damage caused. Which clearly means the bigger the bung from the government or local authorities the lower the payment from the insurance company. The ordinary insured american will rarely get additional aid for property damage where they also get cash support from government. Where policies don’t do this they can quickly be amended to do so!

PS If there is a trend towards fewer insured, I wonder how many people will be kicked out of houses through mortgage defaults ( as high rates continue to bite and fixed rates get renegotiated ) - removing their need for insurance - isn’t California famous for its tent cities? Plus I recall seeing a US trend of home movers crossing state borders to lower priced housing areas ( with lower insurance costs) - pure domestic economics as you say. When the domestic budget is cut which will come first - a cut of insurance or a cut in mortgage payments!



Hi CJ1, the insurance racket is never straightforward. Michael Hudson calls FIRE, Finance, Insurance, Real Estate, the non productive parasitical economic entities of the modern USA econom. I know for a fact that sometimes beachfront property is insured by the state, because bigwigs tend to build there, and when the big wind blows the bigwigs rebuild on the taxpayer’s dime.

Yes, people will pay their mortgage before they keep up their insurance payments, but the latter are often required in order to get the mortgage.

The rich people and their puppets, like Obama for example, are clearly not afraid of ‘climate change’, though they push it constantly, they buy multimillion dollar homes less than a foot above sea level right on coast.


Yes, I forgot that nice little trick - I remember now, when changing insurance companies they wanted to know who I was going to be insured with as they said they were under a duty to notify the mortgagee Bank if I stopped being insured! So not only do you need insurance to get a mortgage, you need to keep it current in order to avoid defaulting on your mortgage terms!


1 Like

Hi Everyman

Sorry for the slow reply - it’s been a busy week for me.

I’m not going to go point by point through your long post but I’m left very confused by what you’ve posted.

You seem to be saying that I haven’t read the article correctly and that it doesn’t say that insurers are pulling out of some states, for example you say:


However, we see from the first paragraph of the article

“major insurance companies have begun pulling out of areas identified as being at heightened risk due to climate change, leaving homeowners in the lurch”

So the article does clearly state that. I did read it correctly after all.

Perhaps you’re saying that the article is simply making this claim up and it’s not true. However, clicking through the links in the article you very quickly get here:

So it seems that, not only does the article I posted indeed say what I claimed, but it contains links to other news stories reporting the same facts. Insurers are, indeed, pulling out of some places.

And there are plenty of other news outlets in the US making exactly the same points as this article. There was even a special senate hearing on this very subject

“Insurer exodus” no less. It’s very clearly happening.

Huh. Do you? I don’t. In fact, I don’t think you read the article carefully at all. Certainly you seem to have missed the straightforwardly obvious points it makes and the pieces it links to.

I’m really not sure what point you were trying to make in the end. As I said, your post left me pretty confused, so sorry if I’ve misunderstood it.


Hi PatB

I’m actually interested in looking at data.

If there really is an ocean of data proving that climate change is a load of shite, then I would very much like to see it.

Perhaps you could post some?

I would very much like to be convinced that human caused climate change is not happening, and I would welcome your ocean of data.

Please do post it here. I’m very seriously interested.


Happy to do the basic leg work for you. However, I am not a researcher and do not have the time or inclination to document everything I find showing that the ‘climate crisis’ is definitely a load of sh*te.

First, let me say I do not challenge the notion that climate is changing. All I disbelieve is the idea that there is a man made crisis. Even without the ‘oceans’ of evidence that we are all being lied to to feed the NWO agenda, since 911, I question (and so should every other person) everything the powers that be tell us.

Lets start with the Global mean temperature.

Try these The Global Mean Temperature Anomaly Record
What Is The Average Global Temperature? - The Corbett Report

Next, let’s look at the CO2 in the atmosphere

Try these 'What Percent Of Our Atmosphere Is CO2?': Doug LaMalfa Stumps Entire Panel With Climate Questions
Climate Science 4 - The Ice Core CO2 Record is 'Probably Wrong' Too
Dr. Patrick Moore: Life on Earth is Dependent on Carbon Dioxide

And as for wildfires

Try this for a starter

1 Like

Thanks Pat,

I’ll have a watch. I watched that Corbett report before and found it very unconvincing though. I wrote a long thing about it a while back. Hopefully the others will be better.

Just so I’m clear, are you saying that you do think that the climate is changing, i.e. temperatures are rising, extreme weather events getting more extreme, sea level rising, etc, but that you don’t think that it’s ultimately a man made thing?

Recently I’ve come to the conclusion that it might be less important to argue about whether it’s man made or not (I’m personally not sure we can now do anything about the changes anyway - although I do think our activities can probably accelerate it even further) than it is to recognise the physical changes that are happening and what the implications of those changes to our global civilization are likely to be.

Whether we accept the changes are man made or not, just recognising that the climate is rapidly changing in a particular direction should still give an understanding of the likely devastation in our near (few decades) future. Our human system is very fragile to such changes after all.

Thanks for the links

Interesting piece from Igor Chudov, who’s on the fence at the moment regarding MC2, manmade climate change.
The subject I think was flagged up here if memory serves - about temperature measurements being latterly taken from urban areas which tend to be slightly warmer than rural areas.

The focus of the piece is a recent paper

The Detection and Attribution of Northern Hemisphere Land Surface Warming (1850–2018) in Terms of Human and Natural Factors: Challenges of Inadequate Data

Willie Soon et al (37 authors)


According to Chudov citing the paper, the urban measurements may overstate the rate of warming somewhat compared to rural measurements, and they also overstate the contribution of man and woman-activity ( :slightly_smiling_face:) towards this warming.
Both factors are of the order of about a half. So the effect on calculations of man-made temperature change is considerable; making it about 0.2 degrees (per century) rather than the commonly thought 0.7 degrees, if true.

Chudov is on the fence but says this should be part of the discussion.
I would agree the framework of discussion has to be up for discussion too, before any errors get bricked in for ever.

1 Like

thanks ED - definitely worth a look.

one quick thought, before I even read the paper in more detail, is that even if the primary contention of the authors turns out to be correct - that more of the heating of the planet can be ascribed to solar activity (who knows? Maybe) it still doesn’t change the point that old Bendell was making that by increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, we are guaranteeing that any extra heat from the sun will be trapped here on earth due to our CO2 pollution.

Right. off to work, and also to have a read.


1 Like

Just so you’re clear, I do not accept the idea of ‘temperatures rising’, ‘extreme weather events getting more extreme’, or ‘sea levels rising’. For me, climate changing might be illustrated by this.

Where I live, during the summer, we expect temperatures to get hotter day by day. Then we have an electrical storm, a few hours or a days rain, and the temperatures go down. With the end of the rain, the temperature gets warmer and warmer each day for a week or two and then another storm. Rinse and repeat.

The last few years, we have had very little electrical storm activity. The summer is not hotter. If anything, the summer is shorter. So the weather is changing, exactly as it has for millennia. However, to ‘reset’ the world, based on anecdotal observations or fraudulent studies like those done by the IPCC is just criminal.

1 Like

Fair enough. I understand your position better now