The neighborhood of Parisade in Altadena and the Pacific was still burning when we talked about the cost of the fire extinguishing area in Los Angeles and who paid it. Currently, total damage and economic loss can exceed $ 250 billion. This is one year after a hurricane Milton and Helen, and other extreme weather phenomena have already forced the US disaster loss of hundreds of billions.
As the impact of climate -led disaster compound interests becomes effective, we can see that we have raised our home -owned costs, and home insurance prices nationwide are rising rapidly. In some cases, the insurance company has completely withdrawn from the town. And others are starting to leave.
One of the most controversial results is that it has peaked in places where the rapid rise in US housing prices is the most dangerous, leaving the people in the cliffs of generations of decline. This is the discovery of a new analysis by FIRST STREET FOUNDATION, a research company that studys the climate threats to houses and provides the best climate adaptation data that can be freely and commercially available. This analysis predicts extraordinary reversal in American housing property. This is an asset loss of nearly $ 1.5 trillion in the next 30 years.
The meaning is amazing. Many Americans may face changes in paradigms in the definition of saving and economic security. Climate change is the basic assumption that Americans can continue to build wealth and financial safety by owning their own homes. In a sense, it is overturned American dreams.
Housing ownership is the foundation of the US economy. US residential real estate is worth near $ 50 trillion. This is almost twice the total domestic product. Almost two -thirds of American adults are housing owners, and the median of the house here is more than 58 % in the past 20 years even after inflation. In the Pacific Parisade and Altadena, the evolution has raised many residents to the upper class of the middle class. Houses nationwide are the largest assets for most families. They have about 67 % of their savings in major housing.
It is very large to lose: for individuals and for the national economy.
First Street researchers have discovered that climate pressure is the main factor that increases insurance costs. The average premium has risen 31 % nationwide since 2019, and has risen rapidly in the high -risk climate zone. According to First Street, in the next 30 years, if the insurance price is not hindered, an average increase of 29 %. Miami’s fee can be quadrupled. In Sacramento, California, it is doubled.
And that is where systematic economic risks are born. Shortly ago, insurance premiums were a slight cost to own a house, reaching about 8 % of the average mortgage payment. However, today’s insurance expenses are about one -fifth of the house itself, overtaking typical payments, inflation, and even the gratitude of the house itself. Anyway, I own property on paper. FIRST STREET predicts that the house, which is now 30 years later, a classic US mortgage, is 6 % less than today. They predict that the majority of countries have declined the fear that many economists and climate analysts have been holding them for a long time.
Part of the problem is that many people cooperated in a very risky area, which is accurately called home due to the possibility of insurance that should have been. For many years, climate -led floods have occurred, and hurricanes and wildfires are accumulated, resulting in economic losses. The insurance company has canceled insurance, but has doubled the support of the housing owner and promised economic stability even for most mortgage lenders. It was easy to manage costs, suppressed anxiety, and the economy continued to ham.
However, according to Matthew Khan, an economist at the University of Southern California, which is studying market and climate change, these discounts say that they will “the signal of the free market price.” They also made a dangerous place on the Florida coastline and on a hill where the California was easy to get off, so that they were more secure than them, and “we have delayed our adaptation.” First Street has today discovered that it is a low -priced climate risk for 39 million real estate throughout the United States. In other words, 27 % of domestic real estate means that the premium is too low to cover climate exposure.
It’s no wonder that the cost is rising. The insurance company is catching up. But that means that Americans are catching up in that they evaluate where they live. And that leads to the possibility that many people have begun to move. In fact, the first street is correlated with an increase in insurance premiums, a decrease in property value, and a wide range of climate immigrants, and within the next 30 years, more than 55 million Americans migrate in response to this climate risk in Japan. It predicts and predicts that more than 5 million people will move. Americans will migrate this year. FIRST STREET analysts assume that people are as important as school and waterfront views when people buy a house. More safer areas.
There are many reasons to pay attention to these predictions. The exact estimation of climate movement in the United States is almost unbelievable, as it is almost impossible to model human behavior in all of its diverse motives. FIRST STREET’s economic model has a huge amount of Americans accumulated in these property, as the value of the family has been higher than the relatively modest forecast loss over the past 20 years. It does not capture fairness. The model is assumed that the reckless building and all the past patterns of zoning will continue, and it does not take into account the shortage of housing in the country and the differences between the long -standing housing owner and the new generation who are trying to buy it now. Masu.
No matter how incorrect, Khan said that the first street’s work would be “Paul Rivia’s role and may face if the adaptation fails.” Climate -led costs and climate risks may promote drastic changes in both housing ownership and migration, and at the same time, both of these factors will continue to increase.
The ICE executive officer led an office of an immigrant child without a companion to cause an alarm.
In other words, it means that housing owners need to be much more wealthy, or that they have to pay more. Like many aspects of the climate challenge, this also has a relatively safe area, and the fertilized buyers are flocking in their gratitude real estate market, so they are driven further away. 。
No one has abandoned Los Angeles. With its wealth, density, and government support, it is much more solicited than places such as paradise, California, New Jersey Shore, and Florida. But it will be economically and physically transformed. Pacific Parisseed will probably be rebuilt in its past splendor. The housing owner can afford to buy it. Altadena, the neighborhood of the middle class, may face another fate. The property is more likely to be deprived by investors, and it will be reasonable and affordable for both reconstructed new houses, insurance, and upscaling.
In that way, Altadena may be proven to be a true precursor -a future that no one has his own home, insurance is a luxurious good, and the lessee is better. It is suitable for managing the risks of paying monthly traffic fees to large -scale private equity landowners.
