> No one's saying hurricanes only exist because of someone's politics
The comment I'm responding to says this, and you seem to be implying it as well. Insurance rates aren't going up because there are more hurricanes, they're going up due to regulatory changes, fraud claims, and rising costs/inflation. The article blames a 0.5 increase in insurance rates in FL due to fraud, and regulatory challenges in CA.
I'm sure climate change plays a role, but saying the hurricane being 1% stronger is to blame for high insurance costs is nonsensical and doesn't track logically.
> Experts say the spike is driven by climate change making disasters more frequent, the rising cost of construction materials, and a flood of lawsuits in coastal states that drive up payouts for insurers.
Sure, lawsuits/regulatory issues is a contributing factor. #3 behind #1: climate.
But even so, the "regulatory challenges in CA" are insurance companies saying "we don't want to insure wildfire areas", the state saying "you need to offer insurance to everyone or no one if you want to play here because it's fundamentally abusive if you're gonna start picking your own areas (we all know you're gonna redline into only the lowest risk/highest return areas)", and the insurance companies saying "well, wildfires are too risky so looks like we'll insure no one then."
Calling that "regulatory challenges" instead of "wildfires aren't great for insurance" is kinda a shit argument.
The comment I'm responding to says this, and you seem to be implying it as well. Insurance rates aren't going up because there are more hurricanes, they're going up due to regulatory changes, fraud claims, and rising costs/inflation. The article blames a 0.5 increase in insurance rates in FL due to fraud, and regulatory challenges in CA.
I'm sure climate change plays a role, but saying the hurricane being 1% stronger is to blame for high insurance costs is nonsensical and doesn't track logically.