DayFR Euro

Consequences of the LA fires

For centuries, Americans have built their homes exactly where they like. After the inferno in Southern California, this has to stop. For too long, the state has protected homeowners from their own irrationality.

The Eaton Fire destroyed parts of Pasadena, California. If Americans continue to move to exposed areas, such disasters will become more common in the future.

Mario Anzuoni / Reuters

The fire is still tearing through the parched hills around Los Angeles, and the search for the culprits is already on: How could the fire hydrants in Pacific Palisades run out of water so quickly? Why was the mayor in Ghana when the flames broke out? Did outdated power lines once again trigger the fire, or were arsonists at work?

NZZ.ch requires JavaScript for important functions. Your browser or ad blocker is currently preventing this.

Please adjust the settings.

Clarifying the question of guilt has always helped Americans quickly regain composure and control after natural forces have befallen them. No one else is as good at picking themselves up after a disaster, clearing away the rubble and rebuilding destroyed neighborhoods.

Too often, however, this mental ability has also served Americans to suppress the deeper causes of a natural disaster. After what are expected to be the costliest forest fires in US history, that will no longer be possible. The old American dream of building your own home wherever you like is over. The natural hazards no longer allow it.

The premiums are exploding

Politicians, at local and national levels, are avoiding saying this to the people’s faces. They have assigned this thankless role to the insurance industry: In recent years, building insurance has become massively more expensive across the United States. In many places, homeowners are now paying $500 or even $1,000 per month to insure themselves against fire or storm damage. More and more households can no longer cope with this.

Insurers increased their premiums after they incurred losses due to fires and storms and had to pay more and more for their reinsurance coverage. Homeowners, politicians and consumer advocates complained about “greedy” insurers – but they themselves are largely to blame for the skyrocketing costs.

-

American suburbs have been sprawling out into the landscape for decades. The construction industry is only too happy to satisfy the demand for affordable homes in undeveloped areas. Too often, houses, like those in Florida or Louisiana, are built on exposed stretches of coast where a devastating hurricane threatens every few years. Or, as in California, on hills surrounded by lots of highly combustible brush.

Climate change is not the cause of this sprawl, but it is exacerbating its consequences. For too long, politicians and officials have tried to shield homeowners from the consequences of their actions – in order to protect their own office.

Insurers are withdrawing

Since 1988, Californians have elected an Insurance Commissioner who must approve insurers’ premium increases. In order to get re-elected, these officials always tried to pressure companies to offer the lowest possible prices. But as more and more expensive wildfires occurred in California and their premium increases were not approved, insurers withdrew from parts of the state.

Many Californians had to seek shelter from the state insurer Fair Plan, which was overwhelmed by the rapid growth. Things went very similarly in Florida, which was plagued by storms and floods. However, this insurance socialism – with taxpayers covering the risks of some homeowners – is also unsustainable and not particularly American.

Authorities can reduce the costs of natural disasters by repairing dams, burying power lines underground or, as Los Angeles will soon do, revamping local water systems. Homeowners can take precautions by regularly cutting back dry vegetation around their home.

Internal migration in the wrong direction

But Americans should now have to factor in the costs of natural hazards when deciding where to live. And move back to places that are less exposed. These places definitely exist: on the northern Atlantic coast, for example, or in the Midwest, in the Great Lakes region.

For decades, internal migration in the USA has been going in exactly the opposite direction: from cool places like Chicago or Buffalo to the coast of Florida, where eternal summer beckons.

But it seems that US presidents would rather fly in helicopters over disaster areas and distribute emergency aid than tell the population the hard truth: that they have to look for their American dream in the north again.

--

Related News :