You decide the answer to that question after reading this article published in The New York Times (big surprise there) about considering climate change when buying a home.
The article is titled, “Y’ou’re Buying a Home. Have You Considered Climate Change?” written by Ron Lieber on December 2, 2016.
Lieber says that when choosing a home, you need to consider if it’s in a “global warming zone.” (Now we have zones? Someone thinks they have the science figured out well enough to make zones?) He says that choosing a home near the water may indicate the need for flood insurance — but it gets worse.
He suggests homeowners be mindful when choosing flood insurance because, “No one knows when (or if) a panic may set in among insurance companies, lenders or home buyers — one that causes prices to fall and never recover in vulnerable areas.”
This article claims you should also be worried if the home has shatter-proof windows because that could mean they have hurricanes in the area. Lieber offers additional “tips” on how to determine if your home may face other natural disaster situations, and then he throws in this comment:
“All of the information you will gather from the tips so far is not predictive. Nothing is, especially with a president-elect who has said both that the Chinese invented global warming and also requested a sea wall to protect his Scottish golf course from it.
But fear in the mortgage industry is real. TD Bank was out pitching stories this week to random journalists with voluminous tips about buying a home, including an offer to speak to an expert. When I asked to speak to him about how or whether to buy in a global warming zone, however, the company went radio silent.”
The company went silent because they have never heard of global warming zones. Insurance companies and the mortgage industry base their underwriting on facts. In his last annual letter to investors, Warren Buffet stated, “Up to now, climate change has not produced more frequent, nor more costly hurricanes, nor other weather-related events covered by insurance.” No appreciable change in weather patterns has occurred, per the facts that his insurance company uses to underwrite.
Lieber could have written a constructive article on how the location of the home you buy could influence the types of weather you may encounter, and could have offered advice on how to plan for it. Instead, he wrote a far-fetched, fear-inciting rant based around global warming (or global warming zones, or climate change or whatever the flavor of the month is). Don’t you love how we can predict climate change 50 years ahead, but we don’t know what the weather will do two days from now? Amazing.
I will end with one person’s comment on the article that effectively summed it up with some facts:
“This was a very bad piece of alarmist propaganda. Sad that it appears in the NYT.
I went to the EPA website on climate change here:
Interesting fact: Sea level has risen 7.5 INCHES since 1870. Maybe it was a typo. Based upon research the EPA believes sea level could rise .66 feet to 6.6 feet by the year 2100. Here’s the quote: “Studies project global sea level to rise by another 1 to 4 feet by 2100, with an uncertainty range of 0.66 to 6.6 feet.” With a range like that one can hardly assume that this is settled science. I wish the reporter would have read this page. Maybe his article would have been more nuanced. Based upon comments in this thread it looks as if the reporter’s assumptions that climate change represents an instant catastrophe are shared by many NYT readers. It’s a careless way to approach a complex subject like evolving climate change. Regrettably I see more and more editorial comment masquerading as reporting in this paper about this issue.”