Get Energy Smart! NOW!

The climate crisis made a brief appearance in last evening’s Virginia gubernatorial debate (see here for commentary on other portions of the debate) An oddball question from NBC’s Chuck Todd sparked strong comments from Democrat Terry McAuliffe and shallow predatory-delay, deceptive climate-truthiness from Trump-wannabe Glenn Youngkin.

In a southern state that, under Democratic Party leadership, has moved from significant trailer to a southern trailblazer on clean energy and climate policy, Todd’s question focused on — at best — a secondary issue. Rather than asking how, as Governor, the candidates would boost Virginia’s economy through clean-energy adoption or how they saw the Commonwealth government’s role in investing in and balancing climate mitigation and adaptation, Todd’s laser-like focus: flood insurance costs.

Before turning to dissecting Todd’s horrid question, something to highlight is his introduction to the question: “this is one minute to each of you as we’re getting a little low on time”. Yup, when it comes to what is (one of) the most critical issue facing humanity, let’s treat it as an ‘oh by the way’ issue less worthy of (a whopping) 90 seconds than, well, seemingly anything else.

Dissecting Todd’s horrific question

Okay, now take a look at the question:

Virginians underpay for flood insurance. But overpaying also could reduce home prices. Dealing with climate change, the state, country, entire world are dealing with this, who should be paying more when it comes to these issues of flood insurance? Should it be the government? Should it be wealthier taxpayers? Is it someone else? How do we pay for this adaptation and mitigation?

Before delving into this, a question to wonder: Does Todd have a beachfront property in Virginia Beach and is annoyed with increasing flood insurance bills or what? Seriously, why ‘this’ question over so many other others?

Now for some dissection:

• “Virginians underpay for flood insurance”
  • is pretty much true across so much of the United States.
  • Flood-risk maps aren’t keeping up with climate risks (from sea-level rise to increasing share of rainfall in severe events) and flood insurance has for far too long been subsidized by the taxpayer enabling people to live in high-risk areas in yet another privatized gain, socialized cost domain.
  • Note that Todd’s phrasing doesn’t make this point clearly: that someone else (individuals, businesses, government) is making up for those “underpaying”.
  • Now, we (as a society) are facing ever higher flood risks and can no longer afford the increasingly high bills for subsidizing high-risk property owners.
• “Overpaying …”
  • Huh, where and how is anyone indicating that properties in flood risk areas should or will be “overpaying” as opposed to starting to pay something closer to reality-based insurance premiums?
• “also could reduce home prices”.
  • Todd is implicitly stating a truth: that at-risk homes are overpriced because they are not required to pay (anything close) to risk-based insurance prices. Certainly, having to pay fair insurance prices could lead to truer market values for properties (homes) at greater flood risk.
  • Having reality-based insurance pricing could (would) also drive other things such as building with flood-risks in mind (whether not building in flood plains, building on stilts, or otherwise).
• “Dealing with climate change, the state, country, entire world are dealing with this …”
  • Putting aside Todd’s seemingly inability to form grammatically correct sentences, perhaps we can just say “yes”.
  • And, btw, what does Todd mean by “dealing with climate change”?
• “Who should be paying more when it comes to these issues of flood insurance? Should it be the government? Should it be wealthier taxpayers? Is it someone else?”
  • So, let’s be clear, dealing with “climate” is about “paying” rather than implications of not paying or about benefits from action.
  • Again, as per above, Todd’s question sidesteps the reality that (already) others are “paying more” than they should because the beneficiaries aren’t paying their fair share.
• “How do we pay for this adaptation and mitigation?”
  • And, Todd closes with a standard way that is truly horrific: in Todd’s limited weltanschauung, acting on climate is about costs and not about benefits (the benefits of reduced risks, reduced pollution, improved health, improved workforce and student productivity, improved resiliency, …) of climate action.
  • “All costs, no benefits” is one of the most egregious and damaging pundit and analytical ways to think about, analyze, discuss, and frame discussions of public policy.
  • Is this purposeful, on his part, or does Todd simply fail to realize how seriously he misrepresents the equation before us (the U.S. and us all)?

Even before the candidates got to utter a syllable, Todd provided a trash heap of mediocrity requiring dissection. Sigh, this post looks at Youngkin’s predatory-delay truthiness and McAuliffe’s strong statement in support of needed climate leadership.