At first, I was like, “Who cares? Land property ownership as an investment vehicle is part of the problem in the US,” but then I realized that this article isn’t for people like me. This is an article meant to reach the Gen Xers, the Boomers, and others who think they don’t have to care, because their property will keep them wealthy enough to avoid the worst Climate Change has to offer.
And if threatening people’s wallets is what it takes to get people to see the inescapable danger in doing nothing, then I’m all for it.
This will affect renters too if you were implying otherwise. It’s just NYT doesn’t cater to those people so they’re barely mentioned.
Climate Change? Not the concentration of real estate into the hands of the few who no longer make profit from owning it?
K.
Propublica link to the same article
No offense to op but I think they deserve the clicks more than NYT
Mehh
The issue isnt that house values will decline, they will decline whether we act or not (it will neither be linear, nor be applied equally)
What can happen is it won’t be as bad if the decline is managed as best we can, rather then the inevitable unmitigated mess if we just keep doing what we’re doing now. Alas that’s the path weve chosen.
Some of the problem here is theres no recognition of a job well done (managed abandontment, reduced emissions etx), the irony is the ones making the mess who respond the best to the disasters, get most of the accolades. Like Taykor Swift donating to an LA fire charity.
No countries are supporting banning flying, banning new road building and only building PT and cycling infrastructure etc etc so the mess can only get worse as we bury our heads further up our own ass and gaze upon the unholy mess we created (pun intended)
