Insurance is a forcing function for change. Local and state and federal governments intervene for political short term gain but the money signal is enormous. If fire risk and flood risk aren't price signalled how else are people meant to understand their exposure to risk?

Because insured or not, the risk exists. People might argue about AGW but I haven't seen a serious take suggesting the insurance industry is overstating the cost of people living in areas now under higher risk. Those premiums are a signal to risk from water and fire, climate linked or not, risk, consequence and likelihood.

Warren Buffet was huge in reinsurance. (Insurance companies like betting shops lay off risk amongst themselves) because it was profitable. But I wonder if he still is.

I bought an apt in a flood zone. We had one in 2011 before I moved in and one in 2020. I lost things in the basement, our lifts were out for two weeks, along with total power loss for 3 days, we were islanded. Our premium went up this year but by less than we feared both because we did extensive mitigation work (demountable flood barriers to protect the lifts, bigger ground water pumps) and accepted a higher excess, we now pay the first $100,000 or so of flood consequences from the building funds.

It's a price signal. We reacted to the signal. Some people now react by not buying in flood zones. This is good.