I think I must be missing something. Hasn't the typical real estate client already chosen a city? So how much can a "climate risk score" really matter to the decision?
I think it's mainly especially in California because people are not able to get insurance when the climate risk is too high, so it is actually impacting sales.
Here's an example of a house in Carmel Valley that's a fire risk, and sat on the market for a long time, had a bunch of price reductions and listing pulled and relisted, finally sold underpriced because buyers were realizing they can't get insurance:
Lack of insurance coverage pays a pretty big role in the market right now, I have some friends who are paying $30,000 annually for insurance in the La Honda Hills.
Climate risk is a direct influence on future equity gains [1 [2] and homeowner insurance costs [3] [4] [5], so it is prudent and reasonable to consider when making the largest purchase of most folk's lives.
I'm genuinely confused. Do 80% of home shoppers seriously not realize that the climate at one end of a city is going to be substantially the same as at the other end of the city? Or do Americans really relocate that far, that commonly? What's the point of attaching the "climate risk score" to a real estate listing, when it's realistically going to be the same score in every aspect for every listing you consider?
From the first link:
> While climate risk is affecting attitudes, it isn't to the point where majorities of buyers are considering a move to a region they consider less risky. About half plan to remain in areas that pose the same climate risks they already face. Some are even thinking about moving to areas with more risks. Only 23% reported that they are considering homes in areas that they believe to be safer from the dangers of climate disasters.
... So then I don't understand what they are doing with the information.
I’ve also noticed these sites now let real estate agents hide the price estimate on a listing. This is really anti consumer and I wonder what the point of these websites are if they just devolve into the same behavior as real estate before they existed.
I imagine the problem is the same with all other free to the user platforms. The user won't pay, so their needs are subordinate to the actual customers.
Indeed, unless it's required by law to surface the information, those who want it will need technical mitigations to enrich accordingly. Zillow gets paid by real estate professionals, real estate buyers and sellers are the product on their platform.
But the agents are paid by the actual buyers and sellers. It’s just that they’re organized as a group. This is why the monopolistic control of listing services and realtor organizations is a problem.
I think I must be missing something. Hasn't the typical real estate client already chosen a city? So how much can a "climate risk score" really matter to the decision?
I think it's mainly especially in California because people are not able to get insurance when the climate risk is too high, so it is actually impacting sales.
Here's an example of a house in Carmel Valley that's a fire risk, and sat on the market for a long time, had a bunch of price reductions and listing pulled and relisted, finally sold underpriced because buyers were realizing they can't get insurance:
https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/50-La-Rancheria-Carmel-Va...
Lack of insurance coverage pays a pretty big role in the market right now, I have some friends who are paying $30,000 annually for insurance in the La Honda Hills.
More than 80% of home shoppers consider climate risks when looking for a new home - https://zillow.mediaroom.com/2023-09-05-More-than-80-of-home... - September 5th, 2023
Climate risk is a direct influence on future equity gains [1 [2] and homeowner insurance costs [3] [4] [5], so it is prudent and reasonable to consider when making the largest purchase of most folk's lives.
[1] A Climate ‘Shock’ Is Eroding Some Home Values. New Data Shows How Much. - https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/11/19/climate/home-... | https://archive.today/Hf9h9 - November 19th, 2025
[2] Trillions in U.S. Home Value Face Major Risk from Fire, Flood and Wind - https://www.zillow.com/research/climate-risk-home-value-3493... - March 12th, 2025
[3] About half of Americans understand that global warming is increasing homeowners insurance costs - https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/americans... - September 9th, 2025
[4] Climate change is upending homeowners insurance nationwide - https://www.hbs.edu/bigs/climate-change-upending-homeowners-... - August 21st, 2025
[5] When Insurers Exit (2023) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41664750 - September 2024 (35 comments)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43366311 (additional citations)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42450680 (additional citations)
I'm genuinely confused. Do 80% of home shoppers seriously not realize that the climate at one end of a city is going to be substantially the same as at the other end of the city? Or do Americans really relocate that far, that commonly? What's the point of attaching the "climate risk score" to a real estate listing, when it's realistically going to be the same score in every aspect for every listing you consider?
From the first link:
> While climate risk is affecting attitudes, it isn't to the point where majorities of buyers are considering a move to a region they consider less risky. About half plan to remain in areas that pose the same climate risks they already face. Some are even thinking about moving to areas with more risks. Only 23% reported that they are considering homes in areas that they believe to be safer from the dangers of climate disasters.
... So then I don't understand what they are doing with the information.
In my city at least, fire and flood risk vary a lot depending on exactly where you are.
Sure, but the reasons for that can't really be called "climate", can they?
I see your point but they are part of the climate score. Maybe it could be named better, but it is useful information to home buyers.
https://firststreet.org/ still has the data, they were the source.
Related:
A browser extension that restores climate hazard risks for CA Zillow listings - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46707801 - January 2026
I’ve also noticed these sites now let real estate agents hide the price estimate on a listing. This is really anti consumer and I wonder what the point of these websites are if they just devolve into the same behavior as real estate before they existed.
I imagine the problem is the same with all other free to the user platforms. The user won't pay, so their needs are subordinate to the actual customers.
Indeed, unless it's required by law to surface the information, those who want it will need technical mitigations to enrich accordingly. Zillow gets paid by real estate professionals, real estate buyers and sellers are the product on their platform.
But the agents are paid by the actual buyers and sellers. It’s just that they’re organized as a group. This is why the monopolistic control of listing services and realtor organizations is a problem.