How about a "3 strikes and you're out" policy when it comes to coastal/flood plains? House destroyed the third time, no more national bailout insurance on your beachfront property.<quoted text>
You're right - there IS controversy. But it's coming from those with financial interests in denying the science and the know-nothings who blindly follow them.
But there is NO controversy within the climatology community.
This would pit the climate change deniers money where their mouths are. In a free market, they now get to take all the risks vs. the reward with no government safety net as no private insurance company would play.
But realistically, the scamming insurance would. They'd just declare bankruptcy when it comes to paying out after boodles of bonuses were paid to the executives. Then place blame on the government.
"Privatize the profits, Socialize the losses" is the name of the game now.