So which is it? Do we have to carefully consider "subsidy" of some activities, or are we throwing up our hands and saying "we don't have a system in place to account for environmental impacts"? I would say economic impacts (instead of environmental) made by political decisions?

> The cost of homes is not necessarily rising but being more fairly distributed to those who choose to live in high-insurance areas.

I would dispute that claim. If a 200 year old plantation house in the south now has to be rebuilt to handle more extreme weather due to expanded areas of storm incursions are we to blame the "choice" of the current owners? This is to some degree a pretend level of market "choice" by people living in regions of the nation. What if a family has handed down that house for generations. Did they make a choice of any sort? But they'll have to bear the cost of the upgraded durability of the building beyond that of regular maintenance. Public city infrastructure is the same way - incurring completely unneccessary upgrade costs due to non-choice climate change.