Providing state insurance for these homes won't fix the problem. We need to start subsidizing residents to move away from areas that climate change will render inhospitable.

Maybe instead of continuing to build housing in uninhabitable places and having the taxpayers foot the bill when disaster strikes, we could build more housing in places which are habitable, like the west coast, the New York metro area, etc.

I guess that would require actual leadership from politicians, but it's the only solution that will work in the long term. I'm waiting...

West coast has earthquake risk. Then in inland states there are the tornadoes and the dust bowl. Dry places are drying out worse. What's the best place to invest in North America? Detroit?

Dayton maybe.

What will happen is just the the federal government will subsidize and backstop the insurance. Look at flood insurance. The federal government subsidizes flood insurance in some highly vulnerable areas, and when there is a big disaster, provides a backstop though massive infusion of money.

I think much the same thing will happen with climate related insurance.

US flood insurance is a great example of uninsurable homes existing and somehow being insured.

It might not be economically sensible in most cases, but saving people's homes is a great way to get votes.

Yep, a big chunk of the east coast/Gulf of Mexico is already uninsurable, and only inhabited (but its current non-wealthy residents) because of heavily-subsidized insurance:

https://www.fema.gov/national-flood-insurance-program