What is your opinion on the following statement?

“Reducing carbon dioxide emissions from a high to a low scenario would reduce the impact on losses and insurers’ capital requirements for extreme windstorms by 80%. Action to reduce society’s vulnerability to some inevitable impacts of climate change, for example through more resilient buildings and improved flood defences, could also result in considerable, but targeted, cost-savings.”

– from http://www.abi.org.uk/Display/File/Child/552/Financial_Risks_of_Climate_Change.pdf

When it comes to Florida, for example, it’s simply undeniable that a great deal of construction has taken place in areas likely to be hit by hurricanes some day. But if no one save a few lonely local environmentalists acts to restrain that growth, doesn’t it then make sense to start talking on a national level about the risks of hurricanes, and the very real risk that global warming could intensify hurricanes?

For a scientist, I suppose, what matters is causation of disasters, not prevention of disasters. It seems to me part and parcel of the discussion, but I must concede that in theory, at least, it should be easier to avoid societal risks than to avoid hurricanes. So let me put it this way. What do you think would be a great first step for the Federal government to take to reduce the risks of a catastrophic hurricane?