I don't think we should abandon remote or endangered areas solely for cost reasons. However, it makes sense for us as a society to consider whether certain regions - especially those with increased natural hazard risks - should be better left to nature in the long term for safety and environmental reasons.

This is not just about high alpine valleys, but also about populated areas in river deltas, flood zones or other vulnerable locations.

A visionary example of a new approach to urban space is Emmen am See: a project on the site of the former military airfield in Emmen. It demonstrates how future settlement development can be aligned with ecological, social and safety concerns - instead of planning against them.

Yes, only if the threat is clearly established.

I'm deviating a bit from the question, but not so much in the end as I recall a campaign against a CO2 law where the right-wing parties, in their great visionary wisdom for the good of humanity, had the argument: "CO2 taxes will be expensive for the economy".

How many thousands of billions will disasters of this kind cost the population? Once again, we have a demonstration of the interests that parties defend: cashing in on profits, making the population pay for the risks.

That being said, it's too late to limit the worst. We know we have already reached +1.5°C and it is more than likely that we will even exceed 2°C by 2050. We might as well get used to these phenomena, whether they are geological or meteorological.