Back in 1986, when I was a student at the LSE, I didn't read The Guardian. Flash forward 30 years and I know read it.  Take a look at this piece from Australia.   It wants to tell a PT Barnum "sucker theory" that potential home owners are unaware of the risks that climate change imposes on a specific piece of real estate.  The article hints at an information cover up.

QUOTE:

 "The report says there is untapped and unshared data held by regulators, state and local governments, insurers and banks on the level of risk, but that most homebuyers and developers are not told about the data and do not have access to it."

END of QUOTE

If buyers "know that they don't know" what risks a property features and if they are risk averse, they will demand to see the truth.  They also have the option of contracting with a 3rd party information vendor.  Take a look at Albert Slap's company.  

"Coastal Risk helps clients assess their vulnerability to flooding and take steps to reduce their personal and economic risks. Our proprietary scientific and technological methodology identifies the location and duration of flooding of individual business, government, and residential properties."

Why won't a similar company open up in Australia?   Only those who "don't know that they don't know" will not demand these services.

Australian environmentalists can act as a type of "social worker" by making appointments with potential home buyers to educate them about property risks.  Asymmetric information is an interesting theory for worrying about climate change adaptation challenges but I don't think it is a first order problem due to the logic I have sketched above.
Coastal Risk helps clients assess their vulnerability to flooding and take steps to reduce their personal and economic risks. Our proprietary scientific and technological methodology identifies the location and duration of flooding of individual business, government, and residential properties.