We pay for greenhouse either way

[corplinx]

Re: Re: Re: We pay for greenhouse either way

smartarse, you know that Kyoto only makes sense when the vast majority of the world starts to implement it, and follow up on it. Australia by itself will make no difference.

Why not lead by example though? When the US determines a cause just and worthy, we don't wait for everyone to come along. Why is Kyoto the right thing to do only if everyone does it? I thought every part per billion counts.

 

[Drooper]

Nice quote, but something insurers don't like to mention too conspiciously is that the MAIN reason why insurance premium have been rising rapidly over the last few years has is directly the result of the substantial losses they have made on their investments over the last 4-5 years.

Also, insurance claims are a function of the value at risk. That means that over time, more valuable things are getting damaged, hence higher premiums to cover the value. Also, there has been a significant escalation in personal injury claims and litigation, which again bumps up premiums.


If you want to maintain this claim that increased risk is boosting insurance costs, you need to go back to the underlying casues. Facts on storm frequency and force etc., not how often these events come into contact with insured assets. What information we do have on that score shows no increase these risk events.


The second point is, even if we are going to get AGW disaster (doesn't anybody else think it is funny how there are no benefits to AGW, just famine and pestilence?) paying the cost through insurance is possibly one of the best solutions.

In the first instance, it is probably cheaper than all the hair brained schemes dreamt up by politicians and lobby groups which will pour more money into public expenditure (grossly inefficient).

Secondly, higher premium for these types of risks wil create an incentive for people to take mitigating action to reduce risk.

 

[a_unique_person]

Nice quote, but something insurers don't like to mention too conspiciously is that the MAIN reason why insurance premium have been rising rapidly over the last few years has is directly the result of the substantial losses they have made on their investments over the last 4-5 years.

Also, insurance claims are a function of the value at risk. That means that over time, more valuable things are getting damaged, hence higher premiums to cover the value. Also, there has been a significant escalation in personal injury claims and litigation, which again bumps up premiums.


If you want to maintain this claim that increased risk is boosting insurance costs, you need to go back to the underlying casues. Facts on storm frequency and force etc., not how often these events come into contact with insured assets. What information we do have on that score shows no increase these risk events.


The second point is, even if we are going to get AGW disaster (doesn't anybody else think it is funny how there are no benefits to AGW, just famine and pestilence?) paying the cost through insurance is possibly one of the best solutions.

In the first instance, it is probably cheaper than all the hair brained schemes dreamt up by politicians and lobby groups which will pour more money into public expenditure (grossly inefficient).

Secondly, higher premium for these types of risks wil create an incentive for people to take mitigating action to reduce risk.

I have worked in the insurance industry, and know exactly how they make their money. Insuring things that they aren't likely to pay too much out on so they can invest the premium income. This doesn't change the fact that a lot of areas are becoming untouchable for insurance companies. The State of Florida, for example, has forced insurance companies to provide cover in marginal areas. Areas that used to be a safe risk are now unwanted.

 

[Chaos]

While it is definitely true that insurance companies lost a lot of money on the stock market (embarassing...) and that 9/11 has made them raise premiums and cut coverage, it is still also true that the number, severity and damage (both property and loss of life) of natural disasters is increasing.

I don´t have any links to prove that, though. I only remember a large number of articles in insurance and re-insurance industry publications. They specifically mentioned tornadoes, hurricanes, wildfires and flooding - all of them are types of disasters that are under the influence by global warming.

 

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Drooper:
..doesn't anybody else think it is funny how there are no benefits to AGW, just famine and pestilence?

Isn't this why the Russians aren't going to ratify Kyoto, the fact that a rise of a degree or two in temperature wouldn't be a bad thing at all in Russia? Likewise Ireland enjoyed a bumber yield of sugar beet this year thanks to the prolonged spell of good summer weather. Some have suggested that global warming would sound the deathknell of potato cultivation in Ireland due to an increased occurence of blight. A cartoon in one of the dailys summed it up pretty well;

Irish farmers may no longer be able to grow potatoes.........and will instead have to switch to grapes, mangoes etc.

Apocalypse indeed!

Originally posted by Chaos:
I don´t have any links to prove that, though. I only remember a large number of articles in insurance and re-insurance industry publications. They specifically mentioned tornadoes, hurricanes, wildfires and flooding - all of them are types of disasters that are under the influence by global warming.

IIRC flooding damage is usually the result of human enroachment on to river floodplains, and the building of extensive levees causing an increased velocity and movement of river water. While most forest fires occur in prolonged spells of warm weather the news reports suggest that sabotage and arson, rather than the unseasonal heat itself, is to blame.

 

[Mike B.]

IIRC flooding damage is usually the result of human enroachment on to river floodplains, and the building of extensive levees causing an increased velocity and movement of river water. While most forest fires occur in prolonged spells of warm weather the news reports suggest that sabotage and arson, rather than the unseasonal heat itself, is to blame.

Good point Shane.

About 10 years ago, the Mississippi River in the US went through massive flooding.

Since then they have allowed the river to claim more of the floodplain and moved many of the levies back or abandoned them.

They had the effect of cinching the water so when it did break through it was of an enormous velocity.

 

[Mike B.]

As I recall for a number of years people have predicted increasing deaths from natural disastors for reasons that have nothing to do with global warming (I am not saying it doesn't exist though.)

The problem was that increased populations were in areas that got typhoons for example: Bangladesh. Or increasing cities on fault lines. As well as taller buildings to come crashing down.

 

[Drooper]

I have worked in the insurance industry, and know exactly how they make their money. Insuring things that they aren't likely to pay too much out on so they can invest the premium income. This doesn't change the fact that a lot of areas are becoming untouchable for insurance companies. The State of Florida, for example, has forced insurance companies to provide cover in marginal areas. Areas that used to be a safe risk are now unwanted.

I also know a bit about the insurance industry, being an actuary and all. If you read up a bit more, you will find that the biggest losses incurred by insurance companies over the last five years has come from the asset side, not the liability side of their business.

And the reason why somewhere like Florida for instance has become a bigger problem is because massive population growth has extended development into more vulnerable areas in a region subject to tropical storms.

 

[Luke T.]

Planet X is raising insurance rates, too. Just look at how much volcanoes and earthquakes raise the cost of insurance!

 

[Drooper]

Another anecdote on the "no news is good news" when it comes to AGW.

I don't know if anybody else read of the report from the WHO that claimed that "Global Warming (TM)" had led to X hundred thousand deaths in Europe over the summer.

I was wondering why there was mention of the X+Y hundred thousands of people who did not die because last winter was (supposedly) the warmest in a thousand years or so, or whatever the bogus claim is.

 

[Drooper]

They specifically mentioned tornadoes, hurricanes, wildfires and flooding - all of them are types of disasters that are under the influence by global warming.

Evidence that these phenomena have increased in number and/or force please. If you can do that, go further and prove the causality: People=>AGW=>Increased storms etc.

 

[a_unique_person]

As I recall for a number of years people have predicted increasing deaths from natural disastors for reasons that have nothing to do with global warming (I am not saying it doesn't exist though.)

The problem was that increased populations were in areas that got typhoons for example: Bangladesh. Or increasing cities on fault lines. As well as taller buildings to come crashing down.

The article is talking about areas that have traditionally been insured, but now the companies are pulling out.

 

[Grammatron]

The article is talking about areas that have traditionally been insured, but now the companies are pulling out.

And of course there's no other reason for that? Perhaps you can provide proof for that, but I could see many other reasons for the coverage to disappear, most importantly more people moving into a dangerous area.

 

[a_unique_person]

Another anecdote on the "no news is good news" when it comes to AGW.

I don't know if anybody else read of the report from the WHO that claimed that "Global Warming (TM)" had led to X hundred thousand deaths in Europe over the summer.

I was wondering why there was mention of the X+Y hundred thousands of people who did not die because last winter was (supposedly) the warmest in a thousand years or so, or whatever the bogus claim is.

That is a ridiculous argument, as the people are used to providing for a cold winter. However, as the article points out, two 1 in 100 year events in the one year is highly unusual. Here in Melbourne, we have just had a 1 in 100 year event that caused 75 million dollars worth of damage. Only, one of the areas it hit, also had 1 in 100 year storm just ten years ago. In the middle of an Australian summer, there was hail so thick it looked like a white Christmas. There was a lot of localised flooding, and we were told it was because it was a 1 in 100 year event that the drainage system couldn't cope.

However, if you want to ask the experts

http://www.csiro.com.au/index.asp?type=mediaRelease&id=Prextreme

The cost to the community of coastal flooding could more than double in some areas in the next fifty years due to global warming.

The effects of extreme weather events will be worsened by the increase in Australia's coastal population.

Dr Debbie Abbs and Dr Kathy McInnes, from CSIRO Atmospheric Research, assessed the likely costs of severe weather events on cities in a warmer world.

They found the combined influence of increasing sea-level rise and extreme weather will result in an increase in flood heights.

"This equates to flooding over an area much larger than has been historically affected," says Dr Abbs. "What isn't a flood prone area now may become one in the future."

For example, in Cairns floods due to storm surges would cover about twice the size of what would be expected today if a 1-in-100-year storm occurred, due to an increase in flood height from 2.6 to 3.0 metres.

The number of flood-causing storm surges is likely to increase due to higher sea level. On average, a storm that would normally be expected every 100 years would hit every 40 years if sea levels rise by 40cm.

"Floods already cause more damage in Australia than any other natural disaster in terms of cost to the community," says Dr Abbs. "In southern Queensland and northern NSW, our results suggest damage costs associated with flooding would increase by half if sea level rose by 20cm, and more than double if sea level were to rise by 40cm."

"Changes in the intensity and the frequency of rainfall will make these problems worse. We estimate that severe rainfall events may become up to 30% more intense and occur more frequently," says Dr Abbs.

Most scientists now agree that, by 2050, sea level will rise by 10 to 40cm, tropical cyclones will increase in intensity, and the frequency of extreme rainfall will increase.

 

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by a_unique_person:
However, if you want to ask the experts

The experts haven't cited human activity as one of the causes of global warming. Back to one of your original statements:

We can either take a pro-active approach to this business, and get Kyoto going, or sit back and see what disasters happen.

While "the experts" say;

Dr Abbs says Councils such as the Gold Coast are aware of climate change and are working with scientists to understand the risks. But she says more consideration of climate change is needed when planning building developments and infrastructure that will exist for the next 50 years.

"These likely impacts need to be taken into account when updating design rules and approving future developments," says Dr Abbs.

We could take a more proactive approach and resurrect Kyoto etc, but why not just listen to "the experts" and slightly modify our planning laws to take into account what could be a naturally occurring climactic phenomenon?

 

[a_unique_person]

The experts haven't cited human activity as one of the causes of global warming. Back to one of your original statements:



While "the experts" say;


We could take a more proactive approach and resurrect Kyoto etc, but why not just listen to "the experts" and slightly modify our planning laws to take into account what could be a naturally occurring climactic phenomenon?

Slightly modify? I think there is a bit more involved than that. Add to that the pressure of population growth and the desire to move to coastal areas, and you are getting a collision of forces such as Florida is experiencing where insurers are forced by law to cover home owners in high risk areas.

 

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by a_unique-person;
Slightly modify? I think there is a bit more involved than that. Add to that the pressure of population growth and the desire to move to coastal areas, and you are getting a collision of forces such as Florida is experiencing where insurers are forced by law to cover home owners in high risk areas.

Pressure of population growth? How fast is Australia's population growing and is it running out of space? Are coastal areas prone to flooding the only habitable areas left to accomodate the increase in population?

Insurers being compelled by law to cover people living in susceptible areas? Then this is an example of bad law. People aren't being forced to live in Florida because of overcrowding elsewhere (plenty of room in Nebraska and Nevada), and as such it's idiotic that legislation would force insurance companies to cover people who freely choose to live in areas prone to flooding.

 

[a_unique_person]

Pressure of population growth? How fast is Australia's population growing and is it running out of space? Are coastal areas prone to flooding the only habitable areas left to accomodate the increase in population?

Insurers being compelled by law to cover people living in susceptible areas? Then this is an example of bad law. People aren't being forced to live in Florida because of overcrowding elsewhere (plenty of room in Nebraska and Nevada), and as such it's idiotic that legislation would force insurance companies to cover people who freely choose to live in areas prone to flooding.

Australia is about 99% desert. Most of the population lives next to the coast.

The case of Florida is an example of the problem of a whole, people denying reality. You can twist a politicians arm, because this is a democracy, but that won't change reality.

 

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by a_unique_person:
Australia is about 99% desert. Most of the population lives next to the coast.

Next to the coast? Is this the same as living in areas prone to serious flooding, now or in the future?

The case of Florida is an example of the problem of a whole, people denying reality. You can twist a politicians arm, because this is a democracy, but that won't change reality.

I agree. But this indicates that the insurance industries problems have little to do with GW, and almost everything to do with inadvisable government interference.