Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Why Channel 4 has got it wrong over climate change
[...]
Given that the world's climatologists have just published a careful, sober report showing global warming is real and worrying, the programme is an astonishing foray into the debate. Certainly, there many reasons to deride it. Its contents are largely untrue, for a start. That is Channel 4's problem. Yet a couple of important points do emerge from this nonsense and we should not make the mistake of ignoring them. To back his case, director Martin Durkin interviews climate-change deniers including Phillip Stott, Piers Corbyn, Nigel Calder and Nigel Lawson who reveal their antipathy to the idea we are altering Earth's weather systems.

These names are scarcely unknown. Listeners to Today and viewers of Newsnight have been hearing Stott and the rest promote their views for years. Indeed, they have dominated and distorted the whole global warming debate, a point stressed by Alan Thorpe, head of the Natural Environment Research Council. 'These people are never off the radio or TV, yet now they claim debate is being suppressed? It is preposterous.' So what, we might ask, is the deniers' problem? Examine their movement and you see a common thread: most proponents are elderly, only a few are scientists and several have pronounced pro-market views. And hereby hangs a tale.

'It is widely assumed that to control climate change, we will need a raft of government measures and increased bureaucracy - anathema to these people,' says political philosopher John Gray. 'So they deal with the issue by denying the problem in the first place. They say there is no such thing as global warming and therefore no need for more controls. They have closed their minds.'

The problem is that denial - in all its ludicrous glory - makes it easy for us to gloss over genuine concerns about society's right reaction to global warming and carbon emissions. And that is what is wrong with Durkin's programme. It opts for dishonest rhetoric when a little effort could have produced an important contribution to a critical social problem.

Consider emission controls. This is now assumed to be as much an issue of individual responsibility as of international negotiation. Petrol-guzzling 4x4s must be taxed, foreign holidays discouraged, TVs unplugged and lavatories left unflushed. After decades of waiting, the green movement has found the cause of its dreams: a crisis that gives them carte blanche, they believe, to rule our lives.
[...]

imo insurance companies will play a quiet but influential role in dealing with global warming . residents in areas likely to flood are already having difficulty obtaining insurance .
hbg

i'm giving links to a few articles for anyone interested in the subject ;
perhaps some might find them of interest ;
feedback appreciated :

...BUSINESS WEEK ONLNE REPORTS

...A NEW COMBATANT AGAINST GLOBAL WARMING

...INSURANCE COMPANIES WARN OF COSTS OF GLOBAL WARMING

...INSURANCE COMPANIES TAKE ON GLOBAL WARMING

Insurance is by definition always obtainable. You can even insure your legs or your ass. It's just a matter of the premium price.

Typical euro-crap to just ban stuff. I wish you guys would lift the bans on deodorant.

Why is this "euro-crap"? And what has it to do with deodorants and where are they banned?

To go back a little bit...

What I think you are arguing george is that since I can't predict what price Haliburton will be on July 21, 2020 then I can't predict any trend in the entire market between now and 2020. It is a false argument. I can be quite confident in predicting that the market will average at least 8% returns between now and 2020. I can say with reasonable confidence that it will probably average at least 10%. In fact I am willing to bet on that by putting my money in the market.

Now we get to determining future global temperatures vs future weather on a specific day. I can't tell you what the weather will be like on July 21, 2020. But I can be reasonably confident in saying the global temperature average will rise between now and 2020. In fact I am willing to bet on that. Anyone willing to take that bet on the other side? Lindzen wasn't willing to and he claimed it was 50/50 that it would be warmer/cooler then.

Foxfyre, do you sense that the tide is beginning to turn in our favor? The weight of scientific evidence is simply not heavy enough in their favor to keep their agenda rolling as it did 3 or 4 years ago.

Foxfyre, do you sense that the tide is beginning to turn in our favor? The weight of scientific evidence is simply not heavy enough in their favor to keep their agenda rolling as it did 3 or 4 years ago.

EU leaders agreed Friday on a bold set of measures to fight global warming, pledging that a fifth of the bloc's energy will come from green power sources such as wind turbines and solar panels by 2020 and 10 percent of European cars will run on biofuels.
At French insistence, the deal - which does not yet include an enforcement mechanism - noted the role atomic energy could play in replacing coal- or oil-fired power plants blamed for pumping out greenhouse gases. The inclusion caused unease for non-nuclear states such as Austria and Ireland and triggered complaints from environmental groups.

European leaders said the agreement, the first to go beyond the 35-nation Kyoto Protocol in its targets for greenhouse gas emissions cuts, marked a turning point in the fight against global warming.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel challenged other nations to follow suit, saying the world still had time to "avoid what could well be a human calamity" caused by climate change.

The EU deal was a compromise between nations that had demanded mandatory targets on clean energy, and eastern European nations led by Poland and Slovakia who had said they did not have the money to meet such high targets for developing costly alternatives.

The deal makes three main promises to be obtained by over the next 13 years:

Greenhouse gas emissions will be cut by at least 20 percent from 1990 levels;

The EU will produce 20 percent of its power through renewable energy, an increase from the current figure of around 6 percent;

One-tenth of all cars and trucks in the 27 EU nations should be running on biofuels made from plants.

"These are a set of groundbreaking, bold, ambitious targets," said British Prime Minister Tony Blair. "It gives Europe a clear leadership position on this crucial issue facing the world."

European leaders hope their commitment to tackling climate change will encourage other leading polluters, such as the United States, Russia, China and India, to agree on deep emissions cuts.

Merkel plans to present the plans to President Bush and other leaders at a summit of the Group of Eight industrialized nations that she will host in June.

"We can once again say to the rest of the world, Europe is taking the lead, you should join us in fighting climate change," said European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso. He called the deal "the most ambitious package ever agreed by any institution on energy security and climate change."

EU lawyers still have to draw up the detailed rules specifying how the deal will be enforced, however Barroso said the legislation "will be subject to all instruments of community law." That implies that the EU's executive arm would be able to launch legal action at the bloc's high court that could lead to the imposition of heavy fines on countries that violate the targets.

The EU's environmental agenda is to be pursued in parallel with commitments under the Kyoto Protocol, the U.N. treaty on climate change.

Major EU economies have committed to cut greenhouse gases by 8 percent below 1990 levels by 2012, and want the United States to sign the treaty. The Bush administration has rejected the Kyoto agreement, saying it would hurt the U.S. economy.

Eastern European nations, which preferred to stay with cheaper, but more polluting options such as coal and oil, went along with the deal after western nations conceded that individual targets would be set for each EU member within the overall goal of 20 percent renewable energy use.

"The text changed significantly following our pressure," said Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico. "The final deal gives us lots of room for maneuver."

Many of the former Communist nations that joined the EU in 2004 lag behind their western neighbors in developing clean fuel. Although their economies are growing fast, most are still struggling to catch up and say they need more time to meet the 20 percent target.

Cooler, landlocked countries such as Slovakia, Hungary and the Czech Republic argued that they were handicapped in developing wind, solar and water-based power sources, which are widely used in countries such as Denmark and Spain.

The French, Czechs, Slovaks and others argued that nuclear power could play a crucial part in helping Europe move away from carbon fuels. The agreement says each EU nation should decide whether to use nuclear power, but takes note of a Commission report that says nuclear energy could contribute to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and help alleviate worries about security of energy supply. It also stresses the need to improve nuclear safety.

Austria, Ireland and Denmark did not want the EU to sanction nuclear power, and the German government is split over whether to develop atomic energy.

Under the Emergency Program of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), property owners may buy flood insurance at a chargeable premium rate that is generally lower than a normal actuarial rate. Maximum amounts of such coverage available under the Emergency Program of the NFIP are: $35,000 for a single-family home ...

...The 1982 Act prohibits the sale of new flood insurance on or after October 1, 1983 for new construction or substantial improvements of structures located on any coastal barrier with the Coastal Barrier Resources System designated by this Act. The1990 Act prohibits the sale of new flood insurance on or after
November 16, 1990 for new construction or substantial improvements of structures located on any new coastal barrier within the Coastal Barrier Resources System designated or modified by this Act. It also prohibits the sale of new flood insurance on or after November 16, 1991 for new construction or substantial improvements of structures located in an otherwise protected area that are not used in a manner consistent with the purpose of the otherwise protected area. Subsequent pieces of legislation have added or deleted areas. Also, the Secretary of the Interior is authorized to make technical revisions and modifications to the boundaries of such units as may be necessary.

March 13, 2006


RAND STUDY SAYS FEW HOMEOWNERS BUY FLOOD INSURANCE WHEN IT IS NOT REQUIRED

Only about half of homeowners living in some of the most flood-prone areas of the United States buy federal flood insurance, leaving millions of families at risk for severe financial losses when floods strike, according to a RAND Corporation study issued today.

Most homeowners buying flood insurance do so only because it is required in areas considered most vulnerable to flooding, the study found. Just 20 percent of homeowners living in the most flood-prone areas buy federal flood insurance when they are not required to do so, the study says.

"Substantial flood damage from Hurricane Katrina was suffered by homes located in flood zones whose owners were not required to purchase flood insurance," said Lloyd Dixon, lead author of the report.

Only about 1 percent of Americans living outside flood zones buy federal flood insurance, according to the study, even though they sometimes become flood victims as well.

Fifty to 60 percent of the 3.6 million single-family homes in the most flood-prone areas are required by law to buy federal flood insurance. But the owners of the remaining homes in the most flood-prone areas and the roughly 76 million single-family homes in the nation outside these areas are not required to buy flood insurance.

Many insurers in the US do not provide flood insurance in accordance to the risk factors established in some portions of the country. In response to this, the federal government created the (alleged by some) "controversial" National Flood Insurance Program which serves as the insurer of last resort.

March 26, 1999


Destructive Storms Drive Insurance Losses Up
Will Taxpayers Have to Bail Out Insurance Industry?
Seth Dunn & Christopher Flavin

Insurance companies have paid out $91.8 billion in losses from weather-related natural disasters in the 1990s so far, close to four times the weather-related claims handed out during the entire decade of the 1980s. (See Figure 1.) At $15 billion, weather-related insured losses in 1998 were second only to the $25 billion recorded in 1992, according to the recently compiled estimates from the German reinsurance company Munich Re.

The rising insurance claims of the last decade have coincided with rises in global temperatures: six of the ten warmest years on record have occurred since 1990. The increasing toll of claims has already raised premiums and made it difficult to obtain insurance in disaster-prone areas such as the Caribbean. If these trends continue, insurance coverage could become unaffordable or even unavailable to property owners and businesses living in these and other high-risk areas--particularly coastal regions and islands. Taxpayers may also have to foot the bill to help insurance companies fend off overexposure or insolvency, as they are now in Florida.

The largest insurance claims of 1998 were from Hurricane Georges, which hit the United States and the Caribbean, costing insurers $3.3 billion; from the ice storm that swept across the U.S. and Canada, bringing $1.2 billion in insured damages; and from flooding in China, which cost the industry $1 billion. (See Table 1.)

Munich Re estimated in its 1998 year-end report that the number of natural catastrophes has tripled since the 1960s, increasing the overall cost to the world's economies nine-fold, and the cost to the insurance industry fifteen-fold. Munich Re attributes this large increase to the growing concentrations of people and property in coastal regions and other "high-risk zones," as well as to climate change. Scientists now believe that rising global temperatures may exacerbate extreme weather events, leading to increased damages in the decades ahead.

Climate change has added a new element of risk to the insurance equation. Rising temperatures increase the amount of evaporation from the oceans, which tends to increase rainfall in many flood-prone areas. In addition, higher temperatures add to the heat energy that fuels thunderstorms, tornadoes, and hurricanes. Gerhard Berz of Munich Re recently said, "A further advance in man-made climate change will almost invariably bring us increasingly extreme natural events and consequently increasingly large catastrophe losses."

Another factor in the escalating cost of insured losses has been the effort of governments and insurers in industrial nations to make inexpensive insurance protection widely available, encouraging a coastal migration trend that has dramatically increased the amount and value of property at risk to storm damages. Research by the reinsurance company Swiss Re indicates that the relatively catastrophe-free years of the 1960s and 1970s gave property owners a sense of complacency, leading them to build heavily in disaster-prone areas. Some $2 trillion in insured property now lies within 30 kilometers of coasts exposed to Atlantic hurricanes.

Recent studies find that a single weather-related catastrophe could endanger the solvency of many insurance companies. A computer simulation by the Arkwright Mutual Insurance Company, presented at the annual meeting of the American Meteorological Society in 1998, indicates that the U.S. East Coast is exposed to "unprecedented hurricane damage" due to explosive coastal property growth that coincided with unusually low hurricane activity between 1940 and 1990. The study estimates the Eastern U.S. could face hurricane losses of $50 to $100 billion, placing numerous insurers and reinsurers in danger of insolvency. Citing the president of a reinsurance industry group who believes that a $50 billion hurricane would exceed the financial capabilities of the insurance industry, the Arkwright report concludes: "we are...an industry with a disaster waiting to happen."

A 1998 study by the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) emphasizes the growing vulnerability of populations and property to hurricanes. Comparing normalized hurricane damages between 1925 and 1995, the report concludes "it is only a matter of time before the nation experiences a $50 billion or greater storm, with multi-billion dollar losses becoming increasingly frequent." According to NOAA research released this past January, the U.S. has already seen 37 "billion-dollar storms" since 1980 -- 31 of them since 1988 -- totaling $160 billion in damages.

The danger to insurers of higher storm damages has led to the emergence, in private financial markets, of "catastrophe bonds" and other means of hedging risks that the insurance industry will not cover. Meanwhile, the insurers and reinsurers that have traditionally resisted government attempts to regulate the private insurance market are now looking to the public sector for help. Last year, industry representatives testified before the U.S. Congress, calling on the federal government to provide a "backstop" of reinsurance protection for states and insurers in the event of natural disasters that yield damage claims beyond their financial resources. As a representative of the American Insurance Association told Congress, the U.S. economy and insurance industry are "simply not prepared" for a massive hurricane and its socioeconomic effects.

The Florida State legislature is also appealing to the federal government to create a natural hazards insurance program to provide reinsurance for catastrophic events. A 1998 working paper from the Natural Hazards Center at the University of Colorado, Boulder reveals that Florida is still in the midst of an insurance crisis six years after experiencing the largest insured loss event in history, Hurricane Andrew, which caused $16 billion in insured losses. Andrew left seven insurance companies insolvent, and led 44 to reduce their exposure by reducing coverage and raising premium levels. Thousands of people were left without insurance and unable to collect claims, and many insurers sought to leave the state. To ensure available and affordable coverage, the state government has established a public underwriting agency, now the state's second largest insurer, and created funds to cover insurers for hurricane catastrophes and homeowners for wind damages. As a result, Florida taxpayers are now underwriting at-risk homeowners who private insurers are unwilling to cover, reinsuring insurers against weather-related catastrophes, and propping up the state's home building industry and its relentless construction in high-wind risk areas .

The models used by grant & notoriety seeking scientists to forecast the demise of the Atlantic conveyor current, drought in the Mediterranean area, and accelerating warming all are subject to he same limitations that are known beyond doubt to affect the global numerical weather model. Their results are entertaining and sometimes interesting, but they have no value whatever as scientific predictions.