When insurers take a position, it's time to sit up and listen

Insurers don't have many friends, but there is no denying that they are acutely involved in assessing risk and the potential of costly payouts on insurance policies. So, when insurers take a keen interest in climate change and the effects of it, it can't be so lightly dismissed.

"Insurance industry leaders have declared it is now clear that insurers must begin formally including climate change in their calculation of future catastrophes to protect to protect their bottom-lines.

In a 41-page report released Thursday, Lloyd's of London—the oldest and largest insurance market in the world—warns, "Scientific research points conclusively to the existence of climate change driven by human activity," and therefore global warming must be included in "catastrophe modeling tools" moving forward.

Insurers must account for a whole host of problems, including rising sea levels, which can lead to severe "weather events" such as Superstorm Sandy.

"The approximately 20 centimeters of sea-level rise at the southern tip of Manhattan Island increased Superstorm Sandy's surge losses by 30% in New York alone," reads the report. "Further increases in sea-level in this region may non-linearly increase the loss potential from similar storms. Catastrophe models that dynamically model surge based on current mean sea-level already factor this increased risk into their projections."

Failure to conform with the changing reality will be, well, expensive. "2011 is regarded as a record year for natural catastrophe, with insured losses costing the industry more than $127 billion," warns the report.

Catastrophe modeling, a relatively young process, can "help companies anticipate the likelihood and severity of potential future catastrophes before they occur so that they can adequately prepare for their financial impact," urges the report.

What the study does not clarify is who will bear the burden of paying for the human tragedies to come."

Comments

Reading the Chilcot Inquiry Report more closely

Most commentary on the Chilcot Inquiry Report of and associated with the Iraq War, has been "lifted" from the Executive Summary. The Intercept has actually gone and dug into the Report, with these revelations : "THE CHILCOT REPORT, the U.K.’s official inquiry into its participation in the Iraq War, has finally been released after seven years of investigation. Its executive summary certainly makes former Prime Minister Tony Blair, who led the British push for war, look terrible. According to the report, Blair made statements about Iraq’s nonexistent chemical, biological, and nuclear programs based on “what Mr. Blair believed” rather than the intelligence he had been given. The U.K. went to war despite the fact that “diplomatic options had not been exhausted.” Blair was warned by British intelligence that terrorism would “increase in the event of war, reflecting intensified anti-US/anti-Western sentiment in the Muslim world, including among Muslim communities in the

Robert Fisk's predictions for the Middle East in 2013

There is no gain-saying that Robert Fisk, fiercely independent and feisty to boot, is the veteran journalist and author covering the Middle East. Who doesn't he know or hasn't he met over the years in reporting from Beirut - where he lives? In his latest op-ed piece for The Independent he lays out his predictions for the Middle East for 2013. Read the piece in full, here - well worthwhile - but an extract... "Never make predictions in the Middle East. My crystal ball broke long ago. But predicting the region has an honourable pedigree. “An Arab movement, newly-risen, is looming in the distance,” a French traveller to the Gulf and Baghdad wrote in 1883, “and a race hitherto downtrodden will presently claim its due place in the destinies of Islam.” A year earlier, a British diplomat in Jeddah confided that “it is within my knowledge... that the idea of freedom does at present agitate some minds even in Mecca...” So let’s say this for 2013: the “Arab Awakening” (the t

An unpalatable truth!

Quinoa has for the last years been the "new" food on the block for foodies. Known for its health properties, foodies the world over have taken to it. Many restaurants have added it to their menu. But, as this piece " Can vegans stomach the unpalatable truth about quinoa? " from The Guardian so clearly details, the cost to Bolivians and Peruvians - from where quinoa hails - has been substantial. "Not long ago, quinoa was just an obscure Peruvian grain you could only buy in wholefood shops. We struggled to pronounce it (it's keen-wa, not qui-no-a), yet it was feted by food lovers as a novel addition to the familiar ranks of couscous and rice. Dieticians clucked over quinoa approvingly because it ticked the low-fat box and fitted in with government healthy eating advice to "base your meals on starchy foods". Adventurous eaters liked its slightly bitter taste and the little white curls that formed around the grains. Vegans embraced quinoa as

Mahler's Prodigal Son

Search This Blog