Skip to main content

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

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Pentagon's eye-popping spending....and waste!

Only a gigantic bureaucracy could get away with spending of such dimensions - and the amazing waste involved in part of that ginormous spend.   Think US Pentagon..... "From spending $150 million on private villas for a handful of personnel in Afghanistan to blowing $2.7 billion on an air surveillance balloon that doesn’t work, the latest revelations of waste at the Pentagon are just the most recent howlers in a long line of similar stories stretching back at least five decades.  Other hot-off-the-presses examples would include the Army’s purchase of helicopter gears worth $500 each for $8,000 each and the accumulation of billions of dollars' worth of weapons components that will never be used. And then there’s the one that would have to be everyone’s favorite Pentagon waste story: the spending of $50,000 to investigate the bomb-detecting capabilities of African elephants. (And here’s a shock: they didn’t turn out to be that great!) The elephant research, of course, represe...
Post a Comment
Read more

Video: Israel demolishing a Bedouin village

From Mondoweiss - Israel's supposed "most moral army in the world", the IDF, engaged in immoral, and according to international law, illegal action.... "Israeli forces have demolished every home in the Bedouin village of Khirbet Taha in the northern West Bank district of Nablus during three separate demolitions since the start of the year. Unlike most Bedouin villages, the residents in Khirbet Taha own their own land. However that land falls in Area C, territory in the occupied West Bank under full Israeli control. The village’s only school was also destroyed, leaving children to study in a dilapidated 100-year-old mosque — the only structure left standing in the village. According the United Nations, Israel has demolished half as many Palestinian buildings in the first few months of 2016, as they had in all of 2015. In February alone, the UN found that more Palestinians homes were destroyed than any other month since 2009, when the organization began its docum...
Post a Comment
Read more

What does a no-fly zone actually mean?

As some countries consider imposing a no-fly zone in relation to Libya, the pertinent question must be what does that mean and entail? FP provides the answers: "It depends on the circumstances. There are two primary types of no-fly zones imposed by air forces. The first is imposed by one military over another, while the two sides are at war. In practice, this type of no-fly zone amounts to a warning from one side that it will engage the other's aircraft if they are spotted in a given territory. The second type, more applicable to the situation in Libya, is when an outside power possessing overwhelming air superiority restricts flights over a given country in order to discourage an internal conflict or humanitarian crisis. This is a relatively recent tactic, which was used most famously in Bosnia and Iraq during the 1990s. No-fly zones are often a compromise in situations where the international community is demanding a response to ongoing violence, but full military interven...
6 comments
Read more