Ah, finally some comic relief. The weekly Climate Doom report from Insurance Journal.
From the article:
“A related Climate Change Predictions fact sheet put out by NOAA shows that if emissions stay as they are that by 2050, up to $106 billion worth of coastal property could be below sea level and that some Midwestern and Southern counties could see a decline in crop yields of more than 10% over the next five to 25 years, with a one-in-20 chance of losses of crops by more than 20%.”
Key Phrase: if emissions stay as they are. Well folks, what do you think? Will the move to fracking continue worldwide, allowing low carbon natural gas to replace high carbon coal and oil? (My bet: guaranteed.)
Will someday a liberal wake up and actually realize governments will NEVER solve this problem? (My bet: no.)
Will someday a Climate Zealot admit that Bill Gates and thousands of other smart people are right: we can solve the problem in 2 decades with modern, clean nuclear and there is no other solution. (My bet: no again.)
Just more Doom Articles from Insurance Journal et al. And NO articles about the practical realities of solving the problem.
So, laugh away folks, it’s that time of the week again!
“Governments therefore need to rethink how to fund catastrophic events that go largely unbudgeted and create a strain on public resources when they occur,” the report states. “A culture of reliance on government assistance surrounding disaster relief has emerged, which puts pressure on governments to provide assistance after catastrophes occur and prompts a perception of moral obligation. These macroeconomic costs are projected to increase significantly.”
The above paragraph holds the key to the sought solutions.
Rethinking the problem is simple for those who have the insight and experience, and is not within the grasp of younger, less experienced insurance workers. Having seen the devastation on the ground after natural catastrophes, claim adjusters know very well the geo locations of the worst disasters to be the root cause for the rapid increase in costs. Underwriters and actuaries with exposure data, and history of exposures, know the problem is one of accumulation of risk within the most risky zones.
The basis for the sought solutions is experience with NatCats over several decades. The increased losses borne by the federal government is due to ineffective, or lack of, mitigation efforts by local governments that control land use and zoning. Exposure accumulations in low-lying areas prone to flooding is largely the fault of local zoning boards.
So, rather than spend federal tax dollars, local municipalities should be much more aggressively retrenching from areas prone to floods, or coastal areas with little or no protective barriers.
Finally, property owners who knowingly build in risky areas should not be rewarded with inexpensive insurance, or low deductibles in absolute size or percentage. Risk-sharing is a vital RM tool not often enough utilized to control costs and encourage responsible behavior.
We could use more coastal or riverside parks, to walk, hike, have a picnic, listen to local musicians, walk our dogs, etc., in place of building prone to repeated flooding. Commercial businesses could use more waterfront / riverfront warehouses with two vacant lower floors. Both locations could plant millions of trees that use carbon dioxide to make oxygen and significantly cool the atmosphere.
Man-caused global warming is a hoax and anyone who perpetuates it is a fraud and liar.
Lol really? Because the data says the opposite, that man made climate change is real and anyone who says the opposite is a fraud and a liar! And since you’ve been caught lying on these forums repeatedly (remember when you said 91% of Americans were more afraid of terrorism than climate change? And the poll you referenced said no such thing? Yeah, you lied and got caught) you have no credibility on this subject. Anyone who says otherwise is a right wing hack.
Lol do you do anything but repeat the insults of smarter people, agent? Doesn’t seem like I’ve seen an original thought from you pretty much ever. Additionally, you’ll note I actually bother to fact check my information from time to time. You were trying to claim that Obama let what 20,000 people die before doing anything about h1n1 last week? Yeah, you thinking I’m not credible actually helps my credibility loser LOL stay mad though while your newly socialist president makes you all look like fools LOL
Rather than trash those with opposing views, I’ll let readers judge the validity of the unproven claims* that MAN CAUSES SIGNIFICANT global warming and that MAN can significantly reverse global climate change by paying higher (carbon dioxide release) taxes.
Also, there is no agreed-to average temperature for Earth. And, ‘change’ implies it should not be a goal for man to achieve.
* – Not only are some ‘global warming caused by man’ hoax claims unproven, some projections made by Al Gore and others, a decade or more ago, have already failed to materialize.
Isn’t #covid_19 the strongest indicator that God runs this planet, and while we must be responsible inhabitants, we have no power to affect the climate in either direction. God warms and cools as He sees fit, in stretches and bursts He deems appropriate, to punish or reward our behavior towards Him and each other.
Its funny how weeks after you posted your comment, there is direct evidence that you are right. Covid-19 has made some things very clear. Likes skies. Because you see, when we stop polluting for even just a little bit, the planet starts to return to a more beautiful state.
You can no longer argue that we won’t have an impact. You can no longer deny that it is happening. All you have left is “It’s too hard” and “I don’t wanna”.
Ah, finally some comic relief. The weekly Climate Doom report from Insurance Journal.
From the article:
“A related Climate Change Predictions fact sheet put out by NOAA shows that if emissions stay as they are that by 2050, up to $106 billion worth of coastal property could be below sea level and that some Midwestern and Southern counties could see a decline in crop yields of more than 10% over the next five to 25 years, with a one-in-20 chance of losses of crops by more than 20%.”
Key Phrase: if emissions stay as they are. Well folks, what do you think? Will the move to fracking continue worldwide, allowing low carbon natural gas to replace high carbon coal and oil? (My bet: guaranteed.)
Will someday a liberal wake up and actually realize governments will NEVER solve this problem? (My bet: no.)
Will someday a Climate Zealot admit that Bill Gates and thousands of other smart people are right: we can solve the problem in 2 decades with modern, clean nuclear and there is no other solution. (My bet: no again.)
Just more Doom Articles from Insurance Journal et al. And NO articles about the practical realities of solving the problem.
So, laugh away folks, it’s that time of the week again!
“Governments therefore need to rethink how to fund catastrophic events that go largely unbudgeted and create a strain on public resources when they occur,” the report states. “A culture of reliance on government assistance surrounding disaster relief has emerged, which puts pressure on governments to provide assistance after catastrophes occur and prompts a perception of moral obligation. These macroeconomic costs are projected to increase significantly.”
The above paragraph holds the key to the sought solutions.
Rethinking the problem is simple for those who have the insight and experience, and is not within the grasp of younger, less experienced insurance workers. Having seen the devastation on the ground after natural catastrophes, claim adjusters know very well the geo locations of the worst disasters to be the root cause for the rapid increase in costs. Underwriters and actuaries with exposure data, and history of exposures, know the problem is one of accumulation of risk within the most risky zones.
The basis for the sought solutions is experience with NatCats over several decades. The increased losses borne by the federal government is due to ineffective, or lack of, mitigation efforts by local governments that control land use and zoning. Exposure accumulations in low-lying areas prone to flooding is largely the fault of local zoning boards.
So, rather than spend federal tax dollars, local municipalities should be much more aggressively retrenching from areas prone to floods, or coastal areas with little or no protective barriers.
Finally, property owners who knowingly build in risky areas should not be rewarded with inexpensive insurance, or low deductibles in absolute size or percentage. Risk-sharing is a vital RM tool not often enough utilized to control costs and encourage responsible behavior.
We could use more coastal or riverside parks, to walk, hike, have a picnic, listen to local musicians, walk our dogs, etc., in place of building prone to repeated flooding. Commercial businesses could use more waterfront / riverfront warehouses with two vacant lower floors. Both locations could plant millions of trees that use carbon dioxide to make oxygen and significantly cool the atmosphere.
Man-caused global warming is a hoax and anyone who perpetuates it is a fraud and liar.
In the next to last paragraph, 1st sentence, in post above, ‘building’ should be plural, ‘buildings.’ Bear culpa.
Lol really? Because the data says the opposite, that man made climate change is real and anyone who says the opposite is a fraud and a liar! And since you’ve been caught lying on these forums repeatedly (remember when you said 91% of Americans were more afraid of terrorism than climate change? And the poll you referenced said no such thing? Yeah, you lied and got caught) you have no credibility on this subject. Anyone who says otherwise is a right wing hack.
Rant away young Millennial zealot. You have no credibility at all.
Lol do you do anything but repeat the insults of smarter people, agent? Doesn’t seem like I’ve seen an original thought from you pretty much ever. Additionally, you’ll note I actually bother to fact check my information from time to time. You were trying to claim that Obama let what 20,000 people die before doing anything about h1n1 last week? Yeah, you thinking I’m not credible actually helps my credibility loser LOL stay mad though while your newly socialist president makes you all look like fools LOL
Rather than trash those with opposing views, I’ll let readers judge the validity of the unproven claims* that MAN CAUSES SIGNIFICANT global warming and that MAN can significantly reverse global climate change by paying higher (carbon dioxide release) taxes.
Also, there is no agreed-to average temperature for Earth. And, ‘change’ implies it should not be a goal for man to achieve.
* – Not only are some ‘global warming caused by man’ hoax claims unproven, some projections made by Al Gore and others, a decade or more ago, have already failed to materialize.
Isn’t #covid_19 the strongest indicator that God runs this planet, and while we must be responsible inhabitants, we have no power to affect the climate in either direction. God warms and cools as He sees fit, in stretches and bursts He deems appropriate, to punish or reward our behavior towards Him and each other.
Its funny how weeks after you posted your comment, there is direct evidence that you are right. Covid-19 has made some things very clear. Likes skies. Because you see, when we stop polluting for even just a little bit, the planet starts to return to a more beautiful state.
You can no longer argue that we won’t have an impact. You can no longer deny that it is happening. All you have left is “It’s too hard” and “I don’t wanna”.