Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

KurtNYC

(14,549 posts)
Mon Jun 2, 2014, 11:36 AM Jun 2014

Climate Change: Get Ready or Get Sued -- Insurers answer back to North Carolina

With Canada's PM Stephen Harper recently banning government scientists from acknowledging climate change and North Carolina now in year 3 of their ban on any changes in public planning based on climate change, the spotlight is on the relationship between climate change and insurance:

Filed by Farmers Insurance Co. on behalf of itself, other insurance companies and customers whose property was damaged by the surge of storm water and sewage overflow, the lawsuits allege the governments of Chicago-area municipalities knew their drainage systems were inadequate and failed to take reasonable action to prevent flooding of insured properties.

“During the past 40 years, climate change in Cook County has caused rains to be of greater volume, greater intensity and greater duration than pre-1970 rainfall history evidenced,” a fact that local governments were well aware of, a suit filed in Cook County, Ill., alleges, citing a climate change action plan adopted in 2008 that acknowledges the link between climate change and increased rainfall.
...
“I think what the insurers are saying is: ‘We’re in the business of covering unforeseen risks. Things that are basically accidents,’” Ceres insurance industry analyst Andrew Logan told NPR. “‘But we’re now at a point with the science where climate change is now a foreseeable risk.’”


http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/05/19/climate-change-get-ready-or-get-sued/

The defense of suits like this may partially explain why some governments are gagging their employees on climate change -- it admits liability. Another article on this examines the economic risk of not having affordable insurance:

Insurance companies are becoming increasingly concerned, and more vocal, about the rising costs of climate change. With large fossil fuel companies reluctant to take greenhouse gas mitigation efforts in the face of potential profit losses, the behemoth insurance industry could provide a counterbalance to the energy industry when it comes to incentivizing near-term emissions cuts, or at least adaptation to the effects of climate change.
...
“Every segment of the insurance industry faces climate risks, yet the industry’s response has been highly uneven,” said Ceres president Mindy Lubber, in a statement with the report. “The implications of this are profound because the insurance sector is a key driver of the economy. If climate change undermines the future availability of insurance products and risk management services in major markets throughout the U.S., it threatens the economy and taxpayers as well.”
...
In another sign that the insurance industry may be ready to galvanize action, Lloyd’s of London, the world’s oldest and biggest insurance market, recently called on insurers to incorporate climate change into their models.

“Insurers have an important role to play in mitigating the impact of the changes in climate which have already occurred, through closer coordination with other industries, notably construction,” wrote John Nelson, chairman of Lloyd’s of London, in an op-ed for The Guardian. “There need to be policies to drive up standards and make sure we have resilient homes, that we use better materials. All these and strong forward planning will be key to this effort. Here, too, governments must play their role in enshrining standards in legislation.”


http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/05/19/3439048/insurance-climate-class-action-flood/

8 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

blm

(113,043 posts)
1. Great post - this is must read, esp since GOP only answers to the big-money boys.
Mon Jun 2, 2014, 11:40 AM
Jun 2014

This issue pits their big-money donors' interests against each other.

dixiegrrrrl

(60,010 posts)
2. More burning stupidity here:
Mon Jun 2, 2014, 12:30 PM
Jun 2014

from a comment section of WaPo's article on Norfolk being flooded due to climate change:


As of last week, the world's largest naval base, in Norfolk, must now stop preparing for the coming change:

"WASHINGTON -- The House passed an amendment to the National Defense Authorization bill on Thursday that would bar the Department of Defense from using funds to assess climate change and its implications for national security.
The amendment, from Rep. David McKinley (R-W.Va.), passed in what was nearly a party-line vote. Four Democrats voted for the amendment, and three Republicans voted against it. The bill aims to block the DOD from taking any significant action related to climate change or its potential consequences. It reads:

None of the funds authorized to be appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used to implement the U.S. Global Change Research Program National Climate Assessment, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's Fifth Assessment Report, the United Nation's Agenda 21 sustainable development plan, or the May 2013 Technical Update of the Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis Under Executive Order 12866."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/in-norfolk-evidence-of-climate-change-is-in-the-streets-at-high-tide/2014/05/31/fe3ae860-e71f-11e3-8f90-73e071f3d637_story.html

KurtNYC

(14,549 posts)
3. hard to see any sense at all in that:
Mon Jun 2, 2014, 01:44 PM
Jun 2014

>>bar the Department of Defense from using funds to assess climate change and its implications for national security. <<

DOD doesn't have to worry about insurance but a threat to national security is a threat. And if it is a foreseeable threat then they CAN prepare for it. In fact that is their job. Why tie their hands on this?

dixiegrrrrl

(60,010 posts)
6. Hmm...let's see...
Mon Jun 2, 2014, 01:55 PM
Jun 2014

What kind of money making businesses would be harmed/threatened by accepting climate change?

More specifially what kind of businesses in relation to DOD contracts?

Uncle Joe

(58,349 posts)
7. This almost sounds treasonous, the House is ordering
Mon Jun 2, 2014, 01:56 PM
Jun 2014

the Department of Defense to ignore threats to national security!?

dixiegrrrrl

(60,010 posts)
8. It has occurred to me why the right wing folks may be blocking climate solutions
Mon Jun 2, 2014, 04:21 PM
Jun 2014

The religious fundies support any events which will lead to the apocalypse that they want to happen.
all earth's disasters are supposedly leading to the end times in which their savior will return to earth and rapture them up.
And they very very seriously believe this will literally happen.

If I had a dollar for every time I have had someone talk about the end times down here.....

yellowcanine

(35,699 posts)
5. Why sue? - Just propose tohike the rates and then sue if the state insurance regulators deny
Mon Jun 2, 2014, 01:51 PM
Jun 2014

the increase.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Climate Change: Get Ready...