Posts Tagged ‘climate change’
“What is really amazing, and frustrating, is mankind’s habit of refusing to see the obvious and inevitable until it is there, and then muttering about unforeseen catastrophes”*…
One of the effectively-secret ingredients in the world’s economic growth over the last couple of centuries has been insurance. The ability to insure against catastrophic loss has underwritten (pun intended) the trillions and trillions of dollars of loans that have funded the construction and acquisition that has enabled the growth of both commercial endeavor and the the accumulation of personal wealth (directly through home ownership and indirectly through equity ownership in those commercial endeavors or participation in pension schemes that own that equity).
But in a way that was enitrely predictable, climate change is rendering a growing portion of the world uninsurable. Gavin Evans ponders what that might mean…
The Florida peninsula looks like a sore thumb. It juts into the Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic, where the water is getting warmer year on year, prompting fiercer hurricanes that can blow down houses like collapsing decks of cards. Climate scientists are convinced all hell will break loose sooner or later when a monster-sized, property-destroying storm makes a direct hit on Miami or Tampa-St Petersburg. Given three near-misses in the recent past, the experts view such a calamity as inevitable. It’s a huge risk for anyone living there – they stand to lose everything – but also for those bearing the financial side of this risk, the insurance companies. Some in the industry are seeing this as a portent for their future – an impending existential threat with profound implications for the economic system.
There are no easy solutions for people still paying off mortgages and those who want to buy property along the Florida coast, because the potential payout on the back of a mammoth storm is so high that the reinsurers (who insure the insurers against catastrophe) are refusing to underwrite their clients and, with no reinsurance, there’s no insurance; and with no insurance, no mortgages; and with no mortgages, no property market. Insurance protects investments against loss and is therefore a pillar of the economic system. If it goes, economies are destabilised.
Many panicked homeowners have rushed to make their houses less risky for insurance companies by reinforcing their roofs with hurricane clips, installing impact-resistant windows, doors and shutters, and strengthening their foundations. But it’s not just storms and higher, warmer seas that concern insurers. Rising temperatures mean that the frequency, range and ferocity of wildfires are also on the rise.
So far this year, 3,374 wildfires have burned an area of Florida totalling 231,172 acres (at the time of writing), and it is even worse in California where 7,855 blazes have killed at least 31 people, destroyed more than 17,000 houses and devoured 525,208 acres of land, at an estimated cost of more than $250 billion. Here, too, homeowners rushed to make their properties more palatable to cold-footed insurers – clearing their surroundings of anything flammable, covering yards with gravel, sheathing houses with fire-resistant stucco, and replacing wooden roofs with steel.
But, even for the most diligent, insurance companies have turned tail, dumping existing clients and abandoning fire-prone and storm-prone areas altogether. On the Californian fire front, 2024 was a turning point as several insurers ceased issuing new policies because of fire-associated risks, including the United States’ biggest property insurer, State Farm, which cancelled policies in parts of Los Angeles. It is all too easy to view this cynically, but it’s happening because property insurers have been reporting year-on-year losses from climate change-related payouts.
Insurance companies survive by making more money from covering risk than they lose from these risks, which is why they prefer clients less likely to claim (insofar as they can predict the risk involved) and require them to pay substantial excess to discourage claims. When payouts rise above the premium intake, insurance companies either hike up these premiums or withdraw. But when that risk is considered catastrophic, potentially affecting many thousands of clients, as with Floridian storms and Californian fires, it is the reinsurers who are the first to retreat because they will ultimately bear most of the cost.
Reinsurers aggregate payout patterns to establish the likelihood of having to make huge payouts from future natural catastrophes. They do this by gathering exposure data from existing insurers in a geographical area, and by examining catastrophe models (computer simulations that estimate potential losses from natural perils). When they put all this together with detailed analysis of conditions within the area, they come up with a figure for their total potential loss if a catastrophic event strikes.
This is why reinsurers focus so intensely on climate change. Take a glance at the websites of big ones like Swiss Re and Munich Re and you get a sense of how central this is to their calculations – a concern that has spread to property insurers who are starting to hire climate consultants. Even more than market volatility, climate is their biggest headache. ‘You won’t meet a single insurance or reinsurance CEO who doesn’t believe in climate change,’ the insurance investor and former Lombard Insurance CEO James Orford told me. ‘They see it in the numbers – a combination of more extreme, less predictable events, combined with big losses of sums insured. All the modelling suggests these are uninsurable risks.’…
[Evans recaps the history of insurance, starting in Genoa, in the mid-14th century, with the insuring of maritime expeditions; examines the current state of play; examines the efforts (and gauges the weaknesses) of state’s efforts to step up with coverage when insurers step away; then considers another role for states…]
If states do withdraw from insurance and reinsurance, some of the most lucrative areas of the US, Canada, Europe, Asia, Africa and Australia will be devastated: no mortgages and no banks, leading to more ghost towns and villages. ‘It ends with depopulation and abandonment,’ said Agarwala. ‘Climate change reduces the operating space for humanity.’ In the UK, rising sea levels and coastal erosion could literally reduce operating space, putting 200,000 British homes at risk by 2050. There’s no coastal-erosion insurance, which puts more burden on the state, mainly to pay for new defences, but also to help people move.
Governments can take action in other ways, by investing greater sums in risk-prevention and management. There are signs of this happening such as the ‘fire-hardening’ and storm-prevention efforts in Florida, and improved flood defences in the UK; meanwhile, the EU’s Recovery and Resilience Facility is being used in several countries to build and renovate operations centres to cope with wildfires, and to buy firefighting helicopters.
In future, it is likely that voters will demand that their state and national governments do far more, regardless of the cost. They will want tougher building codes, including limitations on building in risky areas; expensive fire-prevention and fire-fighting schemes; better flood and storm defences; improved early catastrophe management, involving relocating people from risky areas and, when disaster strikes, rapid life-saving interventions such as large-scale emergency evacuations. If the insurance industry is forced to retreat by the climate crisis, all of this infrastructural investment will require vast chunks of taxpayers’ money. It is hard to avoid the feeling that this is part of our destiny, and that the sore thumb of the Florida peninsula is pointing us to the future…
Whole regions of the world are now uninsurable, bringing radical uncertainty to the economy: “The insurance catastrophe,” from @aeon.co.
See also: “An Uninsurable Country” (a report form NRDC), “The Insurance Crisis Is So Desperate People Are Turning Socialist” (a gift article from Bloomberg), and “The Uninsurable Future: The Climate Threat to Property Insurance, and How to Stop It” (from Yale Law Review)
* Isaac Asimov
###
As we cover up, we might send highly-charged birthday greetings to a man who made foundational contributions both to the detection of climatic conditions and to a technology that may help allieviate climate change: John Frederic Daniell was born on this date in 1790. Named the first professor of chemistry at the newly founded King’s College London in 1831, he was an avid meteorologist. He invented the dew-point hygrometer known by his name and a register pyrometer; in 1830 he erected a water-barometer in the hall of the Royal Society.
But Daniell is better remembered as a chemist (and physicist), especially for his invention of the Daniell cell, an element of an electric battery much better than voltaic cells, the standard before him. Indeed, the Daniell cell is the historical basis for the contemporary definition of the volt (the unit of electromotive force in the International System of Units). All advances in battery technology since then were “from” the base that Daniell laid.
“Every act of energy conservation… is more than just common sense: I tell you it is an act of patriotism”*…
But how do we best honor that admonition? The estimable Saul Griffith has observed “We need a proportional quantitative understanding of energy use, for everyone.” Now, Hannah Ritchie (Deputy Editor of Our World in Data and Senior Researcher in the Programme for Global Development at the University of Oxford) rides to the rescue with an elegant tool that compares and quantifies (in both watt-hours and usage cost, in both the U.S, and the U.K.) the energy consumption of different products and activities.
Try it: “Does that use a lot of energy?” from @hannahritchie.bsky.social. Background in her newsletter.
* Jimmy Carter
###
As we watch our wattage, we might send wild birthday greetings to Bernard Frank; he was born on this date in 1902. A conservationist, forester, and wilderness activist, he had a long, engaged career in conservation concerns, especially in the D.C. area, where he was a leader in organizing the Rock Creek Watershed Association which worked to restore and preserve the area around Rock Creek in Washington, D.C., and Maryland and in the effort that lead to the creation of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park. He was honored for his work in this region with the naming of Lake Bernard Frank in Derwood, Maryland. But Frank is probably best remembered as one of the eight founding members of The Wilderness Society.
“Where’s the beef?”*…
There’s been some consternation over the FDA’s new food pyramid, with nutritionists arguing that, while the emphasis on “whole foods” (as opposed to processed) is a plus, the guidance overstresses satured-fat-rich foods and under-recommends gut-healthy fermented foods, and beans and grains (see also here).
There could be material economic costs as well. The Federal goverment already spends over $72 Billion subsidizing livestock— not counting the reduced cost grazing permits offered ranchers on Federal land. And as ranch and farm land ownership has become more and more concentrated in fewer and fwer hands, the benifits are flowing to fewer, wealthier “ranchers” (like Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Jeff Bezos, a clutch of large corporations, and foreign investors).
Then there are the environmental implications. Oliver Milman ponders the potential scale of that impact if the new pyramid is followed…
The Trump administration’s new dietary guidelines urging Americans to eat far more meat and dairy products will, if followed, come at a major cost to the planet via huge swathes of habitat razed for farmland and millions of tons of extra planet-heating emissions.
A new inverted food pyramid recently released by Donald Trump’s health department emphasizes pictures of steak, poultry, ground beef and whole milk, alongside fruits and vegetables, as the most important foods to eat.
The new guidelines are designed to nearly double the amount of protein currently consumed by Americans. “Protein and healthy fats are essential and were wrongly discouraged in prior dietary guidelines,” said Robert F Kennedy Jr, the US health secretary. “We are ending the war on saturated fats.”
But a surge in meat-eating by Americans would involve flattening vast tracts of ecosystems such as forests to make way for the hefty environmental hoofprint of raised livestock, emitting large quantities of greenhouse gases in the process, experts have warned.
Even a 25% increase in the amount of protein consumed in this way in the US would require about 100m acres of additional agricultural land each year, an area about the size of California, and add hundreds of millions of tons of extra pollution to an already overheating planet, according to an estimate by the World Resources Institute (WRI), a non-profit research body.
“We are seeing millions of acres of forest cut down and agricultural expansion is the lead driver of that – adding 100m acres to that to feed the US means additional pressure on the world’s remaining ecosystems,” said Richard Waite, the director of agriculture initiatives at WRI.
“It’s already hard to feed the global population while reducing emissions and stopping deforestation, and a shift in this direction would make the challenge even harder. We need to reduce the impact of our food systems urgently and the US is an important piece of the puzzle in doing that.”
While many Americans will simply ignore the guidelines, the new framework will probably influence institutions such as schools and federal workplaces. The average American already eats about 144kg (317lb) of meat and seafood a year, second globally only to Portugal, and ingests more protein than previous federal government guidelines recommended.
Any further increase will be felt in places such as the Amazon rainforest, which is already being felled at a rapid rate for cattle ranches and to grow livestock feed.
Red meat, in particular, has an outsized impact upon the planet – beef requires 20 times more land and emits 20 times more greenhouse gas emissions per gram of protein than common plant proteins, such as beans. The raising of cows, pigs, lamb and other animals for slaughter is also associated with significant localized air and water pollution.
“To the extent that people follow these guidelines and eat more animal protein foods, particularly beef and dairy, they will negatively impact our environment, since the production of these foods emits way more greenhouse gases than vegetable protein foods, or even other animal foods,” said Diego Rose, a director of nutrition at Tulane University.
Choosing beef over beans and lentils is “a big choice we make that has real consequences”, said Waite. “If people want more protein there are ways to do that via eating plant-based foods without the environmental impacts. We can have our protein and our forests, too.”
Animal agriculture is responsible for about a fifth of global emissions, with little progress made in recent years to reduce its impact as more of the world starts to demand meat products. Worldwide consumption of pork, beef, poultry and meat is projected to reach over 500m tonnes by 2050 –double what it was in 2000.
In the US, much of this meat-eating is concentrated in a relatively small group of avid carnivores – just 12% of Americans consume nearly half of the country’s beef, a 2024 study found. But plant-based options, including “fake meat” burgers, have suffered a slump in sales in recent years amid a resurgent trend in meat-eating, fueled by online “meatfluencers” and a broader desire to consume more protein.
The environmental problems associated with the meat industry were previously highlighted by Kennedy himself, when he was a campaigner on green issues. At one point, Kennedy even said the pork industry was an even bigger threat to the US than Osama bin Laden, the terrorist mastermind.
“The factory meat industry has polluted thousands of miles of America’s rivers, killed billions of fish, pushed tens of thousands of family farmers off their land, sickened and killed thousands of US citizens, and treated millions of farm animals with unspeakable and unnecessary cruelty,” Kennedy wrote in 2004.
However, since becoming Trump’s health secretary, Kennedy has sought to elevate meat-eating, dismissing an independent scientific committee’s advice to emphasize plant-based proteins to instead favor meat.
“The Trump administration will no longer weaponize federal food policy to destroy the livelihoods of hard-working American ranchers and protein producers under the radical dogma of the Green New Scam,” a spokesperson for the Department of Health and Human Services said in response to questions about the knock-on environmental impacts of the new guidelines.
“Americans already eat a lot of meat, so this promotion of more meat and things like beef tallow is puzzling to me,” said Benjamin Goldstein, a researcher at the University of Michigan who has studied the huge emissions associated with meat-eating by city-dwellers in the US.
“We needed to be addressing climate change two decades ago and we are still not doing enough now. If we are adding more greenhouse gases to impose unnecessary ideas of protein intake, that’s going to destabilize the climate further. It’s going to have a big impact.”…
Even 25% increase in meat and dairy consumption would require 100m more acres of agricultural land: “Huge amounts of extra land needed for RFK Jr’s meat-heavy diet guidelines,” from @olliemilman.bsky.social in @theguardian.com.
* Wendy’s advertising tagline (from 1984)
###
As we deconstruct diet, we might send bibulous birthday greetings to William Claude Dukenfield; he was born on this date in 1880. Better known by his stage name, W.C. Fields, an actor, comedian, juggler, and writer, became a vaudeville headliner, “the world’s greatest juggler” [which he may have been], then transitioned to Broadway (e.g., the Ziegfeld Follies revue and Poppy, wherein he perfected his persona as a colorful small-time con man) and began appearing in silent films. In the 1930s, Fields wrote and starred in a series of successful short films for (his golf buddy) Mack Sennett, then appeared in 13 feature films for Paramount. An illness sidelined him in the late 30s, but he roared back in the early 40s with Universal classics like My Little Chickadee, The Bank Dick, and Never Give a Sucker an Even Break.
Now widely regarded one of the comic geniuses of the 20th century, the Surrealists loved Fields’ absurdism and anarchistic pranks. Max Ernst painted a Project for a Monument to W. C. Fields (1957), and René Magritte made an Homage to Mack Sennett (1934).
The Firesign Theatre titled the second track of their 1968 album Waiting for the Electrician or Someone Like Him “W. C. Fields Forever,” a riff on the Beatles song “Strawberry Fields Forever.”
“I personally stay away from natural foods. At my age I need all the preservatives I can get.”
– W. C. Fields
“There are things done today in electrical science which would have been deemed unholy by the very men who discovered electricity, who would themselves not so long before have been burned as wizards”*…
Climate change continues. There is broad evidence (and consensus) that our environment, thus our ways of life, our livelihoods— indeed, our lives— are threatened. On the heels of a call from Trump to world leaders to abandon the climate fight, followed by a disappointing COP30 conference, it’s easy to be discouraged. But that, of course, is no answer.
Rather, we have to find ways to mitigate the damage that we’ve already locked in, even as we acclerate a transition to clean energy… which begins by (re-)framing and (re-)focusing the challenge. Ember, a clean energy think tank, suggests a candidate that, while it speaks to the moral obligations addressed by one of the models it means to augment/replace, has a more positive orientation…
Humanity is graduating from burning fossil commodities to harnessing manufactured technologies—from hunting scarce fossils to farming the inexhaustible sun, from consuming Earth’s resources to
merely borrowing them.This isn’t a marginal climate substitution. It’s an energy revolution.
The magnetic centre is the electron: we are revolutionising how we generate, use, and connect
electrons. Solar and wind are conquering electricity supply. EVs, heat pumps, and AI are electrifying major new uses. Batteries and digitalisation are connecting supply and demand.Three reinforcing shifts. One energy revolution. The electrotech revolution.
At its core, this revolution is driven by physics, economics, and geopolitics. After all, the arc of energy
history bends towards solutions that are leaner, cheaper and more secure.Short-terms setbacks matter, but fundamentals matter more. And the fundamentals are stacked in electrotech’s favour.
Physics. Electrotech makes a mockery of setting fossils on fire and losing two-thirds of the energy to heat. Electrotech is three times as efficient.
Economics. Technologies get cheaper with scale. Commodities get more expensive the deeper you dig.
Geopolitics. Three quarters of the world is dependent on fossil imports. 92% of countries have renewables potential over 10x their current demand.
Electrotech has grown exponentially for decades. The difference today is that it’s too cheap to contain and too big to ignore. If current exponentials hold for five more years, global fossil demand will fall off its plateau.
Welcome to the Age of Electrotech…
A long and meaty presentation: “The Electrotech Revolution- the shape of things to come,” from @ember-energy.org.
One notes that the electrification that Ember pushes has other advocates, many of whom have been vocal for years; c.f., e.g., Saul Griffin. Still, another voice in the chorus is welcome.
* Bram Stoker
###
As we plug in, we might send charged birthday greetings to Franz Aepinus; he was born on this date in 1724. A mathematician, scientist, and natural philosopher, he is best known for his research, both theoretical and experimental, into electricity and magnetism. Aepinus’ Tentamen theoriae electricitatis et magnetismi (1759; “An Attempt at a Theory of Electricity and Magnetism”) was the first work to apply mathematics to the theory of electricity and magnetism. And his experiments led to the design of the parallel-plate capacitor, a device used to store energy in an electric field.
“We are the first generation to feel the effect of climate change and the last generation who can do something about it”*…
One of the issues that vexes coordinated response is a paradox that lies at the heart of the phenomenon: Earth’s climate is chaotic and volatile. Climate change is simple and predictable. How can both be true? Joseph Howlett explains…
The Earth’s atmosphere is nothing but freely roaming molecules. Left alone, they would drift and collide, and eventually even out into a mixture that’s dynamic, yet stable and broadly unchanging.
The sun’s rays complicate things. Energy enters the Earth system in daily cycles, the bulk of it going to whichever half of the planet is tilted toward the sun (and experiencing summer). The molecules in that half acquire more energy than others, which sets the global atmosphere steadily swirling. Depending on the season and location, molecules in our atmosphere might traverse warm land, then cold seas. They might encounter a mountain range that forces them to high altitudes, where the air pressure is low and water condenses. Then they might become part of large-scale phenomena, such as currents, atmospheric rivers, turbulent jet streams and continental fronts.
These phenomena are erratic. They interact at every scale and manifest as weather, from clear sunny days to blustery blizzards and the anomalous events — from hurricanes and polar vortices to hailstorms and tornadoes — that are happening with increasing intensity. Any thought of stability is illusory; no patch of molecules dances in isolation.
The result, from seemingly simple inputs of molecules and energy, is emergent, incalculable chaos. Some individual molecule in the room you are sitting in is careening about blindly and colliding with its immediate neighbors. Zoom out — block to city, field to landscape, region to continent — and patterns appear and intermix. Complexity abounds and compounds. Nothing in the atmosphere is untethered from the rest of the global picture.
We live with this unpredictable mess of an atmosphere every day. We tote around unopened umbrellas, or refresh weather apps and watch our weekend plans dissolve. Anticipating conditions any further out than a week or two is a fool’s errand. The Earth is a complex dynamical system — an interwoven mass of moving parts, each of which requires a different branch of science to understand. Even with advanced knowledge, sophisticated algorithms and modern instruments, it defies and eludes us.
Yet this engine of chaos is now under our influence. It is incontrovertible fact that we are changing the Earth’s temperature by adding more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. We know exactly how we are changing it — that when we double the proportion of carbon dioxide in the thin layer that rests over the surface of the Earth, the planet will become 2 to 4 degrees Celsius warmer, overall, than it is today. This conclusion has remained essentially unchanged since 1896, when the Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius arrived at an estimate of 2 to 5 degrees. (Using an extraordinarily simplified picture of Earth, he made a number of mistakes that, in the end, balanced out.) Some details may remain uncertain, some chaos untamable, but the basic conclusion is a matter of unwavering scientific agreement — 97% is a rare degree of consensus on almost any subject. We are nearly as sure of this as we are of the causes of infectious disease, or how stars form, or the fact that life evolves through natural selection.
oth things are true: The climate system is vastly complex, and we’re certain about what we are doing to it. How can we be so confident in a hundred-year projection when we can’t predict the weather with any reliability more than a week out?
“How can it be that both are true?” said Nadir Jeevanjee, an atmospheric physicist at NOAA’s Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, a leading institution for cutting-edge simulations of the atmosphere. “It’s a huge tension that’s lurking behind the whole conversation.”
It turns out that complexity can be a veil concealing more basic truths. An enormously complicated system can yield simple answers. You just have to ask a simple enough question…
Read on for Howlett’s fascinating– and important– explanation: “The Climate Change Paradox,” from @quantamagazine.bsky.social.
And for a reminder that this matters (as though we need one…): “Human-Caused Warming Tripled the Death Toll of European Heat Waves This Summer, New Report Shows,” from @insideclimatenews.org.
* Barack Obama
###
As face reality, we might recall that on this date in 1988, the #1 song in the U.S. was Bobby McFerrin‘s “Don’t Worry, Be Happy,” the first a cappella song to reach the top of the Billboard Hot 100 chart, a position it held for two weeks.
(Produced by Colossal Pictures, Directed by Drew Takahashi)
You must be logged in to post a comment.