Anthropogenic Global Warming ... how hot is it ?

[sear]

To avoid problems some tall buildings are built without floor number 13. The elevator goes from floor #12 to #14.
Why don't these nuckleheads do the same thing with the calendar?! Get rid of hurricane season altogether.

The world should be run by barbers, bartenders, and cab drivers. Trump is just temporary.

 

[Shiftless2]

To avoid problems some tall buildings are built without floor number 13. The elevator goes from floor #12 to #14.
Why don't these nuckleheads do the same thing with the calendar?! Get rid of hurricane season altogether.

I'm sure someone has already suggested that. After all:

 

[sear]

#262

Final score:
S2: 1
Timmy: 0

As you may well know S2, your #262 example makes a deeper point.

TA's "solution" is logical, IF we presume deer seek / obey road signs for their migration routes.
A fuller understanding acknowledges it's the deer that select these locations, the road signs merely identify them to caution motorists. a sanity check: Falling Rock Zones

Such false premise reasoning is likely more common than we're comfortable acknowledging, in motorized transport, and political legislation alike.

Back to anthropo-topic:
Outdoorsmen may provide insight:
If your hands are cold, wear a hat. Cold hands indicate loss of body heat. In cold the human body may lose more body heat through the head. To conserve body heat (and keep hands warmer), wear gloves if available, and a hat too.

Rather than cursing from the driver's seat of your HumVee, your ill fate of a destructive hurricane season, drive a Prius, or take the bus.

Thank you Timmy. Your dim bulb enlightens.

 

[Shiftless2]

Wetland loss could cost Michiganders billions in flood damage, according to new report​

After the loss of key federal wetlands protections in 2023, scientists are warning the damage this change could bring to wetlands would also bring billions of dollars of flood damage with it.

According to a report from the Union of Concerned Scientists, there are 30 million acres of wetlands across the upper Midwestern United States providing crucial flood prevention benefits, whose loss could potentially cost the region more than $22 billion annually.

Among the eight states in the study — Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota and Wisconsin – Michigan holds 6.4 million acres of wetlands, meaning the state could lose $4.77 billion in annual flood mitigation benefits due to threats from pollution and industrial agriculture.

While speaking with the Michigan Advance, Stacy Woods, the research director for the Union’s Food and Environment Program and author of the report, explained that Michigan holds almost 9.5 million acres used for agriculture, compared to the 6.4 million acres of wetlands. However, the Supreme Court’s decision in Sackett v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has drastically changed how the federal Clean Water Act can be used to protect wetlands from being drained or polluted by industrial farming and other industries, Woods said.

Under the court’s 5-4 ruling, the Clean Water Act only applies to wetlands with a continuous connection to the waters of the United States, with the Court narrowing this definition to include “only those relatively permanent, standing, or continuously flowing bodies of water” such as streams, oceans, rivers and lakes.

“We’ve known for a long time that wetlands prevent flooding. Like the trees and the plants trap and slow down rushing water, and wetland soil also acts as like a sponge, it can soak up vast amounts of water. So communities really benefit greatly when wetlands are there because they serve as these natural flood barriers,” Woods said.

However, industrial agriculture alongside other industries can threaten these bodies, draining them to convert into cropland, or damaging them with ....

Wetland loss could cost Michiganders billions in flood damage, according to new report • Michigan Advance

After the loss of key federal wetlands protections in 2023, scientists are warning the damage this change could bring to wetlands would also bring billions of dollars of flood damage with it. According to a report from the Union of Concerned Scientists, there are 30 million acres of wetlands...

michiganadvance.com

 

[sear]

Wetland loss #264​

There's likely to be more than one owner of the 30 million wetland acres.
Are there zoning laws applicable?

If a tax-paying voter in good standing wishes to plant a crop on his own (wet) land, which article in the Constitution prohibits it?
If the State perceives a public need to not farm such privately held acreage, to restrict the use of the deeded acreage in ways not legally specified at the time of purchase, then shouldn't the standards of eminent domain apply? [U.S. Constitution: 5th Amendment]

note:
Alternate sources have asserted yearly floods of the Nile River benefit the soil, possibly reducing the need for crop rotation.
Would periodic floods of agricultural areas in the U.S. not receive similar benefit? There are relevant details missing here.

 

[sear]

Your daily cup of coffee could get more expensive because of climate change​

Unpredictable climate events are blamed for spiking the price of arabica beans to record levels.
Coffee prices soar to 40-year highs as global growers struggle with extreme weather
Dec. 10, 2024, 7:52 PM GMT-5 / By Maya Eaglin
Coffee lovers and café dwellers are likely to see the price of a cup of joe increase soon, experts warn.

The price of arabica coffee beans, the high-quality beans found in most restaurants and shops, spiked this month, recently jumping to $3.50 a pound.
That’s up 70% this year, which has brought the highest prices for the crop since 1977.
Adjusted for inflation, $3.50 would be about $0.66 in 1977. Prices increased back then because a frost killed more than a billion coffee bean trees.

And today, experts say, climate change is to blame.
“We’ve seen significant drought in some of the key coffee-growing areas in the world, places like Brazil, which is the largest coffee exporter in the world,” said David Ortega, a professor of food economics and policy at Michigan State University.
He said droughts, frost, floods, high temperatures and other unpredictable weather played a role in diminished crop yield in Brazil and Vietnam, another major coffee exporter.

Vietnam grows robusta beans, slightly lower-quality beans used for products including instant coffee.

“We’re going to see these types of [climate] events just get more frequent into the future. And so we have to start taking this seriously and make investments in agricultural research and development to be able to mitigate and tackle the impacts of climate change on our agricultural production and agricultural system,” Ortega said.

“One impact of this is a rise in cost, which then gets translated to a rise in price for consumers,” he added.

She expects coffee prices could increase anywhere from 50 cents to $1 a pound in the coming days.

Your daily cup of coffee could get more expensive because of climate change

Unpredictable climate events are blamed for spiking the price of arabica beans to record levels.

www.nbcnews.com

joe !

 

[Shiftless2]

And, in a reversal of the trend of insurance companies refusing to write more policies

Farmers vows to write more California home insurance policies ahead of reforms​

The company committed to writing 9,500 new policies each month​

Farmers Insurance plans to start writing more home insurance policies in California ahead of regulatory reforms set for next year, the state’s second-largest homeowners insurance provider announced Wednesday.

In 2023, Farmers capped the number of new homeowner insurance customers it accepted at 7,000 a month, and paused writing policies for condo and renters insurance. The company said it’s now committed to writing 9,500 new homeowners policies each month. And starting Dec. 14, it plans to insure additional condos and renters before writing new coverage for other types of insurance it had halted.

“Farmers Insurance has decided to take these steps to increase coverage availability for California consumers because we recognize ....

CONTINUED
From the article:

... state insurance regulators plan to adopt new regulations by the end of this year addressing insurers’ chief demands, including faster rate hike approvals and allowing providers to raise rates based on the future risk posed by climate change. In return, regulators have pledged that insurers would have to offer more coverage across the state’s fire-risk areas.

 

[sear]

#267

Limited means to that end.
- Relax the exclusion standards, so a higher % of applicants are accepted. Or
- solicit more applications.
Can the cost of such publicity be more than recovered? If so why haven't they already been doing so?

note:
I'm not sure where if at all Trump fits into this if at all. #267 is about California State law. Trump is federal.

 

[Shiftless2]

Limited means to that end.
- Relax the exclusion standards, so a higher % of applicants are accepted. Or
- solicit more applications.
Can the cost of such publicity be more than recovered? If so why haven't they already been doing so?

But the insurers have been assured that their chief demands, including faster rate hike approvals and allowing providers to raise rates based on the future risk posed by climate change will be addressed.

In other words they should be able to get increased rates approved more quickly and, hopefully, be able to take the risk posed by climate change into account. That means that a lot of people's premiums are going to increase (perhaps a lot).

 

[sear]

And if such policies are not compulsory, & perhaps even if they are,
per policy $payments may increase, but
total number of policies may decrease. "Supply & demand."

If insurers wish to sell more policies, they'll have to lower prices, not raise them. I understand, actuarial statistics may make rate reductions a commercial impossibility. BUT !
actions have consequences.

 

[Shiftless2]

If insurers wish to sell more policies, they'll have to lower prices, not raise them.

Not in this case - State Farm has already limited the number of homeowners policies they'll sell. All this says is that they'll sell more policies than their previous limit and they've said that they'll insure condos and renters (classes they'd stopped writing).

Fact is, homeowners are finding it difficult to insure their homes - companies are either refusing to write policies in the state and some companies have pulled out altogether.

All that means is that they'll be able to sell all the policies that they want at the prices they want - supply and demand.

 

[Shiftless2]

California issues landmark rules to improve home insurance market​

By Laurence Darmiento

Landmark regulations intended to encourage insurers to write more policies in risky wildfire neighborhoods through the use of complex computer models were released Friday by the state.

Under new rules intended to stabilize California’s troubled home insurance market, insurers will be able to set rates by drawing on a wide swath of meteorological, geographic and other data in establishing rates, rather than largely relying on historical losses.

The insurance industry argued the change was imperative given global warming’s role in a number of wildfires, including in 2017 and 2018 when thousands of homes burned down. In setting their rates, insurers also must account for efforts to make properties fire resistant.

“With our changing climate we can no longer look to the past. We are being innovative and forward-looking to protect Californians’ access to insurance,” Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara said in a statement.

The new regulations — a central element of Lara’s Sustainable Insurance Strategy — drew support from the industry and others, including
farm and environmental groups, but a mixed response from consumer advocates. Los Angeles group Consumer Watchdog contends that the computer models will be a “black box” that will lead to sharp premium hikes.

The regulations that take effect Jan. 2 arose out of a broad agreement Lara reached with the industry that gave insurers regulatory concessions, including the use of the computer models, in exchange for a commitment by large insurers such as State Farm, Farmers and Allstate to write policies in neighborhoods prone to wildfires equivalent to 85% of their statewide market share. That would mean, for example .....

CONTINUED

From the article (and in response to #270 above)

Los Angeles group Consumer Watchdog contends that the computer models will be a “black box” that will lead to sharp premium hikes.

 

[sear]

California issues landmark rules to improve home insurance market​

"Improve"?

Actuarial realities cannot be pre-determined by legislation.

Please pardon my conservatism California, but is it wise to enable imprudent construction, or worse, re-construction?

I'm not suggesting residences should not exist on a floodplain. BUT !
When they are, like this



not this



And when in a flammable forest, don't build with flammable construction materials. - capisce -

PS
Left Coast:
do not try to legislate probabilities

 

[Shiftless2]

"Improve"?

Actuarial realities cannot be pre-determined by legislation.

do not try to legislate probabilities

Sorry but this is an attempt to improve the home insurance market - in other words, make the state more attractive to insurers to encourage them to write more policies there.

And they're doing that by, among other things, letting the companies use computer models to better calculate those probabilities.

To over simplify the traditional way to determine homeowners premiums was to project the expected loss cost for next year based on historical losses adjusted for inflation and then add a catastrophe loading based on the historical catastrophes over some set period - typically 5 to 10 years. But climate change means that technique is no longer valid - historical losses do not accurately predict future losses. Hence the use of computer models.

And that is likely to increase rates quite a bit - both overall even more in high risk areas. But if the insurance companies can't collect enough premium to pay claims why would they write policies in the state?

 

[sear]

"Sorry but this is an attempt to improve the home insurance market - in other words, make the state more attractive to insurers to encourage them to write more policies there." S2 #274

That's what I'd figured.
And there may be approaches to achieving that objective that both make sense, and would have a high probability of succeeding.

"California issues landmark rules to improve home insurance market" #272​

If their methodology is sound, splendid.
If not, not.

"And they're doing that by, among other things, letting the companies use computer models to better calculate those probabilities." S2 #274

And that's methodology I've already advocated for.

"To over simplify the traditional way to determine homeowners premiums was to project the expected loss cost for next year based on historical losses adjusted for inflation and then add a catastrophe loading based on the historical catastrophes over some set period - typically 5 to 10 years. But climate change means that technique is no longer valid" S2

Lucidly explained.

"- historical losses do not accurately predict future losses. Hence the use of computer models." S2

I'd imagined if (for blindly chosen example) 10% no longer works, they'd increase it to 18% or whatever.
I understand, that approach might price the insurer out of the market, BUT !!
anthropogenic climate change is just as bad for Liberty Mutual as it is for Allstate.

"And that is likely to increase rates quite a bit - both overall even more in high risk areas. But if the insurance companies can't collect enough premium to pay claims why would they write policies in the state?" S2

Indeed.
One way to wound that dragon is to raise the deductible.

Perhaps I'm simply cold-hearted. But my position, let the market work.

I suspect one element of this more complex issue is some home-owners are being priced out of the market. Insurance companies are the messenger, but the message is not one of malice, but of Carbon. *

<< >>

There was a time when every cave was off the grid.
We've incrementally upgraded home standards since then,
- roof structures strong enough to handle both wind-load and snow load
- a dedicated power feed to the refrigerator, U.L. standards
- plumbing,
- etc.

Each of these changes may have triggered ineligibility for those marginally eligible before. I'm not rejoicing over this planetary existential threat. But what other option is there? Let the markets work.


PS
Burning 6.3 pounds of gasoline produces 20 pounds of carbon dioxide.

https://climatekids.nasa.gov/review/carbon/gasoline.html

 

[Shiftless2]

One way to wound that dragon is to raise the deductible.

That definitely helps reduce premiums but it doesn't address the question of "high risk" - in case of a wildfire for example you're going to see any number of houses completely destroyed and that where the insurer needs more premium.

BTW, higher deductibles eliminate (or at least reduce) "dollar swapping" - we know that there will be a lot of small losses so that has to be built into the premium so we're swapping dollars in for small claims out.

 

[sear]

Am I straddling the wrong fence here? I understand. The problem is manifest as an INSURANCE problem. BUT !!

"but" S2 #276

Wish I had a nickel for every time I've said that ...

"it doesn't address the question of "high risk" " S2

Upgrading the building codes can.

The insurance problem gets whack-a-mole'd down to size if they treat the disease rather than try to ease the symptoms.

"California issues landmark rules to improve home insurance market" #272​

C.A. !
Update / upgrade your BUILDING CODES !

Sylvan residences won't burn down if they're concrete & steel.

 

[Shiftless2]

Senate Says Climate Is Causing Insurance ‘Crisis’; Industry Strikes Back​

By Chad Hemenway

The U.S. Senate Budget Committee on Wednesday held a hearing to release a study they said confirms climate change is increasing non-renewal rates in multiple states, but the insurance industry clapped back by saying extreme weather is just part of the problem.

During the 90-minute hearing, entitled “Next to Fall: The Climate-Driven Insurance Crisis is Here – And Getting Worse,” chairman Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) said the committee’s conclusions were based on non-renewal data collected from 23 insurers representing about two-thirds of the homeowners insurance market, covering years 2018 through 2023.

The data, according to the report, “confirm that it is climate change that is driving increasing non-renewal rates” not just in the markets considered to see the most insurance-market turmoil – Florida, Louisiana, California and Texas – but in other states such as the Carolina, New England, Oklahoma, the Northern Rockies, and Hawaii as well.

Whitehouse said the report contains information regarding the questions of when and how bad the “crisis” will get.

“The answers are ‘now’ and ‘very,’ and it’s only getting worse,” Whitehouse said during the hearing.

While Florida was found to have the highest average rate of non-renewals, Texas is not in the top 10, Whitehouse said. The findings of non-renewals in a wide range of states, demonstrate that ....

CONTINUED

In other words "It's complicated"

 

[sear]

And the Children Shall Lead Them Astray on Climate Change

Montana opens the door for climate litigation based on ‘stress.’​

By The Editorial Board / Dec. 20, 2024 5:43 pm ET
There are many competitors for craziest court decision this year, but the Montana Supreme Court may take the prize. A 6-1 majority this week effectively declared—get this—a state constitutional right to protection from climate change. What’s next? A right to sunshine?
Sixteen youth plaintiffs (Held v. Montana) in 2020 challenged two state environmental permitting laws that barred regulators from considering the climate impact of projects permitted under the state’s environmental law. They argued that climate change caused them severe stress and anxiety.
Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Mike McGrath decreed that the right to a “clean and healthful environment” in the state constitution includes protection from the purported harms of climate change. The Justices upheld an August 2023 lower-court decision that held the children could challenge state permitting laws since they were harmed by Montana’s contribution to climate change. The court also ruled the permitting laws were unconstitutional.
Children felt fear “from disappearing glaciers in Montana (both aesthetically and from the dependence many communities place on the water they provide throughout the summer); the impacts climate change is having on culturally important native wildlife, plants, snow, and practices; summer smoke and extreme heat” and much more, the High Court says.

https://www.wsj.com/opinion/montana-supreme-court-climate-change-lawsuit-mike-mcgrath-greg-gianforte-346c718c?mod=hp_opin_pos_3#cxrecs_s

Reflecting U.S.' historic roots, much current U.S. law can be traced back to British Common Law. Might the following be a more practical approach?

Private nuisance has long been employed for environmental harms in English common law. 17 It has been in use since at least 1611 when William Aldred brought suit against Thomas Bentam because the smell of Bentam’s hog farm interfered with the use and enjoyment of Aldred’s property.18 The English court accepted the interference as an actionable nuisance. 19 Since these origins, private nuisance has evolved and remains viable in American common law.

https://scholar.law.colorado.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1023&context=lawreview

Which is worse? PU from a hog farm? Or DOA from a crippled or terminated ecosystem?

 

[Shiftless2]

Re #279

In 2019, children have emerged as arguably the most vociferous and committed advocates for urgent action on climate change. This March saw the first of four global climate strikes, in which millions of children across multiple countries walked out of schools to participate in mass demonstrations.

https://www.unicef.org/innocenti/stories/new-insights-children-and-climate-change

Greta Thunberg, schoolgirl climate change warrior: ‘Some people can let things go. I can’t​

‘I have always been that girl in the back who doesn’t say anything.​

One day last summer, aged 15, she skipped school, sat down outside the Swedish parliament – and inadvertently kicked off a global movement

Greta Thunberg cut a frail and lonely figure when she started a school strike for the climate outside the Swedish parliament building last August. Her parents tried to dissuade her. Classmates declined to join. Passersby expressed pity and bemusement at the sight of the then unknown 15-year-old sitting on the cobblestones with a hand-painted banner.

Eight months on, the picture could not be more different. The pigtailed teenager is feted across the world as a model of determination, inspiration and positive action. National presidents and corporate executives line up to ...

CONTINUED