Taxpayers are going to foot the bill, now, or later

[Trakar]

Taxpayers: Pay extra now, or pay a lot more in the near future
There will always be questions and compounding factors regarding how much any single weather event’s impacts can be definitively traced to factors such as climate change. There is, however, a pattern of increasing intensity in the events we see, and in the costs of the damages/rebuilding. Some of this is undoubtedly tied to urban/suburban sprawl were a combination of a larger target area and an insufficiency of building planning and codes have combined to enhance the costs of damages and loss of life. It is simple physics, however, to understand that as you enhance the energy in a system in an un-uniform manner, you are going to see more energetic turbulence as that system attempts to distribute and balance its increased energy load.
The private Insurance industry is generally getting out of the types of insurance coverage that have traditionally been looked to for climate disaster damages for most businesses (floods, storms/tornados, hail, ice/snow, wildfires, etc.). This leaves the federal government operating on taxpayer funds to take care of such issues. When this is the case, it is irresponsible for the government to avoid taking the prudent and reasonable step of minimizing future taxpayer expenses by taking all prudent and reasonable steps to reduce our contribution to climate change, and to reduce our vulnerability(/cost) to increasingly energetic weather events.
“What Storm Damage Does Your Home Insurance Cover?”
“Responding to Climate Change: The insurance Industry Perspective”

 

[itfitzme]

The global warming hoax is driven by insurance companies to justfy increased premiums.

 

[Trakar]

The pay-outs due to the effects of AGW are driving Insurance companies out of the natural disaster insurance coverage business, it simply is no longer possible to meet the margins that they have long demanded for such coverage. This doesn't mean that they won't try to make-up those lost revenues in other areas, but I'm certainly not going to argue against greater regulatory scrutiny for the insurance industry in order to make sure that reasonable customer protections and fair treatment standards are adhered to.

 

[asterism]

The pay-outs due to the effects of AGW are driving Insurance companies out of the natural disaster insurance coverage business, it simply is no longer possible to meet the margins that they have long demanded for such coverage. This doesn't mean that they won't try to make-up those lost revenues in other areas, but I'm certainly not going to argue against greater regulatory scrutiny for the insurance industry in order to make sure that reasonable customer protections and fair treatment standards are adhered to.

Are you sure it's not the increased development of coastal areas that is driving up costs?

 

[Trakar]

The pay-outs due to the effects of AGW are driving Insurance companies out of the natural disaster insurance coverage business, it simply is no longer possible to meet the margins that they have long demanded for such coverage. This doesn't mean that they won't try to make-up those lost revenues in other areas, but I'm certainly not going to argue against greater regulatory scrutiny for the insurance industry in order to make sure that reasonable customer protections and fair treatment standards are adhered to.

Are you sure it's not the increased development of coastal areas that is driving up costs?

As stated in my initial OP, I am quite sure that the combination of increased and spreading development throughout the nation in combination with outdated and inadequate building codes and the regulation of such, are a significant part of the problem. Part of adaptation to climate change, regardless of the primary forcing agency, is the enhancement of building codes to make structures more likely to survive and protect inhabitants in the types of weather events that are most likely to be experienced in that area. As the intensity of events increase in a given area, the building codes in that area must evolve to account for these increases.

Along with adaptation to the changes that have and are happening, it is simply silly not to take steps to minimize our behaviors that are contributing to and enhancing the changes that are already ongoing.

 

[asterism]

The pay-outs due to the effects of AGW are driving Insurance companies out of the natural disaster insurance coverage business, it simply is no longer possible to meet the margins that they have long demanded for such coverage. This doesn't mean that they won't try to make-up those lost revenues in other areas, but I'm certainly not going to argue against greater regulatory scrutiny for the insurance industry in order to make sure that reasonable customer protections and fair treatment standards are adhered to.

Are you sure it's not the increased development of coastal areas that is driving up costs?

As stated in my initial OP, I am quite sure that the combination of increased and spreading development throughout the nation in combination with outdated and inadequate building codes and the regulation of such, are a significant part of the problem. Part of adaptation to climate change, regardless of the primary forcing agency, is the enhancement of building codes to make structures more likely to survive and protect inhabitants in the types of weather events that are most likely to be experienced in that area. As the intensity of events increase in a given area, the building codes in that area must evolve to account for these increases.

Along with adaptation to the changes that have and are happening, it is simply silly not to take steps to minimize our behaviors that are contributing to and enhancing the changes that are already ongoing.

So using the insurance industry as proof just doesn't work then.

More people are developing more costly structures on the coast. But if they can blame climate change for the increase in premiums, well then what is a government bureaucrat to do?

 

[Trakar]

Are you sure it's not the increased development of coastal areas that is driving up costs?

As stated in my initial OP, I am quite sure that the combination of increased and spreading development throughout the nation in combination with outdated and inadequate building codes and the regulation of such, are a significant part of the problem. Part of adaptation to climate change, regardless of the primary forcing agency, is the enhancement of building codes to make structures more likely to survive and protect inhabitants in the types of weather events that are most likely to be experienced in that area. As the intensity of events increase in a given area, the building codes in that area must evolve to account for these increases.

Along with adaptation to the changes that have and are happening, it is simply silly not to take steps to minimize our behaviors that are contributing to and enhancing the changes that are already ongoing.

So using the insurance industry as proof just doesn't work then.

"Proof" of what?

More people are developing more costly structures on the coast. But if they can blame climate change for the increase in premiums, well then what is a government bureaucrat to do?

More people are building more structures everywhere (that is rather inherent to there being "more people"). The evidences of are clearly present and recognized, and the impacts and consequences of climate change are without reasoned dispute.

In order to deal with the consequences of climate change we must adapt to the changes that have already occurred and will occur in the near future. By analogy, this is turning on the bilge pumps to remove the water that is accumulating in our hold.

Likewise, given the taxpayer costs of adaptation as well as the costs of dealing with the damages that exceed building code enhancements. It is only reasonable that we move as quickly as possible toward removing our contributions to the forcings that are accelerating and magnifying the current episode of climate change. Referring back to the previous analogy, this is akin to plugging the leaks and reinforcing the hull so that there is not as much water running into our hold and fewer new leaks to repair.

The insurance company withdrawals from areas of coverage are merely a trailing indicator of the problems associated with climate change disruption. You seem to be wanting to say that the only place where there is any increased risk from climate change induced extreme weather events is along some developed coastal areas. That might be an interesting compounding factor in this discussion, but I've seen no compelling evidentiary support put forward for this implied assertion. On the other-hand the evidences that cities are growing/spreading, climate change enhancements of extreme weather events are increasing and the private insurance industry is getting out of the weather event coverage business in this country are self-apparent.

additional supporting references:
UI Press | Urban SprawlUrban Sprawl / Chapter One

https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/special-reports/srex/SREX_Full_Report.pdf

Insurers and Climate Change: The Truth is More Complicated than the Sound Bytes

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

There is, however, a pattern of increasing intensity in the events we see,

that of course is a huge huge liberal lie. ACE ( accumulated cyclonic energy) numbers show we are at a global 50 year low with the trend still headed down!!

Don't mean to rock your world. sorry

 

[Trakar]

There is, however, a pattern of increasing intensity in the events we see,

that of course is a huge huge liberal lie. ACE ( accumulated cyclonic energy) numbers show we are at a global 50 year low with the trend still headed down!!

Don't mean to rock your world. sorry

Do you have any compelling support for this assertion?

Until presented, I can't really speak to your information. CAPE (Convective Available Potential Energy) numbers are generally much more relevant when discussing the intensity of storm systems and fronts. Most of the information I have seen indicates that these measurements have steadily trended upward over the last 4-5 decades at least with respect to the areas where equipment exists to retrieve such storm data. Preliminary work presented by J. Sander at the December 2011 American Geophysical Union meeting in San Francisco, found that the number of days with very high CAPE values over the eastern two-thirds of the United States between 1970 and 2009 did increase significantly.

Supporting references:
"Severe thunderstorms and climate change" - Link: ScienceDirect.com - Atmospheric Research - Severe thunderstorms and climate change

"The spatial distribution of severe thunderstorm and tornado environments from global reanalysis data" - Link: ScienceDirect.com - Atmospheric Research - The spatial distribution of severe thunderstorm and tornado environments from global reanalysis data

(More available upon request)

Of importance here, however, is to realize that the most serious consequences of anthropogenic CO2 emissions is not the minimal impacts that have just begun to unfold, but rather, as the OP specifies, the impacts of the coming century which the insurance industry pays especial attention to and is why the major insurers and re-insurers are moving out of the storm damage and extreme weather event insurance business.

Additional support:
"Changes in severe thunderstorm environment frequency during the 21st century caused by anthropogenically enhanced global radiative forcing" - Link:
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/50/19719.full.pdf

...The objective of this study was to investigate possible changes in the frequency of severe thunderstorm environments in the United States, in response to anthropogenic increases in GHG concentration. Global climate model output and high-resolution regional climate model output were used to compute fields of CAPE and vertical wind shear. These two parameters characterize the meteorological conditions that foster severe thunderstorm formation.

CAPE increases throughout the United States under the A2 emissions scenario, relative to a modern reference period. This change is consistent with theoretical predictions, as is the decrease of shear. Because severe thunderstorms have been thought to occur most readily when CAPE and vertical wind shear both are large in a local environment, a possible outcome from increased CAPE and decreased shear is the predominance
of less organized, generally nonsevere thunderstorms. However, when jointly evaluated, the increase in CAPE more than compensates for the decrease in shear such that the environment would still be considered favorable for severe convection. The result is a net increase in NDSEV, the number of days on which meteorological conditions would support the formation of severe thunderstorms.
It is emphasized that the extent of this change varies regionally and seasonally. In particular, the largest future increases in CAPE and therefore NDSEV occur during JJA, throughout the densely populated regions of the southern and eastern United States...​

"[FONT=AdvTT2cba4af3.B][FONT=AdvTT2cba4af3.B]Transient response of severe thunderstorm forcing to elevated greenhouse gas concentrations" Link- Transient response of severe thunderstorm forcing to elevated greenhouse gas concentrations - Trapp - 2009 - Geophysical Research Letters - Wiley Online Library[/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=AdvTT2cba4af3.B][FONT=AdvTT2cba4af3.B]

...[FONT=AdvTT2cba4af3.B]

[FONT=AdvTT2cba4af3.B]4. Summary and Conclusions[/FONT]​

[/FONT][23] Our study shows that the frequency of severe thunderstorm forcing increases in time in response to the A1B scenario of GHG emissions. This is also true for severe-thunderstorm forcing that is constrained by the occurrence of convective precipitation. The rate of increase varies with geographical region and inherently depends on (i) low-level water vapor availability and transport, and (ii) the frequency of midlatitude synoptic-scale cyclones during the warm season. The current report provides further evidence of the effect of anthropogenic GHG emissions on

long-term trends in thunderstorm forcing [​

[FONT=AdvTTf90d833a.I][FONT=AdvTTf90d833a.I]Trapp et al.​

​

, 2007a; [FONT=AdvTTf90d833a.I][FONT=AdvTTf90d833a.I]Del Genio et al.[/FONT][/FONT], 2007]. Further, it is suggested that deceleration of the trajectory of GHG emissions could help reduce increases in severe convective weather in the coming decades.

[​

​

24] A consideration of other meteorological factors, and other approaches [[FONT=AdvTTf90d833a.I][FONT=AdvTTf90d833a.I]Trapp et al.[/FONT][/FONT], 2007b], will be necessary to refine these conclusions for specific hazardous phenomena such as tornadoes. Furthermore, resolution of questions raised about individual anomalous years in storm occurrence

awaits advanced statistical and high-resolution dynamical modeling...​

​

[/FONT]​

[/FONT]​

[/FONT][/FONT]
​

 

[Old Rocks]

There is, however, a pattern of increasing intensity in the events we see,

that of course is a huge huge liberal lie. ACE ( accumulated cyclonic energy) numbers show we are at a global 50 year low with the trend still headed down!!

Don't mean to rock your world. sorry

Links? Names of scientists making those statements?

 

[Freemason9]

The global warming hoax is driven by insurance companies to justfy increased premiums.

oh, okay

LOL

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

There is, however, a pattern of increasing intensity in the events we see,

that of course is a huge huge liberal lie. ACE ( accumulated cyclonic energy) numbers show we are at a global 50 year low with the trend still headed down!!

Don't mean to rock your world. sorry

Links? Names of scientists making those statements?

Accumulated Cyclone Energy (ACE) | Weather Underground

please tell us what graph shows about world hurricane (cyclone) activity over the last 7 years!!

 

[Trakar]

that of course is a huge huge liberal lie. ACE ( accumulated cyclonic energy) numbers show we are at a global 50 year low with the trend still headed down!!

Don't mean to rock your world. sorry

Links? Names of scientists making those statements?

Accumulated Cyclone Energy (ACE) | Weather Underground

please tell us what graph shows about world hurricane (cyclone) activity over the last 7 years!!

For a blog, the weather underground is about as good as it gets science wise, almost on par with the Skeptical Science. Regardless, blogs are not good sources to try and learn science that you don't have much background in.

The primary problem here, however, seems to be that the OP, and my discussion of the OP, are not framed only in terms of world hurricane frequency over the last 7 years. The discussion being held, involved the increasing levels of atmospheric energy creating more extreme differentials as that extra energy is being redistributed resulting in what we call "weather." As stated in the OP, the increases in damage are being caused by both an increasing population that is expanding the size and value of the "targets" for damage, and the increasing amounts of energy being retained in the environment due primarily to humanity's open-combustion of fossil fuels over the last couple of centuries.

The discussion here, is what can we do to minimize the amount that we are going to have to pay in taxes to cover the damages and rebuilding associated with federal disaster relief due to these issues versus how much it will cost to enact enhanced national/state building codes and reasonable measures to reduce our release of naturally sequestered carbon and increase the efficiency and sustainability of our domestic energy usage, and will it be cheaper than just paying the increased tax rates to offset increasing disaster relief costs?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The discussion being held, involved the increasing levels of atmospheric energy creating more extreme differentials as that extra energy.

what extra energy??????? The trend has been down for the last 50 years. It was all a big liberal lie!! Obama and Gore said Katrina was related to increased ACE. This was a huge huge lie. There is no evidence that Katrina or any other storm was made worse by C02; in fact the evidence shows the exact opposite!! Why do liberals lie? Because anything is a good excuse to centralize and socialize government. Hitler Stalin and Mao though they had good reasons too. Sadly, the herd mentality is deeply evolved in our hearts I'm afraid, and always has been.

Don't mean to rock your world! Sorry

 

[Trakar]

The discussion being held, involved the increasing levels of atmospheric energy creating more extreme differentials as that extra energy.

what extra energy??????? The trend has been down for the last 50 years. It was all a big liberal lie!! Obama and Gore said Katrina was related to increased ACE. This was a huge huge lie. There is no evidence that Katrina or any other storm was made worse by C02; in fact the evidence shows the exact opposite!! Why do liberals lie? Because anything is a good excuse to centralize and socialize government. Hitler Stalin and Mao though they had good reasons too. Sadly, the herd mentality is deeply evolved in our hearts I'm afraid, and always has been.

Don't mean to rock your world! Sorry

(I suspect that there is a strong problem with the manner in which you are interpreting the data you are reading but I don't make it a habit of discussing blog science even when it comes to sources and people that I know and respect - if you would care to restate the arguments you are agreeing with from that article, in your own terms, I will be happy to give your understanding a more thorough consideration)

Big difference between ACE and the amount of energy increasingly being retained (the difference between top of the atmosphere solar input and top of the atmosphere emissions) in our planetary environment. Again, largely irrelevant to this thread, if you wish to argue that some alternative to mainstream science understandings should be used instead of the mainstream science which all of the national and international academies of science endorse, then that is your windmill to tilt at, but it is irrelevant and off-topic to the discussion in this thread.

This thread is for the discussion of which mix of adaptation and amelioration public policies is most cost effective in terms of preserving and growing the national economy.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The discussion being held, involved the increasing levels of atmospheric energy creating more extreme differentials as that extra energy.

what extra energy??????? The trend has been down for the last 50 years. It was all a big liberal lie!! Obama and Gore said Katrina was related to increased ACE. This was a huge huge lie. There is no evidence that Katrina or any other storm was made worse by C02; in fact the evidence shows the exact opposite!! Why do liberals lie? Because anything is a good excuse to centralize and socialize government. Hitler Stalin and Mao though they had good reasons too. Sadly, the herd mentality is deeply evolved in our hearts I'm afraid, and always has been.

Don't mean to rock your world! Sorry

(I suspect that there is a strong problem with the manner in which you are interpreting the data you are reading but I don't make it a habit of discussing blog science even when it comes to sources and people that I know and respect - if you would care to restate the arguments you are agreeing with from that article, in your own terms, I will be happy to give your understanding a more thorough consideration)

Big difference between ACE and the amount of energy increasingly being retained (the difference between top of the atmosphere solar input and top of the atmosphere emissions) in our planetary environment. Again, largely irrelevant to this thread, if you wish to argue that some alternative to mainstream science understandings should be used instead of the mainstream science which all of the national and international academies of science endorse, then that is your windmill to tilt at, but it is irrelevant and off-topic to the discussion in this thread.

This thread is for the discussion of which mix of adaptation and amelioration public policies is most cost effective in terms of preserving and growing the national economy.

Dear, please stop the total utter BS and admit there are no 'increasing levels of atmospheric energy " and that it is a total liberal lie for the usual liberal purpose,i.e., to centralize and socialize the government!!!!


Trakar: "The discussion being held, involved the increasing levels of atmospheric energy creating more extreme differentials as that extra energy."

 

[Trakar]

what extra energy??????? The trend has been down for the last 50 years. It was all a big liberal lie!! Obama and Gore said Katrina was related to increased ACE. This was a huge huge lie. There is no evidence that Katrina or any other storm was made worse by C02; in fact the evidence shows the exact opposite!! Why do liberals lie? Because anything is a good excuse to centralize and socialize government. Hitler Stalin and Mao though they had good reasons too. Sadly, the herd mentality is deeply evolved in our hearts I'm afraid, and always has been.

Don't mean to rock your world! Sorry

(I suspect that there is a strong problem with the manner in which you are interpreting the data you are reading but I don't make it a habit of discussing blog science even when it comes to sources and people that I know and respect - if you would care to restate the arguments you are agreeing with from that article, in your own terms, I will be happy to give your understanding a more thorough consideration)

Big difference between ACE and the amount of energy increasingly being retained (the difference between top of the atmosphere solar input and top of the atmosphere emissions) in our planetary environment. Again, largely irrelevant to this thread, if you wish to argue that some alternative to mainstream science understandings should be used instead of the mainstream science which all of the national and international academies of science endorse, then that is your windmill to tilt at, but it is irrelevant and off-topic to the discussion in this thread.

This thread is for the discussion of which mix of adaptation and amelioration public policies is most cost effective in terms of preserving and growing the national economy.

Dear, please stop the total utter BS and admit there are no 'increasing levels of atmospheric energy " and that it is a total liberal lie for the usual liberal purpose,i.e., to centralize and socialize the government!!!!


Trakar: "The discussion being held, involved the increasing levels of atmospheric energy creating more extreme differentials as that extra energy."

This is your fringe conspiracy theory to support if you so choose, it is not based upon any compelling evidence that I am aware of. Nor is this relevant to the OP topic of this thread. I will be happy to discuss and interact with comments relevant to this thread's topic, if you wish to start a thread to discuss your perceived political conspiracy theories and pseudoscience beliefs, that is your right, but, I have no interest in such bizarre alternate reality excursions/fantasies.

 

[Trakar]

Who Pays for Climate Change?
As we have begun to talk about, how much of the costs of dealing with climate change are we going to leave for current and future generations of tax-payers to pay for? In addition, it only seems reasonable that those most responsible for the problem should pay the most for the privilege of profiting from something that everyone must pay to deal with. We have seen that there are ways of investing and building solutions that should ultimately help us to minimize the long-term environmental impact of our growth to a global economy.
Last year, taxpayers paid around a $100B in Federal Disaster Relief to cover weather/drought related damage disbursements:

Who Pays for Climate Change?
“Overall, the insurance industry estimates that 2012 was the second-costliest year in U.S. history for climate-related disasters, with more than $139 billion in damages. But private insurers themselves covered only about 25 percent of these costs ($33 billion), leaving the federal government and its public insurance enterprises to pay for the majority of the remaining claims. That reflects a major shift in liabilities with respect to climate change away from private insurers to public alternatives, a shift that began in earnest after the $72 billion hit the industry took in 2005 from Hurricane Katrina.”

​

Of course, it is not going to be $100B every year over the next century, but I see nothing to assure that the average will be less than $100B a year, a century from now.
And, while we’re at it, this would probably be a good place to mention NRDC’s “Closing the Power Plant Carbon Pollution Loophole: Smart Ways the Clean Air Act Can Clean Up America’s Biggest Climate Polluters.” Personally, I would rather see a carbon tax to capture market externalities and then let the market forces help us clean up energy production, and help pay for adaptation measures.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

(I suspect that there is a strong problem with the manner in which you are interpreting the data you are reading but I don't make it a habit of discussing blog science even when it comes to sources and people that I know and respect - if you would care to restate the arguments you are agreeing with from that article, in your own terms, I will be happy to give your understanding a more thorough consideration)

Big difference between ACE and the amount of energy increasingly being retained (the difference between top of the atmosphere solar input and top of the atmosphere emissions) in our planetary environment. Again, largely irrelevant to this thread, if you wish to argue that some alternative to mainstream science understandings should be used instead of the mainstream science which all of the national and international academies of science endorse, then that is your windmill to tilt at, but it is irrelevant and off-topic to the discussion in this thread.

This thread is for the discussion of which mix of adaptation and amelioration public policies is most cost effective in terms of preserving and growing the national economy.

Dear, please stop the total utter BS and admit there are no 'increasing levels of atmospheric energy " and that it is a total liberal lie for the usual liberal purpose,i.e., to centralize and socialize the government!!!!


Trakar: "The discussion being held, involved the increasing levels of atmospheric energy creating more extreme differentials as that extra energy."

This is your fringe conspiracy theory to support if you so choose, it is not based upon any compelling evidence that I am aware of. Nor is this relevant to the OP topic of this thread. I will be happy to discuss and interact with comments relevant to this thread's topic, if you wish to start a thread to discuss your perceived political conspiracy theories and pseudoscience beliefs, that is your right, but, I have no interest in such bizarre alternate reality excursions/fantasies.

dear, you said "increasing levels of atmospheric energy". Do you admit it is a lie????????????????

 

[Trakar]

Dear, please stop the total utter BS and admit there are no 'increasing levels of atmospheric energy " and that it is a total liberal lie for the usual liberal purpose,i.e., to centralize and socialize the government!!!!


Trakar: "The discussion being held, involved the increasing levels of atmospheric energy creating more extreme differentials as that extra energy."

This is your fringe conspiracy theory to support if you so choose, it is not based upon any compelling evidence that I am aware of. Nor is this relevant to the OP topic of this thread. I will be happy to discuss and interact with comments relevant to this thread's topic, if you wish to start a thread to discuss your perceived political conspiracy theories and pseudoscience beliefs, that is your right, but, I have no interest in such bizarre alternate reality excursions/fantasies.

dear, you said "increasing levels of atmospheric energy". Do you admit it is a lie????????????????

I demonstrated scientific support for my statement, I am not a liberal, and nothing you have asserted, much less presented compelling evidence of, contradicts or negates my supported statement.