07/01/2017

Insurers Paid Out $50bn For Natural Disaster Claims In 2016

The Guardian - Reuters

Last year saw highest costs from natural disasters since 2012, according to data from reinsurer Munich Re
Hurricane Matthew, 2016’s third-costliest disaster, hits Jacksonville, Florida, in October. Photograph: Charlie Riedel/AP
Last year saw the highest costs from natural disasters since 2012, with two earthquakes in Japan in April accounting for the heaviest losses, a leading insurer has said.
Losses from natural disasters worldwide totalled $175bn (£142bn) last year, some $50bn of which was covered by insurance, Munich Re said in an annual survey on Wednesday.
The earthquakes on Japan’s southern Kyushu island caused $31bn worth of damage, with $6bn of the costs covered by insurance. Floods in China in June and July caused $20bn in costs, only $300m of which was insured.
The third-costliest disaster was Hurricane Matthew, which hit the Caribbean and the eastern US in October. It incurred losses totalling $10.2bn, of which $3.8bn was covered by insurance.
In 2015, when the El Niño weather phenomenon reduced hurricane activity in the North Atlantic, global natural disaster losses totalled $103bn, $32bn of that sum insured. However, the number of people killed dropped to 8,700 last year from 25,400 the previous year.
Last year’s losses were “in the mid-range” after three years of relatively low costs, Munich Re board member Torsten Jeworrek said in a statement. He stressed that “losses in a single year are obviously random and cannot be seen as a trend”.
The company said there was an “exceptional” number of floods, which accounted for 34% of overall losses, compared with an average of 21% over the past decade.
Those included $6bn in losses, about half of them insured, resulting from storms and flooding in Europe – particularly in Germany and the Paris region – in May and June.
Jeworrek said that “the high percentage of uninsured losses, especially in emerging markets and developing countries, remains a concern”.

Links

Australian Companies' Negligence On Tackling Climate Change Will Cost Us

Fairfax - Julien Vincent

As you contemplate the coming year, what it might bring, and your own personal goals and hopes, here's a little fact to help orient your thoughts: planet Earth has just experienced its warmest year since records began.
If that news sounds familiar, it might be because that the same was also true for 2015. And 2014. Temperatures are now more than 1 degree above pre-industrial levels and on current trends are set to pass the 2 degree mark agreed to in Paris within two decades.


In other words, if you're lucky enough to have a newborn child, by the time it reaches adulthood our prospects of keeping a lid on global warming will be nil - unless dramatic changes to greenhouse gas emissions take place.
The issue of climate change has put roots down in the business pages for good reason. Everything we stand to lose due to climate change, and everything causing the problem has a value of some kind, is owned by somebody and sitting on a balance sheet somewhere.
As Paul Fisher, former deputy head of the Bank of England, pointed out on a recent visit to Australia, climate change "is potentially a systemic risk" which "could be the trigger for the next financial crisis."

Myriad of climate change risks
The Financial Stability Board (FSB) - set up by the G20 in the aftermath of the GFC to reduce risks in the global market – is aware of this and has singled out climate change as a major threat.
Last month, the FSB's 'Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures' (TCFD) - chaired by New York's former billionaire mayor Michael Bloomberg - released its recommendations that highlighted to investors, managers and directors alike that climate change risks are myriad.
They range from the physical, such as extreme weather events and rising sea levels, to transition risks including changes in policy and market expectations, as well as changes in technology. And for every risk, there is at least one opportunity to be part of the solution.
Climate change will affect the entire global economy. And Australian companies are lagging behind adjusting to that fact. Photo: Jessica Shapiro
Backed by companies with a combined market value of $US1.5 trillion ($2.1 trillion) and financial institutions responsible for $US20 trillion in assets, the TCFD produced a framework for disclosing climate risks.
The business community and financial sector are starting to appreciate the gravity of the issue and major initiatives like the TCFD are not alone. Last month, a new report showed the scope of individuals and institutions that had pledged to divest from fossil fuels now has extended to over US5 trillion in assets.

Australian companies lagging behind
This is a direction at odds with many Australian companies and investors. Market Forces recently assessed 25 of Australia's largest fossil fuel companies against a set of principles produced by Oxford University, designed to test whether a company was doing the bare minimum on managing climate risk to warrant engagement from investors.
The principles set the bar low, assessing whether or not companies accepted that stabilising the climate required net zero carbon dioxide emissions, whether the company has a plan (any plan) to limit future emissions, and whether the company has laid down metrics and milestones to guide that transition plan.
Everything we stand to lose due to climate change, and everything causing the problem has a value of some kind, is owned by somebody and sitting on a balance sheet somewhere.
Twenty-four out of 25 companies contacted failed to meet those principles, effectively meaning they're doing such a poor job of managing climate risk than they don't warrant engagement from investors, and should be divested from. Nine of the companies even failed to meet a single criteria.
The gulf between global leadership in finance and business on climate change, and the state of Australian companies and many of our investors, is widening.

Costly negligence
This is negligent not just for any hopes of preserving a stable climate system but also for our collective wealth and financial stability, given that almost all of us are exposed to climate risks through our pension funds, banking relationships and sovereign wealth.
But it's also a major missed opportunity. In April 2016, Bloomberg described wind and solar as 'crushing fossil fuels' with the renewable sector receiving twice as much investment as fossil fuels.
So if you're wondering about what the year ahead might have in store, let's call it a seismic shift in expectation.
Globally, regulators are signalling that no company can expect to get away without having a transition plan. Asset owners in turn cannot expect to get away with holding companies that are failing to manage climate risk. Lenders and insurers cannot expect to get away with enabling projects that expand the fossil fuel sector.
Business leaders thinking about how they might want to better themselves in 2017 would be well advised to take an intensive course in managing climate risk.
The economy needs to move on faster than most of us realise – surely you wouldn't want to be left behind?

Links

New Study Confirms NOAA Finding Of Faster Global Warming

The Guardian

Thomas Karl and colleagues were harassed by Republicans for publishing inconvenient science. A new study proves them right.
House Science Committee Chairman Lamar Smith, R-Texas. Photograph: Scott J. Ferrell/Congressional Quarterly/Getty Image
A new study has shown that a 2015 NOAA paper finding that the Earth is warming more rapidly than previously thought was correct.

Lead author Zeke Hausfather explains the paper.

Once again, science is shown to work. The laborious process in which scientists check and recheck their work and subject their ideas to peer review has led to another success. An independent test of global warming data has confirmed a groundbreaking 2015 study that showed warming was faster than prior estimates.
Because of its inconvenient findings, the study’s lead author Thomas Karl was subjected to harassment by Lamar Smith (R-TX), chair of the House Science Committee, in an effort to impugn his credibility. But now Karl and his co-authors have been vindicated.
Let’s take a step back and discuss the science. Measuring the temperature of the Earth is hard. There are many locations to measure and many choices to make. Should we measure the temperature of the ground? Of the ocean waters? How deep in the water? If we measure air temperatures, what height should the measurements be taken? How many locations should we make measurements at? What happens if the instruments change over time or if the location changes? What happens if a city grows near a measurement location and the so-called urban heat-island effect grows? How do we estimate the temperatures in areas where no measurements exist?
These and many other questions make measuring global warming challenge. Different groups of scientists make different decisions so that depending on the institution, they will get a slightly different temperature result.
But this diversity is also a good thing. It turns out that it doesn’t matter whose results you use – NASA, NOAA, The Hadley Centre in the UK, the Japanese Meteorological Agency, or the Berkeley Earth group – they all report a warming world. However, the rates are slightly different. So, one persistent question is, which group is most accurate? Whose methods are best?
The new study looks into just this question. The group focused on perhaps the biggest differences among the groups – how they handle ocean temperatures. Specifically, global temperature values typically use a combination of near-surface air temperatures in land regions and sea surface temperatures in ocean regions. Since oceans cover approximately 70% of our planet, the way ocean temperatures are dealt with can separate the warming rates between these groups.
Ocean temperatures can be measured by ship-based temperature sensors, by special floating measuring instruments, or by satellites. Prior to the advent of satellites and floating sensors, ships were the main temperature sensing platforms. Ship sensors, which measure engine intake water, are known to be slightly warmer than the actual water. So using them introduces a warm bias in the measurements.
Also, as ships have gotten larger, the depth of the engine intakes have increased – meaning the tested water was further from the actual ocean surface. Since the temperature results from buoys differs from ship measurements, the various scientific groups have tended to try to perform corrections between the different sensors. The way the correction is done affects the reported warming rate.
The authors recognized that one of the biggest questions is how to stitch together different temperature results from different sensors. Therefore, they broke the temperature data up into groups according to the measurement device (buoys, satellites, ARGO floats, ships, etc.) and they evaluated warming rates separately for each group. The authors also used advanced statistics to handle areas where no data were recorded.
After applying their tests, the authors found that the results promoted by Karl at NOAA are the best, and other groups, in particular the Hadley Centre in the UK and the Japanese agency, are too cold.
So what does this all mean? A few things. First, this study is a nice reminder that the proper way for science to work is for publications to be scrutinized and checked by others. This process leads the entire scientific community to a deeper understanding of the science.
Second, this validates the scientists who were originally attacked by political non-scientists and in some cases by contrarian scientists. For instance, Judith Curry, a well-known critic of mainstream climate science was quoted as saying:
The new NOAA dataset disagrees with a UK dataset, which is generally regarded as the gold standard for global sea surface temperature datasets … The new dataset also disagrees with ARGO buoys and satellite analyses ... Color me unconvinced.
I actually study ocean temperatures so I knew this statement by Judith Curry was complete nonsense. It is nice to see a team actually take the time to prove it. Perhaps she and others will finally admit they were wrong.
This paper is another reminder why it is so important to invest in the temperature measurements that are needed to create long-term climate records. We really need uninterrupted measurements that span many years/decades if we want to truly understand the Earth’s changing climate. Even though the costs of making these measurements are very small compared to what we spend on other less important activities, I am concerned that the new US administration will decide to pull the plug on these projects. If that happens, we will be flying blind.
Finally, and for those who read my posts regularly, I am sounding like a broken record. Global warming is happening, it never stopped, it never paused, and the models have gotten it right.
It reminds me of a debate between creationists and scientists. One scientist whose name I cannot remember stated, “we have the fossil record, we win.” Well, a similar quote works here. “We have the data, we win.” Now let’s move on to solving the problem.

Links