06/07/2022

NOTE: Site Update

NOTE: This site has not been updated because of the webmaster's ill health.
at No comments:

17/03/2022

(NASA - Goddard Institute of Space Studies) GISTEMP Climate Spiral

NASA Goddard Institute of Space Studies - 

The visualization presents monthly global temperature anomalies between the years 1880-2021.


The GISTEMP climate spiral 1880-2021.

These temperatures are based on the GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP v4), an estimate of global surface temperature change.

Anomalies are defined relative to a base period of 1951-1980. The data file used to create this visualization can be accessed here.
at No comments:

(AU Canberra Times) Rural And Remote Australia Should Be The Heart Of The Nation When It Comes To Fighting Climate Change

Canberra Times - David Shearman

Governments can no longer ignore that the bottom line for much of our economy is the survival of our soil. Picture: Shutterstock

Author
Dr David Shearman AM MB, ChB, PhD, FRACP, FRCPE. is Emeritus Professor of Medicine at Adelaide University and previously held senior positions at Edinburgh and Yale Universities.
He is author of many books relating to climate change, its science, consequences, democratic and international and economic implications.
He served on the IPCC for two terms on health and scientific sections.
Dr Shearman has been President of the Conservation Council of South Australia and with the late Professor Tony McMichael he founded Doctors for the Environment Australia.
The ACM readers' election survey recently sought the views of non-city-dwellers from regional and rural Australia.

Their most important concerns were the environment, climate change, health and leadership, the absence of which is now palpably obvious from the ineffective preparation for extreme weather events, particularly the devastating east coast floods.

The Emergency Response Fund of $4 billion was established in 2019 in response to the bushfire crisis. As ACM's Voice of Real Australia newsletter put it,

"it seems we have a truckload of money set aside for disaster recovery, but the people affected aren't getting much of it. They also didn't get much of it for preparedness either."

Now, after decades of denial and prevarication, the new National Climate Resilience and Adaptation Strategy accepts that "as the global temperature rises and other changes to the climate increase, Australia will face more frequent and severe events, such as extreme weather, fires and floods ..."

Even this is an understatement, for our health and existence on this planet is threatened by damage to our life-support systems - a stable climate, clean water, clean air, biodiversity and the ecological services it provides, and land on which to grow food. All of these are under increasing threat.

Governments have yet to understand and offer leadership to protect these life supports, and to recognise that the rural sector is the beating heart of the nation without which the future is bleak for all.

Our crucial rural, regional and remote areas are home to one-quarter of Australia's population. The people that live there are known for their self-sufficiency, incredible resilience and fortitude, yet governments offer them little as they face the rapidly advancing extremes of global heating.
The national government is woeful, and rural representatives - mainly the Nationals - have failed to act successfully on these crucial issues.
They suffer from totally inadequate healthcare, communication, transport and other support services which rank well below those in the rest of Australia. This is the rural-urban divide, which is an indictment of government and the operation of democracy in this country.

Rural health services are mostly inadequate, as reflected in the regions' comparatively poorer mental health statistics, higher suicide rates, poorer life expectancy and higher prevalence of chronic illness.

Housing, the fundamental basis of good health and community stability, is lacking, despite it being a right under the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Adequate accommodation is also vital for seasonal workers, an integral part of the farming industry.

This human right is transgressed most by government with the appalling housing situation in many rural and remote Aboriginal communities.

Community resilience and our ability to adapt to change depends on these and many other services. But local banking, postal services and communications are also all withering under economic rationalism; all have an impact on whether health and agricultural workers are prepared to live and work in these communities.

Ultimately, our governments' greatest failure is in their understanding of biodiversity and ecological services. The bottom line is the survival of soil and land.

Increasing heat and falling rainfall are decreasing the thousands of species which make up the living soil, and agricultural yields are decreasing worldwide.

To date there has been increased productivity, but with some practices which harm the soil and biodiversity in general. In Australia farm income is falling, which encourages land-clearing and which has already made us amongst the world's biggest land-clearers.

All remaining wood and grasslands must be maintained for the shelter of pollinators and other ecological services. With declining production, economic rationalism may need to be ditched to introduce subsidies.

What action is needed? The national government is woeful, and rural representatives - mainly the Nationals - have failed to act successfully on these crucial issues. They remain conflicted over their support, together with state governments, for fossil-fuel developments which damage the environment.

Only independents have offered needed solutions - for example, Helen Haines promoting local renewable-energy security and micro-grids. This would deliver cheaper energy for farming, and the option for secure shelters from fire, flood and heat waves.

Responsibility must lie with a framework of local authorities - particularly farmers with a deep attachment and care for the land (and their organisations such as Farmers for Climate Action), the National Rural Health Alliance, scientists and planning experts. They should receive the truckload of federal funding.

As a doctor, this is my prescription for rural health and survival.

Links
at No comments:

(AU The Conversation) Disappointing Federal Court Decision Undoes 20 Years Of Climate Litigation Progress In Australia

The Conversation -  | 

AAP Image/Dean Lewins

Authors
  •  is Director, Melbourne Climate Futures, The University of Melbourne
  •  is Research fellow, Melbourne Climate Futures, The University of Melbourne 
The federal court has unanimously decided Federal Environment Minister Sussan Ley does not have a duty of care to protect young people from the harms of climate change.

The ruling overturns a previous landmark win by eight high school students, who sought to stop Ley approving a coal mine expansion in New South Wales.

While the judge did not prevent the mine expansion, he agreed the minister did indeed have a duty of care to children in the face of the climate crisis.

Ley’s successful appeal is disappointing. As legal scholars, we believe the judgment sets back the cause of climate litigation in Australia by two decades, at a time when we urgently need climate action to accelerate.

So why was Ley successful?

The federal court’s 282-page judgment offers myriad reasons for why no duty should be imposed on the minister.

But what emerges most clearly is the court’s view that it’s not their place to set policies on climate change. Instead, they say, it’s the job of our elected representatives in the federal government.

Environment Minister Sussan Ley successfully argued she doesn’t have a duty of care to protect young people from climate change. AAP Image/Ethan James

What did the judges say?

In the original class action case filed in 2020, a single federal court judge decided Ley owed Australian children a common law duty of care when considering and approving the coal mine extension, under Australia’s Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act.

This required the minister to take reasonable care when exercising her powers to avoid causing Australian children under 18 personal injury or death from carbon dioxide emissions.

Ley appealed this decision in July last year. She also approved the coal mine extension, arguing her decision wouldn’t contribute to global warming because even if the mine was refused, other sources would step in to meet the coal demand.

And today, in a live-streamed proceeding, the full bench of the federal court ruled in her favour: the stated duty should not be imposed on the minister. While the outcome was unanimous, the three judges had separate reasoning.
One judge saw climate change as a matter for government, not the courts, to address, saying the duty would be an issue “involving questions of policy (scientific, economic, social, industrial and political) […] unsuitable for the Judicial branch to resolve”.

Another said there was insufficient “closeness” and “directness” between the minister’s power to approve the coal mine and the effect this would have on the children. But he left open the possibility of a future claim if any of the children in the class action suffered damage.

The third judge had three main reasons. First, the EPBC Act doesn’t create a duty-of-care relationship between the minister and children. Second, establishing a standard of care isn’t feasible as it would result in “incoherence” between the duty and the minister’s functions. Third, it’s not currently foreseeable that approving the coal mine extension would cause the children personal injury, as the law is understood.

The good news: climate science remains undisputed

In the original case, the judge made landmark rulings about the dangers of climate change, marking a significant moment in Australian climate litigation.

He found one million of today’s Australian children are expected to be hospitalised due to heat stress, they’ll experience substantial economic loss, and when they grow up the Great Barrier Reef and most eucalypt forests won’t exist.

According to the judge, this harm was “reasonably foreseeable”. This is important from a legal point of view, as courts have previously considered climate change to be speculative, and a future problem.

Luca Saunders, 16, Anjali Sharma, 17, Izzy Raj-Seppings, 15, and Ava Princi, 18, were among eight children behind the landmark court case. AAP Image/Dean Lewins

As part of her appeal, Sussan Ley argued that these findings, based on presented evidence, were incorrect and went beyond what was submitted to the court. Today, these arguments were unanimously rejected.

The federal court found all the minister’s criticisms on the evidence of climate change were unfounded and all of the primary judge’s findings were appropriate to be made. As Chief Justice Allsop concluded:
[B]y and large, the nature of the risks and the dangers from global warming, including the possible catastrophe that may engulf the world and humanity was not in dispute.
But while this reaffirms acceptance that climate science is unequivocal, it does nothing to prevent mounting climate change harms, most recently made clear by the devastating floods across NSW and Queensland.

Indeed, it only turns this responsibility back to the current federal government, which has policies increasingly at odds with what the science and concerned citizens say is needed.

Bucking the trend

This was a test case in Australian law, as it explored a novel legal argument. Its failure will likely put a dampener on innovative climate litigation in Australia.

Today’s judgment asserts that the courts are limited in what they can do to address climate change. It goes against the trend of successful climate change court rulings overseas, and the widespread mobilisation across community groups, business and local governments for action.

Just last year, for example, we saw a court in The Hague order oil and gas giant Shell to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 45% by 2030, relative to 2019 levels, and a German court ruling that the government’s climate goals were not strong enough.
Today’s federal court finding that dealing with coal mine emissions is for governments alone seemingly reimposes barriers to climate litigation in Australia, carefully dismantled by the previous two decades of climate change cases.

We’ve seen a number of landmark climate cases in Australia. This includes the Rocky Hill verdict where a judge rejected a new coal mine on climate grounds, and the Bushfire Survivors case where the court found the NSW government had a legal obligation to take meaningful action on climate change.

These brought the glimmer of hope that where the federal government fails to act, the courts will step in. Today’s ruling suggests this is no longer the case.

In the lead up to the Australian federal election, the appeal outcome emphasises the importance of changing government policy if we’re going to get better outcomes on climate change in this country. Climate change certainly will not wait – the fight for a safe climate future continues.

Links
at No comments:

16/03/2022

(QLD BBC) Australia Floods: 'I'm Angry It's Happening Again'

BBC News - Simon Atkinson

In the past two weeks, floods in eastern Australia have killed at least 21 people. Thousands of homes have been left uninhabitable by one of Australia's worst natural disasters.
Sophia Walter with flood-damaged items on her Brisbane street.

Wading through filthy, waist-high floodwaters to escape her apartment, Sophia Walter says her first emotion wasn't fear. It was fury.

"What I felt was a real anger. Anger that this was happening again."

In January 2011, Ms Walter watched "the hill I lived on turn into an island" as Brisbane suffered floods described as a once-in-a-century event.

"I remember thinking to myself, well at least I've gotten it out of the way."

Barely a decade on, she is standing among mountains of abandoned furniture, destroyed electricals and sodden toys, all dumped on the footpath.

A "rain bomb" of intense downpours saw the city's overflowing river and creeks cause billions of dollars of damage. At least five people in Brisbane have died.

Grim warnings

With impeccable timing, as cars were being submerged, homes inundated and ferry pontoons cascaded wildly downstream, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was publishing its latest update on the state of the planet.

Among its many grim warnings: extreme rainfall (as well as droughts and bushfires) will become more and more common. And the window of opportunity to act is closing fast.

"There's no way people can ignore it anymore," says Guy Mansfield, a videographer who scrambled at midnight to save equipment and hard drives before floods consumed his basement office.

Precious photographs and music memorabilia were lost. A stack of destroyed furniture and books is piled outside the Brisbane home he only bought five years ago.

"It seemed astute to move into a flood area after the last flood, because it's a little bit cheaper and we could afford a place here," he says.

"We just thought it might flood again in 30 years or something like that, and we'd totally avoid it. But yeah, here it is. We couldn't believe it."

Guy Mansfield says he lost many precious items.



Flooding on the outskirts of Brisbane earlier this month. Getty Images

Ms Walter - a climate campaigner - aims her anger at Australia's government for being slow to cut carbon emissions and invest in renewables.

"Despite the fact that we're now seeing natural disaster after natural disaster, that this has become the new normal," she says.

"I want to see more ambition, I want us to stop subsidising fossil fuels and to take up the job opportunities there can be in regional communities from renewable energy. Instead, it just feels like we're languishing at the bottom of the pile."

A report published at the COP26 global summit last year backs up that assessment. It ranked Australia last among 60 countries for policy responses to the climate crisis, largely down to a stubborn reliance on coal-powered energy and coal exports.

Like any standalone weather event, we can't say how much a changing climate contributed to these specific floods.

But scientists are united in their view that global warming is making severe floods more likely in northern Australia.

Warmer oceans increase the amount of moisture moving from seas to the atmosphere, says Australia's CSIRO government science agency. That will "most likely increase the intensity of extreme rainfall events".

Brisbane got 80% of its average annual rainfall in just three days, with more water dropping on the city than typically falls in London over a year. Sydney has had its wettest start of the year on record.

But elsewhere in Queensland and New South Wales (NSW), flooding has been even worse. To the north of Brisbane, swollen rivers continue to cut off the town of Gympie.

In Lismore in northern NSW - where some residents scrambled to roofs and waited for 24 hours or more to be rescued - rebuilding will take years.

"Australia is getting hard to live in because of these disasters," said Prime Minister Scott Morrison on a visit to the town on Wednesday.

"We are dealing with a different climate to the one we were dealing with before. I think that's just an obvious fact."

Watch footage of New South Wales floods in the past two weeks

Challenged on his climate record, Mr Morrison said the country had committed to reaching net zero by 2050 (though Australia was widely panned for not raising its crucial 2030 targets).

And he repeated his well-worn argument that reducing Australia's 1.3% share of worldwide emissions would achieve little without a global response.

But campaigners say this ignores that Australia's emissions are large for its population, while also neglecting that stronger action would send a message to the international community.

"There's been no meaningful climate action in eight years. This is a resounding failure," said Amanda Mackenzie, chief executive of the Climate Council.

Reconsidering future

In May, Australians are likely to vote in national elections - the first since the Black Summer bushfires.

With these floods fresh on the mind, the costs of climate change - environmental, human and financial - seem certain to play a big part.

Flood insurance claims look set to reach A$2bn ($1.5bn), putting them on par with those bushfires.

Mr Mansfield says he is not fully insured, but did at least have some coverage. Neighbours were even less fortunate.

"A lot of people around here are uninsured. Some companies won't insure you. Those that do, it's just so expensive. You're looking at A$1,000 a month."

Justine and Jeff Douglas moved into their home in the riverside suburb of Fairfield in December 2010, two weeks before the last major floods.

Now they're assessing water damage to a basement, that also wrote off a car, and reconsidering their future.

"In 2011, we were asked if we'd think of moving out and I said, no way," says Mrs Douglas.

"But the second time round, yeah, we are. We will."

Climate will only be one factor at voting time, she adds. During the pandemic, government tax breaks and support for small businesses "helped us out greatly".

"It's a tough one. And everyone has to really dig deep and make some really big decisions on where to go from here."

Jeff and Justine Douglas say this flood will prompt them to move house.

For her husband, even water lapping at his door for a second time has not convinced him that more extreme weather is necessarily linked to a warming planet.

"I neither believe or disbelieve, I'm terribly on the fence with climate change," Mr Douglas says.

"For as long as we know, we've had tragic events. We've had awful floods, we've had awful weather events. I think there needs to be a lot more work done on it."

But climate scientists say the evidence is clear.

In different times, news of these floods would have made far bigger headlines globally.

"We are all frustrated and we simply have to get the message out that we simply can't afford any more delay," says Prof Lesley Hughes, a climate scientist and pro-vice chancellor at Macquarie University.

"This is the most important existential threat to humanity ever. There are lots of things that grab our attention, like the crisis in Ukraine, and those are shocking tragedies.

"But in the long term, climate change is it."

Links
at No comments:

(AU RenewEconomy) “We Hold A Hose:” Emergency Services Chiefs Call Out Morrison’s Failure On Climate

RenewEconomy - 

Former Commissioner for the ACT Emergency Services Authority Major General Peter Dunn, former Commissioner of Fire and Rescue NSW Greg Mullins, former Queensland Fire and Emergency Services head Lee Johnson and former Deputy Director General of the NSW State Emergency Service Chas Keys in Brisbane. (AAP Image/Jono Searle)

Dozens of Australia’s high ranking emergency services leaders have called out the Morrison Government for its failures to prepare for the impacts of climate change and continued failures to address Australia’s contributions to greenhouse gas emissions.

The group of 37 former fire and emergency service chiefs issued a joint call under the Emergency Leaders for Climate Action collective, saying the Morrison government had been warned of the potential for major flooding events during 2022, but it failed to take any actions to prepare for their impacts.

One of Australia’s longest-serving fire chiefs, former commissioner of Fire & Rescue NSW Greg Mullins, says it is clear the Morrison Government has consistently failed to heed the advice of experts on climate change and the need for better preparation to respond to the growing threat of floods, droughts, and bushfires.

“Time and again this government fails to listen to expert advice. There are 80 recommendations of the Royal Commission into National Natural Disaster Arrangements gathering dust,” Mullins said.

“The Government has failed to implement them. Our elected leaders in Canberra are failing communities right around the country impacted by this disaster, and the thousands of emergency service volunteers and professionals who willingly place their own lives in danger by responding to increasingly frequent and dangerous climate-fuelled disasters.”

“Those of us who do hold hoses know just how dangerous climate change has become. Australia is under-prepared, and Canberra has no answers to how it will rapidly slash emissions this decade.”

Throughout February and March, communities across both New South Wales and Queensland have been devastated by unprecedented levels of flooding that have destroyed properties and claimed the lives of at least 22 people.

Many communities found themselves isolated during the peak of the flooding events and were left largely to fend for themselves – including undertaking their own rescues from rising floodwaters – when emergency service responses were found lacking.

Climate scientists have warned that increased global warming will likely lead to the increased frequency and severity of extreme climate events like floods and bushfires and that urgent action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is needed to minimise the risk.

Prime minister Scott Morrison has been reluctant to accept the urgency of the climate crisis, instead backing the continued expansion of Australia’s coal and gas industries, exacerbating global warming.

This stance has evidently flowed through to the Morrison government’s failure to prepare for the resulting impacts of climate change, and its failure to respond to the flooding emergency once it was evident that thousands of homes and businesses were likely to be devastated.

An emergency declaration by the Morrison government came so late that it had to omit Queensland, as by the time the government was ready to issue the declaration, the worst of the flooding threat in the state had already subsided.

Former commissioner and ACT Emergency Services Authority, major general Peter Dunn, said the flooding wasn’t the first time in recent years that communities were left isolated during a climate change-fuelled disaster, citing the communities largely abandoned following the 2019-20 summer bushfires.

“I know what it’s like to so helplessly witness my community torn apart by a disaster. During Black Summer the fires ripped through Lake Conjola and soon after, we were dealing with a flood,” Dunn said.

“We had no support. We were left to pick up the pieces ourselves. Communities are once again being left behind and it’s clear the lessons of Black Summer have not been learned.”

“As climate change escalates these disasters, history cannot continue to repeat itself.”

“The common denominator is the feeling of abandonment and lack of Federal Government preparedness to respond to these increasingly fierce disasters and address climate change at its root cause: the extraction and burning of fossil fuels,” Dunn added.

On Monday, federal resources minister Keith Pitt announced that up to ten new sites – in seas off the coast of Western Australia, Victoria and Tasmania – may be released for exploration and development of new petroleum reserves, with Pitt again using the conflict in Ukraine as a justification for the expansion of Australia’s fossil fuel industry.

Links
at No comments:

(AU ABC) Children's Climate Change Case Overturned On Appeal As Federal Court Dismisses Government's 'Duty Of Care'

ABC News -  Michael Slezak | Penny Timms

The teenagers said their "fight for a safe future" would not be deterred by the Federal Court's ruling. (ABC News: Michael Slezak)

Key Points
  • A group of eight children launched the class action in 2020
  • The initial judgement agreed the minister had a "duty of care" when assessing fossil fuel projects
  • Experts say an appeal is likely, but in the meantime, the latest ruling removes the duty of care
Federal Environment Minister Sussan Ley has successfully argued she does not have a duty of care to protect young people from climate change when assessing fossil fuel projects.

The ruling of the full bench of the Federal Court today overturned an earlier win by a group of eight children, who brought a class action on behalf of all Australian children that temporarily established the new common-law duty of care.

Experts say the children are likely to appeal against the decision in the High Court, but in the meantime, the ruling removes the duty of care that was established by Justice Mordecai Bromberg.

The class action, led by teenager Anj Sharma, argued that the environment minister had a duty of care to protect young people from climate change, and that this needed to be a consideration in the approval process for projects that would produce greenhouse gas.

Anj Sharma said she was devastated by the Federal Court's judgement. (ABC News: Michael Slezak)
The original class action also argued that digging up and burning coal would make climate change worse and harm young people in the future.

The earlier win, now overturned, led to headlines around the world. The world-first case relied on common-law principles to establish the duty of care, and so was relevant to other common-law countries including England, the United States and New Zealand.

Court unanimous in decision

On Tuesday the full bench of the Federal Court was unanimous in overturning the previous decision.

The judgement said while the evidence of climate change and its dangers to humanity was not disputed, the environment minister did not have a duty of care to Australia's children.

The teenagers first brought the class action in 2020. (ABC News: Michael Slezak)

Ms Sharma said she was angry and devastated by the decision, but said it would not deter the teenagers in their "fight for a safe future".

"The Federal Court today may have accepted the minister's legal arguments over ours, but that does not change the minister's moral obligation to take action on climate change," she said.
"It does not change the science. It does not put out the fires or drain the floodwaters. We will not stop in our fight for climate justice. The world is watching."
Lawyer David Barnden said they would review the judgement and consider their next steps. (ABC News: Michael Slezak)
David Barnden from Equity Generation Lawyers, who represented the class action, said the decision was "disappointing".

"We will continue to support young people in their fight for a safe future and we will carefully review this decision to determine the next steps."

Ms Ley welcomed the decision, saying "common sense has prevailed".

In a statement, her office said the government would closely review the judgement and was "committed to protecting our environment for current and future generations".

Common-law climate case a world-first

In the initial judgement last May, Justice Bromberg agreed the minister had the duty of care to protect young people from climate change, that climate change would cause catastrophic and "startling" harm to young people, and that approving a new coal mine would increase the chance of that harm.

The original case also asked the court for an injunction to prevent the minister approving the Whitehaven Coal's Vickery Extension Project near Gunnedah in New South Wales.

Federal Environment Minister Sussan Ley has won her appeal against the original decision. (ABC News: Ian Cutmore)
While Justice Mordecai Bromberg agreed that the duty of care existed, he denied the application for an injunction on technical grounds.

Four months after the initial ruling last May, Ms Ley approved the coal mine, arguing that despite the duty of care existing, her approving the mine would not contribute to the heating of the world, since there were plenty of other sources that could satisfy coal demand.

On Tuesday, all three Federal Court judges had different reasoning as to why the government's appeal should be allowed, and Justice Bromberg's ruling was overturned.

One reason was that allowing the "duty of care" ruling to stand would have required changes to government policy, with chief justice James Allsop saying that should be left to the government itself, not the courts.

A lawyer says the decision could be seen as a setback for other people wanting to pursue climate action in the courts. (ABC News: Michael Slezak)
Jacqueline Peel, a professor at Melbourne Law School and the director of research group Melbourne Climate Futures, said the decision could be seen as a setback for other people who want to pursue climate change action in court.

"This judgement really says, 'Look, it's not the role of the courts to make these decisions — it's the role of our governments'," she said.

"But … part of the reason that people have taken these issues to the courts — why these kids were suing the government in the first place — was because of a lack of effective government policy."

Professor Peel also said because the latest Federal Court ruling was unanimous, it could be difficult for the children to appeal the decision.

Environment Minister Sussan Ley has successfully argued she does not have a duty of care to protect young people from climate change when assessing fossil fuel projects. Michael Slezak reports.

Links
at No comments:

15/03/2022

(AU The Guardian) Mayor Defends Planning Decisions ‘Made 150 Years Ago’ Amid Calls For Flood Insurance Support

The Guardian -

Home owners are being left to cover ‘catastrophic’ financial risks as the climate crisis and a legacy of poor planning coalesce, expert says
Floodwaters surrounding the town of Gympie. Gympie mayor says the commonwealth should expand its planned reinsurance pool to cover floods. Photograph: Bradley Kanaris/Getty Images

Two Queensland mayors of flood-ravaged towns on the Mary River have backed calls for the federal government to help underwrite insurance companies against future inundations.

The calls come as homeowners and small businesses brace for a potential rise in insurance premiums that could hit even those in neighbourhoods that did not flood, and push insurance out of reach for more people in those that did.

Gympie mayor Glen Hartwig and his counterpart in Maryborough, George Seymour, told Guardian Australia the commonwealth should expand its planned $10bn cyclone reinsurance pool in northern Australia to cover floods in the state’s south-east.


“The reality is that a lot of towns that have been around for a little while have to deal with the impact of decisions that were made 150 years ago on where some homes and some businesses were located,” Hartwig said.

“So, yes, assistance for individuals to deal with floods would be a good outcome.”

Set to become operational in July, the reinsurance pool effectively sees the commonwealth insure the insurance companies against huge losses if they offer disaster cover.

A federal Senate committee hearing into the reinsurance scheme last week prompted MPs from both sides of politics representing flood-affected communities to also back its expansion.

Seymour, the mayor of Fraser Coast regional council, said he hoped the government would, at the least, investigate “extending the scheme to include flooding”.

People in Brisbane also bore the brunt of policy decisions that have allowed homes to be built in areas – and with designs – that had left them at the mercy of flood waters.

Dr Di Johnson from Griffith University’s business school said it was individuals, households and small businesses who were left carrying potentially “catastrophic” financial risks while the climate crisis and a legacy of poor planning coalesce.

“When you have people who are paying premiums that are doubling or tripling in a year, then it is obviously market failure,” she said.

“That’s created a hidden cost, because it is a cost that is put on to individual citizens and particular communities, as if they were somehow at fault.”

Johnson said the reinsurance pool would be an important stepping stone toward preventing more homes from becoming uninsured.

“Frankly, if we are trying to support a viable and sustainable insurance market for natural disasters it already urgently needs to be extended – even before it has begun,” she said.

Brisbane’s lord mayor said the reinsurance pool was a matter for the federal government.

“We’re focused on Brisbane’s biggest ever clean up after the city’s biggest ever rain event,” Adrian Schrinner said.

While the Gympie mayor acknowledged that risk was “clearly being carried” by small businesses and residents, he said it was wrong to lay the blame solely at the feet of government or insurers.

“Part of the challenge we face in society is that everyone is looking to ostracise themselves from responsibility,” Hartwig said.

“If you go and buy a property that is built on a floodplain, there is the possibility that it may be inundated and you need to factor that into the sale price.”

“There is a responsibility right across the board, from the people that have purchased the property to the people that have sold it, to local governments that allowed that sort of development to occur and also insurance companies.”

Asked if their councils bear responsibility for the issue due to previous planning decisions, Schrinner said property buyers have access to “detailed information about flood risks” and can reduce the impacts of flooding, while Seymour said “all levels of government need to work together to ensure we have resilient communities”.

Suncorp and RACQ did not directly answer questions as to whether they would increase premiums as a result of the ongoing floods.

Suncorp said “high-risk locations” were being “challenged” by higher premiums as “we face worsening extreme weather”.

“In recent years, we have seen an increase in both natural hazards and reinsurance costs, which impacts premiums,” the insurer said.

But Griffith business school’s Dr Kirsten MacDonald warned homeowners could expect a new reality when their insurance was next up for renewal.

“Across the board those premiums are likely to go up, and disproportionately so in those existing flood zones, and the now-new flood zones,” MacDonald said.

“But it’s when the renewal date comes that these poor people are going to get that shock.”


However she said premium rises should not be inevitable and called on insurers to reward property owners who took action to minimise flood risk when calculating their insurance bill.

She said that houses which were raised above flood levels and constructed from materials which held up well against inundation, such as tiles and hardwoods, should pay lower premiums for insurance against flood, just as those who install extra security pay less for insurance against theft.

MacDonald also backed a broadened reinsurance pool to cover floods for areas where insurance was impossible, either because it was not available or where premiums were “at an extreme price”.

But not everyone is convinced that reinsurance pool would curtail surging home insurance premiums.

A three-year inquiry by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission produced a report in late 2020 that recommended direct subsidies as a tool for bringing down premiums rather than the reinsurance pool the Coalition ultimately adopted.

The commission found reinsurance pools supported the insurance industry rather than improved affordability.

At least one insurance consultant warned the government fund was “going to get hammered” by repeated cyclones and argued instead for relocation and redesign in the face of the climate emergency.

One point on which proponents and critics of the scheme do seem to agree however is that, alone, it will not be enough to keep disaster insurance affordable in the long run.

“Even if that reinsurance pool was extended to cover a wider definition of natural disasters, it is just a Band-Aid, stopgap solution,” Griffith University’s Johnson said.

“Risk mitigation through public infrastructure, like the flood levees, the revised building codes, better drainage, planning and, of course, action on climate change.”

“Ultimately that is going to have the most impact to effectively and sustainably reduce premiums.”

Links
at No comments: