There are few more conservative people than those who determine risk in order for insurance companies to set their rates.
They don’t need to look at the images of winds lashing the East Coast of the United States or the mega-storm ripping across Asia and question whether climate change is real. They’ve already crunched the numbers and seen the trend lines.
Property and casualty insurance payouts in Canada have more than quadrupled in the last nine years to an average of $1.8 billion. Between 1983 and 2008, they averaged $405 million a year.
While it’s troubling for the insurance industry, it’s financially catastrophic for individuals and for governments that bear three to four times that cost.
Public Safety Canada reported the number of natural disasters increased dramatically between 1970 and 2015. Canada’s auditor general reported that between 2009 and 2015, the disaster-related compensation paid out to the provinces and territories was greater than any of the previous 39 fiscal years combined.
But there are billions of dollars more pending as class-action lawsuits make their way through the courts. Among them are: a $950-million one brought by 4,000 residents of Manitoba First Nations following the 2011 flood for negligence, nuisance and breach of treaty rights; a 15-person negligence suit against a Maple Ridge, B.C., developer, contractor, two engineering firms and the city of Maple Ridge after a 2010 flood; a $900-million suit by Muskoka residents against Ontario alleging negligence; and two suits — one in Quebec and one in Ontario — alleging floods resulted from negligence in the design, construction, operation and maintenance of storm and sanitary sewer systems.
Canada’s experience is far from unique. Globally, insurance claims for natural disaster damages hit their highest mark in 2017 — US$135 billion, according to Munich Re, the world’s largest reinsurance company.
In human terms, the cost is an estimated 10,000 lives.
Disaster costs are rising so quickly insurers have started looking at how best governments and individuals can adapt. The Insurance Bureau of Canada hired researchers at the University of Waterloo, the Intact Centre on Climate Adaptation and the International Institute for Sustainable Development to look at Canada’s most expensive and extensive problem — flooding — and come up with the most cost-effective mitigation measures.
The study released last week acknowledges that to combat Canada’s flooding due to heavier than average rainfall and sea-level rise, higher dikes, diversion channels, dams and better wastewater and sewage treatment plants are needed.
But it concluded that in many places restoring shorelines, riverbeds and wetlands to what they were before we interfered with them is both cheaper and more beneficial.
Among the study’s startling statistics is that in B.C., 85 per cent of wetlands have been lost in the South Okanagan and over 70 per cent of the original wetlands have disappeared in the lower Fraser Valley. While B.C. has had to contend with unprecedented wildfires the past two years, it has so far been spared from major flooding.
Having partly built our way into these problems, the inclination might be to build ourselves out. But the Insurance Bureau’s report, Combating Canada’s Rising Flood Costs, says conservation and restoration of so-called “natural infrastructure” — wetlands, forests and floodplains — offers other benefits that can include habitat creation or improvement, recreational opportunities and even savings through carbon sequestration.
Gibsons, B.C., up the coast from Vancouver, is one of the report’s case studies. It was the first municipality in North America to declare natural infrastructure as municipal assets. It used an assessment tool established by the Municipal Natural Assets Initiative to evaluate the worth of its aquifer and the natural ponds. What it found was maintaining and monitoring them to provide stormwater storage costs about $30,000 a year. Engineering and building a storage facility would have cost nearly $4 million.
With municipal elections underway, it’s a timely report that raises key questions about how we have done urban development and how it could be done. It also underscores the urgent need for all levels of government to adapt physically and fiscally to climate change.
Jack, it seems as though your flatulence may take your share even higher than that.
To me, there may be, quite likely is, some basis of fact in human induced climate change. Two things though, pipsqueak Canada and in particular our oil and gas industry, is not going to impact one thing. Two, lefties use the environment as their prime election strategy and paint everyone with common sense as being against the environment. Lefties politicized it and killed any hope of traction of any sort. More unintended consequences.
If it doesn’t come from one of Jacks current crackpot so called climate scientists he gets all his from it doesn’t count. One day soon they will all be doing a lot of explaining. Winter is coming, another little ice age if not a major one. Jack will still be claiming it’s all part and parcel of global warming/climate change. Isn’t it to bad he has no friends who can tell him how idiotic he is with all his BS. We’re all doing our best but of course we are all heretics. Isn’t that right Jack the weatherman????
What drivel are you on about now Jack. I’ve put up at least a dozen scientists all of who fly in the face of your sky is falling teams efforts to convince everyone your side is right while the earths climate is calling you and all your crew liars.
So what caused climate change before man arrived on earth????
More untruths told in the name of the sky is falling camp. If you fact check you find the truth.
Well Jack, as dismissive as you are it’s clear to anyone willing to look at these sites the truth is available and more and more people and scientists in particular are speaking up and callin BS to all the sky is falling crap. Predictions and computer models continue to fall far short of the sky is falling predictions. 1/7th of the sea level rise predicted, how is that even credible predictions? Temperatures at 2003 levels, we’re supposed to be roasting and instead we are cooling. You and your crew are becoming less and less relevant with every failed prediction. Your yesterdays news Jack. Get in you boat and try to sail the NW Passage, oh wait, you can’t, it’s blocked with ice. Not only are you an idiot for believing the crap your trying to sell as truth, you should be arrested for fraud for attempting to mislead the masses. Your only salvation is the fact the earth, not me, not scientist, the earth is proving you are wrong.
The people who deny that AGW is real explain what is happening to our biosphere by
Denying anything unusual is happening! (Only plausible if you ignore the huge amount of data collected over the last few decades by scientists)
It's all natural! (Natural effects have been shown to be dwarfed by human effects)
It's a global leftist conspiracy! (Always a useful explanation when you have no facts, it supports how effective the conspiracy is! Duh!)
We'll just adapt to climate change! (Try asking these same deniers to help pay for moving or protection of flooding cities and accepting masses of new immigrants fleeing uninhabitable deserts and coastlines. They already complain about these things all the while supporting we do nothing about AGW, ensuring these consequences will occur! Duh!)
With no coherent counter argument to the data, AGW is as solid a scientific explanation of the data as any accepted scientific theory and we need to act on it.
Betelgeuse1: More recent work suggests that orbital variations should gradually increase 65° N summer insolation over the next 25,000 years. Earth's orbit will become less eccentric for about the next 100,000 years, so changes in this insolation will be dominated by changes in obliquity, and should not decline enough to permit a new glacial period in the next 50,000 years.[
Berger A, Loutre MF (2002). "Climate: An exceptionally long interglacial ahead?". Science. 297 (5585): 1287–8. doi:10.1126/science.1076120. PMID 12193773
So Jack, here’s some truth about global temperatures. I’m certain you’ll all them lairs but let thedocument speak for itself. Someone is most definitely not telling the truth, I’m saying it’s the sky is falling camp. One note here, who is benifiting from the scam know as global warming? As always, follow the money and the truth will be available to you.
Jacks pat answer to anyone reading a thermometer and publishing results which conflict or fly in the face of the sky is falling camp is to call the liars and not qualified to read that thermometer. Jack is so full of shit he is believing his own propaganda.
Jack, either you are truly ignorant or you believe that you can fool everybody. Your statement that global population growth rates have declined since the 1960's is disingenuous to say the least.
It is true that by the 1960's the global population had more than tripled since 1800, and since then it has only more than doubled, which is a decline in the growth rate. But the fact is that the population of the earth is adding one billion people in ever decreasing time spans, which means at an ever increasing rate.
It took 132 years for the earth's population to go from one billion in 1800 to two billion in about 1932. It only took 32 years to add the next one billion in the mid 1950's. But it has taken only 86 years to go from 2 billion in 1932, to well over 7.5 billion today.
Thanks Jack for showing how you thermometer readers skew facts to make them appear to prove your point when in fact they disprove your flawed assertions.
As pops grow, so too the need for housing...and lookee here...that fine patch of land on the river bank just came open. People do not do their research on the lands they buy and opt for the "it'll never happen to me" strategy. Hurricanes down this year, thankfully. Global patterns do their thing like they have for eons...but... get accelerated with rising populations. That's not going to change any time soon, so get used to the erratic weather. The people I know who build on lake and river fronts chop down trees and erosion of the shoreline is pretty prevalent. Don't drink every drop of the "koolade"...but there is some truth in all of it.
Larry from The Isle -
Strange I didn't know floods, hurricanes, tornadoes etc were common to last few years only. Going forward if we want to limit damage done we need to be more preventive in nature. Much of the damage caused is due to our rules and regulations or lack of. Look at the Springbank dam as a good example. Flood of the century occurs five + years ago, Nothing ahs happened to assure this doesn't happen again. Society needs to accept it is pat of the problem with its inaction. Raising gas taxes is not very preventative in my mind
MDH - I agree with you. You simply CANNOT talk about climate change independent of population increase. The simply fact remains that there are far too many humans on this rock orbiting the sun. More people means more demands for energy (and everything else). While it may now be fashionable to beat up on the energy industry as the root problem of global warming, in my view that is trying to treat the symptoms rather than cure the disease. Until the western world puts real pressure on China and India to dramatically deal with their rising populations, then all these movements to curb oil and gas developments won't be worth a fart in the wind.
Follow this blog for almost daily examples of mischief. Just this month:
All you glow ball alarmists look up look, way way up. See that dazzling mass that exploded 1.5 million years ago and we’re just seeing the event now. Point being, we are insignificant in the grand scheme of things. So sit back, enjoy your short visit, have a cocktail if you endulge, watch your kids play sports, hopefully not video games. Mother Nature will take care of the rest.
Well, the world’s population went up 44% between 1983 & 2008.
Do a bit of research Jack before you make a further fool of yourself. Here is a link to a website which tracks daily advances and reductions in arctic and Antarctic ice.
Jack is back at it in full colour. Arctic and Antarctic ice sheets continue to grow. No cruise ships through the North West Passage this year was there Jack. Was it you that sailed up there planning to go through and then having your boat crushed by the ice and sunk? Well it happened this summer. Earths temperatures are continuing to fall, the overall gain as of today is .2’ C from 1980 till today with the recent drop in temperature. Oceans continue to cool and will produce a brutal winter this winter for the northern hemisphere.
The cause of the instability in weather patterns needs to be really assessed by scientists. There is growing evidence that it is mainly caused by changes in ocean currents and temperatures that are the result of the massive pollution in the oceans and waterways. The real lost opportunity is that all of the $ billions spend on CO2 could have been used to fund some real scientific research on all types of environmental pollution. And by the way, guess what province is the worst polluter of waterways in Canada.Also, guess which province abandoned its forest mngt program in the 90's and allowed nature to mange its forests.
Well said. Living in a town that approved a subdivision to be built in a slough, and then was surprised it got flooded, I note that man IS responsible for some of the weather induced damage, but it's not from "climate change", Jack. It's from man's dumbness,approving the building on lake shores, ocean fronts or low lands. You've got it right Thoth.
Though Jack is determined to find man's criminal behaviour in climate moves, I'm afraid he greatly over estimates our abilities. We can mitigate most of the potential damage by using the medical slogan; " first do no harm". Deliberately putting buildings or people in harms way,(vulnerable locales) is the most critical error, and largest cost.
And the trolls prove, once again, that they don't understand climate change. It's not the same as weather, guys.
(A) You need to redefine your definition of troll. (B) we accept that climate changes (millions of years long term effect) compared to weather (short term). We just refute impact of man (the sky is falling) vs Mother Nature.
Jeffrey Anderson -
You're being had.
Desk Jockey -
Confirmation bias sells. The bias that has always sold best is misanthropic --man is evil-- which shows how we've never really shed the medieval mindset.
The oceans will continue to rise and then fall as we move from the current inter glacial period to the next ice age and then back again. Building on flood plains is risky even in the short term. Check out history and be ready to adapt.
Jeffrey Anderson -
Climate Change provides a plausible reason for insurance companies to the increase in your premiums. Their using your money to cover their payouts and losses. I spoke with someone at Insurance Bureau of Canada about the increased premium. Basically, all I got for answer was a yeah, well ya know. The only thing real about AGW is that a lot of people see it as way to control and exert power over the people, add an another revenue stream for the government, trick and delude the masses that they are at fault and must do something about it. The scam is backed up with scientific papers and websites to give the con credibility. If anyone has seen the Newman/Redford movie The Sting you'll see the similarities. An elaborate, sophisticated, well planned and well thought out operation. Climate Change is a sting at world level.
We have only had one hurricane hit the US this year, after New Orleans there was supposed to be more and stronger hurricanes, didn’t happen. This lastest storm, while it dunped a lot of rain was bearly a category one storm and if people stoped building on flood planes and costal islands there probably would hove been less damage. The weather hasn’t been that unusual this year,here as most temps below average, except for one day. Peoples memories are so short and every year we get we hear, the highest, or coldest temps since X date. The AGW tries to jump on all the warmest days as signs of global warming and cooler days are just weather. By the way Jack the Passage did not open as predicted, this coming summer it’s going to have multi years which is even harder to melt, and from then on it will be heavier ice. According to AGW it was never to happen again. Now if next year has fewer fires in BC, how are the alarmist going to justify that this article is just a AGW propaganda sheet, with the if you tell a big enough lie often enough someone might believe it.