EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Costs of Climate Change Touching Down All Around: Insurers
Climate Change: Insurers Confirm Growing Risks, Costs
As southern Indiana, Kentucky and other midwestern states woke Saturday to devastated communities and a rising death toll, the world again was treated to pictures and video of mother nature's ferocious power and the merciless power of her most precise and terrifying storm, the tornado. Most striking to some is the early arrival of this year's tornado season, which usually begins later in the spring and runs into summer. For climate scientists, who have long predicted longer or more powerful storms and less predictable seasons, the events are an affirmation that offer no comfort.
Jerry Vonderhaar, left, comforts Charles Kellogg after severe weather hit the Eagle Point subdivision in Limestone County, Alabama (Photograph: Jeronimo Nisa/AP) More striking this week, however, was a little noticed hearing -- just a day before these massively destruction storms -- where the nation's insurance and re-insurance companies came together to recognize the impact that climate change is having on their industry, a direct measure of the financial costs on US taxpayers and private businesses.
Reuters reports:
Powerful tornadoes raked across a wide swath of the Midwest and South on Friday, killing at least 28 people in four states and bringing the death toll to at least 41 from a week of deadly late-winter storms.
The twisters splintered homes, damaged a prison and tossed around vehicles across the region, leaving at least 13 people dead in southern Indiana, another 12 in neighboring Kentucky, two more in Ohio, and one in Alabama, officials said. In all, the latest line of storms battered a band of states from Ohio and Indiana on southward to Alabama and Georgia.
"We are no match for Mother Nature at her worst," Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels said in a statement, adding that he would visit the stricken southeast corner of the state on Saturday.
And the New York Times adds:
The storm systems stretched from the Gulf Coast to the Great Lakes and were so wide that an estimated 34 million people were at risk for severe weather, said Mike Hudson of the National Weather Service regional office in Kansas City, Mo. At one point, the storms were coming so fast that as many as four million people were within 25 miles of a tornado.
Why So Many Tornadoes?
According to the Associated Press:
While the main tornado season runs from spring to early summer, this year's early outbreaks show that tornadoes can form under a variety of conditions and strike during fall and winter, too. This year's mild winter and warm start to meteorological spring has upped the risk of dangerous storms.
"We've been in a very warm pattern all winter," said meteorologist Mark Rose of the National Weather Service in Birmingham, Ala. "Because it has been so mild, it increases our chances for severe weather."
That's the meteorologist explanation. Meteorologists as a professional class, however, have been very reluctant by and large to discuss the science behind global warming and climate change, as noted recently by Marvin Meados at the Huffington Post.
Climate scientists, though, are not, and their peer-reviewed research speaks volumes. Notably, a landmark 2007 study by NASA's Goddard Institute on Climate Science published this report, predicting larger and more violent thunderstorms and tornadoes in the United States as global warming trends continued. In part (emphasis added):
The central and eastern areas of the United States are especially prone to severe storms and thunderstorms that arise when strong updrafts combine with horizontal winds that become stronger at higher altitudes. This combination produces damaging horizontal and vertical winds and is a major source of weather-related casualties. In the warmer climate simulation there is a small class of the most extreme storms with both strong updrafts and strong horizontal winds at higher levels that occur more often, and thus the model suggests that the most violent severe storms and tornadoes may become more common with warming.
Climate Change: Insurers Confirm Growing Risks, Costs
In a press briefing on Thursday, representatives of the nation's top insurance companies, citing a year of history-making natural disasters and $1 billion-plus in damages, took a definitive stance, along with members of the US Senate, to confirm that the costs -- both to taxpayers and private businesses -- from extreme weather events will continue to climb due to the irrefutable march of global warming and climate change.
According to the Insurance Networking News, "representatives from The Reinsurance Association of America, Swiss Re and Willis Re and Ceres, a nonprofit organization that leads a national coalition of investors, environmental organizations and other public interest groups working with companies to address a variety of sustainability challenges, joined Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) yesterday to discuss the growing financial impact of global warming."
Here's a short video segment from Thursday, Cost of Climate Change, featuring Sanders:
“From our industry’s perspective, the footprints of climate change are around us and the trend of increasing damage to property and threat to lives is clear,” said Franklin Nutter, president of the Reinsurance Association of America. “We need a national policy related to climate and weather.”
“As a member of the global insurance industry, we have witnessed the increased impact of weather-related events on our industry and around the world,” said Mark Way, head of Swiss Re's sustainability and climate change activities in the Americas. “A warming climate will only add to this trend of increasing losses, which is why action is needed now.”
Cynthia McHale, the insurance program director at Ceres, issued a more unequivocal statement: “Our climate is changing, human activity is helping to drive the change, and the costs of these extreme weather events are going to keep ballooning unless we break through our political paralysis, and bring down emissions that are warming our planet. If we continue on this path, extreme weather is certain to cause more homes and businesses to be uninsurable in the private insurance market, leaving the costs to taxpayers or individuals.”
***
Bill McKibben: A Link Between Climate Change and Joplin Tornadoes? Never!
Last year, in the wake of another outbreak of powerful and deadly tornadoes, author and climate activist Bill McKibben took up his pen to address the often cited reality that no single weather event, by itself, can be unequivocally attributed to climate change. This, however, is a fact that avoids the uncomfortable truth that climate patterns are shifting -- and will continue to shift -- as global temperatures rise. The patterns are unmistakable, and we avoid them at our peril. His tongue-in-cheek approach did not diminish his message, and it works as well today in the wake of renewed tragedies as as it did in the wake of the Joplin tornado last year. He wrote:
Caution: It is vitally important not to make connections. When you see pictures of rubble like this week’s shots from Joplin, Mo., you should not wonder: Is this somehow related to the tornado outbreak three weeks ago in Tuscaloosa, Ala., or the enormous outbreak a couple of weeks before that (which, together, comprised the most active April for tornadoes in U.S. history). No, that doesn’t mean a thing.
It is far better to think of these as isolated, unpredictable, discrete events. It is not advisable to try to connect them in your mind with, say, the fires burning across Texas — fires that have burned more of America at this point this year than any wildfires have in previous years. Texas, and adjoining parts of Oklahoma and New Mexico, are drier than they’ve ever been — the drought is worse than that of the Dust Bowl. But do not wonder if they’re somehow connected.
If you did wonder, you see, you would also have to wonder about whether this year’s record snowfalls and rainfalls across the Midwest — resulting in record flooding along the Mississippi — could somehow be related. And then you might find your thoughts wandering to, oh, global warming, and to the fact that climatologists have been predicting for years that as we flood the atmosphere with carbon we will also start both drying and flooding the planet, since warm air holds more water vapor than cold air.
###
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...

220 Comments so far
Show AllSince the melting of the glaciers began in the 1940's, it's clear this is due to human activity -- and the HEATING up of our atmosphere which causes chaotic weather -- i.e., GLOBAL WARMING --
In turn, the melting of the glaciers is causing more earthquakes and more severe earthquakes which will only accelerate as all other chaotic weather will accelerate.
We are only now beginning to feel the effects of Global Warming causing activity up to about 1960 -- expect much more acceleration of chaotic conditions.
Meanwhile, we have more than 100 nuclear reactors across the US which we should be shutting down. It takes a full six months to properly shut down our type of nuclear reactor -- it takes one solid year to shut down the Fukushima design.
Needless to say -- that doesn't include APPROPRIATE DISPOSAL OF NUCLEAR WASTE IF THERE EVEN IS SUCH A THING.
As we have seen in Fukushima, we can let elites continue to subject us to further harm and damage -- or we can begin to think of ourselves and wake up.
Shutting down the nuclear reactors across America could make the difference between "a whimper or a bang."
WAKE UP, AMERICA!!
I have read of mangrove forests along the coastline acting as "windbreaks" and providing protection and minimizing damage from cyclones. And whenever I saw monoculture crops over very large areas with not a single tree in sight, I used to feel that something was not natural there. This is not my area of expertise, but I am curious if the lack of adequate tree cover is a factor, in addition to the warm air/cold air thing that most people mention.
Come to think of it, forest fires too seem to be more common in North America and Australia - a yearly phenomenon, like the tornadoes, whereas in other parts of the world, these are much less common. Of course, 'forest' fire implies trees, but when these are adjoining a region where there are few trees, maybe that's an additional factor?
Could massive reforestation help in more ways than merely (!) helping pull excess CO2 from the atmosphere?
Bwa ha ah hahahahahahahahhaha!
The irony here is that while the pension funds are going to be the first to go, it'll be the rich who lose out as well. They're the ones who buy the policies that have no limits on the liability of the investor. So when the bill comes due, they're going to be asked to pay (money) first, and they'll be ordered to pay more than they have had or ever could have had.
All the wealth of the Earth is based on the realities of things that get produced, if you can't produce stuff because of constant weather events that break everything you're trying to build, you're going to be in the same situation as the people who used to work for you.
If big business is concerned, they will likely wake up our 536 brain damaged elected in Washington DC and perhaps, just maybe, some sensible action will be taken to try to reverse what we have done by burning coal. Something other than building a lot more nuclear power plants I should add.
It might even wake up the ignorant Koch pair and Exxon and other idiots who have and still do fund the professional global warming deniers, who have done so much irrepairable damage with their lies.... However; it may be a bit late now? We'll see.. ~Kem~
Hayduke2000 wrote:
Beneath the tortured syntax, there seems to be a claim here that extreme weather would cause no damage if people would only stay away from "areas where extreme weather occurs" (such as New Orleans or Joplin).
Usually, the fossil-fuel apologists argue that global warming is not resulting in extreme weather. Instead, Hayduke2000 opts for maximum libertarian absurdity by blaming people for not getting out of the way.
Insurance companies do not like to insure homes built in those two environments.
Have to agree - this is a problem that predates the recent climate pattern changes. Places such as barrier islands, flood plans and wetlands should not be built on - they are MN's built in mitigators of weather extremes. One of the reasons NO was so badly damaged is because of the destruction of those natural barriers over the last decades, and areas along the Mississippi, e.g., which were normal overflow areas have been diked in. The follies of prior eras of inappropriate building and geo-engineering which have routinely caused problems in the past will now be exacerbated many times over by the increasing disasters wrought by climate change. Just as "risk management" was wildly "miscalculated" by the financial "centers" so too was it screwed up by developers - for the same reason - greed ..
We talk about environmental refugees in the "3rd world", e.g. Bangladesh, - but this will be a real issue in our own country as well, e.g. perhaps southern Florida, Manhattan. The transformation of the US into a 3rd world country will be accomplished not only by economic, but by natural, depredations as well - population relocation will be a real necessity in the future, probably sooner than predicted, but those "refugees" will be left to sink or swim, literally, by a duopoly that believes in the "free market" and an "I" over "we" societal "norm" ....
Of course all of us who live in the cities have to pay for the many millions of dollars we spend every summer trying to save these Stupid Zone houses.
Read what he said again. The heart of it that statement is false. Like most deniers they use a bit of truth to create a false argument. Yes, people are building in areas they shouldn't be, but that is NOT an argument against man mad climate change. Don't fall for it.
But the fact that denser population means denser suffering - this is true whether the subject is storms, famine, pollution, violence, etc. etc. etc. - needs to be trumpeted incessantly in our population-blind culture.
Here is a website that offers free information on how to build a tornado proof home:
http://www.adobemachine.com/tornadoproof.htm
Tornadoes seem to hit trailers so often that I have seen a trailer advertised for sale as a "Tornado Attraction Device." But I think so many trailers get hit because a lot of poor people have the misfortune of living in tornado alley. Places like Ohio, Missouri, Indiana, Tennessee have a lot of really poor communities that have the bad luck to get smacked by these tornadoes. Another problem of inequality.
The ocean-atmosphere system is warming, which is changing the way heat is transferred from the tropics to the arctic regions. When you disrupt movement in turbulent fluids you set into motion events that cannot usually be predicted. It does not matter where you go to live, the conditions are changing.
In act, the fact that the insurance companies are leery of doing business in coastal areas should be enough to convince the climate change deniers that they are wrong. "Should be" enough, but is not, because they are not interested in logic.
You're getting this strangely confident and precise prediction from scientific climate or meteorological analysis you read - NOT from smuggled-in astrology - right, Siouxrose? Because you consistently rail against disinformation here, and you do want to have credibility, right?
Wow! Two posters here claiming that global warming is not increasing the frequency or severity of major storms!
And the phony-named Hayduke cites a paper... from 10 years ago... which paper notes an INCREASE in tornado activity in the 1990s... which PRE-DATES the upsurge of major storm activity worldwide over the past ten years.
If i use an imprecise word in my quickly-jotted comment - activity, rather than intensity - this can be conflated with not reading, commenting in error, hyperbole, and not understanding.
Gosh, where else have i seen defenders of industry nit-pick over the use of words, to attempt to delegitimize critique of industry? Oh i know: i see it in every comment thread!
The "real" Hayduke was a guerrilla warrior against industrial depredation of the living Earth. The phony use of this name by this poster delegitimizes everything s/he writes in defense of the fossil fuel industry.
Well, since you're such good friends, perhaps you would offer similar counsel to "take care with your comments" to the so-called Hayduke, who pounced on a single word and conflated my perspective as "not reading, commenting in error, hyperbole, and not understanding." Or didn't you notice his blunt distortion? i did point it out.
i notice also that YOU have not acknowledged the blunt wrongness of YOUR phony assertion that death and destruction are worse only due to increased population. It's been pointed out that you are wrong at least three different ways, why don't you take your own advice, "take care with your comments" and apply "critical thinking" to your own errors?
You and your close friend and "committed environmentalist" the so-called Hayduke are transparently NOT here for "rational discussion" but to DEFEND industry by dissembling distracting and distorting.