I rember watching the head of the Bank of England speak at a meeting of other govt financiers in 2016. Mark Carney explicitly warned that climate crisis would outstrip the re-insurance industry and undermine any new infrastructure in seashore regions like New York, London, Mumbai, Shanghai, etc... Who knew that most of our rulers would ignore reinsurers and put the losses on the 99%?
It doesnt seem to bother the likes of Obama, Gates, Bezos who all have multi $ million sea front properties. They seem to know nothing will be affecting their seashore lifestyle...
Simple: Tell the truth, make the right decisions and YOU WILL NOT GET ELECTED AGAIN. The vast majority of ppl are selfish, short sighted fools. and they will elect whoever promises them what they want. We are entering a phase where our so-called democracy will be extremely detrimental.
An author I follow who writes on the Ghost "OK Doomer" just published an article titled "Panic. It's good for you" and made it very clear that it's not hysteria: "You admit you're scared. You admit you don't know what to do. You stop. You listen. You look for answers. You come up with a plan. You abandon your previous assumptions about reality. You adjust to the new reality in front of you. "Panicking doesn't have to mean riots and chaos. It could mean just admitting that we're scared and we don't know what to do. It could be the necessary step toward coming up with a plan that would leave something of a future for everyone." We desperately need to start panicking
This touches on what is described in the book “Thinking, fast and slow”. Panic and outrage are used and channeled by (especially far right) politicians to prevent slow (conscious) thinking. That is why Trump, like religious leaders, floods you with data, which is falsifiably wrong but, as he uses repetition and pure DDoS attacks on your brain (because you have to take time to think slow to process the stupidity he is proclaiming), thus planting the words repetitively in your brain, which make them true for your fast thinking brain. Your slow thinking brain gives up. Therefore, to panic in a constructive way, one needs to panic deliberate, which is nigh counterintuitive.
15 years ago I wrote a list of signs of runaway climate change (with its attendant risk of societal collapse). One of them was the insurance industry becoming untenable. And here we are.
@@john1boggity56 My list would include: - massive water shortages in some areas and simultaneously massive flooding in others (tick); - mass migration (10s millions -> 100s of millions/year) (no tick yet but ...); - true food shortages due to large scale crop failure (tick); - some deserts becoming survivable/green again as rainfall patterns change (tick); - permafrost loss resulting in methane emissions off the charts (tick); - loss of (parts of) Antarctic ice sheets with consequent effects on ocean and weather (tick); - increased erosion from water & wind causing large scale damage to soil structure & depth (no tick yet but ...); - extreme heat causing rapidly increasing death rates in previously inhabited regions (tick); - wildfire destroying whole ecosystems faster than they regenerate (tick); - ecosystem damage causing massive species extinction with significant effects on human lives (e.g. bacterial/viral species jumps, unfertilised crops, ...) (tick); - flooding/sea level rise making one or more major cities uninhabitable*** (tick); - increasing size and frequency of eruptions of methane clathrates** from the deep ocean (??tick); - increasingly dangerous aeroplane travel as weather patterns become ever more unstable and unpredictable; - civil unrest and war triggered by the above; - increasingly unreliable human systems (water/power/roads/distribution/manufacturing...) as extreme events pile up one on another faster than we can fix them; ** undersea liquid methane lakes kept that way by cool temps and massive water pressure *** currently threatened: New York City; Miami (Florida), Dhaka (Bangladesh), and Jakarta (Indonesia)
@@john1boggity56 food prices (as an indicator of environmental stress) but that signal is problematic given the price gouging that our supermarkets here in Australia are engaged in. It's hard to see how much is driven by corporate greed. Reduced variety of local food production (meaning shifting climatic zones). Coral reef health (that's taking a big hit recently, definitely signs of our oceans in crisis). Lethal wet bulb temperatures being reached (we've started to hit that one). Migration levels globally (seeing that especially Africa/Europe and Central America /North America). Multi-generational households (that was more an economic indicator of stress than climate related). Top heavy bureaucracy and over regulation (another societal collapse precursor rather than climate) Fuel prices and in particular big spikes in price (again societal rather than climate). The goal of the list was to be aware of the state of the environment and our civilisation and have some measure of warning when change was accelerating. If and when the signs arrived my partner and I at the time had plans in place to ensure that we could continue to live safely and comfortably for as long as possible.
I'm brazilian and we are experiencing a historic flood in the our most south state. The waters started to low, and then, the heavy rains reignited. Huge infrastructure losses (100+ bridges) and more than 400.000 people evacuated. Thousands os helicotper flights to rescue people. Starting to see never seen before events in Brazil. Crazy.
And the link between all this and human production of greenhouse gases is what? Careful, even the IPCC says no link. Ever considered weather manipulation?
I offer several thoughts. First, to those few of us who do catastrophe and disaster preparation and avoidance, none of this is in the least bit a surprise. More, it doesn't go nearly far enough. It is still far too focused on the near term and guarantees long term failure. Second and most disappointing is that it has become abundantly clear that people as individuals, and especially as collective groups put vastly more value on stuff (represented by money) than health, welfare and the environment which is viewed as speculative, expendable, or someone else's problem. Third, all of this has been painfully obvious since the 1960s (in my case) or earlier for those born before me. Based on evidence in the world, it was painfully obvious in the 1950s for those in the know. And a century before that for deep thinkers. Fourth, we are now so deep into the catastrophe, that no solution can preserve what was, and the only remaining sliver of a possibility to save anything like the world we know requires concerted unified massive effort that is simply not possible.
Bit of a word salad in your last paragraph but yeah you’re right. It’s crazy how so many still don’t see how f’cked we are given the data given the data and events in the last couple of years. It makes you wonder what, if anything, will cause their penny to drop. Going off YT comments it seems people are turning to either religion or conspiracy theories to explain it but I have a feeling many of those comments are bots/propagandists to make any thinkers so exasperated with all the idiots that we become apathetic.
The collective military pollution and energy consumption far exceeds our peon usages and small farms are often very much more organic than industrial single crop ruination of the soil. Leave us alone until governments fix their own mess (at our expense, I must add!) before I'll even listen.
@@ksgraham3477 So long as people blame anyone or everyone else, we can NEVER have any hope of doing anything meaningful. That applies first to Governments, next to Businesses, and to Billionaires particularly. But it also applies to absolutley everone except the indigent. And that includes you. You don't get to quit and say - untilt he other guy .... That is what every world Government has done for decades. And that is why it WILL kill us all. Grow up.
@tunneloflight I am solar powered, off grid and no TV. I shop second-hand a lot and cook from scratch. I drive a car, whoopee. I do not buy the newest, built for obsolescence fad or upgrade. I play vinyl. I've been a slacker for 25 years or so. And... The weather IS MANIPULATED FOR EFFECT!
And California. Considering you can't build a house in USA without insurance, this will be interesting. First, they will offload that to states silently, but it will be short gap solution.
It's similar to the big box retailers dropping some products because they are no longer profitable enough. For example retailers no longer selling cameras of any type. The shelf space is better used for something else. Maybe the insurers will only offer fire insurance?
@@Pecisk The State will sponsor it. Federal government will mandate insurance companies... What I don't get... Is how oversized tinderboxes and sinking swamp mansions are worth millions...? I mean, I do get it, but I don't know why people buy those homes (even private equity is picky with certain neighborhoods). The American Dream: A Dream Deferred.
I am betting that the USA, in its desperation to maintain world dominance will start a Nuclear WWIII, destroying the entire world before climate change can.
I worked for a business & magazine & edited its insurance section in Athens 1978 to 1982 the insurance companies were becoming exceedingly nervous at Climate Risks. Climate patterns held in Greece over the last three thousand years traced in literature changed violently from 1975 until I left Greece in 1984. Locals on 'my' Isle Sifnos told me there had been less rainfall for 50 years before 1974. Since I left the changes have become ever more extreme. The Greek PM states this is 'climate boiling' or words to that effect.
In 2010 I attended a conference on municipal resiliency in Vancouver BC. At that time those with potential to have major financial stress.from climate emergencies (mortage holders, insurance companies, etc.) Were very concerned with climate change. Unfortunately our various governments seem more concerned with protecting the economy instead of protecting humanity.
If the people wanted change it’d happen. Unfortunately, people are in complete denial about what’s in front of their faces. Fire season has started early again. In Alberta it’s smoke all summer. Yet our premier is actively trying to stop renewable energy development. Her support in the polls rises every time she speaks about not upgrading our energy grid. People are just voting against their own interests, and proud of it too. 😑
@@andrewblakesley4202Nope, the answers are easy. We have an information/media environment that casts nothing but doubt. People are uneducated about the solutions, and hence your belief. Since people are not pushing politicians in the correct direction, they are happy to do as little as is possible.
“The conclusions are ….. challenging”. You weren’t joking, the potential outcomes and negative impacts on us all is quite eye-opening. Having worked in coastal engineering research and looking at 1 in 50/100 year storm forecasts and building accordingly, I can imagine that there is a lot of recalculating going on….
Just did a flood impact assessment for an undergrad subject (ARC GIS Pro) at uni. The data we used included expected sea level rise (it's a coastal study location) but the data did not take into account changes to rainfall patterns. If you add sea level rise to flash storms and prolonged rain events, you get...flooding...at greater levels than our models accounted for. No point really....
The sad truth of both politics and economics is that there's no point in worrying about the future when you're at risk of immediate destruction. Getting voted out or going bankrupt is functionally the same as death for politicians and businesses. No one in a position of power can afford to treat the climate crisis seriously if it might cause them to fall behind in the short term, because falling behind triggers a career death spiral in both cases.
What I learned as climate scientist is that most people just don't care and many argue against scientific statistics with anecdotal experience. But most just don't really care
If you don't understand that getting voted out or going bankrupt is infinitely preferable to ecosystem collapse and collapse of quaoity of life as we know it, you face a worse outcome than that, and one that you cannot recover from, unlike bankruptcy or getting voted out of office. Adapt or die includes the latter, not just adapt or face bankruptcy, or be voted out of office. Many of us have started new lives, some more than once, and built lives that we love, after losing office AND/OR going bankrupt. Your sad truth is a tragic illusion, infinitely tamer than authentic destruction. Your sad truth is mental and emotional self-indulgence. The real way to grow is to grow up.
We live in democracies right. When politicians would get voted out, if they would take climate change seriously, than it´s on us, on the voters, not on them.
Having dealt with insurance companies, I am not impressed with their assessment of risk. I also find huge discrepancies from company to company. If it was actually based on data, most companies would converge to similar solutions when assessing risk. They are making so much up. There is also lots of financial incentive to exaggerate risk in order to raise premiums. Just price gouging. We need to be very careful about just accepting statements from organizations with financial incentives.
PBS Terra published a video documenting the obsolescence of historical flood risk assessment. Historical data is not relevant now and assessment must take into account the increased water vapor capacity of a warmer atmosphere. Dramatic stuff and points to the urgency for ecological restoration and urban greening because the locations facing dramatically higher risk are surprising. The distribution of risk has also changed due to warming. "100" year floods have become 35 year and 8 year floods in some areas.
@@patrickjordan2233Wonder if they are allowed to stay on, if Trump is voted in again. He's forbidden FEMA to adapt it's flood risk maps to new insights before - might decide to get rid of them greenies for once and for all
In the Netherlands, the flood protection in the main economical areas, Amsterdam, Rotterdam & around, was calculated for a once in a 10.000 years event. In Limburg, on the German border, it was once in 250 years, 40 times less safe, making us aware we don't care much for outlying areas. Limburg was hit by such an event 2 years ago, in Germany there were over 180 deaths, their deadliest natural phenomenon over 60 years. I don't think we'll have to wait 250 years for the next one, not even 60,e can be pretty d**n sure we'll see another long before 2040. And that one might well hit in the more protected West. Hell, last winter we already had the waters standing near quays' edge in Amsterdam after "just" 2 months of heavy rain. Thanks to a favorable wind direction on the North Sea, we didn't get truly flooded. But with sea levels going up, rains getting more torrential, we can be 100% sure similar stuff is going to happen within 30 years. And _Who_ is going to insure Dutch housing and industries in low laying areas after such event? It's called the Low Lands for a reason, re-insurers actuaries will know ...
@@reuireuiop0 Yup, everything about our infrastructure and where we live is being altered in real-time and will continue to be for the foreseeable future. Half a million people are displaced in Brazil, and a major food growing region is wrecked,
The challenges when insurance companies write off all the land within 100 mi of the coast and 50 mi from Indian river, there's not much land left. And then the entire tornado area has higher riders for cyclonic storms.
They'll wait until the last second and start the rapid transitions to a repair, refresh, renew, global remediation economy. Where the companies profit from cleaning up the destruction they've caused.
We're already seeing insurance companies leaving areas that they obviously consider to be money losers either because they've already lost in these areas or they think the potential for extreme loss is becoming more evident.
I really appreciate your weekly videos - they deliver a message we all need to hear. I remain quite pessimistic, however, that we will do what's needed to avert a full climate catastrophe. I don't think people (at least the people here in So. California) are willing to accept the lower standard of living we need to achieve to markedly reverse CO2 emmissions.
Right on the money. Name the city and there we have everyone reliant upon a high standard of living. Even the poorest person can't have water, food and sanitation without all the industrial technology, roads and transport, electricity, bonds and debt that keep it all afloat.
This 'high standard of living' is dependent on cars which cost $12k/ year. Cars enable urban sprawl, the low density use of land. We have run out of space to build, so home price skyrocket and the young are no longer afford the average home that cost $1M.
@@gr8bkset-524I was just talking to adult son about how the car might be the worst invention ever because of the consequences and the infrastructure to make them usable.
@@blakehelgoth5247 The $12k is just the TCO (Total Cost of Ownership) calculated by Edmunds and doesn't include each home needing a garage + driveway (800 sq ft) to house our vehicles. In a typical $1M home in Orange County, that's +$200k of land. The last few years, I've seen many teenagers riding eBikes. Perhaps when they turn 18, some will keep their eBikes which are cheaper than owning cars. I'm also seeing cities such as Irvine build dense 5-story housing without garage, back/front yards, but with carport and balconies near workplaces. Single Family Homes will be out of reach when young people reach working age, but maybe they will in these dense housing and bike to work. I think local government should use sticks and carrots to get workplaces with +200 to convert 20-50% of their parking space to dense, affordable housing for workers who can then skip owning cars.
We live in a world based on companies, where the most important thing is providing shareholder value. In particular, I suggest everyone have a look at how private equity companies are managing the majority of companies they buy. This is perfectly analogous to how we are treating the planet. If you keep voting for one of the two mainstream parties, even if it's just to keep the other one out, you are the source of the problem. We need to very radically overhaul the incentive system, and that is not going to be done by parties funded by private equity...
The largest polluters are the wealthy and super-wealthy as individuals and they are in charge! The largest polluting organisation is NATO and they aren't even in the climate accords. Yet they expect the poorest people to give up what little comforts they may have.
Thank you for saying “shareholder value”. IMO this is the big underlying structural problem. The new American dream is to make money by doing basically no work and being twice removed from the consequences (such as pollution or child labor).
Having worked in a major insurance organisation in the past and having had a lot of experience working in risk management and governance - a good risk management framework operated by competent risk assessors and the ability to "action" the risks that are identified very much is a good way to deal with risks in a business context. I'm surprised it hasn't been tried for international response to the climate crisis. So it gets a cautious thumbs up from me.
The question is can we have global economic growth and ecological overshoot. The climate crisis is taking too much attention away from the other ecological problems we are causing/facing. We cannot have infinite growth on a finite planet. It doesn't matter much how that growth is powered. In a survey of thousands of different wild animal populations showed an average decrease of 70 percent over 50 years. This is not due to climate change. We can and are destroying the biosphere without really needing the extra problems caused by fossil fuels. Degrowth has to be the primary solution.
In my city, temperatures have shown a slow steady increase over the last 20 years totaling 2° c, and 4° f. Rainfall has declined by approximately 6 in per year over the same time period but has had more random fluctuation than the temperature. The city used to be very green and there would even be algae on places that weren't maintained. Last year we lost 20-year-old bushes and some trees due to 100 days without rain.
Just to clarify that was from roughly 38" to 32" over 20 years, not by 6" each and every year (a loss of 120"). My city is150 miles across, the area 50 miles north is still getting the old rain levels.
@@ksgraham3477 While it's not much cooler but I did some digging and it is cooler this year than 20 years ago. Two years ago it was much warner but about the same as 22 years ago. It's pretty hard to find older data. Maybe there is more in spanish. Probably related to the upwelling cool currents on the pacific coast but interesting all the same.
Thank you! I have used As You Sow's, fossil fuel free funds tool to make sure my ETFs and mutual funds are as low carbon as possible. We obviously don't have much time to act.
I have seen leadership come and go from a variety of industries. Those who raised valid and solvable concerns on climate change including multiple military organisations, were encouraged to change their leadership to individuals more compliant with specific share/stake holder views who were heavily invested in the risk. Waving off the concern as not thinking Big Brain.
Sitting in Alberta at the moment, covered in forest fire smoke. This is what summer is now, fire season. Water bombers constantly flying overhead. Yet, I’m surrounded by people who are not willing to do anything to reduce their carbon emissions. Convinced the only solution is a highly lethal pandemic. 😆
Hello, fellow Albertan! The smoke was really bad yesterday. I'm actually a little concerned what this stuff is doing to our lungs. A pandemic wouldn't actually solve anything, because it would teach the wrong lessons. Afterwards the survivors would be very alert to the dangers of disease (a good thing) but totally deaf to the dangers of global warming. Since the population was smaller they'd use the cheapest, easiest to get energy sources, which tend to be fossil fuels. Things like solar panels and wind turbines are cheap now because of the economies of scale that have been achieved in manufacturing them. We need huge manufacturing plants and global distribution to make solar power cheaper than something like gasoline. A world recovering from a pandemic would have to build that back up again.
@@Kevin_Street Fair point! The hope is that eventually it’ll just be too expensive to not use solar. Yet, we’re currently seeing the success of political partisanship over logic. Fortunately, solar will continue to reduce costs. So, there will be a limit to how long Smith can keep this up.
one major difference: the guy on lookout spotted the iceberg 5 hours ago. the captain just didnt wanna change course to not inconvenience the passengers.
@@robinbinder8658 You mean like how the captain was warned about iceberg activity through a wire, but still decided to travel full-speed for a new ship's maiden voyage...
I really appreciate everything you do! I live in Seattle and the changes here, climate wise, are so noticeable to me.😢 I wish more people would pay attention .
In response to the title - No. If we hold continuance of the status quo and perceived stability as a necessary condition, then we forego the notion of "third options" and thereby needed change.
This surely means that the economic status quo must end. We live in a consumption based, market oriented and capital funded society that doesn't permit long term sustainable solutions to our problems. When we admit that first this has to change then we can move on to better solutions. Climate change is only one matter. There are a whole host of problems that the market economy prevents better solutions.
@@rbgerald2469 I'm 100% in favor of a carbon tax in the US. However, the US has built itself into a car dependent society based on cheap gasoline. Because of the automobile, homes are spread out (low density sprawl), and effective public transportation is not possible. This car induced low density resulted in not enough homes being built to meet demand, so housing prices is very high. Despite our high GDP per capita of $76K and high per capita carbon footprint 16 tons, most Americans barely get by because of our inefficient transportation and use of land. Politicians in favor of carbon taxes will not be voted into office. We are very stupid.
@@gr8bkset-524 And very extinct. For obvious reasons. Nature had us down to 1268 breeding individuals approx. 900,000 years ago; this time she will not fail!
Looks up what "actuary" means after he says it for the 8th time because it's clearly something relevant to what he's talking about. I love my American education.
Honestly don't have faith in a coordinated human response to these global problems. I started my "adaption to climate change" strategies 25 years ago because I believe WE (all of us) will face the scenario of "adapt or perish" within 20 years. Some much earlier, not very many any later. I may be a physics and Earth-environment teacher but I think the whole topic and trends associated have been matter-of-fact and common-sense since the 1980's (for those who cared to look, of course). What has dumb-founded me is why so few have cared to look at information that will materially (and severely at that) affect their's and their families future in the very near term, physically and financially.
I remember the first time, 20-30 years ago, that I heard someone talk about insurance companies having trouble dealing with CC...made me realize it was a real thing. And, that was a long time ago. Now look at where CC is at...CC is a world wide issue that's not going away. What happens when no one, or company, can get insurance against CC? Scary thought really, but I do think were about to find out.
@@mk1st Imagine, we now rely on the Pentagon for rational thinking and planning! Shows just how far Corporations have taken over our lives, cradle to Mass Graves!
Thank you for the new video. It certainly makes sense to assess climate risks in a financial way, since we're going to pay for them eventually. The global insurance industry is going to go through some particular challenges in the near future. But the end of their report (as you quote it in your video) doesn't feel that realistic to me. It's just that we're _really_ bad at long term governance and risk management. It's not even a political thing. You could take any government on Earth, any system of governance or economic management, take a look at their history and what you'll see is a list of catastrophes interspersed between periods of optimism. That's how we're wired. Terrible stuff happens, and then we deal with it. Heroes rise up, and so on. We're not wired to head off the terrible stuff before it happens. And holistic risk assessments... Well, they make sense when you're dealing with a global problem. The environment doesn't stop at national borders. But again, we don't work that way. We're a planet of stake holders, sometimes cooperating but often in conflict, and no one wants to support a policy that will fundamentally disadvantage their group more than the others. I think the way we're ultimately going to handle this crisis, is (to misquote Stephen Leacock) as a society that rides madly off in all directions. We're going to do everything we can, most of it a little too late, and barely squeak through at the end. We may go over some of the tipping points but not others, we may be do some geoengineering, fight a couple of wars, and ultimately complete the shift to renewable energy thanks to economic forces.
Great post - yes definitely worth a look and a series of strong conversations. The aerosol masking effect suggests we are well over 2C since the 1850-1900 average.
@7:45 It's worse than having no precedent for the warming coming our way. We actually have no precedent for the level of warming we're ALREADY AT. The problem is our biosphere has a lag time to stabilize at newer temperatures.
Insurance companies are abandoning California in droves. Considering the fact that you can't get a mortgage for a home without having it insured we have a major problem looming
Yes. Hit them where they are concerned -- the pocketbook. "Hey, guys? If we don't do something about this warming thing we're going to lose a lot of money." Watch the attitudes change.
@@Pecisk If you add up the National Debt, then compare it to the capitalization of the top 500 corporations, you will find them to be almost EQUAL. Talk about Socialism for the Rich, Capitalism for the poor!
Insurance companies are issuing non-renewable notices for many of their customers because they are in high risk areas. But the reason for insurance is to spread the risk between customers. Right?
Yes but not in a way that those in low risk situations subsidize those who are high risk. If I drive a sports car I'm high risk and so pay more for my insurance. That's the way it should be. Also it will bring home the reality of climate change to the neigh sayers.
Spread risk among customers with similar risk profiles. Insurance is not supposed to be a scheme where middle income people in the middle of the country subsidize those who enjoy a seaside lifestyle.
There is high risk and losing battle. Insurance companies will move out of losing battle areas as premiums they would need to charge you, if they stayed in area, would be vitually insane amount no one could afford.
The insurer spreads risk such, that when they must pay coverage, they still show a profit. Abandoned assets will be in the billions, once assessed risk becomes too high, no one will insure the properties. W/O insurance...no permits, no public occupancy, no mortgages. If these sites are not kept secure, they will be taken possession of...by current homeless, by millions of future homeless created by widespread adoption of humanoid robots in industry and healthcare. Please tell me I'm wrong.
Well, it's the start of a move towards the consideration of reality but when people still consider implementation through "democratic" processes, there is yet to be a full grasp. Did you see what Australia recently announced about gas? That's a democracy. Never mind massive places like China and Russia.
anyone who thinks there are any "Democracies" left, is naive at best. Electing representatives to decide things is not democracy. We have the technology for direct democracy of the masses, but the plutocracy has taken that away by force. Political Theatre is what we consume, Oligarchy is what we have.
@@sedonars1 "Under capitalism, we can't have democracy by definition. Capitalism is a system in which the central institutions of society are in principle under autocratic control". (Chomsky)
@@sedonars1 Do you want true democracy, as you describe it? How else do we decide things? What is the advantage while certain very persuasive groups have the power they have in the UK (e.g. religions, mainstream news media, social media)? Who determines what the citizens vote upon and what decisions we do or do not make? Who determines that the questions to answer are careful and avoid bias? Who should vote? A citizen needs to have a decent education before they can vote upon what they want to happen. Their level of education on any issue they might vote on should be far superior to what they "learn" from the news media. Most of them simply have not educated themselves to a high enough standard to make "good" decisions on most issues. How can they? What are their experiences? How much have they researched? Time is limited and most of them are busy doing their jobs. So one idea is that we vote for leaders who should gather the views of the citizens through careful questioning, become more highly educated, make decisions and explain why decisions have been made on behalf of the citizens. Has this ever truly happened for very long? I doubt it. Instead, we have compromise. Isn't it naive to think there has EVER been much of a "true" democracy? The political theatre you mention is largely a result of incompetent vain leaders performing for irresponsible news media focused on sensationalism, with the citizens somewhere far away.
If Hansen is right and sensitivity is 5, and we continue going up 3ppm, or better, annually... I think it's a failure of the imagination not to get the willies.
Hansen (et al.,) is worth reading and having serious conversations about - his predictions are higher than the IPCC and his arguments seem credible. If he is right, then we need to surrender to a very uncomfortable future.
The political theatre in the U.S. is brought to you by your friends in the coal, oil and gas industries.. They are obviously protective of the present position of their products and plan to continue business as usual. Those in the 'power' sector truly believe that what's good for them is good for America. So, it's on with the show in business and in the politics of division, even as the world continues to boil in oil.
What? You mean we can't just exploit everything into oblivion for our own short term gain? Preposterous! I've been watching the Ken Burns documentary on the American Buffalo with my son. We had previously watched his one on the Dust Bowl. Weird how killing off all the Buffalo, then plowing up the prairie ended so badly. All at the service of the industrial machine we created. Seems like we'd learn a lesson our two.
I just love amount of different goalpost moving in comment sections of your more skeptical videos. People either are just whatabout trolls - classic for internet - or just basically discover things not foreseen by scientists or policy specialists working in field for decades 😅
I’m in the transportation industry, NAFTA was set up to run goods across the border for tax purposes, a big one being fuel tax, its design is to use fuel. Your equipment has to meet EPA requirements for the year it was built. With large corporations offloading the job to immigrants and all they can afford is an old truck. Corporations like Loblaws look greener by offloading the carbon onto the little guy. The government can subsidize oil and gas to the tune of billions but instead of using that money to get everyone into a Tesla, they tax the fuel we use . It places pressure on the food we use, houses and building cost, everything actually, and that is why we don’t trust our government. Bald face liars and complete idiots sending us to our doom. It’s May and our forests are already on fire out west.
A question? Generally, most only talk about "best case scenario" regarding the economics impact of climate change... Given how we've generally overshot estimates from decades ago (on which much is model referenced) shouldn't we have a hard examine/public discourse of "worst case"? I know it'll be a brutal conversation, but doesn't it deserve to be in the public discourse? I, for one, think the Overton Window won't change quickly until we do... (Depressing as it is...)
When I am confronted by denialists... I just challenge them to sit in a non-running car with the windows rolled up... On/for a full average summer afternoon... "Your car is a closed system, what do you think this spaceship called Earth is?.." -I've had no takers.... 🤣😂🤣 *Don't try this @ home, kids, I'm 6'3 & a muscular 255 lbs/1.9 meters & 115 kilos.."
NIST has an RMF for IT systems, something I am very familiar with. I can tell you this recommendation makes sense from a governance perspective, but it is decades too late. There's no way to develop, agree to, and implement anything close to such a thing in just a matter of years...
Well done actuaries! It’s increasingly difficult to remain optimistic about solving climate change now that it’s become a focus for populists. China seems to be doing more than any other country to tackle global climate change using its industrial might and long view, albeit using some dubious means. It’s clearly in China’s long term interest; and everyone else’s. Are there any benign dictators available? In their absence, more proportional representation, citizen assemblies, citizen juries, etc might offer more hope. Meanwhile, electorates need re-educating about climate risk to highlight the risks in the tail and to demand better from our leaders.
You must be joking. Benign dictators? China is a human rights abusing totalitarian dictatorship. It controls the media and the message. It executes more people than any other nation on Earth. It's conviction rate is in the 90% range. It leads the world in female infanticide. It has border disputes with every single one of it's neighbors. It is claiming the entire South China sea. Xi has openly and publicly threatened to invade Taiwan, a prosperous democracy. It is oppressing the people of Hong Kong. It invaded and annexed Tibet and Inner Mongolia. It's citizenry have no rights. The police can enter your home, arrest you and hold you without charge. China is the worst polluter on the planet. It uses fossil fuels to manufacture solar panels that it sells to the gullible West.
The obvious risks are fire and flood, less obvious is famine due to maladaption of food monocultures to changes in temperature, rainfall, and pestilence.
Bravo! Well stated. In explaining to skeptics why the low percentage of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere exerts such a powerful blanketing effect that sustains global warming, we need to be aware that they are constantly ‘absorbing and releasing’ infrared heat energy over and over, again and again, and that in doing so they gyrate wildly, thus causing them to vigorously bump into other atmospheric molecules which, in turn, collide with other air molecules, imparting the kinetic energy of motion throughout the atmosphere - it is this overall cumulative vibratory state that registers as temperature.
When there are no more people to make a profit out of, then wealthy, rich powerful people will respond to climate change. Unfortunately, that day will be when the planet can no longer sustain human life. Very sad but that is how rich people operate. 😞🌈♥️🙏🇬🇧
Humans will live on. The ones who live nomadic lives etc. there will be much strife, starvation, wars, some will live. no one will willingly go back to that type of life, not born into this modern world, its too tough and were too soft.
@@notdisclosed4597 Humans will not live on, because we have already turned over decision making to the SOCIOPATHS. The Sociopaths will kill us all, before they will let themselves be killed. We are in the process now in 80% of the Countries on the planet, and when Donnie becomes emperor of the West, He and Vlad will start pushing buttons randomly until it's all gone! There will be no option of Nomad when 100% of the atmosphere is radiated to a toxic level for 3.6 million years!
It will be very interesting how next years will start to look from insurers perspective. If insurance industry will start to collapse, it will reverb very heavily in economics. Gov will step in to guarantee some of bills, but not all of them. If companies can't cover their risks, they will decrease investments even more. I expect much more frequent boom / bust cycles, dropping all pretense of living space, etc. Problem is government are blinded by big money, and big money unfortunately is not betting on society anymore.
They can talk all they want about policies but nothing is coming out of that. WE THE CONSUMERS must change with our actions. I banned all Fossil Fuels from my life with electrification. You can do that too. ELECTRIFY EVERYTHING. I started with an EV. Next was the lawn mower and the snow blower. Next came the Heat pump and now it's the heat pump water heater. Good riddance propane.
@@philipdamask2279 maybe In your state but the province of Ontario Canada grid is over 90% Fossil Fuel free. Vote for the right people and it can happen in your area.
No, thank you. I had my moment of revelation march16, 2016. Not telling me that it will go wrong -which I knew for decades already by then - but how it was inevitable. And that’s a strange life to live, I can assure you that.
We want both, and it's totally possible to get both. They should curb their profit margin. And oh, bring the real economy back, instead of all out speculation.
@@anthonymorris5084 Let's starve, enjoy downgradation of services across the board, degrade the environment beyond livable and still shout "all hail the profit".
@@aniksamiurrahman6365 My friend your post is myopic and hyperbolic. I'm betting you don't even understand what a profit is. You embrace this myth that the Earth is some kind of pristine place of purity and harmony that humans, like a parasite are wrecking. In fact, the Earth is a hostile place that will kill you at any given opportunity. Try going camping without any modern technology or conveniences. Good luck with that. Humans have made it safer and more livable with each passing decade. The entire Western world embraces the profit model. The West represents the most successful societies this planet has ever seen, by any measurement you care to examine. Wealth creation allows for greater environmental stewardship and humans continue to become better stewards of the environment each year.
The US insurance industry appears to have reevaluated risk of severe climate-related disasters such as hurricanes and wild fires -- and increased rates accordingly. This approached is pricing entire regional populations -- like Florida and western mountain communities -- out of range for many/most residents. Per this report, a realistic risk evaluation (1 in 200 for instance) is a disaster in the making... second only to burying head in sand and waiting for the actual disasters to come bit us in the behind.
I was alarmed to see that, according to the IEA, world production of coal and lignite was higher in 2022 than ever before, although in the coming years it is expected to start to fall.
Oil too has over topped 2018 peak production. They say the West is using less, so despite this talk of climate justice, developing nations can no longer postpone acting to install climate policies and start to produce less. Most are in the Global South anyway, so they are feeling the best already. But building coal/ fossil fired plants still is lots cheaper. Looking at you, India, Indonesia, SE Asia in general.
It is good that small 'c' conservative industries like insurance & actuaries are starting to squawk. They have real impacts on investment. Its sad that it has to come to this but at least they're here finally.
Nothing sensible is going to be done unless these things happen, in no particular order: 1. It gets too expensive to realistically cope, 2. High enough body-count. So, until then, we'll keep on doing nonsense like Hybrid vehicles and PHEVs.
Biggest convulsion in all this is a risk of populist approach to ignore problem, and in bloody way suppress refugees or any policy change. It is not gonna work, but that alone will kill considerable amount of people. Politicians and money stake holders are ignorant. Some of them are worried a bit, but they are very few and between. Lots of these people are fine with either idea that they will escape somehow because they have means, or they think they have few decades before everything goes to shit. They did not get in politics to solve problems, especially those who raise from them having power. Problem is also media, who is business driven. People don't want to read bad news. Which is ironic, because that is way people to lean towards to read news that makes them happy anyway.
Body count? The only thing being counted, for over 250 years now, is $$$$$$$$$$$$. The current crop of Supreme Counters (Jeff, Elon, Vlad and the like), have never deigned to count bodies. Heck, they already have plans in place for the final 500,000 humans on the planet, and are currently racing to implement that plan!
Humans are machines ruled immensely more by their emotions than by their rationality, which is why they often make stupid decisions against their own interests. For example, no one wants to lose their comforts and pleasures, so we construct stories to convince ourselves that our consumer behavior has no connection with the environmental consequences we've been observing around us for over 100 years. So there's no reason to act to reduce our consumption (it's "business as usual"). For others, it's the belief that humans can always get out of this mess with the help of new technologies... but isn't it technology that got us into this mess in the first place? Technology doesn't solve the problem of over-consumption, because it leads to even greater consumption of energy and natural resources, so more technology isn't the solution. These are the reasons why we insist on sticking to the adaptive mode instead of the preventive one. Preventive means voluntarily limiting ourselves, and since nobody wants to voluntarily limit themselves, we'll have to wait until the environmental consequences (floods, drought, famine, disease, reduced agricultural production) force us to do so painfully and in indescribable chaos. How far will human stupidity take us... to extinction?
I had a thought. All the minor warming we have seen in the last 300 years or so is tiny, natural, and not driven by CO2. The ocean is getting warmer, so it can't absorb as much CO2. Thats why the atmosphere has a higher concentration of CO2.
Not a single scientific institution anywhere on earth agrees with you. The consensus that today's climate change is "unequivocally human-caused" is 99.9%, according to the latest survey of the field by Cornell University. The ocean is still a net absorber of CO2, not a net emitter. Scientists project a reversal of that dynamic by 2100, when we'll really be in trouble.
Buying solar panels for every single family home in America might be cheaper than this Global Solvency whatever consultants. We don't need consultants. We need infrastructure and politicians who will build infrastructure to make infrastructure.
Good account Dave, and a good point about the risk to the planet, but of course we're not actually talking about the existential risk to all life. The risk is to us and many of the other species we really care about. Many species will survive, as many did after the K-T extinction event that did for the dinosaurs and opened the opportunity for mamals to become the dominant class of organisms.
My theory is that the rich are so interested in bringing the dinosaurs back from extinction that they are collaborating to raise the Earth's global temperature enough that when they successfully clone them, they can release them into the wild.
Great video, as always, thank you. It will be interesting to see if/where in the mainstream media this report pops up and how it's received. As you noted it's hard to paint an actuary as an alarm/activ/extrem/-ist. I truly hope that it does receive serious air-time, then perhaps we'll see action commensurate with the crisis we are facing - something like Seth Klein describes in his book A Good War.
Plenty of those red dots over Australia account for more rain in arid areas. It’s a real question if that is good or bad? Much of the arid areas for the last ten years have been unbelievably wetter, something not seen since the 1850’s. Swings and roundabouts?
Insurance companies want to sell insurance to make money. When they pull out of an area or raise prices beyond buyer's reach it's real and it's serious.
That last part is interesting, weighing the dangers of climate change versus the dangers of geoengineering. The worse climate change gets, the more this balance will tip in geoengineering's favor, so it's time to stop treating it like a threat and start looking more carefully into what options we have (without losing focus on decarbonizing, of course)
Without losing focus... when has there been focus? At least this has been tried. Geoengineering such as massive corralling of humans followed by digging very large pits? This may be effective at scale.
No Doubt, the richer , or, not so poor countries in the South , China and Arab oil nations in the lead, will propose to start spewing sulphates in the atmosphere. It's s clear it's working to decrease temps, but does nothing to lower emissions - likely will even work to postpone fossil reducing measures. If the rest of the world don't agree, China & Arabia might decide to do it anyway, as the rest of the world increasingly depends on their products.
I rewatched the old video. Coming back to this after 6 months. Didn't notice the graph showing 100% damages to GDP at 3C the first time around. Also fascinating to look at a video from 6 months ago that confidently talks about 1.2 degrees. Now the numbers are in, and the last 12 months have averaged 1.61 degrees above 1850-1900, or 2.1 degrees above pre-industrial. So even in a video that's about the minimisation by the IPCC, the IPCC minimisation had poisoned the narrative.
Everyone who actually cares has been getting involved with actual politics (not performative and ineffective protests) for the last 50 years. US Americans should avail themselves of the Citizen's Climate Lobby, and the rest of the world should seek something similar, locally. Progress is being made, the numbers are starting to bend in the right direction. The people who don't matter at all are in the comments, spreading doom and gloom, doing nothing at all, like they always are. I guess we'll see if humanity lives, or not.
Add in the cost of 1.2B migrants. As if that's the most. Likely numbers suggest as many as half the people on the planet will need to move north away from the heat.
'can i get a coffee and and pay you back next time, no i dont trust you i want money now' Money is the seed to mistrust , trust and love build economy not money
![Felix "Unfair" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Oswujxm2Ag0/mqdefault.jpg)
I rember watching the head of the Bank of England speak at a meeting of other govt financiers in 2016. Mark Carney explicitly warned that climate crisis would outstrip the re-insurance industry and undermine any new infrastructure in seashore regions like New York, London, Mumbai, Shanghai, etc... Who knew that most of our rulers would ignore reinsurers and put the losses on the 99%?
It doesnt seem to bother the likes of Obama, Gates, Bezos who all have multi $ million sea front properties. They seem to know nothing will be affecting their seashore lifestyle...
dump Trudeau & put Mark Carney in charge.. I've read his latest book... there is no question, with his background et al he's the guy we need.
@@heila348 He is just as big a WEF shill as Trudy.
We need extinction rebellion (Socialism)
Simple: Tell the truth, make the right decisions and YOU WILL NOT GET ELECTED AGAIN.
The vast majority of ppl are selfish, short sighted fools. and they will elect whoever promises them what they want.
We are entering a phase where our so-called democracy will be extremely detrimental.
An author I follow who writes on the Ghost "OK Doomer" just published an article titled "Panic. It's good for you" and made it very clear that it's not hysteria:
"You admit you're scared. You admit you don't know what to do. You stop. You listen. You look for answers. You come up with a plan. You abandon your previous assumptions about reality. You adjust to the new reality in front of you.
"Panicking doesn't have to mean riots and chaos. It could mean just admitting that we're scared and we don't know what to do. It could be the necessary step toward coming up with a plan that would leave something of a future for everyone."
We desperately need to start panicking
In other words, we should panic over the fact that we are not panicking.
the HH Guide to the Galaxy is clear on this point.
Tik Tok Tik Tok Tik Tok Tik To Tk Ti o
I know. Exxon Mobil Net-Zero's solution has the solution...
Oh, wait. Sorry, I did my thing again. I used humor to mask my untenable suffering~
This touches on what is described in the book “Thinking, fast and slow”.
Panic and outrage are used and channeled by (especially far right) politicians to prevent slow (conscious) thinking. That is why Trump, like religious leaders, floods you with data, which is falsifiably wrong but, as he uses repetition and pure DDoS attacks on your brain (because you have to take time to think slow to process the stupidity he is proclaiming), thus planting the words repetitively in your brain, which make them true for your fast thinking brain. Your slow thinking brain gives up.
Therefore, to panic in a constructive way, one needs to panic deliberate, which is nigh counterintuitive.
15 years ago I wrote a list of signs of runaway climate change (with its attendant risk of societal collapse). One of them was the insurance industry becoming untenable.
And here we are.
What else is on your list? Food security for sure. What others?
@@john1boggity56 My list would include:
- massive water shortages in some areas and simultaneously massive flooding in others (tick);
- mass migration (10s millions -> 100s of millions/year) (no tick yet but ...);
- true food shortages due to large scale crop failure (tick);
- some deserts becoming survivable/green again as rainfall patterns change (tick);
- permafrost loss resulting in methane emissions off the charts (tick);
- loss of (parts of) Antarctic ice sheets with consequent effects on ocean and weather (tick);
- increased erosion from water & wind causing large scale damage to soil structure & depth (no tick yet but ...);
- extreme heat causing rapidly increasing death rates in previously inhabited regions (tick);
- wildfire destroying whole ecosystems faster than they regenerate (tick);
- ecosystem damage causing massive species extinction with significant effects on human lives (e.g. bacterial/viral species jumps, unfertilised crops, ...) (tick);
- flooding/sea level rise making one or more major cities uninhabitable*** (tick);
- increasing size and frequency of eruptions of methane clathrates** from the deep ocean (??tick);
- increasingly dangerous aeroplane travel as weather patterns become ever more unstable and unpredictable;
- civil unrest and war triggered by the above;
- increasingly unreliable human systems (water/power/roads/distribution/manufacturing...) as extreme events pile up one on another faster than we can fix them;
** undersea liquid methane lakes kept that way by cool temps and massive water pressure
*** currently threatened: New York City; Miami (Florida), Dhaka (Bangladesh), and Jakarta (Indonesia)
@@john1boggity56 food prices (as an indicator of environmental stress) but that signal is problematic given the price gouging that our supermarkets here in Australia are engaged in. It's hard to see how much is driven by corporate greed.
Reduced variety of local food production (meaning shifting climatic zones).
Coral reef health (that's taking a big hit recently, definitely signs of our oceans in crisis).
Lethal wet bulb temperatures being reached (we've started to hit that one).
Migration levels globally (seeing that especially Africa/Europe and Central America /North America).
Multi-generational households (that was more an economic indicator of stress than climate related).
Top heavy bureaucracy and over regulation (another societal collapse precursor rather than climate)
Fuel prices and in particular big spikes in price (again societal rather than climate).
The goal of the list was to be aware of the state of the environment and our civilisation and have some measure of warning when change was accelerating. If and when the signs arrived my partner and I at the time had plans in place to ensure that we could continue to live safely and comfortably for as long as possible.
@@langdons2848 interesting list. I think you made a Freudian slip in the wet bulb section :-)
@@RaglansElectricBaboon fixed it - but you are right, it still worked.
I'm brazilian and we are experiencing a historic flood in the our most south state.
The waters started to low, and then, the heavy rains reignited.
Huge infrastructure losses (100+ bridges) and more than 400.000 people evacuated. Thousands os helicotper flights to rescue people.
Starting to see never seen before events in Brazil. Crazy.
We have been watching this flood from Australia - with huge angst for our Brazilian friends.
@@john1boggity56 thank you!❤️
@@ceeap3680 yes that's terrible. And includes a lot of infeccious diseases.
And the link between all this and human production of greenhouse gases is what?
Careful, even the IPCC says no link.
Ever considered weather manipulation?
I offer several thoughts.
First, to those few of us who do catastrophe and disaster preparation and avoidance, none of this is in the least bit a surprise. More, it doesn't go nearly far enough. It is still far too focused on the near term and guarantees long term failure.
Second and most disappointing is that it has become abundantly clear that people as individuals, and especially as collective groups put vastly more value on stuff (represented by money) than health, welfare and the environment which is viewed as speculative, expendable, or someone else's problem.
Third, all of this has been painfully obvious since the 1960s (in my case) or earlier for those born before me. Based on evidence in the world, it was painfully obvious in the 1950s for those in the know. And a century before that for deep thinkers.
Fourth, we are now so deep into the catastrophe, that no solution can preserve what was, and the only remaining sliver of a possibility to save anything like the world we know requires concerted unified massive effort that is simply not possible.
Bit of a word salad in your last paragraph but yeah you’re right. It’s crazy how so many still don’t see how f’cked we are given the data given the data and events in the last couple of years. It makes you wonder what, if anything, will cause their penny to drop. Going off YT comments it seems people are turning to either religion or conspiracy theories to explain it but I have a feeling many of those comments are bots/propagandists to make any thinkers so exasperated with all the idiots that we become apathetic.
Thank you! Fighting against reality is always a losing battle.
The collective military pollution and energy consumption far exceeds our peon usages and small farms are often very much more organic than industrial single crop ruination of the soil.
Leave us alone until governments fix their own mess (at our expense, I must add!) before I'll even listen.
@@ksgraham3477 So long as people blame anyone or everyone else, we can NEVER have any hope of doing anything meaningful. That applies first to Governments, next to Businesses, and to Billionaires particularly. But it also applies to absolutley everone except the indigent. And that includes you. You don't get to quit and say - untilt he other guy .... That is what every world Government has done for decades. And that is why it WILL kill us all. Grow up.
@tunneloflight I am solar powered, off grid and no TV.
I shop second-hand a lot and cook from scratch.
I drive a car, whoopee.
I do not buy the newest, built for obsolescence fad or upgrade.
I play vinyl.
I've been a slacker for 25 years or so.
And...
The weather IS MANIPULATED FOR EFFECT!
The insurance industry has already started the full abandonment of Florida. Get used to that concept.
And California. Considering you can't build a house in USA without insurance, this will be interesting. First, they will offload that to states silently, but it will be short gap solution.
It's similar to the big box retailers dropping some products because they are no longer profitable enough. For example retailers no longer selling cameras of any type. The shelf space is better used for something else. Maybe the insurers will only offer fire insurance?
@@Pecisk The State will sponsor it. Federal government will mandate insurance companies...
What I don't get... Is how oversized tinderboxes and sinking swamp mansions are worth millions...? I mean, I do get it, but I don't know why people buy those homes (even private equity is picky with certain neighborhoods). The American Dream: A Dream Deferred.
I am betting that the USA, in its desperation to maintain world dominance will start a Nuclear WWIII, destroying the entire world before climate change can.
nonsense
I worked for a business & magazine & edited its insurance section in Athens 1978 to 1982 the insurance companies were becoming exceedingly nervous at Climate Risks. Climate patterns held in Greece over the last three thousand years traced in literature changed violently from 1975 until I left Greece in 1984. Locals on 'my' Isle Sifnos told me there had been less rainfall for 50 years before 1974. Since I left the changes have become ever more extreme. The Greek PM states this is 'climate boiling' or words to that effect.
In 2010 I attended a conference on municipal resiliency in Vancouver BC. At that time those with potential to have major financial stress.from climate emergencies (mortage holders, insurance companies, etc.) Were very concerned with climate change. Unfortunately our various governments seem more concerned with protecting the economy instead of protecting humanity.
You have to protect both in harmony. Lose either one and you have blood on your hands. No easy answers, especially from short-term elected officials.
Canadian Municipalities i think are at least attempting to get us ready
If the people wanted change it’d happen. Unfortunately, people are in complete denial about what’s in front of their faces.
Fire season has started early again. In Alberta it’s smoke all summer. Yet our premier is actively trying to stop renewable energy development. Her support in the polls rises every time she speaks about not upgrading our energy grid.
People are just voting against their own interests, and proud of it too. 😑
@@andrewblakesley4202Nope, the answers are easy. We have an information/media environment that casts nothing but doubt. People are uneducated about the solutions, and hence your belief.
Since people are not pushing politicians in the correct direction, they are happy to do as little as is possible.
@@hardcoreherbivore4730
the smoke from the fires in Canada arrived on my doorstep this afternoon,...i think the smoke will be here all summer long.
“The conclusions are ….. challenging”. You weren’t joking, the potential outcomes and negative impacts on us all is quite eye-opening. Having worked in coastal engineering research and looking at 1 in 50/100 year storm forecasts and building accordingly, I can imagine that there is a lot of recalculating going on….
Just did a flood impact assessment for an undergrad subject (ARC GIS Pro) at uni. The data we used included expected sea level rise (it's a coastal study location) but the data did not take into account changes to rainfall patterns. If you add sea level rise to flash storms and prolonged rain events, you get...flooding...at greater levels than our models accounted for. No point really....
Like Google Maps after you made a wrong turn driving in the city 🤔
@@supersleepygrumpybear More like using Google Maps, where the city layout changed overnight.
The sad truth of both politics and economics is that there's no point in worrying about the future when you're at risk of immediate destruction. Getting voted out or going bankrupt is functionally the same as death for politicians and businesses. No one in a position of power can afford to treat the climate crisis seriously if it might cause them to fall behind in the short term, because falling behind triggers a career death spiral in both cases.
What I learned as climate scientist is that most people just don't care and many argue against scientific statistics with anecdotal experience.
But most just don't really care
@@caked3953 "Elective Ignorance" is a terrible 'social disease'.
If you don't understand that getting voted out or going bankrupt is infinitely preferable to ecosystem collapse and collapse of quaoity of life as we know it, you face a worse outcome than that, and one that you cannot recover from, unlike bankruptcy or getting voted out of office. Adapt or die includes the latter, not just adapt or face bankruptcy, or be voted out of office. Many of us have started new lives, some more than once, and built lives that we love, after losing office AND/OR going bankrupt. Your sad truth is a tragic illusion, infinitely tamer than authentic destruction. Your sad truth is mental and emotional self-indulgence. The real way to grow is to grow up.
Funny how the same people support democracies and free-market capitalism, until it goes against themselves~
We live in democracies right. When politicians would get voted out, if they would take climate change seriously, than it´s on us, on the voters, not on them.
Having dealt with insurance companies, I am not impressed with their assessment of risk. I also find huge discrepancies from company to company. If it was actually based on data, most companies would converge to similar solutions when assessing risk. They are making so much up. There is also lots of financial incentive to exaggerate risk in order to raise premiums. Just price gouging.
We need to be very careful about just accepting statements from organizations with financial incentives.
PBS Terra published a video documenting the obsolescence of historical flood risk assessment. Historical data is not relevant now and assessment must take into account the increased water vapor capacity of a warmer atmosphere. Dramatic stuff and points to the urgency for ecological restoration and urban greening because the locations facing dramatically higher risk are surprising. The distribution of risk has also changed due to warming.
"100" year floods have become 35 year and 8 year floods in some areas.
In the US, there is some working at FEMA who are aware...
@@patrickjordan2233Wonder if they are allowed to stay on, if Trump is voted in again. He's forbidden FEMA to adapt it's flood risk maps to new insights before - might decide to get rid of them greenies for once and for all
In the Netherlands, the flood protection in the main economical areas, Amsterdam, Rotterdam & around, was calculated for a once in a 10.000 years event.
In Limburg, on the German border, it was once in 250 years, 40 times less safe, making us aware we don't care much for outlying areas. Limburg was hit by such an event 2 years ago, in Germany there were over 180 deaths, their deadliest natural phenomenon over 60 years.
I don't think we'll have to wait 250 years for the next one, not even 60,e can be pretty d**n sure we'll see another long before 2040. And that one might well hit in the more protected West.
Hell, last winter we already had the waters standing near quays' edge in Amsterdam after "just" 2 months of heavy rain. Thanks to a favorable wind direction on the North Sea, we didn't get truly flooded. But with sea levels going up, rains getting more torrential, we can be 100% sure similar stuff is going to happen within 30 years.
And _Who_ is going to insure Dutch housing and industries in low laying areas after such event? It's called the Low Lands for a reason, re-insurers actuaries will know ...
@@reuireuiop0 Yup, everything about our infrastructure and where we live is being altered in real-time and will continue to be for the foreseeable future. Half a million people are displaced in Brazil, and a major food growing region is wrecked,
The challenges when insurance companies write off all the land within 100 mi of the coast and 50 mi from Indian river, there's not much land left. And then the entire tornado area has higher riders for cyclonic storms.
They'll wait until the last second and start the rapid transitions to a repair, refresh, renew, global remediation economy. Where the companies profit from cleaning up the destruction they've caused.
Cynical but true!!!
We'll wait to the last second and then start adding 1.5% sulfur to Jet A turbine fuel.
@@gregorymalchuk272 for cloud cover geo engineering etc. which probably will fail. Also that iron seeding in the ocean.
@@DynamicHaze MARPOL sulfur reductions in marine heavy fuel oil is already causing a temperature rise in the oceans and the atmosphere over oceans.
Thank you "Just Have a Think". Sadly becoming harder to find facts like this on-line.
There are few RUclips Chanel’s where one can learn so much from the comment section. This is a great resource.
We're already seeing insurance companies leaving areas that they obviously consider to be money losers either because they've already lost in these areas or they think the potential for extreme loss is becoming more evident.
"Florida has entered the chat..." (Sorry, a poor joke...)
Or they're throwing a hissy fit over government regulation
I really appreciate your weekly videos - they deliver a message we all need to hear. I remain quite pessimistic, however, that we will do what's needed to avert a full climate catastrophe. I don't think people (at least the people here in So. California) are willing to accept the lower standard of living we need to achieve to markedly reverse CO2 emmissions.
Right on the money. Name the city and there we have everyone reliant upon a high standard of living. Even the poorest person can't have water, food and sanitation without all the industrial technology, roads and transport, electricity, bonds and debt that keep it all afloat.
They will be forced to.
This 'high standard of living' is dependent on cars which cost $12k/ year. Cars enable urban sprawl, the low density use of land. We have run out of space to build, so home price skyrocket and the young are no longer afford the average home that cost $1M.
@@gr8bkset-524I was just talking to adult son about how the car might be the worst invention ever because of the consequences and the infrastructure to make them usable.
@@blakehelgoth5247 The $12k is just the TCO (Total Cost of Ownership) calculated by Edmunds and doesn't include each home needing a garage + driveway (800 sq ft) to house our vehicles. In a typical $1M home in Orange County, that's +$200k of land. The last few years, I've seen many teenagers riding eBikes. Perhaps when they turn 18, some will keep their eBikes which are cheaper than owning cars. I'm also seeing cities such as Irvine build dense 5-story housing without garage, back/front yards, but with carport and balconies near workplaces. Single Family Homes will be out of reach when young people reach working age, but maybe they will in these dense housing and bike to work. I think local government should use sticks and carrots to get workplaces with +200 to convert 20-50% of their parking space to dense, affordable housing for workers who can then skip owning cars.
We live in a world based on companies, where the most important thing is providing shareholder value. In particular, I suggest everyone have a look at how private equity companies are managing the majority of companies they buy. This is perfectly analogous to how we are treating the planet.
If you keep voting for one of the two mainstream parties, even if it's just to keep the other one out, you are the source of the problem. We need to very radically overhaul the incentive system, and that is not going to be done by parties funded by private equity...
The largest polluters are the wealthy and super-wealthy as individuals and they are in charge! The largest polluting organisation is NATO and they aren't even in the climate accords. Yet they expect the poorest people to give up what little comforts they may have.
Thank you for saying “shareholder value”. IMO this is the big underlying structural problem. The new American dream is to make money by doing basically no work and being twice removed from the consequences (such as pollution or child labor).
Having worked in a major insurance organisation in the past and having had a lot of experience working in risk management and governance - a good risk management framework operated by competent risk assessors and the ability to "action" the risks that are identified very much is a good way to deal with risks in a business context. I'm surprised it hasn't been tried for international response to the climate crisis. So it gets a cautious thumbs up from me.
The question is can we have global economic growth and ecological overshoot. The climate crisis is taking too much attention away from the other ecological problems we are causing/facing. We cannot have infinite growth on a finite planet. It doesn't matter much how that growth is powered. In a survey of thousands of different wild animal populations showed an average decrease of 70 percent over 50 years. This is not due to climate change. We can and are destroying the biosphere without really needing the extra problems caused by fossil fuels. Degrowth has to be the primary solution.
Habitat destruction is the biggest cause of species loss. Great post!
In my city, temperatures have shown a slow steady increase over the last 20 years totaling 2° c, and 4° f.
Rainfall has declined by approximately 6 in per year over the same time period but has had more random fluctuation than the temperature.
The city used to be very green and there would even be algae on places that weren't maintained. Last year we lost 20-year-old bushes and some trees due to 100 days without rain.
Oh and insurance rates have nearly doubled and many insurance companies won't write policies at any price to new customers.
Not good!
Just to clarify that was from roughly 38" to 32" over 20 years, not by 6" each and every year (a loss of 120"). My city is150 miles across, the area 50 miles north is still getting the old rain levels.
It depends where you live.
Cooling Baja.
@@ksgraham3477
While it's not much cooler but I did some digging and it is cooler this year than 20 years ago. Two years ago it was much warner but about the same as 22 years ago.
It's pretty hard to find older data. Maybe there is more in spanish.
Probably related to the upwelling cool currents on the pacific coast but interesting all the same.
Thank you! I have used As You Sow's, fossil fuel free funds tool to make sure my ETFs and mutual funds are as low carbon as possible. We obviously don't have much time to act.
Good on you.
I have seen leadership come and go from a variety of industries. Those who raised valid and solvable concerns on climate change including multiple military organisations, were encouraged to change their leadership to individuals more compliant with specific share/stake holder views who were heavily invested in the risk. Waving off the concern as not thinking Big Brain.
Thanks!
Thanks for your support. Much appreciated
Sitting in Alberta at the moment, covered in forest fire smoke. This is what summer is now, fire season. Water bombers constantly flying overhead.
Yet, I’m surrounded by people who are not willing to do anything to reduce their carbon emissions. Convinced the only solution is a highly lethal pandemic. 😆
@@ChrisValin-w6o Canada exports oil at increased rate, one of the major exporters actually.
Karen of the North has turned the place into albertistan
Hello, fellow Albertan! The smoke was really bad yesterday. I'm actually a little concerned what this stuff is doing to our lungs.
A pandemic wouldn't actually solve anything, because it would teach the wrong lessons. Afterwards the survivors would be very alert to the dangers of disease (a good thing) but totally deaf to the dangers of global warming. Since the population was smaller they'd use the cheapest, easiest to get energy sources, which tend to be fossil fuels.
Things like solar panels and wind turbines are cheap now because of the economies of scale that have been achieved in manufacturing them. We need huge manufacturing plants and global distribution to make solar power cheaper than something like gasoline. A world recovering from a pandemic would have to build that back up again.
@@Kevin_Street Ok, a fully lethal pandemic.
@@Kevin_Street Fair point! The hope is that eventually it’ll just be too expensive to not use solar. Yet, we’re currently seeing the success of political partisanship over logic.
Fortunately, solar will continue to reduce costs. So, there will be a limit to how long Smith can keep this up.
In city of Newcastle, Australia, there are already places where home insurance exceeds $10k
This is in city, not in the middle of bush "out there"...
That's awful.
And the orchestra assembles on the deck of the Titanic.
Should we join the band?
one major difference: the guy on lookout spotted the iceberg 5 hours ago. the captain just didnt wanna change course to not inconvenience the passengers.
@@robinbinder8658 How is that different than what happened with the Kyoto Protocol?
While selling tickets to the concert.....
@@robinbinder8658 You mean like how the captain was warned about iceberg activity through a wire, but still decided to travel full-speed for a new ship's maiden voyage...
Assessors are conservative, so good luck everybody!
That's not the choice we face. It's climate emergency or rearming in time to deter or win WW3.
I really appreciate everything you do! I live in Seattle and the changes here, climate wise, are so noticeable to me.😢 I wish more people would pay attention .
If they expect this to believe this they're going to have to try really hard to undo years of mistrust from the public.
In response to the title - No. If we hold continuance of the status quo and perceived stability as a necessary condition, then we forego the notion of "third options" and thereby needed change.
Risk is very hard for the populous to understand. People tend to cross their fingers and hope for the best.
I wonder if actuarial people could calculate the cost of voting in certain politicians.
This surely means that the economic status quo must end. We live in a consumption based, market oriented and capital funded society that doesn't permit long term sustainable solutions to our problems. When we admit that first this has to change then we can move on to better solutions. Climate change is only one matter. There are a whole host of problems that the market economy prevents better solutions.
Exactly. And a bunch of those other problems are going to collapse the system sooner than climate ever would.
Or we can price damages to the environment into our economic system.
@@gr8bkset-524..Carbon taxes. Europeans are starting to do it, Nordic countries too. So why not the US?
@@rbgerald2469 I'm 100% in favor of a carbon tax in the US. However, the US has built itself into a car dependent society based on cheap gasoline. Because of the automobile, homes are spread out (low density sprawl), and effective public transportation is not possible. This car induced low density resulted in not enough homes being built to meet demand, so housing prices is very high. Despite our high GDP per capita of $76K and high per capita carbon footprint 16 tons, most Americans barely get by because of our inefficient transportation and use of land. Politicians in favor of carbon taxes will not be voted into office. We are very stupid.
@@gr8bkset-524 And very extinct. For obvious reasons. Nature had us down to 1268 breeding individuals approx. 900,000 years ago; this time she will not fail!
Looks up what "actuary" means after he says it for the 8th time because it's clearly something relevant to what he's talking about. I love my American education.
Not too many Brits understand what an actuary is or what they do either. They do however have great influence if they communicate effectively.
Also, the other group(s) that are better projecting the future are of course - the military.
Honestly don't have faith in a coordinated human response to these global problems.
I started my "adaption to climate change" strategies 25 years ago because I believe WE (all of us) will face the scenario of "adapt or perish" within 20 years. Some much earlier, not very many any later.
I may be a physics and Earth-environment teacher but I think the whole topic and trends associated have been matter-of-fact and common-sense since the 1980's (for those who cared to look, of course).
What has dumb-founded me is why so few have cared to look at information that will materially (and severely at that) affect their's and their families future in the very near term, physically and financially.
A superb logical approach to the best way forward.
Never going to happen.
I remember the first time, 20-30 years ago, that I heard someone talk about insurance companies having trouble dealing with CC...made me realize it was a real thing. And, that was a long time ago.
Now look at where CC is at...CC is a world wide issue that's not going away.
What happens when no one, or company, can get insurance against CC?
Scary thought really, but I do think were about to find out.
It will be forced upon governments first. Then governments will fail to recoup costs and will give up.
And the Pentagon also realized it years ago.
@@mk1st Imagine, we now rely on the Pentagon for rational thinking and planning! Shows just how far Corporations have taken over our lives, cradle to Mass Graves!
How do you insure against climate change today?
Thank you for the new video. It certainly makes sense to assess climate risks in a financial way, since we're going to pay for them eventually. The global insurance industry is going to go through some particular challenges in the near future. But the end of their report (as you quote it in your video) doesn't feel that realistic to me.
It's just that we're _really_ bad at long term governance and risk management. It's not even a political thing. You could take any government on Earth, any system of governance or economic management, take a look at their history and what you'll see is a list of catastrophes interspersed between periods of optimism. That's how we're wired. Terrible stuff happens, and then we deal with it. Heroes rise up, and so on. We're not wired to head off the terrible stuff before it happens.
And holistic risk assessments... Well, they make sense when you're dealing with a global problem. The environment doesn't stop at national borders. But again, we don't work that way. We're a planet of stake holders, sometimes cooperating but often in conflict, and no one wants to support a policy that will fundamentally disadvantage their group more than the others.
I think the way we're ultimately going to handle this crisis, is (to misquote Stephen Leacock) as a society that rides madly off in all directions. We're going to do everything we can, most of it a little too late, and barely squeak through at the end. We may go over some of the tipping points but not others, we may be do some geoengineering, fight a couple of wars, and ultimately complete the shift to renewable energy thanks to economic forces.
Have you done the segment on James Hanson's latest paper, global warming in the pipeline? If not worth a look
Great post - yes definitely worth a look and a series of strong conversations. The aerosol masking effect suggests we are well over 2C since the 1850-1900 average.
Great video, cheers Dave!
@7:45 It's worse than having no precedent for the warming coming our way. We actually have no precedent for the level of warming we're ALREADY AT. The problem is our biosphere has a lag time to stabilize at newer temperatures.
Without scientific instruments you wouldn't even be aware that anything was happening.
Insurance companies are abandoning California in droves. Considering the fact that you can't get a mortgage for a home without having it insured we have a major problem looming
They are abandoning California because of oppressive government regulations that make making a profit difficult.
Thank you. Yet another week of educational material.
Yes. Hit them where they are concerned -- the pocketbook. "Hey, guys? If we don't do something about this warming thing we're going to lose a lot of money." Watch the attitudes change.
It's a nice idea but the tragedy of the commons remains.
First, they gonna make govs to offset costs.
@@Pecisk If you add up the National Debt, then compare it to the capitalization of the top 500 corporations, you will find them to be almost EQUAL. Talk about Socialism for the Rich, Capitalism for the poor!
Thank you for what you do!
Thank you for your support.
Insurance companies are issuing non-renewable notices for many of their customers because they are in high risk areas. But the reason for insurance is to spread the risk between customers. Right?
Yes but not in a way that those in low risk situations subsidize those who are high risk. If I drive a sports car I'm high risk and so pay more for my insurance. That's the way it should be. Also it will bring home the reality of climate change to the neigh sayers.
Definitely no. Insurance is a business.
Spread risk among customers with similar risk profiles. Insurance is not supposed to be a scheme where middle income people in the middle of the country subsidize those who enjoy a seaside lifestyle.
There is high risk and losing battle. Insurance companies will move out of losing battle areas as premiums they would need to charge you, if they stayed in area, would be vitually insane amount no one could afford.
The insurer spreads risk such, that when they must pay coverage, they still show a profit.
Abandoned assets will be in the billions, once assessed risk becomes too high, no one will insure the properties.
W/O insurance...no permits, no public occupancy, no mortgages.
If these sites are not kept secure, they will be taken possession of...by current homeless, by millions of future homeless created by widespread adoption of humanoid robots in industry and healthcare.
Please tell me I'm wrong.
Well, it's the start of a move towards the consideration of reality but when people still consider implementation through "democratic" processes, there is yet to be a full grasp. Did you see what Australia recently announced about gas? That's a democracy. Never mind massive places like China and Russia.
anyone who thinks there are any "Democracies" left, is naive at best. Electing representatives to decide things is not democracy. We have the technology for direct democracy of the masses, but the plutocracy has taken that away by force.
Political Theatre is what we consume, Oligarchy is what we have.
@@sedonars1 "Under capitalism, we can't have democracy by definition. Capitalism is a system in which the central institutions of society are in principle under autocratic control". (Chomsky)
@@sedonars1 Do you want true democracy, as you describe it? How else do we decide things? What is the advantage while certain very persuasive groups have the power they have in the UK (e.g. religions, mainstream news media, social media)? Who determines what the citizens vote upon and what decisions we do or do not make? Who determines that the questions to answer are careful and avoid bias? Who should vote? A citizen needs to have a decent education before they can vote upon what they want to happen. Their level of education on any issue they might vote on should be far superior to what they "learn" from the news media. Most of them simply have not educated themselves to a high enough standard to make "good" decisions on most issues. How can they? What are their experiences? How much have they researched? Time is limited and most of them are busy doing their jobs. So one idea is that we vote for leaders who should gather the views of the citizens through careful questioning, become more highly educated, make decisions and explain why decisions have been made on behalf of the citizens. Has this ever truly happened for very long? I doubt it. Instead, we have compromise. Isn't it naive to think there has EVER been much of a "true" democracy? The political theatre you mention is largely a result of incompetent vain leaders performing for irresponsible news media focused on sensationalism, with the citizens somewhere far away.
If Hansen is right and sensitivity is 5, and we continue going up 3ppm, or better, annually... I think it's a failure of the imagination not to get the willies.
Hansen (et al.,) is worth reading and having serious conversations about - his predictions are higher than the IPCC and his arguments seem credible. If he is right, then we need to surrender to a very uncomfortable future.
@@john1boggity56 et al indeed, that Leon Simons kid is interesting.
And now we exponentially progress to 4.7ppm/yr!
@@sedonars1 Hasn't that little stat gone under the radar! That and the earths energy imbalance figure.
Thank you, sir!
The political theatre in the U.S. is brought to you by your friends in the coal, oil and gas industries.. They are obviously protective of the present position of their products and plan to continue business as usual. Those in the 'power' sector truly believe that what's good for them is good for America. So, it's on with the show in business and in the politics of division, even as the world continues to boil in oil.
You are a legend. Love your bold and intelligent stance! You manage to make the dark somehow a little lighter.
What? You mean we can't just exploit everything into oblivion for our own short term gain? Preposterous!
I've been watching the Ken Burns documentary on the American Buffalo with my son. We had previously watched his one on the Dust Bowl. Weird how killing off all the Buffalo, then plowing up the prairie ended so badly. All at the service of the industrial machine we created. Seems like we'd learn a lesson our two.
Inexpensive reliable energy, economic growth, wealth creation and the modern world that these things create, is what keeps you safe.
My read is that this year, being an El Nino year, is just a preview of things to come (in about 6 years).
The economy will completely crash before then.
I just love amount of different goalpost moving in comment sections of your more skeptical videos. People either are just whatabout trolls - classic for internet - or just basically discover things not foreseen by scientists or policy specialists working in field for decades 😅
I’m in the transportation industry, NAFTA was set up to run goods across the border for tax purposes, a big one being fuel tax, its design is to use fuel. Your equipment has to meet EPA requirements for the year it was built. With large corporations offloading the job to immigrants and all they can afford is an old truck. Corporations like Loblaws look greener by offloading the carbon onto the little guy. The government can subsidize oil and gas to the tune of billions but instead of using that money to get everyone into a Tesla, they tax the fuel we use . It places pressure on the food we use, houses and building cost, everything actually, and that is why we don’t trust our government. Bald face liars and complete idiots sending us to our doom.
It’s May and our forests are already on fire out west.
A question? Generally, most only talk about "best case scenario" regarding the economics impact of climate change...
Given how we've generally overshot estimates from decades ago (on which much is model referenced) shouldn't we have a hard examine/public discourse of "worst case"?
I know it'll be a brutal conversation, but doesn't it deserve to be in the public discourse?
I, for one, think the Overton Window won't change quickly until we do... (Depressing as it is...)
When I am confronted by denialists... I just challenge them to sit in a non-running car with the windows rolled up... On/for a full average summer afternoon...
"Your car is a closed system, what do you think this spaceship called Earth is?.."
-I've had no takers.... 🤣😂🤣
*Don't try this @ home, kids, I'm 6'3 & a muscular 255 lbs/1.9 meters & 115 kilos.."
NIST has an RMF for IT systems, something I am very familiar with. I can tell you this recommendation makes sense from a governance perspective, but it is decades too late. There's no way to develop, agree to, and implement anything close to such a thing in just a matter of years...
Well done actuaries! It’s increasingly difficult to remain optimistic about solving climate change now that it’s become a focus for populists. China seems to be doing more than any other country to tackle global climate change using its industrial might and long view, albeit using some dubious means. It’s clearly in China’s long term interest; and everyone else’s. Are there any benign dictators available? In their absence, more proportional representation, citizen assemblies, citizen juries, etc might offer more hope. Meanwhile, electorates need re-educating about climate risk to highlight the risks in the tail and to demand better from our leaders.
You must be joking. Benign dictators? China is a human rights abusing totalitarian dictatorship. It controls the media and the message. It executes more people than any other nation on Earth. It's conviction rate is in the 90% range. It leads the world in female infanticide. It has border disputes with every single one of it's neighbors. It is claiming the entire South China sea. Xi has openly and publicly threatened to invade Taiwan, a prosperous democracy. It is oppressing the people of Hong Kong. It invaded and annexed Tibet and Inner Mongolia. It's citizenry have no rights. The police can enter your home, arrest you and hold you without charge.
China is the worst polluter on the planet. It uses fossil fuels to manufacture solar panels that it sells to the gullible West.
The obvious risks are fire and flood, less obvious is famine due to maladaption of food monocultures to changes in temperature, rainfall, and pestilence.
Yes, but food is not insured; therefor there is no risk!!!
Some people like to start their weeks with a cup of coffee monday morning. I like to start mine with a cup of existential dread.
One thing is for sure: Leaving the negating of climate change caused by our own pollution in the hands of politicians is guaranteed to fail.
Bravo! Well stated.
In explaining to skeptics why the low percentage of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere exerts such a powerful blanketing effect that sustains global warming, we need to be aware that they are constantly ‘absorbing and releasing’ infrared heat energy over and over, again and again, and that in doing so they gyrate wildly, thus causing them to vigorously bump into other atmospheric molecules which, in turn, collide with other air molecules, imparting the kinetic energy of motion throughout the atmosphere - it is this overall cumulative vibratory state that registers as temperature.
When there are no more people to make a profit out of, then wealthy, rich powerful people will respond to climate change. Unfortunately, that day will be when the planet can no longer sustain human life. Very sad but that is how rich people operate. 😞🌈♥️🙏🇬🇧
Humans will live on. The ones who live nomadic lives etc. there will be much strife, starvation, wars, some will live. no one will willingly go back to that type of life, not born into this modern world, its too tough and were too soft.
@@notdisclosed4597 Humans will not live on, because we have already turned over decision making to the SOCIOPATHS. The Sociopaths will kill us all, before they will let themselves be killed. We are in the process now in 80% of the Countries on the planet, and when Donnie becomes emperor of the West, He and Vlad will start pushing buttons randomly until it's all gone!
There will be no option of Nomad when 100% of the atmosphere is radiated to a toxic level for 3.6 million years!
It will be very interesting how next years will start to look from insurers perspective. If insurance industry will start to collapse, it will reverb very heavily in economics. Gov will step in to guarantee some of bills, but not all of them. If companies can't cover their risks, they will decrease investments even more. I expect much more frequent boom / bust cycles, dropping all pretense of living space, etc. Problem is government are blinded by big money, and big money unfortunately is not betting on society anymore.
They can talk all they want about policies but nothing is coming out of that. WE THE CONSUMERS must change with our actions. I banned all Fossil Fuels from my life with electrification. You can do that too. ELECTRIFY EVERYTHING. I started with an EV. Next was the lawn mower and the snow blower. Next came the Heat pump and now it's the heat pump water heater. Good riddance propane.
You just moved the emissions to the fossil fueled power plants.
@@philipdamask2279 maybe In your state but the province of Ontario Canada grid is over 90% Fossil Fuel free. Vote for the right people and it can happen in your area.
@@bossman6174 Really, 90% FF free? You've been greenwashed.
No, thank you. I had my moment of revelation march16, 2016. Not telling me that it will go wrong -which I knew for decades already by then - but how it was inevitable. And that’s a strange life to live, I can assure you that.
You rock thank you
We want both, and it's totally possible to get both. They should curb their profit margin. And oh, bring the real economy back, instead of all out speculation.
Curb the profit margin? Sure, lets get the government to determine what profits should be, that always works out so well. /s
@@anthonymorris5084 Let's starve, enjoy downgradation of services across the board, degrade the environment beyond livable and still shout "all hail the profit".
@@aniksamiurrahman6365 My friend your post is myopic and hyperbolic. I'm betting you don't even understand what a profit is.
You embrace this myth that the Earth is some kind of pristine place of purity and harmony that humans, like a parasite are wrecking. In fact, the Earth is a hostile place that will kill you at any given opportunity. Try going camping without any modern technology or conveniences. Good luck with that. Humans have made it safer and more livable with each passing decade.
The entire Western world embraces the profit model. The West represents the most successful societies this planet has ever seen, by any measurement you care to examine. Wealth creation allows for greater environmental stewardship and humans continue to become better stewards of the environment each year.
Ministry for the Future, by Kim Stanley Robinson, speculates on a spectrum of solutions to prevent chaos. Worth a read.
The US insurance industry appears to have reevaluated risk of severe climate-related disasters such as hurricanes and wild fires -- and increased rates accordingly. This approached is pricing entire regional populations -- like Florida and western mountain communities -- out of range for many/most residents. Per this report, a realistic risk evaluation (1 in 200 for instance) is a disaster in the making... second only to burying head in sand and waiting for the actual disasters to come bit us in the behind.
I was alarmed to see that, according to the IEA, world production of coal and lignite was higher in 2022 than ever before, although in the coming years it is expected to start to fall.
Oil too has over topped 2018 peak production. They say the West is using less, so despite this talk of climate justice, developing nations can no longer postpone acting to install climate policies and start to produce less. Most are in the Global South anyway, so they are feeling the best already. But building coal/ fossil fired plants still is lots cheaper. Looking at you, India, Indonesia, SE Asia in general.
Very good review thanks.
It is good that small 'c' conservative industries like insurance & actuaries are starting to squawk. They have real impacts on investment. Its sad that it has to come to this but at least they're here finally.
Nothing sensible is going to be done unless these things happen, in no particular order: 1. It gets too expensive to realistically cope, 2. High enough body-count.
So, until then, we'll keep on doing nonsense like Hybrid vehicles and PHEVs.
Biggest convulsion in all this is a risk of populist approach to ignore problem, and in bloody way suppress refugees or any policy change. It is not gonna work, but that alone will kill considerable amount of people.
Politicians and money stake holders are ignorant. Some of them are worried a bit, but they are very few and between. Lots of these people are fine with either idea that they will escape somehow because they have means, or they think they have few decades before everything goes to shit. They did not get in politics to solve problems, especially those who raise from them having power.
Problem is also media, who is business driven. People don't want to read bad news. Which is ironic, because that is way people to lean towards to read news that makes them happy anyway.
Body count? The only thing being counted, for over 250 years now, is $$$$$$$$$$$$. The current crop of Supreme Counters (Jeff, Elon, Vlad and the like), have never deigned to count bodies. Heck, they already have plans in place for the final 500,000 humans on the planet, and are currently racing to implement that plan!
Humans are machines ruled immensely more by their emotions than by their rationality, which is why they often make stupid decisions against their own interests.
For example, no one wants to lose their comforts and pleasures, so we construct stories to convince ourselves that our consumer behavior has no connection with the environmental consequences we've been observing around us for over 100 years. So there's no reason to act to reduce our consumption (it's "business as usual"). For others, it's the belief that humans can always get out of this mess with the help of new technologies... but isn't it technology that got us into this mess in the first place? Technology doesn't solve the problem of over-consumption, because it leads to even greater consumption of energy and natural resources, so more technology isn't the solution.
These are the reasons why we insist on sticking to the adaptive mode instead of the preventive one. Preventive means voluntarily limiting ourselves, and since nobody wants to voluntarily limit themselves, we'll have to wait until the environmental consequences (floods, drought, famine, disease, reduced agricultural production) force us to do so painfully and in indescribable chaos. How far will human stupidity take us... to extinction?
I had a thought. All the minor warming we have seen in the last 300 years or so is tiny, natural, and not driven by CO2. The ocean is getting warmer, so it can't absorb as much CO2. Thats why the atmosphere has a higher concentration of CO2.
Not a single scientific institution anywhere on earth agrees with you. The consensus that today's climate change is "unequivocally human-caused" is 99.9%, according to the latest survey of the field by Cornell University. The ocean is still a net absorber of CO2, not a net emitter. Scientists project a reversal of that dynamic by 2100, when we'll really be in trouble.
Buying solar panels for every single family home in America might be cheaper than this Global Solvency whatever consultants. We don't need consultants. We need infrastructure and politicians who will build infrastructure to make infrastructure.
What's needed is a risk assessment? Colorful charts and endless committees don't solve predicaments.
Good account Dave, and a good point about the risk to the planet, but of course we're not actually talking about the existential risk to all life. The risk is to us and many of the other species we really care about. Many species will survive, as many did after the K-T extinction event that did for the dinosaurs and opened the opportunity for mamals to become the dominant class of organisms.
Thanks again.
My theory is that the rich are so interested in bringing the dinosaurs back from extinction that they are collaborating to raise the Earth's global temperature enough that when they successfully clone them, they can release them into the wild.
Great video, as always, thank you. It will be interesting to see if/where in the mainstream media this report pops up and how it's received. As you noted it's hard to paint an actuary as an alarm/activ/extrem/-ist. I truly hope that it does receive serious air-time, then perhaps we'll see action commensurate with the crisis we are facing - something like Seth Klein describes in his book A Good War.
Plenty of those red dots over Australia account for more rain in arid areas. It’s a real question if that is good or bad? Much of the arid areas for the last ten years have been unbelievably wetter, something not seen since the 1850’s. Swings and roundabouts?
Insurance companies want to sell insurance to make money. When they pull out of an area or raise prices beyond buyer's reach it's real and it's serious.
See you there Dave.
That last part is interesting, weighing the dangers of climate change versus the dangers of geoengineering. The worse climate change gets, the more this balance will tip in geoengineering's favor, so it's time to stop treating it like a threat and start looking more carefully into what options we have (without losing focus on decarbonizing, of course)
Without losing focus... when has there been focus? At least this has been tried. Geoengineering such as massive corralling of humans followed by digging very large pits? This may be effective at scale.
No Doubt, the richer , or, not so poor countries in the South , China and Arab oil nations in the lead, will propose to start spewing sulphates in the atmosphere.
It's s clear it's working to decrease temps, but does nothing to lower emissions - likely will even work to postpone fossil reducing measures.
If the rest of the world don't agree, China & Arabia might decide to do it anyway, as the rest of the world increasingly depends on their products.
It was our choice some time ago. Now there is no choice, because both are inevitable
I personally don't mind using the word "planet" in lieu of "world". A dead Earth is not the same Earth as a living one, even if it keeps spinning 😊
thanks !
I remember when they were talking about the 100 year flood becoming the 10 year flood when talking about insurance companies in the early 2000's
Great video as usual 👌
Degrowth in the solvency report is not an option. Only geengineering. Very good.
ONnly de-growth can prevent catastrophic collapse.
I rewatched the old video.
Coming back to this after 6 months. Didn't notice the graph showing 100% damages to GDP at 3C the first time around.
Also fascinating to look at a video from 6 months ago that confidently talks about 1.2 degrees. Now the numbers are in, and the last 12 months have averaged 1.61 degrees above 1850-1900, or 2.1 degrees above pre-industrial.
So even in a video that's about the minimisation by the IPCC, the IPCC minimisation had poisoned the narrative.
WASF!
Time to get your affairs in order; (barely)!
Everyone who actually cares has been getting involved with actual politics (not performative and ineffective protests) for the last 50 years. US Americans should avail themselves of the Citizen's Climate Lobby, and the rest of the world should seek something similar, locally. Progress is being made, the numbers are starting to bend in the right direction. The people who don't matter at all are in the comments, spreading doom and gloom, doing nothing at all, like they always are. I guess we'll see if humanity lives, or not.
Add in the cost of 1.2B migrants. As if that's the most. Likely numbers suggest as many as half the people on the planet will need to move north away from the heat.
'can i get a coffee and and pay you back next time, no i dont trust you i want money now' Money is the seed to mistrust , trust and love build economy not money