7 ms·

Flooding and other symptoms of climate change are externalities that countries & corporations are not acknowledging let alone paying for. Who's responsible for

by orky56 7y ago

Flooding and other symptoms of climate change are externalities that countries & corporations are not acknowledging let alone paying for. Who's responsible for compensating the businesses of Venice who are effected? Is it the government of Venice? Italy? If history has taught us anything, these entities are on their own.

parliament32 7y ago
Insurance, just like any other weather-caused damage.
- stevenwoo 7y ago
  In the USA the national flood insurance program has distorted the market in an incredible way by incentivizing building and constant rebuilding in flood prone areas.
  - munk-a 7y ago
    I think it's a bi of a reach to say that it incentivizes building in flood prone areas - there isn't, as far as I'm aware, any active reward for such actions - but it certainly doesn't appropriately punish such stupidity. I'd love it if everyone who was hit by a hurricane was given money to rebuild somewhere safer, but just once.
    - magduf 7y ago
      I'm not sure about the US's national flood insurance, but for other things, it doesn't always enable stupidity. If there's private insurance companies involved, they usually won't insure abject stupidity. Even government insurance has its limits. As an example, Hurricane Katrina hit the Gulf Coast back in 2005, and it was a total disaster. Flooding, of course, was not covered by private insurance (it's been like this for a very long time), only wind, so there was a lot of arguing over whether insurance companies had to cover losses because the storm surge was actually caused by wind, and a lot of damage was solely caused by the hurricane-force Category 5 winds. I'm probably leaving some important details out... Anyway, the aftermath was that private insurance companies in that area refused to insure wind damage to buildings. It just wasn't worth the risk. So the state (Mississippi) came up with something called the "wind pool" which was government-provided insurance for wind damage. The problem was, it was really expensive. So a lot of people never did rebuild, a lot of people left (or moved farther inland, where the insurance was cheaper), etc. The bottom line is that enabling stupidity as far as building location only works long-term if it's being subsidized. If insurance reflects the true risk of building in a certain place, then it really limits that kind of activity.
      - stevenwoo 7y ago
        There is no private insurance available for people in certain flood vulnerable areas in the USA - the NFIP is the only insurer available. When Congress attempted to make the premiums more reflective of the risk most recently, they rolled them back immediately when voters complained.
    - michaelmrose 7y ago
      It inflates the value of land that is truly worth little because anything you build there would be destroyed and nobody in their right mind would insure you for any reasonable sum. Reasonable insurance is expected cost * probability + enough margin for a small profit + cover bad bets. The gap between a reasonable rate and the rate paid is a gift paid to homeowners with above average wealth and builders with below average sense. Since builders can earn more building a home that will be flooded out in 7 years with a higher selling price by virtue of beings water front property but only if the government subsidizes insurance they are directly incentivized to do so.
    - stevenwoo 7y ago
      I agree with the moving people, refusing coverage after repeat usage in one location but the last time that was in Congress it failed to pass and minor reform was rolled back when they realized how many people were going to lose coverage. Most of the initial premiums are based on 100 year flood plain maps based on recent years of rain (which may not have been typical), assume that rivers are static objects that do not change course, assume that coastal sand beaches are static and not dynamic. By letting people stay in places that flood repeatedly and removing the risk for home owners/purchasers, the NFIP incentivizes building and rebuilding in areas that flood. According to this article, there were 37000 homes at the time of writing that had flooded four times and gotten at least 5000 in coverage payout (I could be wrong but last time I checked that is the most I could get in earthquake insurance when I read the annual offer around 2000 from my homeowners insurance). The NFIP is underwriting pretty well off people's lifestyle of living on a beach/river front/bayou. https://www.seattletimes.com/business/flood-insurance-rebuilds-homes-with-public-money-repeatedly/ https://www.seattletimes.com/business/flood-insurance-rebuil...
  - altoidaltoid 7y ago
    https://www.wsj.com/articles/one-house-22-floods-repeated-claims-drain-federal-insurance-program-1505467830 https://www.wsj.com/articles/one-house-22-floods-repeated-cl... "The six-bedroom house, which has an indoor swimming pool, sits along the San Jacinto River. It has flooded 22 times since 1979, making it one of the most flood-damaged properties in the country."
- munk-a 7y ago
  Whether that cost is paid unexpectedly after a disaster or in installments leading up to a disaster really dodges the question - also, offering any sort of long term weather related insurance seems pretty risky right now and I wouldn't really trust any such insurance. The party offering it might just get overwhelmed and declare bankruptcy. No matter which approach to ameliorate the cost is taken, I think it's quite valid to be concerned that this cost won't be levied on those that have contributed to the damage.
- safsafsa 7y ago
  Insurance doesn't work that way. Insurance works by the insurer selling a bet that an event wont happen so that the buyer is covered if it does. The insured doesn't mind paying for a (negative expected value) policy because the peace of mind is worth much more than the premium. The insurer doesn't mind because they're making many bets across many flood plains. The insurer is basically making money by charging a small premium to coordinate and ensure different people help each other out when they get unlucky. As soon as flooding is guaranteed, there is no point of insurance since the premium is equal to the coverage provided.
stevenwoo 7y ago
Even when there is someone responsible like the USA government for the nuclear waste close to sea level at the Marshall Islands, it’s hard to get accountability after the early years. https://www.latimes.com/projects/marshall-islands-nuclear-testing-sea-level-rise/ https://www.latimes.com/projects/marshall-islands-nuclear-te...
the-dude 7y ago
Are you stating that any flooding and other symptoms of climate change are externalities of countries and corporations? Would the earth be static if there were no countries or corporations?
- wjnc 7y ago
  Uhm, I would answer that as a Yes (but I think you would disagree). It'd be a subsistence level of existence for the several (tens of) millions of humans in existence in that scenario, but one with hardly any human impact on the global climate. The thought would be that massive specialisation led to our current level of (material) wealth and that both countries and corporations are signals of cooperation and thus facilite specialisation. Even if I think of something like a Nozickian world as a starter, with exchangeable money as a transaction facility for transferring information, I immediately think we would see the roaming "tribes" as something akin to corporations.
  - the-dude 7y ago
    Sea level has been rising thousands, ten thousands of years : 6-8k yrs ago, I would be able to walk to the UK from NL. The North Sea was inhatibed : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doggerland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doggerland
    - eyko 7y ago
      The rate at which the sea levels rose was much slower and much of that water was frozen in the arctic. The past couple of centuries are exceptionally different.
      - kibwen 7y ago
        To that end, here's one of my favorite XKCDs ever, which is a long-form chart of Earth's average temperature for the past 22,000 years, including notes about the advancing and receding of ice and sea levels: https://xkcd.com/1732/ https://xkcd.com/1732/ It does a fabulous job of driving home the rate at which the current pace of warming exceeds geological norms.
rootusrootus 7y ago
The city has been sinking for quite a long time, are any businesses surprised when the floods come?
- sbov 7y ago
  Yeah, most of Venice's problems are due to pumping water from the aquifer under the city.
  - Lucadg 7y ago
    not really, source please
    - safsafsa 7y ago
      https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272771413004629 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S027277141... It really doesn't need a source. If Venice takes too much water from an aquifer then subsidence is unavoidable. The city is sitting on top of a sponge, after all. This is true for any city that's not built on bedrock (which I believe includes half of Manhattan and Miami. NYC of course draws from the Hudson) Anyway, as the paper states the subsidence exasperates rising sea levels.
      - jcranmer 7y ago
        NYC's primary water supply comes from the Catskills, not from local aquifers or local riverine supplies (the Hudson River is too salty around Manhattan to draw from).
      - gattilorenz 7y ago
        > It really doesn't need a source. If the claim is that it is the main problem, I think it does need a source, and by reading the abstract it doesn't seem like yours is one.
fooblitzky 7y ago
Venice should sue the fossil fuel companies for damages, like Hawaii: https://www.civilbeat.org/2019/11/honolulu-to-fossil-fuel-companies-pay-our-climate-change-damages/ https://www.civilbeat.org/2019/11/honolulu-to-fossil-fuel-co...
Yeroc 7y ago
I visited Amsterdam recently and noticed in conversation with a number of people that both the citizens and governments are very aware and concerned about climate change since they're in a particularly vulnerable position to rising ocean levels.
- the-dude 7y ago
  We are already below sea level, and experts claim we can handle an additional multiple meters of sea level rise : https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2019/10/04/we-kunnen-meters-zeespiegelstijging-aan-a3975698 https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2019/10/04/we-kunnen-meters-zeespi... ( Dutch ) We will be fine and there are no worries in NL except from climate alarmists.
  - baq 7y ago
    NL dikes can handle that but wouldn't you be flooded from behind via Germany and France?
    - the-dude 7y ago
      Well, in Europe rivers flow from high terrain to the sea ( low terrain ). We are at sea. Rivers come from central Europe. As I said, nobody worries except climate alarmist and poorly educated people.
advanceduser 7y ago
You know tides are not caused by climate, right?
- JshWright 7y ago
  Tides are deviation from mean sea level caused by gravitational interactions with the Moon (primarily). "Climate" doesn't impact gravity. It absolutely does impact the baseline sea level (a higher sea level means higher tides).
  - advanceduser 7y ago
    Venice would be flooded every 24 hours if this were a result of baseline sea level increase.
    - JshWright 7y ago
      That's not even remotely how tides work... For starters, tides in the Mediterranean sea are semidiurnal, so it would be flooded every 12 hours, not every 24. In reality though, tides vary significantly, in a periodic fashion, based on various cyclic factors. The Moon is not a fixed distance from the Earth, and the gravity of the Sun (and how it aligns with the Moon's gravity) plays a role as well. The level of "high tide" changes over the course of decades as those cycles overlap and diverge (like constructive and destructive wave interference). I'm also not suggesting that climate change is the primary driver of the worsening flooding in Venice (geologic subsidence is major culprit there... the city is literally sinking). I was just pointing out that it's silly to claim that climate doesn't influence tides.

by orky56 7y ago

parliament32 7y ago

Insurance, just like any other weather-caused damage.

stevenwoo 7y ago
In the USA the national flood insurance program has distorted the market in an incredible way by incentivizing building and constant rebuilding in flood prone areas.
- munk-a 7y ago
  I think it's a bi of a reach to say that it incentivizes building in flood prone areas - there isn't, as far as I'm aware, any active reward for such actions - but it certainly doesn't appropriately punish such stupidity. I'd love it if everyone who was hit by a hurricane was given money to rebuild somewhere safer, but just once.
  - magduf 7y ago
    I'm not sure about the US's national flood insurance, but for other things, it doesn't always enable stupidity. If there's private insurance companies involved, they usually won't insure abject stupidity. Even government insurance has its limits. As an example, Hurricane Katrina hit the Gulf Coast back in 2005, and it was a total disaster. Flooding, of course, was not covered by private insurance (it's been like this for a very long time), only wind, so there was a lot of arguing over whether insurance companies had to cover losses because the storm surge was actually caused by wind, and a lot of damage was solely caused by the hurricane-force Category 5 winds. I'm probably leaving some important details out... Anyway, the aftermath was that private insurance companies in that area refused to insure wind damage to buildings. It just wasn't worth the risk. So the state (Mississippi) came up with something called the "wind pool" which was government-provided insurance for wind damage. The problem was, it was really expensive. So a lot of people never did rebuild, a lot of people left (or moved farther inland, where the insurance was cheaper), etc. The bottom line is that enabling stupidity as far as building location only works long-term if it's being subsidized. If insurance reflects the true risk of building in a certain place, then it really limits that kind of activity.
    - stevenwoo 7y ago
      There is no private insurance available for people in certain flood vulnerable areas in the USA - the NFIP is the only insurer available. When Congress attempted to make the premiums more reflective of the risk most recently, they rolled them back immediately when voters complained.
  - michaelmrose 7y ago
    It inflates the value of land that is truly worth little because anything you build there would be destroyed and nobody in their right mind would insure you for any reasonable sum. Reasonable insurance is expected cost * probability + enough margin for a small profit + cover bad bets. The gap between a reasonable rate and the rate paid is a gift paid to homeowners with above average wealth and builders with below average sense. Since builders can earn more building a home that will be flooded out in 7 years with a higher selling price by virtue of beings water front property but only if the government subsidizes insurance they are directly incentivized to do so.
  - stevenwoo 7y ago
    I agree with the moving people, refusing coverage after repeat usage in one location but the last time that was in Congress it failed to pass and minor reform was rolled back when they realized how many people were going to lose coverage. Most of the initial premiums are based on 100 year flood plain maps based on recent years of rain (which may not have been typical), assume that rivers are static objects that do not change course, assume that coastal sand beaches are static and not dynamic. By letting people stay in places that flood repeatedly and removing the risk for home owners/purchasers, the NFIP incentivizes building and rebuilding in areas that flood. According to this article, there were 37000 homes at the time of writing that had flooded four times and gotten at least 5000 in coverage payout (I could be wrong but last time I checked that is the most I could get in earthquake insurance when I read the annual offer around 2000 from my homeowners insurance). The NFIP is underwriting pretty well off people's lifestyle of living on a beach/river front/bayou. https://www.seattletimes.com/business/flood-insurance-rebuilds-homes-with-public-money-repeatedly/ https://www.seattletimes.com/business/flood-insurance-rebuil...
- altoidaltoid 7y ago
  https://www.wsj.com/articles/one-house-22-floods-repeated-claims-drain-federal-insurance-program-1505467830 https://www.wsj.com/articles/one-house-22-floods-repeated-cl... "The six-bedroom house, which has an indoor swimming pool, sits along the San Jacinto River. It has flooded 22 times since 1979, making it one of the most flood-damaged properties in the country."
munk-a 7y ago
Whether that cost is paid unexpectedly after a disaster or in installments leading up to a disaster really dodges the question - also, offering any sort of long term weather related insurance seems pretty risky right now and I wouldn't really trust any such insurance. The party offering it might just get overwhelmed and declare bankruptcy. No matter which approach to ameliorate the cost is taken, I think it's quite valid to be concerned that this cost won't be levied on those that have contributed to the damage.
safsafsa 7y ago
Insurance doesn't work that way. Insurance works by the insurer selling a bet that an event wont happen so that the buyer is covered if it does. The insured doesn't mind paying for a (negative expected value) policy because the peace of mind is worth much more than the premium. The insurer doesn't mind because they're making many bets across many flood plains. The insurer is basically making money by charging a small premium to coordinate and ensure different people help each other out when they get unlucky. As soon as flooding is guaranteed, there is no point of insurance since the premium is equal to the coverage provided.

stevenwoo 7y ago

Even when there is someone responsible like the USA government for the nuclear waste close to sea level at the Marshall Islands, it’s hard to get accountability after the early years. https://www.latimes.com/projects/marshall-islands-nuclear-testing-sea-level-rise/ https://www.latimes.com/projects/marshall-islands-nuclear-te...

the-dude 7y ago

Are you stating that any flooding and other symptoms of climate change are externalities of countries and corporations? Would the earth be static if there were no countries or corporations?

wjnc 7y ago
Uhm, I would answer that as a Yes (but I think you would disagree). It'd be a subsistence level of existence for the several (tens of) millions of humans in existence in that scenario, but one with hardly any human impact on the global climate. The thought would be that massive specialisation led to our current level of (material) wealth and that both countries and corporations are signals of cooperation and thus facilite specialisation. Even if I think of something like a Nozickian world as a starter, with exchangeable money as a transaction facility for transferring information, I immediately think we would see the roaming "tribes" as something akin to corporations.
- the-dude 7y ago
  Sea level has been rising thousands, ten thousands of years : 6-8k yrs ago, I would be able to walk to the UK from NL. The North Sea was inhatibed : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doggerland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doggerland
  - eyko 7y ago
    The rate at which the sea levels rose was much slower and much of that water was frozen in the arctic. The past couple of centuries are exceptionally different.
    - kibwen 7y ago
      To that end, here's one of my favorite XKCDs ever, which is a long-form chart of Earth's average temperature for the past 22,000 years, including notes about the advancing and receding of ice and sea levels: https://xkcd.com/1732/ https://xkcd.com/1732/ It does a fabulous job of driving home the rate at which the current pace of warming exceeds geological norms.

rootusrootus 7y ago

The city has been sinking for quite a long time, are any businesses surprised when the floods come?

sbov 7y ago
Yeah, most of Venice's problems are due to pumping water from the aquifer under the city.
- Lucadg 7y ago
  not really, source please
  - safsafsa 7y ago
    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272771413004629 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S027277141... It really doesn't need a source. If Venice takes too much water from an aquifer then subsidence is unavoidable. The city is sitting on top of a sponge, after all. This is true for any city that's not built on bedrock (which I believe includes half of Manhattan and Miami. NYC of course draws from the Hudson) Anyway, as the paper states the subsidence exasperates rising sea levels.
    - jcranmer 7y ago
      NYC's primary water supply comes from the Catskills, not from local aquifers or local riverine supplies (the Hudson River is too salty around Manhattan to draw from).
    - gattilorenz 7y ago
      > It really doesn't need a source. If the claim is that it is the main problem, I think it does need a source, and by reading the abstract it doesn't seem like yours is one.

fooblitzky 7y ago

Venice should sue the fossil fuel companies for damages, like Hawaii: https://www.civilbeat.org/2019/11/honolulu-to-fossil-fuel-companies-pay-our-climate-change-damages/ https://www.civilbeat.org/2019/11/honolulu-to-fossil-fuel-co...

Yeroc 7y ago

I visited Amsterdam recently and noticed in conversation with a number of people that both the citizens and governments are very aware and concerned about climate change since they're in a particularly vulnerable position to rising ocean levels.

the-dude 7y ago
We are already below sea level, and experts claim we can handle an additional multiple meters of sea level rise : https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2019/10/04/we-kunnen-meters-zeespiegelstijging-aan-a3975698 https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2019/10/04/we-kunnen-meters-zeespi... ( Dutch ) We will be fine and there are no worries in NL except from climate alarmists.
- baq 7y ago
  NL dikes can handle that but wouldn't you be flooded from behind via Germany and France?
  - the-dude 7y ago
    Well, in Europe rivers flow from high terrain to the sea ( low terrain ). We are at sea. Rivers come from central Europe. As I said, nobody worries except climate alarmist and poorly educated people.

advanceduser 7y ago

You know tides are not caused by climate, right?

JshWright 7y ago
Tides are deviation from mean sea level caused by gravitational interactions with the Moon (primarily). "Climate" doesn't impact gravity. It absolutely does impact the baseline sea level (a higher sea level means higher tides).
- advanceduser 7y ago
  Venice would be flooded every 24 hours if this were a result of baseline sea level increase.
  - JshWright 7y ago
    That's not even remotely how tides work... For starters, tides in the Mediterranean sea are semidiurnal, so it would be flooded every 12 hours, not every 24. In reality though, tides vary significantly, in a periodic fashion, based on various cyclic factors. The Moon is not a fixed distance from the Earth, and the gravity of the Sun (and how it aligns with the Moon's gravity) plays a role as well. The level of "high tide" changes over the course of decades as those cycles overlap and diverge (like constructive and destructive wave interference). I'm also not suggesting that climate change is the primary driver of the worsening flooding in Venice (geologic subsidence is major culprit there... the city is literally sinking). I was just pointing out that it's silly to claim that climate doesn't influence tides.