Wednesday, May 18, 2016

dat kant beee, sed Wahn Bai-weeeee!

Mostly because climate change first was raised by non-economist (read: true) scientists as a phenomenon worth our attention and effort, Silent T "science editor" Wahn Baiwee thinks it's a socialist plot.

It didn't help that Occidental Al made a movie designed to generate "green economy" (read: fake economy) investments and misdirections, nor that Al is a lifelong Democrat where, when pushed to side with either major team, Baiwee instinctively is Republican.

Combine these three points and the erstwhile science "expert" can't imagine that climate change would be an issue for anyone.

**************

Companies whose capital growth depends on long-term forecasts being accurate usually have a stake in seeing fairly accurately over, across and through that long-term outlook.

Even a cosmotarian techno-robot-Republican like Wahn Baiwee can agree that profit-seekers usually try to maximize their profit, absent some bizarre provision under Title 26, U.S.C. which encourages experiencing and/or reporting losses where otherwise the entity would seek gain.

**************

It would be interesting to hear Wahn Baiwee argue/distract/deflect his way out of this situation:

Insurer group leader fears climate changes to add to Canada disasters

(Reuters) — Canada will have to set aside more money to deal with natural disasters like wildfires, storms and floods as climate change starts to bite, the head of the country’s property insurance industry group said on Wednesday.

A wildfire sweeping through the heavily forested oil sands region of Alberta near the town of Fort McMurray could eventually cost CA$6 billion ($4.64 billion), according to one industry estimate.

Don Forgeron, CEO of the Insurance Bureau of Canada, noted there are a range of estimates on how much insured damage the wildfire will do, from a low-end of “a couple billion dollars” to a high of CA$9 billion ($7.0 billion).

“It will likely be somewhere in between, but we really don’t know,” he said following a speech in Ottawa, Canada.

Asked whether the wildfire would lift insurance premiums in Fort McMurray and other areas where the perceived risk is higher, Mr. Forgeron said it is “rare that one event will cause that kind of reaction.”

A special fund that the Canadian government runs to help provinces recover from disasters covers 90% of all eligible costs.

In his speech, Mr. Forgeron cited a February report by the parliamentary budget officer which said disasters linked to climate change would cost the government CA$900 million ($695.6 million) a year over the next five years.

This amount is far in excess of what Ottawa has currently set aside to deal with such events, he said.

“That’s a problem. That means (money to pay for) damages beyond what the fund can cover will need to be found elsewhere, resulting either in cuts to other programs or an increase in the federal deficit,” he said in the speech.

“Climate change ... has moved from future threat to present danger.”

The Insurance Bureau represents more than 90% of all car, home and business insurers in Canada.

Mr. Forgeron said the world had entered a troubling new era in which natural disasters such as fires and floods were happening more frequently.

Ways to help mitigate the damage include taking steps to better identify risks and then manage them.

“This means limiting or ending the practice of building in areas deemed high risk by flood mapping and having a hard discussion about where to build in areas that are close to our boreal forests,” he said.

Building codes also need to be upgraded to make houses more resilient, he added.

It would be keener than Ween if our friend Nigel West Dickens would make a stab at explaining why an insurer would talk about climate change as something actually happening, and as something we should work to accept and remedy.

But I'm not holding my breath.


-- Harold Caidagh, who thinks it's quite possible that (1) Al Gore's a liar; (2) the Democrats are liars; (3) the Greens are liars; (4) the "green economy" is bogus; (5) sketchy, misanthropic people will use duplicity to profiteer off the issue of climate change and human social efforts to minimize human sources of negative impacts upon the climate; while also it is true that (6) human industrialization and other planet-affecting activity have wrought negative impacts upon the earth's climate, and (7) there are things we can do to reverse some of the changes.

1 comment:

Paul Behrer said...

...and (7) there are things we can do to reverse some of the changes.

Why would we want to reverse progress? That's reactionary!