“Some US home insurers have recently said they will not offer further cover in densely-populated coastal cities such as New York as experts put the risk of a major hurricane hitting the US Eastern Seaboard as high as 81 per cent this year”.
Not a flood plain, lower manhattan is apparently at risk, yet uninsurable.
Losing New Orleans, oh well, we’ll miss the titties…
Losing Wall Street, not so tolerable. Is Warren Buffett merely a global warming alarmist, or is he on to something?
Does the price and availablity (or lack thereof) of insurance mean that the private market has concluded that government dilly-dallying vis-a-vis global warming is a financial disaster?
Or should the canny investor rush to write policies on real estate below 42nd street where the “sage of omaha” fears to tread?
Note to mods:don’t fuck with my post; leave as is, or delete. thanx for nuthin’
Far as I remember from training to be an insurance provider … Flood insurance comes from [primarily] the National Flood Insurance Program, mostly managed by the Mitigation division of FEMA … and most monies come not from the insurance providers but from federal funds [which is why certain construction and maintenance standards have to be followed.]
Maybe some of the small indy companies that don’t use the NFIP … but last I heard 3 companies I know agents for are continuing to insure …
Storm surge is the dome of seawater that is lifted up and pushed forward in front of a hurricane. It acts almost like a mini-tsunami, causing sea levels to rise rapidly and violently. Most people believe that high winds and rains are the main dangers of a hurricane. In fact, inland flooding caused by storm surge is the big killer. In 1821, stunned colonial New Yorkers recorded sea levels rising as fast as 13 feet in a single hour at the Battery. The East River and Hudson Rivers merged over Lower Manhattan all the way to Canal Street. According to Coch, the fact that the 1821 storm struck at low tide “is the only thing that saved the city.”
To get a sense of the damage that storm surge can do to New York City, call 311 and ask them to send you a full-color copy of the New York City Hurricane Evacuation Map. It is a truly mind-boggling document. If a storm like the Long Island Express makes a direct hit on the city, everything below Broome Street will be inundated, some parts under as much as 20 and 30 feet of water. Chelsea and Greenwich Village are completely flooded, with the Hudson spilling over all the way to 7th Avenue. Likewise, the East River and East Village become one, with ocean water surging all the way to 1st Avenue. If you haven’t evacuated before the storm, forget it. During the storm, Manhattan’s east- and west-side highways vanish. Tunnels and bridges become unusable.
or, set up a stand at Sheridan Square and start writing those policies, riches beyond your dreams await the canny businessman that you prove yourself to be in your post…
I have no idea how you could possibly have reached such a conclusion.
The lack of insurance is because the insurance industry considers the risk to be unacceptable. Nohting whatsoever to do witht heir assement of the government;s position on global warming. No matter what the government had done or is doing the current situation, and indeed the situation for the next 50 years, would remian unchanged as far as the insurance inductry is concerned.
Even if we accept significant human induced global warming there is simply no technology or procedure available that can put the genie back in the bottle. If you want to start blaming the govenment for any climate risks you will need to wait at least 50 years. That’s when policy implemented (or not implemented) in the last 10 years will possibly have a calculable impact on risks.
To suggests risks for this year in any way reflect an assement of or the results of government policy on the issue of climate change makes no sense.
more specifically, germane to your comments re:long island:
"The 1938 Long Island Express, a borderline category-4 hurricane that plowed into West Hampton, causing widespread death and devastation across New York, New Jersey and New England, was the last major hurricane to hit the region"ibid
sorry, clipped wrong quote for your particular concern. try this, captain ahab
New York City’s biggest vulnerability is the most unyielding—geology. The New York bight is the right angle formed by Long Island and New Jersey with the city tucked into its apex. “Hurricanes do not like right angles,” Lee says. "[They allow] water to accumulate and pile up."ibid
Let’s have you explain what dots you connected to reach such a conlcusion. Your beleif that the conclusion can be arrived at by ‘connecting the dots’ reminds me of John Nash in ‘A Beutiful Mind’ connecting random words to form patterns.
The trouble is that nobody else has a clue what dots you could possibly join to form the picture you described. So how about you tell us?
Let us begin by casting our attention retrospectively to Kyoto, now fast receding in the rear view mirror.
To the extent that underwriting is the art of reducing to a present value the probabilities and a variabilities of future catastrophe, the unwillingness of carriers (and, more importantly, re-insurers) to write a policy at any price, is an index to th overall risks as appreciated by these professionals.
That they eschew this business tells us that the financial risks have grown, in their view, too great to manage; it also tells us that they consider future events, to the extent that amelioration of these risks might be within the range of behaviours of a prudent government, likely to be unabated.
We might well suppose that had a vigorous program of co2 sequestration and reduction been undertaken at the time of Kyoto, the projected and anticipated losses would be at least manageable at some price.
Consider that underwriting routinely embraces 50 and even 100 year event horizons, in the form of the probablilities of a “100 year flood” or a “1000 year flood, tec”… Therefore, your rather facile reliance on a fifty year propective period before any ameliorative action would find itself reflected in underwriting practices betrays a failure to understand the basic process of underwriting.
Can you provide any evidence at all to support this supposition?
Does anyone in the entire world (aside from you) believe that had a vigorous program of CO2 sequestration and reduction been undertaken at the time of Kyoto it would have had any calculable impact whatsoever on hurricane losses in NY this year?
Did you even read what you yourself pasted into this thread? This has nothing to do with with 50 and even 100 year ‘event horizons’.
Read this carefully:
(Emphasis of course is mine)
Good grief man. You posted that. This has nothing to do with 50 years timeframes. It is directly ascribed to the risks calculated for this year.
Risks that no giovernment policy could have had any impact on.
Sorry but the argument is a nonsense from beginning to end. You are really scraping to find somehting to blame the government for this time.
I agree that if insurance companies were refusing to offer cover on the basis of 50 year ‘event horizons’ you would have a valid barrow to push. But there is no evidence that this decision has been based on anything other than an annual risk for annual policies.
If you have evidence to the contray then by all means present it.
Do you have any evidence or reason to believe that any of this is based on 50-year timeframes, rather than the risk this years as quoted in the article? The article says the decision is based on the risks this year, why do you believe otherwise?
If you have no sensible reason then your attempts to blame this on the gummint is clearly nonsense. No govenrment has ever had the opportunity to do anything about this much less dilly-dally.
you are misconstruing the juxtaposition in the article of the 81% number with the long term withdrawal from the market entirely of several companies.
the figure given is adduced as an “hors d’oevre”, as it were, to the basic trend recognized by Buffett in his remarks about re-insurance.
The key fact is that the invisible hand of the market is intervening to slash the value of the most expensive real estate in the world.
If you can not insure it, you cannot build it.
Are you, perhaps, laboring under the illusion that th 81% figure (which is certainly of dubious particularity) relates only to risks for this year, and that next year the companies will draw a new number and begin writing policies? That is not how underwriting is done.
My remarks re:government dilly-dallying re not founded upon any statements by insurers that “oh shit, the government is a”
It is the rise in rates (and, more importantly, the witdrawal entirely of some companie) that s itself the comment upon the failure to mobilize against global warming.
There will be less competition in the marketplace, and companies that cover large-scale disasters are losing money. It will be harder to insure, but not impossible. It is also a safe bet that insurers are also looking at that hurricane map, and setting premiums based on relative risk (nice to see my home is not at risk).
Another thing to note, in typical newspeak, MSNBC has quoted the highest number. Not the median, not the mean, but the highest.
