Mood:
sharpTopic: aust govt
The Federal Coalition Opposition seem to be forgetting the soft power of the global reinsurance industry.
Swiss Re and Munich Re etc control trillion$ in assets worldwide as per this ABC Background Briefing show in 2005:
And this industry sector knows that it's not worth writing re-insurance policies for the domestic insurance industry (think former HIH and every other insurance company here) for any country that does not have world class global warming policies.
The statistics on massive storm insurance losses makes this financial approach a business imperative for the global re-insurance industry. This is what a leading re-insurance sector representative said back in 2005 when climate change science was far more contentious and arguable:
"As head of the geo risks division at Munich Re, the world's largest insurer of insurance companies, Peter Hoeppe sizes up the threat of tropical cyclones, floods and tsunamis like a Las Vegas bookmaker tries to pick the winner of the Super Bowl.
And increasingly, Hoeppe's biggest worry is not when the fabled big one will shake California, or the next Hurricane Andrew will steamroll Florida.
It's global warming, which he believes is already costing the $US3trillion ($4trillion) insurance industry.
Worldwide disaster losses have been rising for the past half a century, even when inflation is factored in - and Munich Re asserts climate change is at least partly to blame.
Insured disaster losses last year totalled $US44 billion, the most expensive year yet for the industry, the German reinsurer says.
Overall disaster losses were $US114.5 billion, the second-highest total.
By contrast, disaster losses, adjusted to 2004 values, were about $US40 billion in 1980 and $US10.5 billion in 1951.
Worldwide disaster losses have been rising for the past half a century, even when inflation is factored in - and Munich Re asserts climate change is at least partly to blame.
Insured disaster losses last year totalled $US44 billion, the most expensive year yet for the industry, the German reinsurer says.
Overall disaster losses were $US114.5 billion, the second-highest total.
By contrast, disaster losses, adjusted to 2004 values, were about $US40 billion in 1980 and $US10.5 billion in 1951.
"Single events can never prove climate change. But like a stone in a mosaic, if you get enough of them, you begin to see a full picture," said Hoeppe, who leads a team of 25 meteorologists, hydrologists, geologists and economists that studies the global cost of calamity."We have seen dramatic increases in damage from weather events. Something is changing in the atmosphere. There is no other explanation."
Sceptics, including some climate scientists who believe in global warming, wonder whether some insurers are talking up the threat of climate change to raise rates. And most American insurers are more concerned about terrorism than the weather.
Nevertheless, although most insurers do not believe climate change is eroding their bottom line, many are growing concerned that it could in years to come if predictions prove correct and extreme weather becomes more common in a warmer world heated by greenhouse gases.
Last week, for example, the Association of British Insurers, a trade group representing about 400 companies, predicted the worldwide cost of major storms could rise by as much as two-thirds by 2080 because of global warming, raising average annual losses to $US27 billion by today's valuations."
in
Global warming costs us: reinsurer - Business - Business - smh.com.au reporting the Los Angeles Times 7 July 2005
Then see this in 2006:
28 August 2006 BBC NEWS | Business | Insurance firms weather the storm
Now look at this from July 2008 where this industry observer is suitably agnostic but the figures are ramping up the pressure to freeze out economies that don't co-operate in global action.
When storms turn political July 2008 With the prospect of high hurricane activity and pressure to keep rates low, reinsurers face a growing need to mitigate their risks, as Bob Ward explains. [from Global Reinsurance website]
We won't be able to hide under GW Bush's skirts for much longer either with both McCain and Obama supporting more action on climate change, not less.
In this sense Australia is not 'leading the world' with it's Emissions Trading Scheme (now Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme) but following the majority of the rest of the developed (read European) world.
By contrast GW Bush's USA economic disfunctionality is hardly a useful counter model to take our economic settings from.
If the Federal Coalition play chicken with the European controllers of the global (re) insurance industry and they withdraw re-insurance support to Australia the social and legal chaos that will follow will make the collapse of HIH look like a picnic:
14 January 2008 HIH founder free but pain lingers | NEWS.com.au
and here back at the start
Unlike PM Malcolm Fraser's slogan of the 1982-83 election regarding "not waiting for the world" -
as per Insiders programme yesterday 28 July 2008 hereLast Update: Sunday 27 July 2008
This week on Insiders
Barrie and the panel discuss how the coalition will respond to the Government's plan to push forwards with emissions trading and whether internal divisions will undermine the effectiveness of the Opposition.
..... in reality Australia is playing catchup well behind the Europeans who control our insurance coverage. Given the shaky US economy and the election of a new US president later in 2008 means we must throw our lot in with Europe and so should the Coalition Opposition in Federal Parliament. To do otherwise is being highly irresponsible and putting the Australian economy at risk of a fatal brush with global political economic forces.
It would be nothing for Munich Re or Swiss Re to withdraw their re-insurance support for a distant 21 million population country and write our economy off. In fact they must be quite tempted to do so already given the active sabotage by the Howard Govt of Kyoto reforms. The Coalition Opposition should not tempt fate over the economic future of Australia by flirting with a super 'HIH collapse' scenario.
