To insure or not to insure, that is the question. The insurance industry is worth 6 trillion US dollars, more than Japan’s GDP. We dig deep in this industry to see if they are keeping up with the destruction and damage being caused by climate change-related catastrophes. Do insurers really carry the burden of the risk? Do the payouts always reach those impacted? Extreme weather events can cause billions worth of damages. Is the industry ready?
Chapters:
00:00 Hurricane Otis in Mexico
03:13 Risk from natural disasters
04:57 Calculating loss and damage
06:47 Flashfloods in Germany
09:01 The uninsured
10:30 Finding solutions
Subscribe: https://www.youtube.com/user/deutschewelleenglish?sub_confirmation=1
For more news go to: http://www.dw.com/en/
Follow DW on social media:
►Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/deutschewellenews/
►Twitter: https://twitter.com/dwnews
►Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/dwnews
►Twitch: https://www.twitch.tv/dwnews_hangout
Für Videos in deutscher Sprache besuchen Sie: https://www.youtube.com/dwdeutsch
#insurence #flashfloods #naturaldisasters
source
Try to sue the Almighty Trident holdings destroyer of his own creations
Agad bum bagad bum
Har har shamboo
Mahadev
(You can ask for a Spanish speaker to tell you where the stress in a Spanish word is placed and how some words are pronounced. Diacritics help – when you write them.)
Rocío.
Zúñiga.
Anthropocene is uninsurable.
The last sentence in this video is wrong, it is up to the industry to make a profit for it's shareholders. If you think the insurance industry has any responsibility beyond that then you'll have a very long wait.
If there isn't affordable insurance then the government and the regulators need to step in.
As for backing a green transition to slow the probability of such catastrophes, completely wrong, solving global warming is not the responsibility of the insurance industry.
It's OK. The ones behind geoengineering and weather manipulation also own the insurance companies.
Tax payer
Laws, politicians, and courts protect fossil trade from liability. Of course moral hazards will pile up for companies and people who face no penalties for wrongdoing.
Cut fossil trade financing, licenses and permits 2% of today's level per month, down to zero by 2030.
Avoid methane emissions as much as possible, switching to landfill methane and biomethane from fossil methane as soon as possible.
Scrap fossil equipment so it can't be used elsewhere, as soon as possible.
Increase energy efficiency 8% a year.
New biomass harvest and planting equal to a trillion trees by 2060.
Guard biodiversity equal to 40% cut to shipping traffic and similar levels of conservation action on land.
The fact is that a lot of properties will be uninsurable. That's already happening in the US. Especially those states that are impacted most by climate change including Florida, Louisiana, Texas, and California. Owners of properties in those states will simply have to bear the entire loss themselves.
1st world problems
Thank you DW for this investigation and report. I will be adding this to my argument for the inclusion of Climate Change curriculum in my Pennsylvania schools, the American state rated the worst in the US. (We have no mention of CC in science standards and no science standards update since 2000.)
This is the DESIGN of neoliberalism: political control is achieved for the benefit of the wealthy who then reinforce THEIR ability to profit, enjoy, and further reinforce their certainty for the future. This is achieved through fraud, payoffs, and gerrymandering. We are in the fight of our lives in the US to overcome this. Problem is, even the “liberal” parties are controlled by corporate factions.
Interesting…DW uses in graph from AON Catastrophe Insight that fails to adjust for inflation. Also, report fails to recognize population growth in at-risk geographic locations.
Maybe the people who put themselves in harms way should pay?
🤷
Insured losses are just divided among larger group of people… Nations should give their citizens natural hazard payments more often and rebuild to the areas that are not likely to be hit by yet another disaster.
Building to areas that have high likelihood to be destoyed again is just insane. "I'm building a third house in this plot after wildfires. Insurance is given only for this location…" Pure insanity.
We moved out of Florida because of Ian
Doesn't feel like insurance take that much risk at all given how high the premiums are
Assuming I could afford, natural disaster is the major reason I don't want to put all my savings in one location.
HINT: It won’t be ExxonMobil or other big oil companies.
Many informations about damages. Why not just sue and get awarded damage?
Insurance is gambling and "house" always wins that is basis if capitalism profit. Dutch started built levees and dykes in 50s from taxes they knew it will be worse and worse every year. And Germanic lowland is most vulnerable to 6 mm per year sea level rise and harsh hurricanes and tornadoes. Katherine hurricane in Louisiana was cause by sinking of New Orleans every year billions of liters of water are pumped from ground thus levees could not help New Orleans which is sinking city itself. a football field of wetlands vanishes into open water every 100 minutes. Many factors oil gas , dams stops sediment flow, etc. Acapulco Soviet Union Miami joke, how much tourism industry have involvement into shaping coast of Acapulco. Customer always right and Nature don't exist.
It should be a legal requirement to have home insurance/building insurance. Otherwise, the rest of us who DO have insurance ultimately pay, like for car insurance, it should be obligatory.
The ones who let the nordstream to be blown
We will own nothing and will be happy 😊
If Electric Cars Were Honest – Honest Ads (Tesla EV Parody)
It’s dumb AF to live that close to Extreme Weather Events and have flimsy building standards.
it's all on us human that have to pay.
Comments are closed.