Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio
Independent of climate abnormalities, every event will naturally be more damaging because the population is rapidly increasing.
Inflation is also working to increase the size of each catastrophy.
|
It is important to look at the dollar amounts both real and projected because it gives us an idea of the cost of this situation that is rooted in fact. That in turn can inform policy.
For example, suppose I propose a $1 trillion dollar solution and justify it based on the fact that natural catastrophes are running about $350 billion a year. However, unless you are predicting the elimination of all natural disasters your solution is only going to reduce this amount by a certain percent. So, if I have a solution that will reduce the impact by 20% the value of that is approximately $70 billion a year. If you want a ROI of 25%, then your logical limit to the cost of this solution is $280 billion.
However, it is reasonable to suggest that "insured losses" are only a fraction of the actual losses. Does the insect apocalypse fall under "insured losses"? How about all those who went bankrupt from Katrina because they were only insured against hurricanes and not against floods (believe it or not insurance companies refused to pay for damages saying the damage was from the flood that occurred 24 hours after the wind)? How about the cost of climate refugees? Should we include the cost of the "wall" and border security?
Things that are not impacted by inflation of the US dollar: insect apocalypse, dead zones in lakes, rivers and oceans increasing by as much as 1,000% since 1950, heat waves, loss of ice, carbon dioxide levels, mummy apocalypse, frequency of flooding, population of reindeer, etc.