Surviving on a Hostile Planet


Photo from CBC Kevin Yarr

I watched a bit of the CBC news today. This is the 14th day after Hurricane Fiona (piss on that “post-tropical storm” designation) ripped into the Maritime provinces, dropping trees, destroying electrical power systems, ripping out roads and bridges, and dramatically altering the natural environment. Approximately 15% of the Maritime Electric customers on PEI are still without power as I write this. I saw the Minister of Energy for PEI interviewed and he was asked whether outages in excess of two weeks are “acceptable”. He deflected nicely, saying that the electricity grid is the responsibility of Maritime Electric, and not the provincial government, but he did allow that the government will be conducting a post-event analysis for Fiona, and that security of the electricity grid will be part of that assessment.

Down in Florida and in the Carolinas, Hurricane Ian has caused similar devastation. Ian was probably even more destructive than Fiona, if only because that region is much more densely populated than the Maritimes, and so there is a lot more housing and infrastructure there to be destroyed.

In California, firestorms are an annual event, and that annual event seems to be spreading to British Columbia, where, in the last couple of years, we’ve seen an entire town destroyed by wildfires and major tracts of forest lost. When it stopped burning, we got the “atmospheric river” bringing unprecedented rainfalls to BC resulting in major stretches of highway buried by mudslides. Flooding along the Bow River in Calgary, the Red River in Manitoba, the Ottawa river in Ottawa/Gatineau, and the St. John river valley in New Brunswick are annual concerns. News coverage of this kind of disaster has generated a widely held perception that we are living on an increasingly hostile planet and a belief that this is a direct result of climate change brought about by global warming.

Well, the first question is, is that perception correct? In the USA, the National Centers for Environmental Information (NECI) prepared a report on weather and climate disasters, and they report “The U.S. has sustained 332 weather and climate disasters since 1980 where overall damages/costs reached or exceeded $1 billion (including CPI adjustment to 2022)…The 1980–2021 annual average is 7.7 events (CPI-adjusted); the annual average for the most recent 5 years (2017–2021) is 17.8 events (CPI-adjusted)”. A brief look at that American data indicates that weather related disasters are happening at least twice as frequently as normal in the recent past. The World Meterological Organization (WMO) reported in an August 2021report that “the number of disasters has increased by a factor of five over the 50-year period, driven by climate change, more extreme weather and improved reporting.” So yes, there appears to be credible data supporting the perception that the planet is an increasingly hostile place.

So, then the next question is, what can we do about that? The first answer is “Leave”. I’m going to leave that one to Elon Musk and move on to other answers, of which I believe there are two.

The first answer is “arrest climate change”. Selectra, an environmental consulting company summarized from the 2022 International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report: “For many years now, scientists have been warning about the catastrophic results on the climate if the world reaches average temperatures of 1.5ºC above pre-industrial levels. According to the World Research Institute, global temperatures have risen by 1.1ºC so far…. (the IPCC) warned that the world is set to reach the 1.5ºC level within the next two decades and said that only the most drastic cuts in carbon emissions from now would help prevent an environmental disaster.” What efforts we’ve made so far with carbon taxes and incentives for renewable energy sources have had little impact. In fact, the 2022 IPCC report shows that the emission rate for greenhouse gases continues to rise. We haven’t even achieved a plateau yet, much less anything that looks like a reversal! Maybe the “Arrest Climate Change” boat hasn’t sailed yet, but I’d say they got steam up a while back and she’s pulling anchor. Let’s face reality – we are not going to stop the global temperature increase at 1.5 degrees and more environmental disasters are going to result.

The second answer to the “what do we do about climate change” question is that we can look to adapt to the effects of severe weather events. And this is the one we need to take more seriously in light of the accelerating frequency of weather-related disasters.

Just to be clear, I’m not saying we should give up on trying to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and slowing the rate of global warming. The probability of disastrous impacts increases sharply with increasing global temperature, and it’s imperative that we try to arrest the global warming trend. There’s nothing that we can do instead of stopping global warming. There are only things we can do in addition to stopping global warming.

Some twenty years ago I saw a video about a safety program called loss control. The video panned across a California hillside with a row of burnt out foundations and one perfectly healthy home. The homeowner, in planning his home, had done a risk assessment and concluded that there was a high risk of wildfire in that area. And so, he’d constructed his home of fire-proof materials, and arranged his landscaping so that there was a natural fire-break preventing a wildfire from getting too close to his house. It seems to me that we need to take this approach. If we cannot prevent some ugly things coming at us on the weather front over the next several years, then we ought to at least analyze the risks and prepare for the consequences of what we’ve unleashed.

And that brings me back to the question directed at the Minister of Energy for PEI. Is it acceptable for the province’s citizens to suffer a two-week power loss after a major storm? What a sucker question that was. If the poor guy says “yes, it’s acceptable” he gets hammered for being insensitive to the sufferings of his constituents. And if he says “unacceptable” he gets hammered for not being able to answer the next question which is “what do you plan to do about it?”  

Sadly enough, most governments are failing to plan to do anything about adaptation actions. The 2022 IPC report acknowledges that there are some helpful trends in governments starting to think about adapting to extreme weather events and other impacts of climate change, but they note “Most observed adaptation is fragmented, small in scale, incremental, sector-specific, designed to respond to current impacts or near-term risks, and focused more on planning rather than implementation.” There’s a good reason for that, too. The fact is that politicians who show up with a pocket full of money after a disaster are lauded for their compassion, and are likely to get votes. Politicians who show up ahead of time with a tax bill for preventive measures? Not so much on the votes thing. 

We shouldn’t blame the politicians for this short-sighted approach. Margaret Thatcher, in her book The Downing Street Years, made the point that a political leader cannot implement any agenda if she fails to get re-elected. Suppose that government builds a very expensive system of break-walls and erosion control rock walls to prevent the loss of the sand dunes on PEI’s north shore, and over the succeeding five years they don’t have a serious storm event. What is the voter’s reaction going to be? I guarantee it will be something like “silliest goddamn  thing I ever saw”. And voters will object to the taxes imposed to support this and other preventive measures. And when the anticipated event does finally happen, will anyone give credit for the preventive measure? No, the reaction will be “wasn’t nearly as bad as Fiona. Now THERE was a storm”. Governments are reluctant to implement measures that are likely to be unpopular. There needs to be a public and obvious demand for a proactive approach. We shouldn’t expect the government to commit suicide. They’re not going to do that, so it is time to begin advocating for proactive measures. In short, it is silly to expect the government to lead the people. The truth is that the people will have to lead the government in the right direction.

What are some of the things we could do to adapt to climate change impacts in our country?

  • We could redefine flood plains to provide significant safety zones around residential areas, and we could provide financial incentives to people to move to higher ground. That’s expensive, and unpopular with people who don’t really want to move, but it might save a lot of money and keep people safe in the next hurricance.
  • We could redefine flood plains as above and then pass laws to force people out of their existing homes and move them to higher ground. Again, expensive, and even more unpopular with people who don’t want to move.
  • We can build levees along river banks to try to contain rising waters in areas prone to flooding. That would be expensive, and unpopular with the people whose river view gets spoiled by a high-walled levee in front of their property.
  • We could build break-walls around our coastlines in populated areas to limit the damage from storm surge. In addition to being expensive, this might just not be feasible. Can you really hold back an ocean driven by a hurricane?
  • We could redefine building codes to make new construction more resistant to hurricanes and tornadoes. We could offer incentives to homeowners to upgrade existing homes to new and more wind resistant building codes.
  • We could redefine building codes to make new construction more fire resistant in wildfire zones and we could offer incentives for any practical fireproofing of existing homes. In wildfire zones we could create fire-breaks around vulnerable towns and residences.
  • We could bury lower voltage electrical distribution cables so that they’re less vulnerable to falling trees. (That solution has limitations – the higher the voltage, the more difficult it is to cool and protect buried cable, and technical difficulties are limiting at very high voltages).
  • We could redefine building codes to prevent building residences where extreme rainfall might promote mudslides.
  • We can change the focus of the insurance industry to identify fire, wind and flooding risks and enforce higher premiums on those who persist in living in high risk environment

That last point about insurance is worth delving into. A 2020 report by the Insurance Institute of Canada said “Since the 1980s, the payouts for severe weather damage claims have doubled every 5 to 10 years. If the trend continues it will drive profound, transformative change in Canada’s insurance industry.” A bit later in the report it says “The industry should continue to support development of risk reduction best practices for policyholders and loss data models that inform industry management of flood, wildfire, and other climate-related risks.” What that means, to me, is that the insurance industry is already looking at premiums for homes in higher risk areas. Increasing insurance premiums will drive behaviour change. The change that we’d like to see is to encourage people to take proactive actions to lower their own risk. Installing emergency generators so that the sump pump continues to work might get you a lower water damage premium, for example. 

Unfortunately, increasing insurance premiums might prompt a different change in behaviour which is to stop paying for insurance. I made note of an interview during the post-Fiona news rush in which someone from Port Aux Basques was looking at their devastated property and saying “We lost everything. We have no insurance. Who’s going to pay for this”. And a little voice inside my head said “what, you have no insurance, and you expect the government to step up?” I immediately quenched that voice, because the devastation was so bad, and it seems like we should help people in those circumstances. 

Immediately following Fiona, Prime Minister Trudeau announced a $300M recovery fund. It seemed to be aimed mostly at infrastructure, but also included “people who are facing challenges from uninsured to structural damage in their homes.

The Financial Consumer Agency of Canada, a Federal government entity, has an online monograph entitled “Home insurance for unexpected events and disasters.” I’ve learned that no-one uses the term “Act of God” in the insurance industry anymore. We refer to “perils” or “unexpected events”. I’m going to show you a few statements from that government advice document.

  • Unexpected events can include fairly minor problems, such as a plumbing pipe that breaks by accident, up to devastating natural disasters, such as a wildfire.
  • Your home insurance policy may cover damages caused by the following types of unexpected events:
    • fire including wildfires
    • wind-related weather including storms, tornadoes and hurricanes
    • ice and hail
    • theft
    • vandalism
    • water damage from inside your home (for example, from a broken pipe)
  • Generally, home insurance policies don’t cover certain types of unexpected events, such as earthquakes, landslides, floods and sewer backup.

You may be able to get optional add-on coverage for risks that are not covered by your policy.

  • Earthquake insurance generally doesn’t provide coverage for damage from a tsunami or tidal waves, even if they were caused by an earthquake.
  • Flood insurance may be available as an add-on to your home insurance policy at an extra cost. (Ah, good!)
  • Flood insurance doesn’t cover damage from flooding from coastal waters, salt water, storm surge, tsunamis, tidal waves, rising water tables or sewer backup. (Oh shit!)

OK, I’m not going to dig any deeper into the government’s insurance advice document, which, by the way, seems to be a useful guide. It fails to answer a lot of questions, but it at least would inform you how to have a good solid discussion with your insurance carrier. 

Some things to notice from those quotes. First, the “unexpected event” description starts pretty small and goes right up to wildfires. Second, your insurance coverage “may” include certain items. And it may not. It’s clear that not all home-owners policies are created equal. Third, if you buy an add-on rider such as flood insurance, you better read every detail of the fine print.

I know that I don’t want my government being overtly involved in the insurance business. But I also don’t really want the government being the de facto insurance company after every disaster. After all, if the government is the default insurance for every homeowner who fails to insure against disaster, why would any homeowner buy insurance? So how should we handle weather catastrophes in the insurance business?

I think the government’s role here is to define the role of insurance companies. You want to do business in this province? You must offer XXX insurance, where XXX insurance clearly includes (provincial coverage requirements). Premiums for XXX insurance must fall within an acceptable range so that you cannot “offer” insurance but then deliberately price yourself out of the market. It should be expected that premiums reflect the assessment of risk for that coverage. Flood insurance along the Ottawa river, for example, should have a higher premium than flood insurance in highland areas of Ontario. Flood insurance for properties down close to the river should be higher than those for some property stuck on the highest hill overlooking the river. As a regulator, the government should demand that companies in the insurance business offer a product that meets the reasonably expected needs of the customer, and those reasonably expected needs ought to be defined in a way that is reflective of recent weather history and anticipates how those risks might change with continuing climate change.

I’ve suggested that insurance companies need to establish premiums that are reasonable, but it isn’t unreasonable to expect that they are allowed to reflect the degree of risk being covered. Flood Insurance in the Maritimes that doesn’t cover storm surge or salt water would be a joke. So it needs to be available. But if the reasonable and defendable premium for such insurance is just too high for most people, maybe that’s not wrong. High insurance premiums driving people away from low lying coastal areas would be an appropriate behaviour modification to deal with increasing climate change hazards. That sounds like tough medicine, but there is a price to be paid for insisting that you will live where you can hear the roar of the ocean.
The next thing government should do is to encourage everyone to obtain adequate homeowner insurance. I don’t think you can pass a law requiring people to have insurance – that would surely violate someone’s rights somewhere and kick off another goddamn freedom convoy . But I think the government could do something like this:

  • Require insurance companies to provide the right insurance as described above
  • Establish a homeowner’s insurance tax credit. This would provide a rebate equivalent to the insurance premium (or some significant fraction thereof)  for homes up to XXX in value. This rebate could have a ceiling, so that we’re not helping insure rich people who can afford to do it themselves, or it could have a means test, or both. The intention is that every homeowner would be able to afford insurance, and that poverty isn’t a good excuse for being uninsured. That policy would also ensure that insurance companies know that they re expected to cover events like Hurricane Fiona, and they arrange their cash reserves accordingly.
  • The government should then make it clear that post-disaster recovery assistance will be provided for re-establishing infrastructure, but not on a personal level – that’s between you and your insurance company.

I don’t claim that my list of adaptive actions we could take is comprehensive, or even particularly well thought out. That isn’t the point of the exercise. The point of the exercise is this. When we hear from government about climate action plans, all we typically hear about is their plan is to deal with greenhouse gas limitation (or their promise to someday at least have a plan to deal with emissions.) We need to hear more. We need to hear what proactive measures are they planning to implement to protect people in the fire, wind and flooding zones. And we need to hear how they plan to improve Canada’s disaster response capability so that we can recover quickly from what are reasonably foreseeable weather events. And we, the people, need to accept and expect that a lot more of our income is going to be consumed dealing with climate disasters than was true in the past. If we can’t control greenhouse gas emissions, then taxes and insurance premiums are going to have to increase to deal with that problem. It’s as simple as that.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *