[TheClimate.Vote] February 23, 2021 - Daily Global Warming News Digest

[Richard Pauli]

/*February 23, 2021*/

[Watch the money - many billion$]
*Texas Losses May be Greater than Hurricane Harvey*
The recent Blackout catastrophe in Texas may be a more expensive 
disaster than Hurricane Harvey, which cost 20 billion.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjbNVRiUAzw


[risk report to come in October]
*Climate Threats Could Mean Big Jumps in Insurance Costs This Year*
The federal government is revising rates for flood coverage on April 1. 
New data suggests premiums need to increase sharply for some homes.
By Christopher Flavelle
Feb. 22, 2021
WASHINGTON — The cost of federal flood insurance will need to increase 
significantly in much of the country to meet the growing risks of 
climate change, new data suggests, creating a political headache for the 
Biden administration.

The National Flood Insurance Program, which provides the vast majority 
of United States flood insurance policies, would have to quadruple 
premiums on high-risk homes inside floodplains to reflect the risks they 
already face, according to data issued on Monday by the First Street 
Foundation, a group of academics and experts that models flood risks.

By 2050, First Street projected, increased flooding tied to climate 
change will require a sevenfold increase.

The new data could point to higher flood insurance costs this year for 
homes at risk. On April 1, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, 
which runs the flood program, is set to announce new premiums, using 
modern flood-modeling techniques that more closely reflect the actual 
risks facing individual properties — the same approach that First Street 
said it had used in its calculations.

“If they took a purely risk-based approach, it would look like our 
numbers,” said Jeremy Porter, head of research and development at First 
Street and director of the Quantitative Methods in the Social Sciences 
program at the City University of New York. Several U.S. agencies, 
including the Federal Housing Finance Agency and the Federal Reserve 
Bank of Atlanta, use First Street’s data.

FEMA has issued a statement warning people not to assume that its new 
system for setting premiums, which it calls Risk Rating 2.0, will 
produce rate increases that match those modeled by First Street.

“Any entity claiming that they can provide insight or comparison to the 
Risk Rating 2.0 initiative, including premium amounts, is misinformed 
and setting public expectations that are not based in fact,” said David 
I. Maurstad, who runs the flood insurance program for FEMA.

Still, most experts agree that a closer analysis of flood risks will 
lead to costlier insurance for owners of high-risk homes than what they 
already pay. That presents a challenge for President Biden, who has 
promised to pursue a climate agenda guided by science and data, but has 
also said he is focused on addressing the economic concerns of 
middle-class households.
Climate and disaster experts argue the cost of flood insurance should 
reflect the full risk of living in flood-prone areas, as a warning to 
prospective home buyers and a signal to local officials to limit 
development in those places. Because the federal government has no 
control over land-use planning or building codes, which are set by state 
and local governments, the flood insurance program is one of its most 
powerful tools to influence how and where Americans build homes.
But a big jump in rates may put more pressure on the household budgets 
of people who already live in vulnerable areas, and also cause home 
values to fall.
“FEMA recognizes and shares concerns about flood insurance 
affordability,” Mr. Maurstad said, adding that rates for some people 
would fall under the new system and stay the same for others. “The 
number of policies that will see large annual increases is a minority of 
all policyholders.”

Any jump in costs for current customers would be spread out over years 
or decades, because Congress prevents FEMA from raising individual 
homeowners’ premiums by more than 18 percent annually. So even if FEMA’s 
new system meant that ultimate rates doubled on paper for some people, 
those who already had coverage would be protected from paying the full 
increase all at once.

But when a home that’s covered by flood insurance changes owners, the 
new buyer must pay the full rate right away. So big increases in flood 
insurance rates could scare off buyers for flood-prone homes, reducing 
their value or even making them hard to sell.

“We want people to know the risks they face,” said Rebecca Elliott, an 
assistant professor at the London School of Economics and Political 
Science and author of a book about flood insurance and climate change. 
At the same time, she said, many people rely on steady or rising home 
values as the foundation of their financial health.

Previous efforts to increase flood insurance rates have been delayed or 
rolled back in the face of public pressure. In 2012, Congress passed a 
law that would have brought rates in line with the full risk people 
faced; two years later, lawmakers backed down, replacing those changes 
with more modest increases.

FEMA’s new flood insurance system has prompted similar concerns. The new 
rates were initially supposed to take effect last October, but members 
of Congress warned FEMA about the effect that increases would have on 
their constituents. The Trump administration delayed the new rates until 
this year, worried in part that increasing premiums shortly before the 
election would hurt President Trump politically, according to a person 
familiar with the discussions.

The agency could theoretically find ways to further blunt those rate 
increases, according to Roy Wright, who ran the insurance program until 
2018. For example, FEMA could decide that insurance premiums should be 
tied to a structure rather than a homeowner, so that annual limits on 
price increases would still be in effect even if the house changed owners.

And experience suggests that home values keep increasing in the most 
desirable coastal areas despite rising insurance costs, Mr. Wright said, 
because people’s desire to live near water is often unaffected by 
whether it makes financial sense.

“Is it going to depress property values?” said Mr. Wright, who now heads 
the Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety, a research group. 
“In attractive real estate markets, we haven’t seen that.”

Eli Lehrer, president of the R Street Institute, a research organization 
in Washington that advocates for market-based policies, said the 
government could not ignore the financial burden facing people who 
already live in flood-prone homes.

But rather than shielding those people by keeping insurance rates low, 
Mr. Lehrer argued that Congress should offer direct subsidies, and only 
for people with modest incomes who would otherwise struggle to stay in 
their homes. Everyone else, he said, should face the full cost of the 
risk they face.

“We’ve been subsidizing people to live in areas that were dangerous when 
they moved there, and have become more dangerous,” Mr. Lehrer said.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/22/climate/flood-insurance-fema.html


[FEMA]
*Risk Rating 2.0*
The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) is redesigning its risk 
rating by leveraging industry best practices and current technology, 
FEMA will deliver rates that are fair, make sense, are easier to 
understand and better reflect a property’s unique flood risk. FEMA calls 
this effort Risk Rating 2.0.
- -
*alert *
Risk Rating 2.0 implementation has been deferred To October 1, 2021.
- -
*Changes Under Risk Rating 2.0*
Risk Rating 2.0 will fundamentally change the way FEMA rates a 
property’s flood risk and prices insurance. The current rating 
methodology has not changed since it was first developed in the 1970s. 
But since then, technology has evolved and so has FEMA’s understanding 
of flood risk.
- -
*New rates for all NFIP-insured properties will go into effect 
nationwide on October 1, 2021.*
- -
*Benefits Of Risk Rating 2.0*
The NFIP is developing Risk Rating 2.0 to deliver the following key 
benefits to policyholders, communities, and the flood insurance industry:

Creates an individualized picture of a property’s risk
Provides rates that are easier to understand for agents and policyholders
Reflects more types of flood risk in rates
Uses the latest actuarial practices to set risk-based rates
Reduces complexity for agents to generate a quote...
https://www.fema.gov/flood-insurance/work-with-nfip/risk-rating



[recently in The Economist]
*How America can rid itself of both carbon and blackouts*
This is the moment for an ambitious attempt to deal with climate change
https://www.economist.com/leaders/2021/02/20/how-america-can-rid-itself-of-both-carbon-and-blackouts



[follow the money]
*What’s Really Behind Corporate Promises on Climate Change?*
Many big businesses have not set targets for reducing greenhouse gas 
emissions. Others have weak goals.
By Peter Eavis and Clifford Krauss
Feb. 22, 2021
For the past several years, BlackRock, the giant investment firm, has 
cast itself as a champion of the transition to clean energy.

Last month, Laurence D. Fink, BlackRock’s chief executive, wrote that 
the coronavirus pandemic had “driven us to confront the global threat of 
climate change more forcefully,” and the company said it wants 
businesses it invests in to remove as much carbon dioxide from the 
environment as they emit by 2050 at the latest.

But crucial details were missing from that widely read pledge, including 
what proportion of the companies BlackRock invests in will be 
zero-emission businesses in 2050. Setting such a goal and earlier 
targets would demonstrate the seriousness of the company’s commitment 
and could force all sorts of industries to step up their efforts. On 
Saturday, in response to questions from The New York Times, a BlackRock 
spokesman said for the first time that the company’s “ambition” was to 
have “net zero emissions across our entire assets under management by 2050.”

As the biggest companies strive to trumpet their environmental activism, 
the need to match words with deeds is becoming increasingly important...
- -
“You can look at a company’s website and see their sustainability report 
and it will look great,” said Alberto Carrillo Pineda, a founder of 
Science Based Targets, a global initiative to assess corporate plans to 
reduce emissions. “But then when you look at what is behind it, you’ll 
see there is not a lot of substance behind those commitments or the 
commitments are not comprehensive enough.”...
- -
There has been some progress by companies that have rigorous targets. In 
a report last month, Science Based Targets, which was started by the 
environmental groups and hundreds of businesses brought together by the 
United Nations, said the 338 large companies around the world for which 
it had sufficient emissions data collectively reduced their emissions by 
25 percent between 2015 and 2019.

Often large companies in the same industry have very different records.

For example, Walmart discloses its targets for emissions reductions and 
the progress it has made to the Carbon Disclosure Project, including a 
goal for emissions from its suppliers, and its plan has been vetted by 
Science Based Targets. But Costco doesn’t expect to have commitments to 
reduce emissions until the end of next year. Costco executives declined 
to comment...
- -
And for all these ambitious targets, even some executives argue that the 
current voluntary approach won’t ensure the required reduction in emissions.

“If we are going to achieve a net-zero carbon economy for real, we will 
need everyone to act,” said Lucas Joppa, Microsoft’s chief environmental 
officer. “And that means action can’t be voluntary. We need requirements 
and standards that everyone is expected to meet.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/22/business/energy-environment/corporations-climate-change.html



[video interview 1:00 answers many questions]*
**Noam Chomsky – Neoliberalism, Democracy and the Climate Crisis*
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZ81-McOgdM


[video interview ]
*Kurt Anderson: “Evil Geniuses: The Unmaking of America" | Amanpour and 
Company*
Aug 12, 2020
Amanpour and Company
As the pandemic lays bare social, legal, racial and financial injustice 
in America, it is vital to examine how the system got its start. Kurt 
Andersen is a best-selling author and journalist whose latest book 
examines the origins of America’s hyper-capitalism. He speaks with 
Walter Isaacson about the genesis and propagation of the system--and the 
need to take a step back.
Originally aired on August 12, 2020.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1BgGCu5N--I
- -
[Yes there has been a conspiracy - book review]
*Evil Geniuses: The Unmaking of America: A Recent History*
by Kurt Andersen  (Author)
NEW YORK TIMES BESTSELLER - When did America give up on fairness? The 
author of Fantasyland tells the epic history of how America decided that 
big business gets whatever it wants, only the rich get richer, and 
nothing should ever change—and charts a way back to the future.

“The one book everyone must read as we figure out how to rebuild our 
country.”—Walter Isaacson, author of Steve Jobs and Leonardo da Vinci

During the twentieth century, America managed to make its economic and 
social systems both more and more fair and more and more prosperous. A 
huge, secure, and contented middle class emerged. All boats rose 
together. But then the New Deal gave way to the Raw Deal. Beginning in 
the early 1970s, by means of a long war conceived of and executed by a 
confederacy of big business CEOs, the superrich, and right-wing zealots, 
the rules and norms that made the American middle class possible were 
undermined and dismantled. The clock was turned back on a century of 
economic progress, making greed good, workers powerless, and the market 
all-powerful while weaponizing nostalgia, lifting up an oligarchy that 
served only its own interests, and leaving the huge majority of 
Americans with dwindling economic prospects and hope.

Why and how did America take such a wrong turn? In this deeply 
researched and brilliantly woven cultural, economic, and political 
chronicle, Kurt Andersen offers a fresh, provocative, and eye-opening 
history of America’s undoing, naming names, showing receipts, and 
unsparingly assigning blame—to the radical right in economics and the 
law, the high priests of high finance, a complacent and complicit 
Establishment, and liberal “useful idiots,” among whom he includes himself.

Only a writer with Andersen’s crackling energy, deep insight, and 
ability to connect disparate dots and see complex systems with clarity 
could make such a book both intellectually formidable and vastly 
entertaining. And only a writer of Andersen’s vision could reckon with 
our current high-stakes inflection point, and show the way out of this 
man-made disaster.
https://www.amazon.com/Evil-Geniuses-Unmaking-America-History/dp/1984801341/ref=sr_1_1



[information battleground - bad news bares]
*Memes and fake climate news are a bad combination*
By Cameron Oglesby on Feb 22, 2021
There are many ways to go about getting your news. But memes probably 
shouldn’t be one of them.

Picture this: You’re feeling Zoom-fatigued after a long, stressful day 
of remote work. Looking for something funny to offset a difficult day, 
you pick up your phone and open up the meme-sharing app iFunny. But 
instead of being met with a playful pet video or a witty ATLA reference, 
you’re bombarded with post after post bashing Joe Biden, Greta Thunberg, 
and the Green New Deal.

Those politically-charged iFunny memes aren’t just a blip. The 
Russian-owned meme-sharing site, which has an estimated 10 million 
monthly active users, has received criticism in the past for its heavily 
conservative, at times racist, and occasionally pro-violence posts. But 
especially since Joe Biden was elected, there looks to have been a surge 
in user-generated content taking aim at left-leaning climate policy.

Take the Keystone XL Pipeline, for example. That controversial piece of 
infrastructure may not sound like the best meme fodder, but Biden’s 
decision to cancel the project inspired a barrage of iFunny posts. Using 
screengrabs of a stony-faced Biden, users typed out rants about how the 
move had come at the cost of 57,000 U.S. jobs and oil independence. 
Others created memes saying that investing in electric vehicles would 
lead to big holes in the Earth as a result of lithium mining.

To be fair, these memes contain some kernels of a more complicated truth 
— Biden’s decision to cancel the Keystone XL Pipeline will result in job 
losses, though only around 1,000 for the company’s U.S. and Canadian 
workers; and even though the environmental impacts of lithium mining are 
serious, electric vehicles are still better for the planet 
(emissions-wise) than gas-powered cars. The posts’ missing pieces, 
misleading claims, and incorrect visuals (several lithium mine posts 
actually showed pictures of copper mines) place them squarely on the 
wrong side of the fake vs. real news divide.

To be clear, it’s not iFunny’s CEO who is creating these memes. Anyone 
can use the site to throw text on a screenshot or video, or upvote 
others’ posts by adding a “like” in the form of iFunny’s classic smiley 
face. But the site’s haphazard community moderator system makes it hard 
to weed out, for instance, posts threatening mass shootings. And while 
dumping on recent climate action isn’t a violation of the site’s terms 
of use, experts say memes still pose a kind of media literacy threat 
given how many people treat memes and social posts as a legitimate news 
source.

“Getting all of your news from memes is not a great way to stay 
informed,” said Daniel Funke from the Poynter Institute for Media 
Studies. “Because memes are easy to make and highly shareable, they are 
ideal vehicles for spreading misinformation. Unlike the majority of 
news, they don’t require an editing or fact-checking process. Plus, 
memes don’t make room for context or nuance, which are often central to 
understanding major news stories.”

According to a 2020 Pew Research report, 18 percent of Americans said 
they use social media as their primary source for political and election 
news. Those respondents tended to skew younger and whiter, and had lower 
political knowledge compared to people who got their information 
directly from news outlets. Part of the problem is that social media 
users were more likely to encounter unproven claims and conspiracy 
theories. And according to a study conducted last year, sites that blend 
news and satire make it more difficult for users to distinguish real 
news from fake news.

Grist reached out to iFunny for comment on the political and climate 
memes. We received a statement from their parent company referring us to 
iFunny’s 2020 politics community guidelines. These ask users not to post 
content that “calls for support of any political party or candidate,” 
though political satire and opinion are listed as acceptable.

Let’s remember what memes are. They’re flashes of ideas. They’re satire. 
They aren’t designed to tell the whole story. Much of the time, that’s 
not a problem because the message they’re spreading is all in good fun. 
But when they skew into fake news territory, be wary — it’s no longer a 
laughing matter.
https://grist.org/politics/ifunny-memes-fake-news-biden-climate-plan/
- -
[study from 2020]
*People who use social media for news are less knowledgeable than other 
news consumers, study says*
They are also more likely to see and believe misinformation, and are not 
as concerned about it as people who consume news elsewhere.

Americans who use social media for their news consumption are less 
likely to follow and understand news about the elections or the 
coronavirus, according to a new study from Pew Research Center’s 
American News Pathways project.

Researchers analyzed data from five different surveys conducted from 
October 2019 to June 2020, each with over 8,000 respondents. They 
studied the seven most common pathways to election and political news: 
social media; news websites or apps; local, cable and network TV; radio; 
and print.

Nearly one in five (18%) of Americans said social media is their most 
common pathway to political and election news. These individuals skew 
younger and are less likely to be white.

Only 8% of these social media users said they are following news about 
the 2020 presidential candidates “very closely.” About a quarter are 
following news about the pandemic very closely. These statistics are 
lower than those of any other news group surveyed, though are most 
similar to local TV news consumers’ averages...
https://www.poynter.org/fact-checking/2020/people-who-use-social-media-for-news-are-less-knowledgeable-than-other-news-consumers/


[cold arctic wind energy]
*The ice cold Arctic winds of Berlevåg might propel the world towards a 
great green shift*
The power generated at the local wind farm in Berlevåg is to be used to 
produce hydrogen and green ammonia. Industry developers believe the far 
northern town will develop into a hub for renewable energy that 
ultimately can offer zero emission fuel to ships operating in northern 
waters.
https://thebarentsobserver.com/en/node/7554



[Digging back into the internet news archive]
*On this day in the history of global warming - February 23, 2014 *
The New York Times reports:

    "President Obama’s annual budget request to Congress will propose a
    significant change in how the government pays to fight wildfires,
    administration officials said, a move that they say reflects the
    ways in which climate change is increasing the risk for and cost of
    those fires.

    "The wildfire funding shift is one in a series of recent White House
    actions related to climate change as Mr. Obama tries to highlight
    the issue and build political support for his administration’s more
    muscular policies, like curbing carbon emissions from coal-fired
    power plants. On Monday, Mr. Obama plans to describe his proposal at
    a meeting in Washington with governors of Western states that have
    been ravaged recently by severe drought and wildfires."

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/23/us/obama-to-propose-shift-in-wildfire-funding.html


/-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------/

/Archive of Daily Global Warming News 
<https://pairlist10.pair.net/pipermail/theclimate.vote/2017-October/date.html> 
/
https://pairlist10.pair.net/pipermail/theclimate.vote

/To receive daily mailings - click to Subscribe 
<mailto:subscribe at theClimate.Vote?subject=Click%20SEND%20to%20process%20your%20request> 
to news digest./

*** Privacy and Security:*This mailing is text-only.  It does not carry 
images or attachments which may originate from remote servers.  A 
text-only message can provide greater privacy to the receiver and sender.
By regulation, the .VOTE top-level domain must be used for democratic 
and election purposes and cannot be used for commercial purposes. 
Messages have no tracking software.
To subscribe, email: contact at theclimate.vote 
<mailto:contact at theclimate.vote> with subject subscribe, To Unsubscribe, 
subject: unsubscribe
Also you may subscribe/unsubscribe at 
https://pairlist10.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/theclimate.vote
Links and headlines assembled and curated by Richard Pauli for 
http://TheClimate.Vote <http://TheClimate.Vote/> delivering succinct 
information for citizens and responsible governments of all levels. List 
membership is confidential and records are scrupulously restricted to 
this mailing list.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://pairlist10.pair.net/pipermail/theclimate.vote/attachments/20210223/c8db68ef/attachment.html>