one washington post (WaPo) article, titled “Insuring your home has never been harder. What to do,” claims that climate change is making home insurance more expensive and harder to obtain in many areas. This is wrong. [emphasis, links added]
While it is true that insurance, along with most other goods and services, has become more expensive in recent years, An increase in extreme weather can't be the cause because it's simply not happening.
Higher insurance rates largely reflect increases in the volume and value of property and goods insured.
WaPo writes that premium increases are driven by “a combination of broad economic trends — labor shortages, inflation, rising reinsurance and reconstruction costs — and more costly and uncertain extreme weather events,” which is only partially true .
Economic issues are undoubtedly a major reason why insurance costs are so high in many areas, and governments also provide insurance subsidies for households in disaster-prone areas.
However, the weather is not becoming more unpredictable or extreme. Looking at the weather-related events mentioned in the story—wildfires, hurricanes, and floods—the data shows that these events are not becoming more extreme or frequent.
Wildfires in the United States have increased only slightly since the 1980s, But long-term historical wildfire data shows that fires are still far less frequent and less extreme than they were in the early 20th century. (see picture below)
Available hurricane data shows a less alarming picture. as discussed climate realism Across dozens of articles, data shows hurricanes are not becoming more powerful or frequent.
Severe flooding is not becoming more common, according to data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Flood losses as a share of GDP in the United States have declined significantly over the past 100 years. (see picture below)
Therefore, the explanation for rising insurance premiums cannot be an increase in extreme weather.
Weather risks did not increase in hazard-prone areas, but the number of people, buildings, infrastructure, homes and businesses in hazard-prone areas did.
Oddly, while WaPo attempts to bring climate change into the discussion, they also acknowledge that the biggest factor in weather-related disaster costs is “Losses from extreme weather events have been rising, in part because Americans continue to migrate to areas more vulnerable to severe storms.”
this is true.
Weather risks did not increase in hazard-prone areas, but the number of people, buildings, infrastructure, homes and businesses in hazard-prone areas did.
The population and development growth of coastal areas cannot be overemphasized. This is often called the “expanding bull's-eye effect.”
As meteorologist Anthony Watts writes in climate realism In “No, CNBC, insurance premiums aren’t going up because of climate change,” the population along our coasts has been exploding since the 1970s. Watts wrote:
“People like to live by the sea. The population of coastal counties in the United States has been growing, increasing by 40.5 million people, or about 46%, from 1970 to 2020. By the 2020s, the population is expected to increase by more than 10 million people, or more than 8%.
Insurers have an incentive to try to blame nebulous evil spirits like climate change for rising policy costs.
It’s much easier to falsely claim that the weather is just getting worse than to address the real issues of inflation, government subsidies, the expanding bullseye effect, and more complex economic conditions.
washington post Insurance companies should not be listened to and allowed to blame consumers for the use of fossil fuels.
This false narrative should not be tolerated.
Read more Climate Realism
