[derhundistlos]

" Extreme events are not preventable, but the damage done by them is."

Extreme events preventable damage is the definition of an oxymoron. And at what economic cost? To believe human engineering is the key to preventing the ravaging consequences of AGW is the height of human folly and hubris.

This is the same dog and pony show used by the real estate industry to encourage building in flood plains. Get the federal government to guarantee flood plain insurance since the private insurance market would never be so idiotic, and build levees to "control" mother nature. A Munich Re report puts it best: “the U.S. National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) shows how government subsidies over decades result in insufficient insurance coverage, incentives to build in highly exposed areas, multibillion-dollar deficits, and long-term solvency due to ever-rising global sea levels.”

Good luck with that.

[Newfie]

To see how insurance companies feel about climate change just google:

(Name , e.g. Lloyd’s) climate change policy

For example

https://www.munichre.com/en/risks/clima ... anity.html

https://www.lloyds.com/news-and-risk-in ... ate-change

[jawagord]

To see how insurance companies feel about climate change just google:

(Name , e.g. Lloyd’s) climate change policy

For example

https://www.munichre.com/en/risks/clima ... anity.html

https://www.lloyds.com/news-and-risk-in ... ate-change

Hmmm, this can’t be right?

If weather extremes occur more frequently and/or become more intense, then there will be more losses – unless measures are implemented to minimise losses. Construction engineering measures come to mind, as do changes in land use.