« Environment »

Yes! this is right out of my thoughts. I have always felt that "resiliance" was a virtue we ought to have as a society, and that is a better reason for things like conservation efforts, ecological diversity preservation, etc. This gives (to me) a much better scale to weigh policies against, and to judge policy actions. You can see failures in things like response to Katrina in a better light, or in grading land use policies. Science can suggest possibilities and put probabilities on them, but things will change over time no matter what, so we need to be as resilient as we can be to deal with things.

This is a frame useful to issues as far apart as what research funding should look like, tax breaks for outsourcing, to land use planning for weather ... hmm like the topics here.

Roger

I'm afraid I have to disagree on this one. My reading of her call to action differs considerably from yours. O'Brien's aim to reframe the environmental debate in terms that emphasise “human security” is, in my view, an unconcealed attempt to apply the fear-factor.

The reason why she wants to replace the “science-based approach” with the “human security” frame-devise is spelled out quite openly: The scientific approach has been unsuccessful in producing what she believes to be necessary green policies, or, as O’Brien explains her rationale, “it failed to engage society in creating the transformations that will lead to sustainability.”

What is more, the alleged dichotomy between the ‘science’ and ‘security’ frame looks more like a rhetorical device because the assessment of the impact of environmental change on human wellbeing and adaptive capability – terms more pertinent than O’Brien’s deliberately frightening dread word “security” - can only be carried out by means of scientific research.

Unsurprisingly, O’Brien doesn’t seem to be interested in an impartial and open-minded evaluation of the evidence. She seems to have formed her gloomy conclusion already: "If we are confident about our ability to respond to long-term trends and discrete events such as Hurricane Katrina, intense rainfall in Mumbai, heat waves in Paris, or drought in Africa, then perhaps we can cope with the anticipated consequences of climate change. Unfortunately, there is little positive evidence of our ability to cope with these events."

I very much doubt that this all to obvious frame-devise is going to fly.

Benben,

The scientific approach is to find probabalistic evidence.

Decision-makers translate into policy. The scientific approach doesn't make policy.

The rest of your argument, based on that false premise, fails to convince.

Best,

D

Sorry, wrong number (i.e. missing the point): Just because greenies are not getting their way doesn't mean that the scientific approach of assessing environmental change is flawed. And who says that 'security' scare-mongering will creat "the transformations that will lead to sustainability?”

Hi Benny,

I agree completely with your comment that her attempt is to compel government action based on fear. Your quotations from her piece demonstrate your point well.

The word "transformations" is particularly relevant.

Mark

Benny wrote:

"Just because greenies are not getting their way doesn't mean that the scientific approach of assessing environmental change is flawed. "

I'm not sure where you get this assertion from. It certainly doesn't show up in the piece Roger linked to.

The thesis is quite clear and is stated in the first para.

Hint: you'll want to address her premise in the first para. and refute it for your argument to be anything other than. IMHO, misdirection.

Best,

D

Benny (et al.)-

Thanks much for your comments. I actually do not see O'Brien as trying to appeal to fear, but to appeal to factors that people already have concerns about. This is not only politically astute, but practically effective.

When O'Brien says "human security" I don't see much difference from the reframing that Sarewitz and I called for in terms of "human vulnerability" in our 2000 Atlantic Monthly article.

Thanks!

OK, let me try to put it in another way:

I believe O'Brien is mistaken to allege that scientific research is essentially limited to focusing on "potential negative outcomes from human-induced environmental changes." There is a long-established school of thought that looks at human-induced environmental change as one of the key socio-evolutionary factors that has been driving human and technological progress during the last 10,000 years. Thus, a credible approach to human-induced environmental change has to weigh-up real and potential hazards with real and potential returns. A restricted focus on “security” that fails to take into account the threat of economic stagnation or societal decline as a result of inflated environmental precaution risks to generate more harm than good.

I also object to her crude contention that current “environmental changes are undermining our ability to cope with change.” This may be true for a few extreme cases. But it is wide off the mark as a universal description of the human condition. As a matter of fact, most technologically advanced and advancing societies are - as a result of human ingenuity and direct intervention into the physical environment - significantly better equipped to cope with eco-hazards today than at any time during the last 5 million years of human evolution. There is absolutely no reason to believe that economically developed and thus resilient societies can't cope with whatever nature may throw at us.

If we really want to enable developing countries to achieve similar levels of economic and political stability that are the hall marks of societal resilience, we should promote the rule of law, democracy and free markets. After all, that has been the time-honoured, tested and certainly the most reliable insurance cover for any disaster, natural or man-made.

Any political strategy that tries to cherry-pick environmental problems to the exclusion of the tremendous success in environmental protection and progress achieve by most high-tech societies in recent decades will simply fail.

Every time I read the O'Brien article more carefully, I see more items that appear ridiculous and wrong-headed. Here's just one example:

"Environmental change cannot be considered an isolated problem that can be addressed through better science alone. The loss of wetlands and marshes must be framed as an issue of human security—the 2004 Tsunami should have made this clear."

Is she seriously saying that destruction of wetlands and marshes had something to do with damage and *deaths* resulting from the 2004 tsunami? If not, why does she link them in the same sentence?

I'm not at all familiar with the geophysical features of all the areas damaged most significantly by the 2004 tsunami...but most of the pictures I've seen have been basically a beach at the seashore, and then the tsunami comes in and wipes everything (and everybody) out.

How do wetlands and marshes come into play in that situation? (Is she proposing to replace beaches with artificial wetlands and marshes? If so, not many tourists come to vist artificial wetlands and marshes!)

Also, the MAIN factor in the *deaths* from the 2004 tsunami was lack of appropriate warning systems. (Does anyone at all question that?) If everyone in the affected areas had 15-30 minutes advanced notice, I'll bet 90% of the deaths could have been avoided.

So her talk about wetlands actually DETRACTS from her goal--and I'm skeptical whether that is indeed her goal--of actually saving lives from tsunamis.

Roger, you seem to see a parallel between your and Daniel Sarewitz's work and Karen O'Brien's. It seems to me this particular example is directly opposite to your and Daniel Sarewitz's point. You and Sarewitz are trying to focus attention on what will actually WORK to save lives. O'Brien seems to have another agenda entirely.

O'Brien wants to save wetlands and marshes, and drags in the 2004 tsunami. But barring some explanation from someone more familiar with the geophysical features of the region, I don't see the relevance at all. And doing "tricks" like that actually DETRACT from her goal, if saving lives during tsunamis is indeed her goal (again, I'm skeptical it really is).

I (properly!) criticize Wikipedia for its often-slanted viewpoint (particularly on environmental issues), but it's definitely got some very useful information...and it's free:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Indian_Ocean_earthquake

If someone can read this (or any other account), and explain to me how wetlands and marshes had anything to do with the damage and deaths, I'd appreciate it.

Barring that, it's very annoying to me that she would bring in the 2004 tsunami, if her goal really isn't to protect people from tsunamis. (And I don't think that is her goal.)

Roger refers to "bad arguments that support good goals." That is much too charitable an interpretation, in my opinion. If the damage and deaths resulting from the 2004 tsunami had nothing to do with marshes and wetlands, she is essentially lying when she conflates them. As I mentioned, the EFFECT is actually to DETRACT from her goal.

(at great risk I do this) Bahner wrote:

"Is she seriously saying that destruction of wetlands and marshes had something to do with damage and *deaths* resulting from the 2004 tsunami?"

Virnmintul injuneer, eh?

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-10/wwf-nss102705.php
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-06/cp-cbm061605.php

===============

Benny,

You are misreading the article again. I notice, sadly, this happens quite a bit, most notably with Oreskes' paper and your, er, "reanalysis" of some abstracts. I’m sure you wouldn’t think of doing this on purpose, so let’s examine what I mean:

O'Brien did not "allege that scientific research is essentially limited to focusing on "potential negative outcomes from human-induced environmental changes."

O'Brien said:

"For years, the **global environmental change research, policy, and activist communities have been pointing to a long list of** potential negative outcomes from human-induced environmental changes. "

Quite a difference, don't you agree?

Not the entirety of all scientific research as you imply, but a narrow subset of that community. I'm sure you agree this is quite a difference, and that after another go at it, you agree that she is not saying what you said.

Also,

There is a long-established school of thought that looks at human-induced environmental change as impinging upon the life-support systems on which we depend. If too many ecosystems flip, your economic concerns won't matter (as we say here) a hill of beans.

So, O'Brien is looking out for your economic interests, too, in this arty you profess to not like too much, by “instead creat[ing] a greater urgency for understanding the complexities.”

But, of course, a simple underlying issue as to why this paper may create consternation in some circles can be found in her passage:

"Framing environmental change as an issue of human security raises sensitive questions about justice, equity, and power. It raises questions of who benefits, who loses, who has power and why, and how inequities can be justly resolved."

Ah. Got it. (oh, by the way, there are no Free Markets when there are power inequities)

Hope this helps.

D

Yes, Dano, I'm an Environmental Engineer. I have a Bachelors Degree in Mechanical Engineering and a Masters Degree in Environmental Engineering (Air Pollution Option). Both from Virginia Tech.

I've been involved in the design and analysis of advanced coal-fired, nuclear, and waste-to-energy systems, and have over 17 experience performing environmental analyses (mostly related to air pollution issues...though I've done life cycle assessment work that looks at multimedia impacts of various technologies).

That said, my education and experience in water issues is pretty limited, and deals mostly with wastewater treatment.

Also, as I noted, my knowledge of the Indian Ocean and Southeast Asian area of the world is extremely limited.

Finally, when Kathy O'Brien referred to "wetlands and marshes," my mental image was of grassy areas, not areas with trees, because the term "marshes," as I'm sure you know, generally refers to areas without trees, i.e.

Marsh:

"A treeless wetland characterized by certain plants that are adapted to living in wet conditions."
resweb.llu.edu/rford/docs/VGD/GSLVT/gslglossary.html

"A wetland characterized by soft, wet and low-lying land, marked by herbaceous (non-woody) vegetation."
www.nps.gov/gwmp/pac/dyke/terms.html

"Low, wet land that is covered by water at least part of the time and supports grasses rather than trees."
sherpaguides.com/chesapeake_bay/appendices/glossary.html

I'm guessing that it is the leafed part of mangrove trees that reduces the impact of the tsunami so effectively. I doubt mere grasses would have anywhere near the same protective effect.

http://tiki.oneworld.net/penguin/food/mangrove.jpg

Anyway, thanks for the interesting link. As for the incredibly childish name-calling...well, I guess some people just never grow up.

P.S. Since you obviously think pretty highly of yourself, and since Andrew Dessler apparently isn't able to answer these questions, I'll offer you the same $10 reward I offered Andrew Dessler for answering these three questions:

1) What were the approximate worldwide per-capita industrial CO2 emissions (i.e., from the consumption and flaring of fossil fuels) in 1950, 1955, 1960, 1965, 1970, 1975, 1980, 1985, 1990, 1995, 2000, and 2005?

2) What are the worldwide per-capita CO2 emissions projected in the IPCC TAR for the years 2030, 2050, 2070, and 2100 under the following scenarios: A1F1, IS92a, B2, and B1?

3) What is your scientific opinion of the implications, if any, of the correct answers to those first two questions?

“There are no Free Markets when there are power inequities”

Thank you for sharing your Marxist philosophy with us. History has shown that attempts to transform these economic ideas into political practice is a much more lethal threat to political stability, freedom and human security than any interference with the physical environment.

There has always been the suspicion that many greenies are simply exploiting concerns about environmental problems in order to advance a political agenda that Socialism failed to achieve. Your comments and parts of O’Brian's terminology sound as if these qualms are not entirely far-fetched.

I appreciate, Ben, that you must use extremist marginalization terms rather than address the fact that you clumsily misstate [intentionally or unintentionally] articles to make a point.

Keep doing the same thing, Ben. Don't change.

Best,

D

Roger

If you still harbour doubts that O'Brien's call to reframe environmental issues in terms of "security" isn't about political agit-prop and fear-mongering, you should have a look at this: http://euobserver.com/7/21064

I'd be interested to hear whether you really think this reframing isn't much different from your "human vulnerability" idea.

Benny- Thanks. I followed the link that you provided and understand better what you are talking about. However, I do think that you have ascribed to O'Brien some views that she may very well not share but are also carried under the notion of "security." Have a look at this link for some greater detail on what O'Brien's community is focused on: http://www.gechs.org/ and this publications list:

http://www.gechs.org/publications/index.html

I'm sure that each of us can find something there to quibble with, but it seems to me that the work of the GECHS group is a useful expansion and reframing of environmental issues to reflect that they are really environmental-society issues, and this indeed is very consistent with our work on vulnerability.

Thanks!

I defer to Mr. Trudeau, who's commentary is, I think, an accurate if comical statement on the nature of the debate.

http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/dailydose/index.html?uc_full_date=20060305

Kenneth

Roger

For some reason, I'm still not entirely convinced that O'Brien's proposed "security" frame is an appropriate approach to assess the cost and benefit of human-induced environmental change.

I had a look at her paper:

O'Brien, K. et al. 2004. Mapping Vulnerability to Multiple Stressors: Climate Change and Economic Globalization in India. Global Environmental Change 14(4): 303-313.
http://tinyurl.com/eazp5

and noticed that she views not only climate change but also economic liberalisation as "stressors" with significant negative impact.

She notes that the effects of moving from a socialist command economy to free market liberalisation has been uneven, "with some regions and farmers benefiting from market liberalization and from new inflows of investments and technology, while others may have difficulty adjusting to a more open economy, particularly to the effects of increasing competition from agricultural imports."

However, instead of assessing the overall economic development of post-socialist India in terms of economic growth, human health, education, poverty reduction, etc., she focuses almost exclusively on the downside for those farmers whose outdated business models are challenged by free market competition and advanced technology.

O'Brien also points out the Indian agriculture may be unevenly affects by future climate change, with some regions benefitting from increased precipitation and others losing out. What she fails to address is that economic liberalisation has proven to be the most effective weapon against potential vulnerability to environmental stress and disasters. As long as free market liberalism is regarded predominently as a "stressor" rather than the key to increased adaptive strength and societal resilience, the "vulnerability" paradigm, I'd suggest, remains quite vulnerable itself.

Benny tries:

"What she fails to address is that economic liberalisation has proven to be the most effective weapon against potential vulnerability to environmental stress and disasters. "

Except when it doesn't.

Of course, warmer temps & precip periodicity changes will impact crop yields, which is what she's talking about, and what you are trying to hand-wave away from.

Liberalisation also won't change the fact that 9B people are a stressor too.

D

"Except when it doesn't."

Ok, loudmouth. Show us the evidence. Any case will do.

I flinch any time I read an article that calls for 'sustainability'. The word has no scientific meaning in the natural world, which is in constant flux. In nature, the only thing that is sustainable is death.

When educated people use the word, the are generally advocating 'control', which of course, must be the responsibility of the 'educated people'.

What I take from Ms. O'Brien's argument is an admission that the science is not compelling enough to the masses to rally them to sacrifice and action. The notion that the science is really not compelling enough to be worth a lot of sacrifice and action never occurs to her, for this would mean that the masses have more wisdom than she does - a notion that I am sure she could not even imagine, much less consider.

Therefore, she calls upon the educated to find another way to control the masses and make them willing to sacrifice. If scientific evidence is in sufficient to do it, then we must convince them that their security is threatened. Since their is little evidence of anyone's security being threatened so far, this will also be a tough sell, but it does play to the emotions of people and makes it a little easier to control them!

If despots wrote handbooks, this would all be in there.

Your implication, Ben, is that economic liberalisation (liberalization) is always good. I think we can look at the Latin American countries that have rejected the IMF mandates for instruction.

Otherwise, we can look at, oh, Katrina. Except for our massive subsidies, we can argue that large corporations and many other sectors enjoy economic liberalisation.

Best,

D

Jim tried:

"When educated people use the word, the are generally advocating 'control', which of course, must be the responsibility of the 'educated people'. "

This premise couldn't be flimsier. It is ur-flimsy. It would - it goes without saying - help if you could back your claim with, oh, say an EXAMPLE. Or something. The rest of your argument proceeds from that and doesn't get better.

Do you want to try again at a decent argument, leaving out an implicit comparison of scientists = despots [I won't be so nice next time if you do it again]?

D

At the risk of incurring more of Dano's wrath (I'm really shakin' about that), here is a more complete list of the problems I have with statements in Kathy O'Brien's opinion piece:

1) "More than a measurable and objective state, human security is something that is felt and experienced, and it is fundamental to every individual's well-being."

So human security is not really a measurable and objective state. To me, that sounds like it's not very amenable to science. In other words, Kathy O'Brien can say, "Person X is insecure, and Person Y is secure." And I can say, "No, it's the exact opposite: Person Y is insecure, and Person X is secure." And no one can say whether she is right or I am right...or both of us are wrong.

2) "The debate should not be about whether or not this (hurricane Katrina) is evidence of climate change, but about whether human society has the capacity to respond to these types of shocks."

??? The debate should be on whether society "HAS" the capacity (emphasis added)?! Isn't that a rhetorical question? Isn't the answer obviously "yes?" Or is O'Brien saying that, with a few more hurricanes, U.S. society may collapse?

3) "Meanwhile, evidence accumulates that dramatic changes are underway around the globe, including in the Arctic region (Stroeve et al., 2005). These changes have profound implications for human security, as many of the readers of this journal are undoubtedly aware."

The changes in the ARCTIC have "profound implications for human security?" In what sense...that hungry polar bears might come marauding down from the Arctic through Canada and the U.S.? Don't get me wrong...I like polar bears. But there are 6.5 billion people in the world...very few of whom live in the Arctic region. I can't imagine how changes in the Arctic could be judged to have "profound implications for human security."

4) "If we are confident about our ability to respond to long-term trends and discrete events such as Hurricane Katrina, intense rainfall in Mumbai, heat waves in Paris, or drought in Africa, then perhaps we can cope with the anticipated consequences of climate change. Unfortunately, there is little positive evidence of our ability to cope with these events."

There is "little evidence of our ability to cope with these events?" How in the world is that? New Orleans didn't even cancel Mardi Gras this year, for goodness' sake! (Or maybe it should be, "...for sin's sake"?)

5) "In fact, land use changes, biodiversity loss, and other environmental changes are undermining our ability to cope with change. It seems clear that we are not only failing to address current human insecurities, but we are adding to them in ways that few people can fully comprehend."

Well, since security isn't even a "measurable and objective state," it's no wonder people have such trouble figuring out what "adding to" insecurity does. I don't even see how she can ***objectively*** say whether insecurity is being added or *subtracted.*

8) "It requires that we consider environmental issues, including climate change, not as isolated problems that can be cast off as a low priorities in relation to pressing concerns about poverty, health, and war (see Lomborg, 2005), but as integrally connected to these concerns."

Well, I haven't read Lomborg's book. I just ordered it, though, and read the editorial and customer reviews. Three out of the four reviews were positive, with the one highly negative review containing this wonderful comment: "Finally, though, they did not recognise that some countries do the lot, without aid and without the advice of foreign economists. Cuba, for instance, controls diseases through its universal health services, prevents conflicts, educates all its people, has stable finances, curbs corruption, feeds its people, controls migration, ensures sanitation and clean water for all, and controls pollution. It supports its industries and controls capital and trade. Cuba disproves the book's assumption that capitalism is the best, indeed the only, choice for us all."

Ah, yes! Marxist to the end! "William Podmore, United Kingdom." Benny, you really should buy Mr. Podmore a (one-way) ticket to Cuba. Mr. Podmore would be a wonderful present for Fidel Castro, as good ol' Fidel prepares to celebrate his "golden" 50th year of dictatorship. (I'll bet the Cuban people wish they had some gold...or at least some currency that is actually worth something.)

8) "The human disaster in Louisiana was triggered by vulnerabilities and inequities that have increased over the past decade, as social safety nets have been dismantled and institutions have been weakened. Neoliberal policies that emphasize personal responsibility and self-reliance provided little support to the most vulnerable people or groups."

So Ms. O'Brien attributes the failures of Katrina to "neoliberal policies" and "dismantled social safety nets" and "weakened institutions." But she doesn't say what caused thousands to die in the 2003 heatwave in France. Maybe she'll cover that in a forthcoming opinion piece? (Somehow, I doubt it.)

9) "Elderly residents also had difficulty responding to the hurricane, and many of them died in hospitals or homes that were supposed to be responsible for their security; this also occurred in the 2003 heatwave in France."

Is it really true that elderly people who were in GROUP homes died in the heatwave in France?! That would be pretty pathetic!

10) "The loss of wetlands and marshes must be framed as an issue of human security—the 2004 Tsunami should have made this clear."

Despite Dano's faith (as in religious faith) in his touted Science article, I still fail to see how the 2004 tsunami showed that AT ALL that "marshes" enhance human security...let alone that it "made this clear." As far as mangrove FORESTS...I don't see that the Science article did much more than to show some correlation between damage and the presence of mangrove FORESTS. Further, as I pointed out previously, it's not like mangrove forests can simply be created on any beach. Mangrove forests can be REGROWN where they previously were. But let's say every single mangrove forest in all the areas hit by the tsunami were regrown. There were 230,000 people killed by the tsunami...how many would have been saved if every single mangrove forest that existed 50 years ago were regrown? I'm very confident that it's no where near the 200,000+ lives that probably could have been saved with 15-30+ minutes of warning.

11) "The truth is that our science is sound—our security is not."

The truth is that the IPCC TAR's "projections" are the greatest fraud in the history of environmental science. And another truth is that anthropogenic global warming has virtually nothing to do with the security of the overwhelming majority of humans on earth; further, that's likely to be the case throughout this century.

Mark

I couldn't have said it better. Monsieurs P and D
simply rehash the old socialist chestnut that freedom in markets and political reforms to enhance economic liberalisation are part of the problem rather than part of the solution, that mainly large companies benefit from free markets, that Hurricane Katrina proves this, and other Marxist codswallop.

Latin America, of course, is a classical example of what happenes when government intervention stifles freedom of markets, political freedom and the rule of law. Most of the economic problems South American countries are facing are not due to too much, but the result of too little political and economic liberalisation
http://www.cipe.org/whats_new/events/webevents/holden.pdf

Benben:

There are certain denialists hanging around here that take great umbrage when people use argumentation that includes what they define as *ad hominem*. Although you strictly haven't done it, according to their erroneous definition you have in the comment above. Therefore, I would be remiss in not warning you that their umbrage will come raining down on your head for using *ad hom* argumentation very soon, if past trends about pointing out perceived ad hom against their posts continue.

Any minute now. Just waiting for that umbrage.

Get ready, Ben. They get mad at that sort of stuff.

Annnnny minute now they're gonna complain.

Waiting...

Waiting...

Ah, well.

Anyway, Ben, you tried to make a case that:

"Monsieurs P and D simply rehash the old socialist chestnut that freedom in markets and political reforms to enhance economic liberalisation are part of the problem rather than part of the solution"

Noooooo, I didn't say that at all. You are just afraid and are projecting. Your having to use 'socialist' and 'Marxist' ululation is clue enough.

I appreciate your frequent need to misstate things to make your point. That's another clue.

But, my argument is against your simplistic, binary assertion that just magically enacting economic liberalization will cure all ills.

Your pointing out about ding-dang gummint intervention is a fly in the ointment for this simplistic binary logic, as is asymmetrical information, as are power and gender relation differences, as is inequality and social justice inequality, corruption at many levels, management incompetence, societal unwillingness to adopt reforms, etc.

As we have found out in Eye-rack and many World Bank/IMF projects, you just don't go into a country and plop down a reform - any reform - and expect it to magically work. Societies don't act that way.

HTH,

D

Stop hyperventilating. You provided absurd examples and are now try to absconder. Nobody here has claimed that "economic liberalization will cure all ills." What I have stressed, and what you have been unable to refute is that political freedom and economic liberalisation has proven to be "the most effective weapon against potential vulnerability to environmental stress and disasters."

Abscond? Really Ben. Keep trying.

But, you raise a good point: I should have used different rhetoric so's you wouldn't have something to hand-wave about. My bad, and I've instructed my Editor to be more vigilant.

Anyway:

"What I have stressed, and what you have been unable to refute is that political freedom and economic liberalisation has proven to be "the most effective weapon against potential vulnerability to environmental stress and disasters.""

Huh. All that political freedom and economic liberalization (liberalisation) hasn't caused the insurance claims from natural disasters to go down (as I implied previously).

All those claims indicate invulnerability, apparently.

http://www.sonpo.or.jp/e/statements/state_20040401e_report.html
http://www.garfinkeltrialgroup.com/costliest-natural-disaster.htm
http://www.tcs.com/0_whitepapers/htdocs/insurance/oct03_pclaims_insurance.pdf
http://www.realestatejournal.com/buysell/taxesandinsurance/20060131-schroeder.html

Wonder why that is...hmmm...I wonder...I wonnnnnder...

Well. I simply just can't come up with why. Perhaps you can share, Ben.

Best,

D

Dano and Benny- This is off topic, please exchange email addresses and continue there. Please don't abuse the site. Thanks!

"All that political freedom and economic liberalization (liberalisation) hasn't caused the insurance claims from natural disasters to go down."

If that is what you think free markets should be able to do, I'm not suprised that you don't trust them. The function of the insurance industry is not to bring down claims, but to ensure that individuals and companies can reduce the cost of damage to their property or business in case of natural disaster, destruction, robbery, etc. This enables parties to a contract to preserve what is established in that contract at a lower cost than if the insurance did not exist. As the risk increases, so do the premiums - and vis versa.

Free markets enable insurance companies to adapt to fluctuating risk and to develop viable options and policies in face of the recent increase in the cost of damage due to natural disasters. Most people in the developing world cannot afford insurance cover which is why many of these people struggle or fail to cope when disaster strikes.
http://emagazine.credit-suisse.com/app/article/index2.cfm?fuseaction=OpenArticlePrint&aoid=131287&lang=EN

Let's recap: First it was Latin America, then Katrina and now the insurance industry. Yet in all three cases market solutions have proven to be the most effective and most cost-effective way of enhancing political freedom, economic stability and thus societal resilience.

Have another try. It's four strikes, but then you're out.

Roger

Sorry for that. My post overlapped. I am happy to oblige.