Posted on

The protection gap

Ah, language… you’re we’re soaking in it.

A growing disparity between economic loses from natural disasters and the amount of those losses covered by insurance is bringing together some strange bedfellows. I know, the entire world is now one giant mixed metaphor:

Insured losses from natural catastrophes may reach $145 billion this year — well above the 10-year average — as population growth, urban sprawl and climate change combine to supercharge risks, according to an estimate in April from the Swiss Re Institute.

The rising costs make it essential that the insurance industry “reach out not only to regulators and supervisors, but also to broader policymakers, government departments outside of insurance, academia, and even customers to work together and figure out how to tackle this issue,” Ariizumi said.

Ariizumi spoke near Durban, South Africa, ahead of a panel focused on the protection gap on Thursday. The event, held alongside the G-20 finance chiefs’ meetings, is expected to be attended by World Bank President Ajay Banga and the chair of French insurer Axa SA.

To address losses from natural disasters, Ariizumi said various forms of collaboration are possible such as the public sector agreeing to take on part of the risk when an event is deemed too great for private financial institutions to handle the costs on their own.

Once again, no shade to Bloomberg – they’re just the messenger explaining this through their prism – but this article raises question about t-shirts that say climate change is too expensive to address already answered by those t-shirts.

And this is why, in order to have nice things, massive collection action collaborations by governments to help businesses, which include insurers and media companies alike, to change courses, practices, and tactics toward the betterment of all humans remains job one. We can come back around to it under other guises, but collaboration is socialism collaboration. One day, we’ll come around to that and see how silly all of this was.

And it would be best for everyone if that day is tomorrow.

Image: a corner of Dukes County from the sky, via.

Posted on

The last and the next 20 years

Peter Singer’s 1975 book Animal Liberation is perhaps the seminal text on awakening human consciousness about nonhuman animals. More of a philosophical tract, it presents an even-handed narrative of why animals’ interests should be considered that is neither ‘good’ not ‘bad’ per se. It’s big idea of ‘the greatest good’ is an effective route to ethical behavior, and it resonates with the challenge of how to get people to care about nature, which – if not cast as satire – is one of the most urgent ideas of the last and the next twenty years:

It is easy to see how bleak accounts of the state of the planet can overwhelm people and make them feel hopeless. What is the point of even trying if the world is going down the drain anyway?

To muster public and political support on a scale that matches our environmental challenges, research shows that negative messaging is not the most effective way forward. As a conservation scientist and social marketer, I believe that to make the environment a mainstream concern, conservation discussions should focus less on difficulties. Instead we should highlight the growing list of examples where conservation efforts have benefited species, ecosystems and people living alongside them.

The promise of positive messaging and marketing language to sway greater environmental sh*t-giving is cynical, but here we are. He’s not wrong, though the degree to which the vision of this kind of promotion will necessarily muster the language of commodity (great cause of said looming catastrophic scenarios) to save the Earth makes the pain in my neck throb. It could also make the messages that feel like Coca-Cola ads that much easier to dismiss from familiarity. Optimism in the face of destruction has its limits, and sometimes we need to look at things as they are and act accordingly. Like adults instead of media companies.
Still, Lost & Found is a good idea. We can do worse than trying to invigorate the public with the wonder of natural wonder, as long as they don’t begin to believe too strongly in its resilience. We can lead the water to horses, but can we make them care?