Sea Level Rise and Insurance

Apart from trying to stay out of the sun this summer, I have read with interest the following article regarding Sea Level Rise published in Climate Code Red and sourced from the Australian Newspaper.
http://www.climatecodered.org/2013/01/the-australian-admits-it-misinterpreted.html by Graham Readfern

CSIRO: http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/index.html

The CSIRO, Austraia's premier research organisation has huge amounts of data on sea level rise.
The graph on the right shows the rise (in mm not yet metres). An interesting editorial on the subject can be read here.

Another article, that of the cost of Insurance was published in the Weekend Financial Review (p 5) "Insurers lash 'brittle' buildings" where double digit figure rises in insurance costs were discussed in terms of improving the building code to better prepare for fire, floods, and storms. The words " greater emphasis on community adaptation to extreme weather events" were printed, ironically missing the point about why the extreme events are now causing such damage on our suddenly 'brittle' buildings.
Is adaptation is easier than reducing energy use?
Is increasing building insulation, improving energy efficiency and sourcing energy from renewables too hard to implement?
So how does the Insurance Council of Australia think the various governments and regulatory bodies will manage to change the building stock of Australia in a timely fashion to cope with more extreme weather is beyond me. (See recent Queensland Building Code Changes)

Surely this is what the Stern Report warned us about. Adaptation without changing the carbon economy and reining in the effects of Climate Change is going to be more expensive in the long term.
Wikipedia reports " The Stern Review's main conclusion is that the benefits of strong, early action on climate change far outweigh the costs of not acting. The Review points to the potential impacts of climate change on water resources, food production, health, and the environment. According to the Review, without action, the overall costs of climate change will be equivalent to losing at least 5% of global gross domestic product (GDP) each year, now and forever. Including a wider range of risks and impacts could increase this to 20% of GDP or more."

Watch and wait for more rises in important basic services. As a result of lack of action on the 'real' causes of climate change, not the misrepresentation provided by much of the traditional media.

Queensland water tanks and solar hot water

Yesterday's Financial Review newspaper alerted me to yet another Queensland State Government anti-environment decision. That of dismantling previous Labor government policy in regard to installation of water tanks and solar hot water heaters (pg 11).
It seems the poor people of Queensland will not now be obliged to install these environmental saving devices when building new homes. Unlike in Victoria where a 6 Star Energy Rating is applied to all new homes and extensions, including a requirement for solar water system or rainwater tank.
Queensland customers can now choose!
Solarhart advertises the previous building requirements as such "Under the Standard Building Regulations (SBR) sustainability measures have been introduced which are expected to reduce energy use in new houses by 33 percent and reduce water use by up to 36 percent. "
So a saving of approx $5000 when building a house (in Queensland) can mean the loss of several 10's of years free hot-water and rain water, as well as the opportunity to improve our building stock. In one of the sunniest and water poor nations on our groaning planet.
Such is the power of choice.
Of course this change assumes that by enabling free choice the individuals concerned know enough to choose. Not necessarily a given in my humble opinion. Or that the $5000 saved can be retrofitted later. It will be interesting to see how much Queensland will lag in numbers fitting these devices in a few years time.

Perhaps the Queensland State Government will remove the requirement for other regulations that have been introduced for "the common good" and continue to back business interests. Makes my reading of Joseph Stiglitz' book "the Price of Inequality" even more relevant.