As we move full steam in to 2019, it is worth remembering that some good progress was made during 2018 with regards to advancing the private flood insurance market in the U.S. – even though Congress struggled with reform of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
Here’s five takeaway points from the past year:
1. Extending the Extension: The NFIP saw numerous extensions and a few short lapses. Just before the end of the year, Congress reauthorized the NFIP until May 31, 2019 right before the government shutdown commenced on December 22, 2018. But decisions by FEMA during the last week of the year brought uncertainty to the housing and insurance industry as it dealt with changing guidelines on whether policies could be sold or renewed during the shutdown. Ultimately, the NFIP is still operating, but the back and forth of 2018 did not bolster confidence in the stability of the program and left many asking … will 2019 be the breakthrough year?
2. FEMA Boosts the Private Flood Market: Although Congress struggled to act on the NFIP, FEMA did, with technical changes that came into force on October 1, 2018, to attract new private carriers and help existing carriers who participate in the NFIP “Write Your Own” (WYO) program.
First – removing a “non-compete” clause for carriers operating within WYO, now allows WYO carriers to offer their own private flood coverage as well as NFIP policies, with the condition that these businesses are kept separate. Second – policyholders can now cancel their NFIP policy mid-term, before its expiration date when a policyholder has obtained a duplicate policy. In combination, these steps removed hurdles that were hindering carriers from offering new flood products and making it difficult for consumers to purchase those products from the private market.
Indonesia was beset by disasters in 2018, including two high casualty local tsunamis: in coastal western Sulawesi – impacting the city of Palu, on September 28, and around the Sunda Strait, between Java and Sumatra, on December 22. These events may have appeared unusual, but the great subduction zone tsunamis, like those in the Indian Ocean in 2004 and Japan in 2011, have reset our imagination. Before 2004, forty years had passed without any transoceanic tsunamis. Overall, local tsunamis are more common, presenting many challenges in how they can be anticipated.
The Palu tsunami reminds us how “strike-slip” faults, involving only horizontal displacement can still generate tsunamis, first as a result of vertical displacement at “jogs”, where the fault rupture jumps alignment, as well as from triggered submarine landslides. It seems both factors were important in driving the Sulawesi tsunami that became amplified to more than four meters (13 feet) in the funnel-shaped Palu embayment.
The December 22 Sunda Strait tsunami was caused by a submarine landslide on the erupting Anak Krakatoa volcano and arrived without warning, in the dark of mid-evening. More than 400 people drowned mainly around a series of beach resorts in Banten and Lampung provinces, although water levels in the tsunami only reached a meter or two above sea level. An audience of 200 enjoying a concert at the Tanjung Lesung Beach Resort, staged directly on the beach by Indonesian rock band Seventeen were caught unaware. 29 concertgoers were killed together with four people associated with the band.
For the first part of Pete Dailey’s blog, Climate Change and NCA4: Part One, click here
What’s Climate Change Attribution?
Lately, the climate science community has spent considerable time on a topic called attribution. In this context, attribution refers to the portion of rising temperatures attributable to human activity via the burning of fossil fuels and release of greenhouse gases (GHGs). Today’s climate models can reconstruct historical temperature records, and then replay history “as if” GHGs had not been released. The difference between these simulated climates provides a means of quantifying the warming that stems directly from the emissions.
Extreme event attribution attempts to quantify the responsibility of climate change for a single weather event. It works by establishing whether climate change can be credited as a factor among all of the factors responsible for a catastrophic event, such as Hurricane Katrina, or the recent Camp Fire wildfire in Northern California – or for that matter any natural disaster. Such events have lots of environmental ingredients and extreme event attribution decides whether human-induced global warming is a significant one.
I am in Wellington, New Zealand, looking out from a rainy hotel window high over the city, admiring the older wooden houses on the forested slopes. Below there are four to eight story office and retail buildings, a number of which are shrouded in scaffolding, still repairing damage from the 2016 Kaikoura earthquake. The earthquake epicenter was some distance from the city, but the pattern of fault ruptures propelled long period ground shaking into the heart of Wellington.
In 1848, only eight years after the city was founded, a Mw7.5 earthquake on the far side of Cook Strait, shattered the town’s brick buildings. The Lieutenant Governor, Edward Eyre, forgetting his official role as colonial booster, declared the “… town of Wellington is in ruins … Terror and despair reign everywhere. Ships now in port … (are) crowded to excess with colonists abandoning the country.” However, the tremors declined, and the town survived.
Many ordinary houses were rebuilt using wood instead of brick. As a result, they suffered far less damage from a larger and closer Mw8.2 earthquake in 1855, that struck at the end of a two-day public holiday to celebrate the fifteenth anniversary of the city’s formation. This ruined all the remaining brick and stone commercial buildings including churches, barracks, the jail, and the colonial hospital. However, the earthquake delivered a tectonic bounty, raising the city by one to two meters (3.2 to 6.5 feet), turning the harbor into new land for development.