Thursday, March 11, 2004

Rushing on.. Posted here Thursday, March 11, 2004 at 3:20:01 PM     That the Security Council pounced on The Basques, and by now it looks like not. Why the rush? Why not a good commision on Inqury, a serious look? ********

Insurance report on increased climate risks Posted here Thursday, March 11, 2004 at 2:21:39 PM     On climate change Insurer warns of global warming catastrophe The world's second-largest reinsurer, Swiss Re, warned on Wednesday that the costs of natural disasters, aggravated by global warming, threatened to spiral out of control, forcing the human race into a catastrophe of its own making. In a report revealing how climate change is rising on the corporate agenda, Swiss Re said the economic costs of such disasters threatened to double to $150 billion (82 billion pounds) a year in 10 years, hitting insurers with $30-40 billion in claims, or the equivalent of one World Trade Centre attack annually. "There is a danger that human intervention will accelerate and intensify natural climate changes to such a point that it will become impossible to adapt our socio-economic systems in time," Swiss Re said in the report. "The human race can lead itself into this climatic catastrophe -- or it can avert it." The report comes as a growing number of policy experts warn that the environment is emerging as the security threat of the 21st century, eclipsing terrorism. Scientists expect global warming to trigger increasingly frequent and violent storms, heat waves, flooding, tornadoes, and cyclones while other areas slip into cold or drought. "Sea levels will continue to rise, glaciers retreat and snow cover decline," the insurer wrote. EXPONENTIAL RISE Losses to insurers from environmental events have risen exponentially over the past 30 years, and are expected to rise even more rapidly still, said Swiss Re climate expert Pamela Heck. "Scientists tell us that certain extreme events are going to increase in intensity and frequency in the future," Heck told Reuters by telephone. "Climate change is very much in the mind of the insurance industry." Over the past century, the average global temperature has increased by 0.6 degrees Centigrade, the largest rise for the northern hemisphere in the past 1,000 years, Swiss Re said. In the short- and medium-term, simply knowing that the planet is warming will allow society to adapt, for example, through infrastructure to cope with more-frequent floods or by instructing farmers to use drought-resistant cereals. In other cases, governments need to restrict risk-taking, such as approving housing developments in low-lying areas, and improve catastrophe management capabilities. In the long term, Swiss Re said, greenhouse gases widely thought to trigger global warming will need to be reduced, the use of fossil fuels cut and new energy technologies developed. "The role of the insurance industry is through establishing risk adequate tariffs and to give the risk taker the opportunity to implement appropriate measures to reduce the chance of possible losses," Heck said. http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/WireFeed/WireFeed&;c=WireFeed&cid=1074160755828 ********

response to 911 was the wrong one, ... Posted here Thursday, March 11, 2004 at 10:45:38 AM     With 9/11, the bureaucrats seized on their opportunity created by Bush's response. This was exactly the wrong way to go, polarizing, bullying, acting tough. World understanding was necessary, and keeping in balance the small scale deal of 911 *compared to the significance of other trends*. 911 was important, but  president who knows nothing about the fall of the roman empire, or the rise of Mussolini was not prepared with historical understanding to respond with anything mroe than cowboy histrionics. ********

Rationalizing the economy Posted here Thursday, March 11, 2004 at 10:38:23 AM     On "rationalizing" the economy The political analyst Charlie Cook's weekly column, available by e-mail subscription <http://nationaljournal.com/about/cookcolumn.htm> is a real treasure, and usually offers much more than just the horserace. There's a single paragraph in today's column that I think sums up what we need to know about the economy and jobs better than anything I've read: In December, the CEO of a California-based high tech firm told me that "there is no amount of overtime that we will not pay, there is no level of temporary services that we will not use, there is no level of outsourcing or offshoring that we will not do, in order to prevent us from having to hire one new, permanent worker in the U.S." As I travel around the country, meeting with business leaders, I hear similar, though less succinct thoughts in almost every sector and every part of the country. U.S. wages, health care, and other benefit costs have gotten so high -- and the press by investors for high stock prices is so great -- that the premium is on wringing every last bit of work out of as few employees as possible, to do anything but incur the costs of adding permanent employees. The problem is that tech - the easy flow of information - makes this possible. It means no invesement, and lets get the dollars out of the current system so we can get to Montana before it all falls apart. The deeper issue is that these are long term trends. Bush has joined the trends, what is needed is to find a way that harmonizes human futures with economic ones. The cost willbe high, not paying the costs (in better distribution of pain and gain) will be worse. My favorite quote on "rational" - To rationalize without regards to other human issues, such as ethics and intuition, is irrational. - John Ralston Saul ********

Economy trade and taxes Posted here Thursday, March 11, 2004 at 9:24:37 AM     On the economy:  The free trade issue intersects with internal national rules that make the rich richer. While it is true that "free trade" spreads wealth into third world countries, they too are highly structured so that elites benefit and the rest can actually lose out: averages look better but distribution is worse. The rise of china - and just about every where else - means that the US total will be a smaller percentage of total world production. We need to adapt to that force and "free trade" is probably part of the solution, but if tax policy and other benefits to the rich are not changed, the benefits will be too skewed. Note how the Forbes 400 have gotten richer as the country was in a recession and markets were down. Even free trade and tax reform are not enough. We need to think of a number of issues simultaneously. For example, Bush is not entrepreneurial. I can imagine a Kerry strategy that really supports business innovation and technical experimentation. We need more transactions with less environmental exploitation. ********