Making a Noise

If small towns burn among our forests or if water seeps into our basements and politicians are not around to listen, does the catastrophe make a noise?

Shortly before we went to press, the Insurance Bureau of Canada (IBC) released research findings from a study by climate scientist Dr. Gordon McBean. The short version is by now a common refrain for people in the industry: By 2050, Canadian temperatures will warm more than the global average, resulting in much warmer winters and summers.

We are already experiencing early examples of anticipated consequences. For example, Alberta, B.C. and Ontario, having just come through warmer-than-usual winters, are now dry as tinderboxes. Weather conditions are now perfect for wildfires of the type that burned down much of Slave Lake, Alberta last year, costing the industry more than $700 million.

AccuWeather in the United States is forecasting an above-normal severe weather system in 2012, based on the warmer air. It predicts an above-normal number of tornadoes this year. If that happens, it would build upon an almost-record number of tornadoes in 2011 (almost 1,700 U.S. tornadoes last year, versus an annual average of 1,300).

In Canada, a 1998 Environment Canada report, Extreme Weather and Climate, notes tornadoes are “more frequent in warm springs and summers.” As warm springs and summers become more common as a result of climate change, research results “imply an eventual increase in tornado frequency on the Prairies if seasonal temperatures rise beyond present normal values,” the report says.

Note the date of the report was 24 years ago — hardly cutting-edge stuff.

This raises a very difficult problem for the industry. Accumulated knowledge about climate change often fails to prompt political action.

Ottawa right now is in the grip of a hyper-partisan atmosphere in which knowledge is only useful insofar as it supports the policies of the government of the day. And alas, the feds are content to leave climate change stagnating at the bottom of their agenda. Most prominently, Canada has withdrawn from the Kyoto Protocol, a United Nations framework on climate change. It has also axed a number of organizations studying the effects of climate change, including the Climate Change Policy Directorate at Environment Canada, and most recently the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy.

In Budget 2011, Ottawa committed the paltry sum of $58 million toward climate change research projects. Budget 2012 doesn’t even mention climate change, although it does include a significant commitment to improving infrastructure.

But from the feds’ point of view, why waste time and money researching something that doesn’t support the views of your political base?

The answer, of course, is that climate change affects everyone — including the Conservatives’ political base. Tornadoes and severe weather do not destroy homes of opposition party members only: they destroy the property of everyone the government supposedly represents.

Canada’s P&C insurance industry, representing a significant segment of the financial and business community that underpins the reigning government of the day, is concerned about climate change. The industry has invested a substantial amount of time, energy and money on researching the issue. It is convinced climate change is negatively affecting their business.

And so what happens when a government doesn’t listen to its base of support?

There comes a point at which accumulated knowledge gained through research does not translate into political action. We have reached that point.

It might be that the answer for the industry lies in relying less on research to make the point, and more on political pressure. Such political pressure by the industry can remind the government that climate change is not a partisan issue: it is a business issue. And a government that prides itself publicly on the support of business leaders needs to listen much more than it has been.