FISCAL MONITOR: How to Mitigate Climate Change, IMF (2019)
FISCAL MONITOR: How to Mitigate Climate Change, IMF (2019)
The projections included in this issue of the Fiscal Monitor are drawn from the same database used for the October 2019 World Economic Outlook and Global Financial Stability Report (and are referred to as “IMF staff projections”). Fiscal projections refer to the general government, unless otherwise indicated. Short-term projections are based on officially announced budgets, adjusted for differences between the national authorities and the IMF staff regarding macroeconomic assumptions. The medium-term fiscal projections incorporate policy measures that are judged by the IMF staff as likely to be implemented. For countries supported by an IMF arrangement, the medium-term projections are those under the arrangement. In cases in which the IMF staff has insufficient information to assess the authorities’ budget intentions and prospects for policy implementation, an unchanged cyclically adjusted primary balance is assumed, unless indicated otherwise. Details on the composition of the groups, as well as country-specific assumptions, can be found in the Methodological and Statistical Appendix
Federal Disaster Insurance – Senate Report – 1956
Federal Disaster Insurance, Report of the Committee on Banking and Currency, United States Senate (January, 9 1956) – large file
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
UNITED STATES SENATE,
COMMITTEE ON BANKING AND CURRENCY,
November 30, 1955.
Hon. J. W. FULBRIGHT,
Chairman, Committee on Banking and Currency,
United States Senate, Washington, D. C.
DEAR SENATOR FULBRIGHT:
At your direction, the staff has prepared background materials relating to consideration of a Federal disaster insurance program. Except for certain deletions and rearrangements, this compilation was made available to all members of the committee, in substantially its present form, at the beginning of the hearings on October 31, 1955. Since the study was intended to lay the groundwork for the initial phases of the committee’s inquiry, it does not generally include information developed during the hearings. Such data will be taken into account in future committee reports. Limitation of time has restricted the amount of detailed data included and has precluded a more complete analysis of the materials. While the scope of the study includes all natural and manmade disasters, emphasis has been placed on those for which insurance is not readily available (such as floods) and for which information was obtainable in a short period of time from public and private sources. From this committee’s own files came much of the material dealing with the problems of war damage–the result of considerable renewed attention given to this phase of the problem since 1950. The committee staff received fine cooperation from the Federal agencies, private organizations, and individuals that were requested to supply data. The materials included in this study were compiled and prepared by Mr. William F. McKenna, counsel of the committee. Mr. Donald L. Rogers, also counsel of the committee, prepared the chapter on natural disaster relief. The staff wishes gratefully to acknowledge the contributions of the various Government agencies, private organizations and individuals listed at the end of the study.
ROBERT A. WALLACE, Staff Director.
Geoengineering Resources
Hurricanes Affecting the Coast of Texas from Galveston to Rio Grande – 1956
Waves and high waters accompanying storms of hurricane intensity have periodically wreaked havoc along the Gulf and Atlantic coasts of the United States. Adequate, and economic, design of shore structures to prevent or mitigate this damage requires historical knowledge of past storms. This knowledge, although previously available, is scattered among many sources — requiring. therefore, a considerable amount of time to gather for use for any particular area. The present report represents a collection of available data on hurricanes reaching and passing inland over the Texas coast between Galveston and the Rio Grande, and certain conclusions as to frequency of occurrence derived therefrom.
This report was prepared by Dr. W. Armstrong Price, formerly Professor of Geological Oceanography at the Agricultural and Mechanical College of Texas, and now a Consulting Geologist in Corpus Christi, Texas. The initial statistical studies were made by Dr. Price in connection with his consulting work for several oil companies; these were later revised, extended, and submitted to the Board for publication. The report is being published at this time in connection with the recently expanded responsibilities of the Corps of Engineers in hurricane damage prevention as outlined in Public Law 71 of the 84th Congress.
Strategies to Address Climate Change Risk in Low- and Moderate-income Communities – San Francisco Fed
This issue of the Community Development Innovation Review offers strategies that address climate change risk in low- and moderate-income (LMI) communities. As these communities begin to grapple with a changing environment, strategic investments can increase resiliency and support adaptation while simultaneously advancing community development priorities. The articles in this issue of the Review consider these investment opportunities from a diverse set of community, financial, economic, and academic perspectives.
Surging Waters: Science Empowering Communities in the Face of Flooding
Surging Waters: Science Empowering Communities in the Face of Flooding is a report produced by AGU, a global not-for-profit scientific society dedicated to advancing the Earth and space sciences for the benefit of humanity. The report is reviewed by leading experts in these fields.
Surging Waters: Science Empowering Communities in the Face of Flooding – the report
NRDC – Going Under: Long Wait Times for Post-Flood Buyouts Leave Homeowners Underwater
NRDC, Going Under: Long Wait Times for Post-Flood Buyouts Leave Homeowners Underwater (2019) (Original LInk)
Sea level rise and increased flooding are already affecting homes and communities across the United States. The hard truth is that these climate change impacts will make it increasingly difficult for people to stay in the places where they live today. Among the millions who could be displaced in the coming decades, many will need assistance to move to higher ground. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has funded thousands of voluntary buyouts, in which local or state governments purchase flood-damaged properties from willing sellers at pre-flood values and preserve the land as open space. However, FEMA’s current buyout programs already struggle to meet existing need, with years-long wait times that can make this option difficult to pursue and contribute to inequities in disaster recovery.
NRDC reviewed nearly 30 years of FEMA data on buyout funding and found that it takes a median of more than 5 years between a flood and the completion of a FEMA-funded buyout project. While every buyout project is different, one thing is clear: long wait times make buyouts less accessible, less equitable, and less effective for disaster mitigation and climate adaptation. Addressing this issue is essential to making FEMA-funded buyouts a more viable option as climate change increases flooding throughout the United States. This report describes approaches for improving the current system, as well as new buyout models that NRDC believes are worth exploring by FEMA, other federal agencies, and state and local governments.
The Private Flood Insurance Market
Qualified Immunity from Constitutional Torts
Cleveland v. Bell , 5th Cir., No. 18-30968, 9/13/19
Prison nurse who ignored the deceased prisoner’s requests for medical care found to have qualified immunity from a 1983 claim. She did not show conscious indifference to his plight because she believed he did not need medical care:
“The Supreme Court has made clear that actual knowledge is an essential element of Plaintiffs’ burden, as mere negligence cannot establish a constitutional violation. Given the lack of evidence about Nurse Bell’s subjective awareness of a substantial risk of serious harm to Cleveland, Plaintiffs cannot show a constitutional violation at step one of the qualified-immunity analysis.” at 6, citations omitted.
LA Safe 2019 – Realistic Plan for Adaptation to Sea Level Rise or Denial of the Real Risks?
2018 State of U.S. High Tide Flooding with a 2019 Outlook
SUMMARY
NOAA tide gauges are measuring rapid changes across the entire severity-spectrum of coastal flood risk along U.S. coastlines due to RSL rise. The most noticeable impact of RSL rise is the increasing frequency of HTF (sometimes referred to as ‘nuisance’ or ‘sunny day’ flooding), which typically causes minor and disruptive impacts. However, within many rural and urban U.S. coastal communities, the cumulative effects of more HTF upon public-works systems, roads, first floors of businesses, and residences (among others) is becoming a serious problem. Because of this, communities need projections for ‘next year’ and for the coming decades for preparedness and planning purposes to respond to the growing RSL-related HTF threat.
Global trends in climate change litigation: 2019 snapshot
Headline issues
• Climate change litigation continues to expand across jurisdictions as a tool to
strengthen climate action, though more evidence of its impact is needed.
• Climate change cases have been brought in at least 28 countries around the
world, and of the recorded cases more than three quarters have been filed in
the United States.
• Most defendants are governments but lawsuits are increasingly targeting the
highest greenhouse-gas-emitting companies.
• Climate change-related claims are also being pursued by investors, activist
shareholders, cities and states.
• Climate change litigation in low- and middle-income countries is growing in
quantity and importance.
Summary
Climate change litigation is increasingly viewed as a tool to influence policy
outcomes and corporate behaviour. Strategic cases are designed to press national
governments to be more ambitious on climate or to enforce existing legislation,
while cases against major emitters seek compensation for loss and damage.
Routine planning and regulatory cases are increasingly including climate change
arguments, exposing courts to climate science and climate-related arguments
even where incidental to the main claim.