130

It was 2am when the parish priest, Giovanni Samorì, was woken by a phone call from the mayor of Traversara ordering him to start ringing the church bells. The traditional call now forms part of the civil protection procedure deployed by many Italian towns. Its aim: to warn residents of impending calamity.

As torrential rain pounded the village, Samorì sprang into action, a task he compares to “sounding the death knell”. It worked: the evacuation of Traversara’s 480 residents was swift and, despite the priest’s foreboding, there were no deaths.

But, a few weeks on from the flooding of 19 September, when the northern Italian region of Emilia Romagna was struck by its third devastating storm in less than 18 months, the destruction of Traversara is clear. The hamlet, on the banks of the Lamone River about 40 minutes from the regional capital of Bologna, has been all but wiped out.

In its place has come a fraught but urgent debate about insurance coverage for losses from climate-related catastrophes, which until now has remained an unfamiliar concept for most Italians. Italy has become known by scientists as one of Europe’s climate risk hotspots and is beginning to reckon with the widespread implications of extreme weather to livelihoods and the economy.

Currently just 6% of homes are insured against natural disasters, and 5% of businesses. That, says the government, needs to change.

The government has proposed making it obligatory from January for businesses to be insured against natural disasters, a move that has proved particularly unpopular in areas most at risk. There were also hints at extending it to households.

top 15 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] citrusface@lemmy.world 36 points 4 weeks ago

Yeah sorry look at Western NC. A friends house was hit by a mudslide and he lost everything. Insurance won't do fuck because they are calling it flood damage.

Fuck insurance. Fucking scam.

[-] explodicle@sh.itjust.works 8 points 4 weeks ago

We need more insurance organized by credit unions. If the whole world bought disaster insurance, we might try preventing disaster.

[-] 52fighters@lemmy.sdf.org 6 points 4 weeks ago

Those exist they are called "mutuals" but I don't think they have a better track record vs other company types.

[-] darthsid@lemmy.world 33 points 4 weeks ago

Insurance is the world’s biggest scam. If only jt was done honestly.

[-] Damage@feddit.it 12 points 4 weeks ago

The government has proposed making it obligatory from January for businesses to be insured against natural disasters, a move that has proved particularly unpopular in areas most at risk. There were also hints at extending it to households.

Fascists neutering mutual help and helping private interests, surprise.

[-] Saleh@feddit.org 5 points 4 weeks ago

Problem is you need to price it into the taxes. So the alternative is a mandatory insurance that is done indirectly through taxation.

Now who gets to pay these taxes and who manages to dwindle out of it, using deliberately planted loopholes?

For insurance it is normal that your rate corresponds to your risk. For taxes or social insurance that is not the case. Why should i pay for other people enjoying living dangerously near the sea, in river flooding areas or the like? If i move to such a place, why should others pay for me? What about houses that are built improperly or where protective measures have been neglected?

It is certainly possible to create some sort of public weather insurance. But it has to go along with forcing people to properly build and maintain their houses as well as driving them out of areas, impossible to maintain housing in under climate change. This too will be deeply unpopular.

I think properly regulating insurance businesses is the more frutiful way of going about this.

[-] Grimy@lemmy.world 7 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago)

It can be included into property taxes and yes, building codes are a thing and aren't deeply unpopular.

All insurance brokers are scum. They are there to extract wealth, not protect.

[-] Damage@feddit.it 4 points 3 weeks ago

Government help for disaster relief is pretty standard stuff, and yes, it's paid through taxes

[-] barsoap@lemm.ee 3 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

That's about trying to not have things flooded, and saving lives. It's not about replacing your home or restaurant.

That said there's nothing whatsoever stopping Italy from having a public-law insurance company. Stuff doesn't need to be profit-oriented to provide insurance and unlike with health insurance, it's actually reasonable to expect people to risk-manage in the sense that if you insist on building a house at the bottom of a valley, yeah flood insurance is going to cost quite a bit more than if you build it 30m up.

[-] Damage@feddit.it 2 points 3 weeks ago

I'm in Italy, there are public funds spent for rebuilding disaster areas, floods, earthquake, etc.

Response to citizens losing homes is funneling their dwindling reserves of money to insurance companies. Wonder who besides insurance companies and those they bribe thinks this is a good idea?

[-] andrewta@lemmy.world 3 points 4 weeks ago

Me I think it’s a good idea. I’m not an insurance agent and not wealthy.

But when these things happen people need a way to rebuild. They need money. Where else is the cash going to come from?

No cash? Now what?

[-] the_post_of_tom_joad@sh.itjust.works 5 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago)

Well, i'm just goin by how insurance ends up working in the us so take it for what it's worth. Problem is for-profit insurance companies in the States are so badly regulated they are denying the very claims they exist to pay. You are right that people need help and i didn't really offer an alternative. If you pressed me on how, i guess i'd advocate govt. assistance for disaster relief as a superior choice. It would be far better for citizens money to be spent on taxes towards this than to a private company. How do i know this? I don't, but my experience how private insurance "serves" me and people i know here in the land of the free couldn't be fuckin worse.

[-] HubertManne@moist.catsweat.com 2 points 4 weeks ago

yeah I find the limits of insurance come in to play to. building across from me was on fire a few years ago and its still under construction. I had heard because of insurance arguments. I doubt the insurance is paying for all the folks who used to live there to rent a place till construction is complete.

this post was submitted on 17 Oct 2024
130 points (98.5% liked)

World News

39019 readers
2324 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS