The cost worldwide of storms, expected to become more frequent owing to climate change, is likely to rise by two-thirds to £15bn ($27bn, €22bn) a year in the next seven decades, the Association of British Insurers will warn on Wednesday.

Nick Starling, the ABI’s director of general insurance, urged the leaders of the Group of Eight industrialised nations to take action on greenhouse gas emissions when they meet to discuss climate change next week.

“Governments now have a chance to make rational choices for the future, before it is too late,” he said. Making the right decisions based on assessment of the costs of climate change “will ensure lower costs for the public in future”.

By 2040, the average annual cost of hurricanes in the US alone would rise from $9.5bn to $11.4bn. In a bad year, hurricanes in the US would cost $71bn in the 2040s and $104bn in insured costs alone.

From those commies at the Financial Times

But wait!

A few in power still argue the idea of catastrophic global warming is, in the words of Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma, a “hoax.” During the energy bill debate last week, Inhofe said that rising levels of CO2 could even be a boon, by making it easier for plants to acquire carbon, the main building block of life.

“CO2 is not a pollutant, CO2 is a fertilizer,” he said.

Source.

In other news, ketchup is still a vegetable and the forecasters anticipate periods of rent seeking followed by taxpayer bailouts.

Americans are waking up, and members of Congress who let themselves be stampeded into this war need to put their wind meters back out, because while Bush doesn’t have to run for anything again, every member of the House of Representatives and a third of the Senate are running in 2006. Americans are waking up, and they are in a very bad mood about this war, and as Bob Dylan once sang, it don’t take a weatherman to know which way the wind blows. I’ll tell my Democrat right now from the platform, if he doesn’t fight to bring them home now, I’ll vote a Republican who says he or she will. People are dying, and we will not respect on election day those who sat on a fence while the coffins arrived at Dover, and the cries of pain echoed off the walls at Landstuhl and Walter Reed.

Bush says if we declare a withdrawal date, the insurgents will wait us out. But we haven’t even declared the *intention* to leave Iraq – in fact, it looks like we are building permanent bases there – and the Iraqi resistance seems to be growing stronger, more sophisticated, and more audacious with every day. This could not be happening if the resistance did not enjoy substantial popular support. And if our presence strengthens the resistance, how is this better than having them “wait the US out”?

Stan Goff’s site is well worth exploring for strategies on counter-recruitment and other progressive priorities.

Good work, my friends.

Weare, New Hampshire (PRWEB) Could a hotel be built on the land owned by Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter? A new ruling by the Supreme Court which was supported by Justice Souter himself itself might allow it. A private developer is seeking to use this very law to build a hotel on Souter’s land.

Justice Souter’s vote in the “Kelo vs. City of New London” decision allows city governments to take land from one private owner and give it to another if the government will generate greater tax revenue or other economic benefits when the land is developed by the new owner.

On Monday June 27, Logan Darrow Clements, faxed a request to Chip Meany the code enforcement officer of the Towne of Weare, New Hampshire seeking to start the application process to build a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road. This is the present location of Mr. Souter’s home.

Read the rest.

There’s no ethical problem I can see with this. Normally, I’d be opposed to grabbing someone’s home. Justice Souter, however, has indicated that he thinks it’s okay. Presumably, it’s okay even when it happens to him. The developer’s project will attract many visitors. The boost to the local economy will be significant.

The proposed development, called “The Lost Liberty Hotel” will feature the “Just Desserts Café” and include a museum, open to the public, featuring a permanent exhibit on the loss of freedom in America. Instead of a Gideon’s Bible each guest will receive a free copy of Ayn Rand’s novel “Atlas Shrugged.”

I thought “Atlas Shrugged” was an awful book, but it’s no worse than the Bible. The Just Desserts Café sounds like my kind of place. All things considered, this is very positive. We must face the future bravely, together, and hope that Justice Souter’s compensation is enough for him to relocate.

Via Cleek

The UN has learned of “very, very serious” allegations that the United States is secretly detaining terrorism suspects in various locations around the world, notably aboard prison ships, the UN’s special rapporteur on terrorism said.

While the accusations were rumours, rapporteur Manfred Nowak said the situation was sufficiently serious to merit an official inquiry.

“There are very, very serious accusations that the United States is maintaining secret camps, notably on ships,” the Austrian UN official told AFP, adding that the vessels were believed to be in the Indian Ocean region.

“They are only rumours, but they appear sufficiently well-based to merit an official inquiry,” he added.

What an odd, but compelling story. This is the first I’ve heard of it. I wonder how quickly this story will disappear from Yahoo.

Since the modification of the laws that apply to marriage, and the Christian views on the issue, are controversial these days, I am going to explain my own opinion:

I am completely in favour of allowing Christians to get married.

I think that trying to prevent it is unjust and a mistake.

Christianity is not a disease. Christians, even though they are disliked or mistrusted by many, are normal people and should have the same rights as everyone else, as if they were, let’s say, homosexuals or computer programmers.

Read the rest

“[Nurse Toni Lemly] is suing a hospital that fired her after she refused to administer the ‘morning after’ abortion pill [...] Lemly, represented by the non-profit Alliance Defense Fund, says she had informed hospital supervisory staff that she objected to administering the abortion pill because of her sincerely held religious beliefs [...] [ADF attorney Mike] Johnson said Lemly, a nurse of 23 years, ‘loves her work, and she does not deserve to be discriminated against because of her religious beliefs.’ ‘All that she asks of the hospital is to respect her freedom in choosing to not participate in the taking of a human life,’ said Johnson.”

['Sincerely held religious belief' is the code phrase for "I get to do anything I want and you can't hold me responsible for it." Note also that our choices are either to respect freedom of religion or participate in the taking of human lives.]

Scott Ritter: US at War with Iran
On June 23, 2005, Scott Ritter spoke to 110 people at a fundraiser for Traprock Peace Center at the Woolman Hill Meeting House. Before the presentation, Ritter met with 30 people over dinner at Woolman Hill. Hear his presentation and the question and answers, complete and unabridged. Sunny Miller moderated the event, introducing Ritter and reading questions from the audience.