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.

  • the post of tom joad@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    14 days ago

    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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      14 days 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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        14 days 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
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          13 days 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.