跳到内容
现在

报道

$855 Billion，却无处索赔：海水正逼近267,000户澳大利亚家庭

首份全国评估显示，到2100年，267,000处房屋和两百万公顷土地将面临风险——而标准保险不承保吞没它们的海洋。

文字 阅读需 5 分钟 · 31 个来源

HeyDex

原语言视频

译自英文原文。

267,000。这是本世纪可能因海平面上升和风暴潮而受损或损失的澳大利亚沿海房产数量——超过四分之一百万处房屋，包括临街住宅、投资公寓、木板外墙出租房和海滩小屋。⁠7 据模型估算，到2100年，损失将达$855 billion；衡量标准不是海平面上升了多少厘米，而是有多少房屋变得无法居住、多少公顷土地无法使用。⁠8 这是澳大利亚首次对全国海岸线进行整体估值，这个数字与其说像一项预测，不如说像一份提前75年送达的房贷账单。

267,000受损或损失的沿海房产 79
$855B到2100年的全国损失 78
2M公顷全国面临风险的土地 94

这个数字之所以难以置之不理，是因为它并非基于极端冲击情景。该研究于9月9日发表于《Nature Scientific Reports》，由墨尔本大学研究人员Tom Kompas牵头，Tuong Nhu Che和澳大利亚国立大学的R. Quentin Grafton共同参与，覆盖六个州和北领地的1,156个沿海次区域。⁠2⁠7 这是同类研究中首份全国规模的评估，而非由各地议会各自绘制的洪水地图拼凑而成。⁠8 其力量在于汇总：将每一处易受影响的河口和海滨郊区相加，直到地方问题变成全国资产负债表上的一项。

$855 billion这一数字基于中间情景，而非最坏情景。该情景假设全球排放量在2040年前后达到峰值，到2100年升温稳定在2.7摄氏度左右；自1900年以来已经上升约22厘米的海平面还将继续上升。⁠4 地球目前正走在超越这一升温水平的轨道上，这意味着中心估值从设计上就是保守的。⁠4 按照这些假设，损失分为约$274.3 billion的直接房产损失，以及约$580.7 billion的土地使用损失——先是房屋，然后是房屋所在的土地，以及这片土地原本能够带来的收益。⁠4

损失最严重的地区

风险集中在澳大利亚人选择居住的地方。昆士兰州面临风险的房屋数量最多，共93,157处，预计损失约$214.5 billion。⁠4 黄金海岸是全国受影响最严重的单一城市地区，预计损失约$84 billion，高于其他任何城市。⁠4 西澳大利亚州的州级损失金额最高，约为$230.5 billion。⁠8⁠9 所有沿海辖区都面临风险；没有哪个州的海岸线是安全的，只有人口密度不同，导致海水造成的经济损失有多有少。⁠7

更值得关注的不是数字有多大，而是最终由谁承担损失。标准房屋及财物保险通常不承保“海洋作用”——包括沿海淹没、风暴潮和海洋本身造成的侵蚀——因此，被上涨潮水吞没的地块不属于理赔范围，而是直接损失。⁠13⁠17 保险行业机构将这些海洋作用界定为沿海淹没、侵蚀和海岸后退，并指出气候变化导致海平面上升，加剧了每一种灾害。⁠13 报告警告，随着遭受侵蚀、淹没和风暴潮的风险上升，可保性正逼近极限，风险与保障之间的落差也在扩大。⁠16⁠17

堪培拉已经审视这一保障缺口，却没有弥合它。2024年3月，联邦财政部发布咨询文件《统一自然灾害定义并审查保险标准保障范围》，征求意见，内容涉及如何界定沿海灾害以及标准保障范围应包含哪些内容。⁠12 澳大利亚竞争与消费者委员会（ACCC）和金融权利法律中心均于当年4月提交了意见。⁠14⁠15 目前没有任何生效的标准保障规定能回答沿海业主的问题：海水淹没土地后，谁来买单？

黄金海岸刚刚经历了一次现实检验。热带气旋阿尔弗雷德减弱后的残余风暴于2025年3月袭击当地，市政府随即着手重建海滩；报道将约$35 million的补沙工程归于市议会的工作。⁠1 经核实的数据表明，整个海岸线修复计划——包括近海疏浚、沙土回输、刮沙和沙丘工程——费用约为$37.2 million，另有约$5 million用于应急响应，市议会在一个财政年度内预算了约$24 million。⁠1 将这$35 million的新沙与同一座城市模型估算的$84 billion风险敞口相比，规模差距便一目了然：这是只能应急维持十年左右的办法，是一个实例，而非解决方案。⁠4

已知

  • 本世纪将有超过267,000处房产和约两百万公顷土地面临风险，到2100年损失约为$855 billion。 78
  • 这是首份全国评估，涵盖1,156个次区域，采用中间情景下升温2.7度的路径，于9月9日发布。 42

未知

  • 目前没有公开的房产级地图显示267,000处房屋中哪些会最先受损，也没有说明损失会在哪个十年加速。
  • 目前尚无确定机制说明由谁为有计划的撤退、回购或无法投保的侵蚀损失提供资金。

后续

  • 财政部对标准保险保障范围的审查是否最终会规定，保障范围应涵盖沿海淹没和侵蚀。
  • 适应气候变化的资金是否会从补充沙滩沙量转向搬迁、规划和建筑规范改革。

地点

  1. 01昆士兰州黄金海岸
  2. 02澳大利亚昆士兰州布里斯班
  3. 03澳大利亚西澳大利亚州珀斯

报告呼吁采取能够改变发展轨迹的两项措施：适应气候变化——有计划的撤退、沿海规划、升级建筑规范——以及决定2.7度究竟是上限还是中途节点的减排。⁠4 报告没有提出办法，为数千亿美元的损失筹资；保险市场和现有适应气候变化支出都不足以应对这一规模。⁠17 而且，这些预测所依据的气候情景，是世界尚未承诺控制在其范围内的情景。⁠4 目前，海水淹没土地后，损失由业主承担——这正是$580 billion土地使用损失背后尚未解决的问题。⁠13

来源27

在此处引用的来源中，ABC News (Australia)最先发布，比本报道播出早14小时。
  1. ABC News (Australia)
  2. HeyDay News

26家媒体未注明日期：Climate CouncilMirage NewsNatureThe Sydney Morning HeraldAAP NewsABC listen

按媒体查看所有来源

来自 27 家媒体的 31 个来源· 引用最多的优先

播出原貌
  1. The sea is coming for 267,000 Australian homes — and the price tag is $855 billion. That is not the worst case; it is the middle path. And the policy you're holding probably won't pay a cent. So when the water takes the land, who pays?
  2. A new assessment—the first national-scale one of its kind—maps the damage across 1,156 coastal sub-regions, from Queensland to the Northern Territory. Published September 9th in Nature Scientific Reports, it's led by University of Melbourne's Tom Kompas, with Tuong Nhu Che and ANU's R. Quentin Grafton.
  3. The scenario assumes emissions peak around 2040 and warming settles near 2.7 degrees by 2100 — a level we're on track to overshoot. Seas have already risen 22 centimetres since 1900. On those assumptions, the bill splits: 274 billion in direct property damage, 581 billion in lost land use.
  4. The exposure is not evenly spread. Queensland carries the largest share of homes at risk: 93,157 properties, and about 214.5 billion in losses. The Gold Coast alone is the single most exposed urban area in the country, with projected losses of 84 billion. Western Australia's bill is biggest at the state level: 230.5 billion. Every coastal jurisdiction is exposed. There is no state where the shoreline is safe.
  5. Western Australia's state bill leads at 230.5 billion, Queensland close behind at 214.5, and the Gold Coast, a single city, sits at 84 billion — more than any other urban area in the country.
  6. The sharper turn is what the insurance market will not do. Standard policies exclude 'actions of the sea' — so a block swallowed by a rising tide is not a claim, it's a loss. The report frames this as a widening mismatch: as risk grows, insurability stretches to its limits.
  7. In March 2024, the federal Treasury published this consultation paper inviting submissions on how coastal hazards are defined in policies and what standard cover should require. The ACCC and the Financial Rights Legal Centre both filed submissions that April. No standard-cover prescription is in force that answers the coastal owner's question.
  8. Here's the live test. After Ex-Tropical Cyclone Alfred struck in March 2025, the Gold Coast rebuilt its beaches. About 35 million dollars is attributed to the council for sand replenishment, though the full program runs closer to 37 million, plus about 5 million in emergency response. Compare that to the same city's modelled 84 billion exposure: 35 million to rebuild one beach, 84 billion sitting on the table. That replenishment is a decade-scale stopgap — an example, not a solution.
  9. The sea has been rising for more than a century. The Treasury consulted on the insurance gap two years ago. Cyclone Alfred exposed the adaptation limits. The modelling was published on September 9th this year — and the full cost lands by 2100.
  10. The modelling shows the risk concentrating where the population is. A wealthy owner can relocate or self-insure. A family carrying a mortgage on a block the sea is already eating, or a renter in a low-lying suburb, has no such margin. The report presses for adaptation — managed retreat, coastal planning, building-code upgrades — and for the emissions cuts that change the trajectory. What it does not supply is a mechanism for hundreds of billions to be paid. Neither the insurance market nor the current adaptation spend is sized to this risk. And the projections themselves assume a climate the world has not yet committed to staying under. So who pays? For now, the owner. The insurance gap remains open, and the Treasury consultation produced no standard-cover fix. That is the unresolved question at the bottom of $580 billion in lost land use — and it is a question this study did not answer.

译文更新于

近期播出