Polar%20Bear.JPG
Unless you believe global warming is just another one of those crackpot scientific theories–you know, like evolution and gravity–you'll find NU Associate Editor Mark E. Ruquet's recent column on climate change–”Insurers Can't Afford To Give Global Warming The Cold Shoulder,” a fascinating read. Mark raised some interesting challenges for insurers, which are literally paying the price for global warming in terms of higher disaster losses.

One of Mark's key arguments is that insurers have a lot of incentive to take steps to help mitigate the climate change problems we face. Among the actions he suggests:

Aggressively agitate for better land-use laws.

Push for strong state and national emission standards.

Lobby for more aggressive environmental regulation.

Serve as a role model by adopting lighting systems that cut energy, encouraging recycling, and experimenting with alternative sources of electricity to power its buildings. (If you are already taking these or similar steps, lets hear from you!)

This all comes under the heading of adaptation. In a thoughtful column by Fareed Zakaria in the Feb. 19 edition of “Newsweek”–headlined “Global Warming: Get Used To It”–he wisely suggests that instead of arguing over whether global warming is a real problem, why not just concede that whatever happens long term, we are experiencing climate-related challenges now, and take action to address them, such as “constructing flood defenses, setting different building regulations, or banning building close to sea level.”

The beauty of these baby steps is that they can be taken locally, and unilaterally. In other words, we don't need a Kyoto-like global treaty to initiate effective countermeasures. Insurers should certainly get behind such efforts, given the hammering their bottom lines are taking in coastal regions.

Kudos go to the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies for recognizing these realities by launching of a new Web site–www.climateandinsurance.org– “to help address the increasing concerns about climate change and its impact on the property-casualty insurance industry.”

While the site “will not advocate a position on the scientific controversy of the causes of the increase in natural disasters around the world,” noted Chuck Chamness, NAMIC's president and CEO, it will include “information and leading thought about how climate change impacts the insurance industry, and what insurers and reinsurers in the U.S. and Europe are doing with this issue.”

David Reddick, NAMIC's associate director of public policy and editor of the Web site, said podcasts, blogs, videocasts and other interactive features will be added, “depending on the needs of its users.”

Mr. Reddick said the site will also report on the status of the National Association of Insurance Commissioners Climate Change and Global Warming Task Force, as well as other regulatory or legislative efforts as recommendations on how the industry should evaluate and react to climate change are developed and communicated.

“As public policy begins to develop more fully on climate change, the industry's response will be a key feature of the site,” according to Mr. Reddick. “We're anxious to get feedback to help us make this a significant resource for those in the industry as well as other interested and involved parties, including other information sources, policymakers, the media and consumers.”

That's a good start.

What do you folks make of all this? What should the industry do about global warming?

Special Reports /

Is It Getting Hot, Or Is It Just Me?

Related Stories

Recommended For You