Staying on my "Onion" theme for the week, this hilarious picture of Al Gore loading his child onto a rocket ship to escape Earth's collapsing ecosystem–a la the story line in "Superman"–is hilarious, poking fun at the most serious and outspoken critic of man's inaction in the face of the global warming threat. But all kidding aside, as a good risk manager, isn't it better to be safe than sorry with an exposure potentially this huge?
The Onion's July 30 lead story was a hoot. It reported that the former vice president, "who for the past three decades has unsuccessfully attempted to warn humanity of the coming destruction of our planet, only to be mocked and derided by the very people he has tried to save, launched his infant son into space…in the faint hope that his only child would reach the safety of another world."
"There is nothing left now but to ensure that my infant son does not meet the same fate as the rest of my doomed race," Gore was "quoted" as saying. "I will send him to a new planet, where he will, I hope, be raised by simple but kindly country folk and grow up to be a hero and protector to his adopted home."
(For the Onion's full story, click here.)
An extreme step? Certainly. But what if Gore is right? Short of blasting into space in search of a more environmentally-sound world, as proponents of risk management, safety and loss control, shouldn't we be taking steps to mitigate against a possible climate catastrophe?
Many insurers have been ahead of the curve on this issue, advocating for a greener planet, and providing special coverage to facilitate the construction and maintenance of environmentally-friendly structures. And why not? What have we got to lose by going green?
Paul Krugman, in his Aug. 1 op-ed column in The New York Times–headlined, "Can This Planet Be Saved?"–threw down the gauntlet to those who deny there is any threat posed by global warming or that mankind is at all responsible for the phenomenon, and who claim that even if we are culpable, there is really nothing we can–or should–do about it.
"Its true that scientists dont know exactly how much world temperatures will rise if we persist with business as usual," Mr. Krugman wrote. "But that uncertainty is actually what makes action so urgent."
He went on to explain that "while theres a chance that well act against global warming only to find that the danger was overstated, theres also a chance that well fail to act only to find that the results of inaction were catastrophic."
"Which risk would you rather run?" he asked.
Insurers and risk managers live by probabilities. That's why we need actuaries and other statistical analysts, rather than depending on crystal ball readers to assess our risks. I would say the odds are better than 50-50 that the scientific community is right to warn that we indeed have a problem and need to deal with it, seriously, sooner rather than later.
People opposed to erring on the side of caution, dismissing warnings about global warming out of hand, are running a risk I do not want to see this country and planet take.
How about you?
© Arc, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to TMSalesOperations@arc-network.com. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.