Climate Of Ridicule
By Mitch Berg
A friend of mine in the insurance industry sent me this:
The Minnesota Department of Commerce sent a Climate Risk Disclosure Questionnaire to Minnesota insurers yesterday and ended up on my desk. It is ridiculous.
Here’s some background to it.
Here’s the exact survey I received yesterday, it’s a pretty standard form used by other states.
Here’s how I really want to answer. I think this accurately captures how all insurance companies ought to answer.Your friend,
[redacted]
I’ll include the survey (and my friend’s answers, in italics) below.
———-
Climate Risk Disclosure Survey
Question One: Does the company have a plan to assess, reduce or mitigate its emissions in its operations or organizations?
No.
Question Two: Does the company have a climate change policy with respect to risk
management and investment management? If yes, please summarize. If no, how do you
account for climate change in your risk management?
Yes, we look for industries that will are particularly vulnerable to higher taxes and fees from proposed carbon credit trading and excessive carbon taxes. In addition we are monitoring industries that are vulnerable to higher energy prices caused by an expected government policies which will force industry away from cheaper, safer, and more efficient carbon-based energy sources.
Question Three: Describe your company’s process for identifying climate change-related risks and assessing the degree that they could affect your business, including financial implications.
Since all of the scientific models predicting climate change are completely unreliable, an actuarial assessment of climate-related risks would also be completely unreliable. Therefore no financial implications can be adequately factored in to our financial modeling.
Question Four: Summarize the current or anticipated risks that climate change poses to your company. Explain the ways that these risks could affect your business. Include identification of the geographical areas affected by these risks.
Since all of the scientific models predicting climate change are completely unreliable, an actuarial assessment of climate-related risks would also be completely unreliable. Therefore no financial implications can be adequately factored in to our financial modeling.
Question Five: Has the company considered the impact of climate change on its investment
portfolio? Has it altered its investment strategy in response to these considerations? If so,
please summarize steps you have taken.
Yes, we look for industries that will are particularly vulnerable to higher taxes and fees from proposed carbon credit trading and excessive carbon taxes. In addition we are monitoring industries that are vulnerable to higher energy prices caused by an expected government policies which will force industry away from cheaper, safer, and more efficient carbon-based energy sources.
Question Six: Summarize steps the company has taken to encourage policyholders to reduce the losses caused by climate change-influenced events.
We have not taken any.
Question Seven: Discuss steps, if any, the company has taken to engage key constituencies on the topic of climate change.
None.
Question Eight: Describe actions the company is taking to manage the risks climate change
poses to your business including, in general terms, the use of computer modeling.
We are monitoring the additional carbon-related taxes and fees being imposed by all levels of government and building these into our financial models which predict higher costs of doing business and we are planning to raise our premiums to cover these additional fees.
———-
I think that was a perfectly useful template.
July 21st, 2014 at 7:29 am
the proper response to questions 2 thru 8:
We are in the insurance business. The information you request is proprietary and may contain trade secrets. In order to view that information we need a Non-Disclosure statement signed by you and every one of your staff who will be authorized to view that information. Also we will need a list of those persons authorized by your agency to view the information and their job titles.
July 21st, 2014 at 7:31 am
the questionnaire in short: please enumerate your vulnerabilities so we may exploit them.
July 21st, 2014 at 7:43 am
You could always go with the Pat Paulsen response, to wit:
“We’ve upped our standards. Now up yours.”
July 21st, 2014 at 11:34 am
I think there should be more swearing: ie go fuck yourselves and stick it up your ass. But then again being professional…
July 21st, 2014 at 1:14 pm
All of the states that are requiring this have progressive governments.
That means that the ‘survey’ is based on a lie and will hurt the citizens of the state.
The lie is that insurance companies can accurately determine the climate of the future. I imagine that the way insurance companies calculate risk now is that they look at what has happened in the past, for example that there have been five big hurricanes in the insured area in the last century. The Lefties hate fact-based knowledge, so instead they want insurers to calculate risk based on the future as they tell them it will be.
The goal is to drive up the rates for insurance consumers, so that they think “gosh! My rates are going up because of climate change! We should do something about that! It will save me money!”
But of course the ‘money saved’ is as imaginary as the risk. It is like the Medieval church selling indulgences.
If you want to see what the risk of rising sea levels is doing to coastal property, look at what happens when real people are risking there own money. Ocean front property prices are increasing, not decreasing.
The same people who wrote this survey would probably jump at the chance to buy low-lying land on Manhattan for a million dollars an acre.
July 22nd, 2014 at 11:20 am
Just one of many things government does that make critics say “gridlock is good”.
Government hires people to produce and distribute time wasters like this, putting them in the cart for private businesses and citizens to pull along, and it counts this hiring on their list of good deeds.