Firestorms ask: How green is my insurance commissioner?

Although the job of (statewide elected California) Insurance Commissioner is not often associated with environmental issues, both the current and the immediate past job holders ran green. With the Southern California firestorms highlighting the effect of global climate change on the possibility of disasters and their attendant insurance claims, one wonders, what will/have these insurance commissioners done to move the insurance industry into political/economic reality?

In Europe, the insurance industry has been a crucial partner with environmentalists to pursue sane environmental policies that stem the production of greenhouse gases, thereby slowing global climate change, and protecting their bottom line.

In the U.S., the insurance industry routinely acts in lockstep with the Chamber of Commerce to oppose environmental bills which inconvenience polluters.

Past (Democratic) Insurance Commissioner and current Lt. Governor John Garamendi wants to be governor of California. He calls himself an environmentalist and campaigns on the need to do something about global climate change. Yet, when he was Insurance Commissioner did he use his position to nudge the insurance industry out of its historically anti-environmental stance? I don't recall hearing about such efforts.

Of course in his current job, the rigors of whale-naming duties prohibit him from having much affect over environmental policy--but did he do it when he could?

Current (Republican) Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner also calls himself an environmentalist (increasingly a requirement for election to statewide office--the only two Republicans elected, Schwarzenegger and Poizner statewide positioned themselves credibly as environmentalists). Here's his chance to prove it.

Of course no regulator alone can be responsible for the overhauling the recalcitrant political habits of an entire industry, but they can use the bully pulpit to raise the issues, educate the industry as to their bottom line interests and make it inconvenient to continue to behave irresponsibly, for their shareholders, if not for their insured.

Could Global Warming Melt the Insurance Glaciers?

Earlier this year, I had a snarky exchange with Pete at the annual Labor Day picnic in Foresta, which is a little community in Yosemite National Park in which my family has a home. Pete is an insurance agent and a Republican.

Pete is also the chair of the Foresta Preservation Assocation on which I used to serve as a board member. Every year at the 4th of July and Labor Day picnics, Pete brings park officials to the event to talk about what the park is doing to protect Forestans from forest fire. As he introduces them and throughout their presentation, he insults them as government officials, making remarks about the inefficiency of government.

As most of the problems Forestans have in the park stem from lack of funding from Pete's beloved Bush administration, this attitude tends to work its way under my skin festering into a full blown self-righteous rash if I'm not careful.

This year, after my husband (who is a lobbyist for the Sierra Club in Sacramento) gave his opinion on a matter of concern to the community, Pete thanked him, saying "we won't hold it against you that you work for the Sierra Club."

I quipped back, "that's great, Pete, and we won't hold it against you that you're an insurance agent."

He muttered, "you may find a time when you need insurance."

I thought, "you may find a time when you need to breath clean air and drink clean water." [I didn't have the presence of mind to say it though. The creators of deja vu, the French, naturally, have a phrase for this: L'esprit d'escalier, literally ghost on the stairs. It means, when you think of what you should have said, an instant too late.]

With the raging fires in Southern California this week, and reports that at least one major underwriter has recently stopped writing policies in California, I got to wondering about the link between the environment and insurance.

Does the insurance industry, which has historically been a driving force in the Chamber of Commerce in California and its "job killer" bill list, understand that being routinely anti-environment may ultimately affect its bottom line in the form of increased "acts of God" such as massive brush fires, floods and hurricanes?

Could global warming melt the historically glacial pace of change in this conservative industry?

(:)(:)(:) for DiCaprio's The Eleventh Hour

Three Snouts Up for Leonardo DiCaprio's The Eleventh Hour previewed at the Crest Theater last night.

Anyone whose top goal in life is learning more about the environmental destruction that humans have wrought on planet earth should see this film.

However, the Crest Theater snack bar missed an opportunity by not stocking up on cyanide capsules before showing it. The first 2/3rds of the film is relentless with expert after expert delivering the bad news: what we've done to deplete energy reserves, deforestation, over-fishing, threatening eco-systems, global climate change, air and water pollution. [On the plus side, my friend Tim Carmichael looked handsome and sounded wonderful talking about the consequences of dirty air.]

I learned some things from that section though. What it boiled down to is this: the entire "environmental" movement is misnamed. It isn't so much the environment that we're threatening as the human race. The heat, flooding, hurricanes, and the like won't destroy the earth, it'll destroy mankind. To save her other children, Mother Earth is basically saying "basta, I'll end this little experiment called the human race." Shrugging her shoulders, she'll move on, leaving our bones behind to deteriorate in the deserts we brought on.

The final third was wonderful: filled with the good news about cutting edge technologies, the hope that a massive, unorganized but magically parallel global environmental movement is bringing and the possibilities of coming together to save the human race.

I do wish the ratios had been reversed though. I know so little about all the wonderful things that people are doing to save the planet. I could have spent all movie learning about it.

All I can think is that something must have been off about how the choices the documentarians made. An Inconvenient Truth is also depressing and relentless, with Al Gore's droning voice and a slide show, yet I was riveted to my seat and glad to have seen it.

My guess is that the central problem for activists is that average Americans have no idea what the consumer culture they've opted for is doing to the survival of the species (or they know, and don't care). The goal of the bad news bears part is obviously to wake us up and move us to action.

But how many regular people are going to sit through such a thing just because Leonardo DiCaprio's name is above the picture? Leonardo DiCaprio is to be applauded for having made and financed this effort, but watching him squint in the haze of various L.A. locations to awkwardly read the cue cards for this film added nothing to my understanding or enjoyment (and I like him as an actor and a face).