This edition is supported by our friends at the Climate Majority Project. If you’re in the UK, and have decided it’s time to do something more than doomscrolling and more useful than throwing paint…on 15-16 March at Limehouse in London.
Get more info and tickets here.
Welcome to the global edition F*ck Around and Find Out. We're in the Find Out phase. The F Around phase went on for 50 years or so. We're a couple of weeks since the height of the fires in Los Angeles. Which at last count had $35 billion plus of insured losses and probably $300 billion plus of economic losses. The most costly wildfire in US history, or at least in California history. So that’s people who didn’t expect it to Find Out.
Here to help decode that we spoke with Dave Jones - former Insurance Commissioner for California from 2011 through 2018. He's now the director of the Climate Risk Initiative at University of California, Berkeley. He recently wrote an oped in the New York Times arguing that the oil companies should have to pay for the damages of the LA wildfires — one way or the other. Either states and municipalities could sue. (More on that later.) But Jones talks about two new approaches: empowering individuals to be able to sue Big Oil for damages (as proposed in California’s SB 222 sponsored by State Sen. Scott Wiener); or getting the insurance companies themselves to sue. Jones more than anyone knows about how that might work and why it might just be successful.
Only one problem. Insurers are up to their oxters in financial ties with the fossil fuel industry, which might make it difficult for them to go down that road without, erm, encouragement. Steve Coulter of the Green Alliance here in the UK expands on, slight tension, conundrum, paradox. Steve talks about his recent briefing on this point, particularly focusing on Lloyd's of London.
And, um, finally, our good friend, returning champion,
, journalist, publisher of Climate in the Courts and , who's been helping us understand these issues in the US nearly a year now. She helps us explore the counteroffensive launched against the Empire State’s 2024 Climate Superfund law by 22 Republican state attorneys general who filed suit against state of New York to challenge the law signed by Governor Kathy Hochul at the end of last year. Dana compares that to some of the other pushback to the first-of-its-kind bill that was passed and signed into law earlier last year in Vermont.Big Show, Many Outros
Because we broke it up into three segments and couldn’t settle on one outro track, we bring you three:
Appeal
If you’re enjoying these conversations and our newsletters, can you spare the price of a pint to help us keep it going? There’s never been a time when getting deep into these topics without fear or favour has been more important - or up against so many people trying to get you to look away. We’d appreciate any level of support you feel you can give. And if you’re able, why not get a fistful of subs for people who would prefer we do something before their town becomes uninsurable.
Outro Tracks
Chapters
06:35 Interview with Dave Jones: Background and Climate Risk
08:22 Insurance Industry's Role in Climate Change
10:11 Holding Fossil Fuel Companies Accountable
15:03 Subrogation and Legal Actions
18:12 Impact on Insurance Markets and Homeowners
20:15 Financial Risks and Regulatory Responses
38:39 Mitigation Measures and Legislative Actions
48:06 Industry Split on Sustainable Practices
49:09 Lloyd's of London: A Case Study in Poor Performance
50:33 The Growing Uninsurability Crisis
53:53 Government Intervention and Systemic Risks
56:33 Call to Action for Policymakers
59:50 New York's Climate Superfund Law and Legal Challenges
01:07:34 The Broader Implications of Climate Litigation
01:22:40 Conclusion and Final Thoughts
Share this post