“The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.”
— Frederick Douglass, 1857“Tell It to the Insurance Industry”: The Dangerous Denial in Climate Discourse
By [Adaptation-Guide], 2025
The climate is changing. The weather is shifting. Floods, fires, and famines aren’t biblical omens — they’re policy failures.
And yet, amidst this chaos, a stunningly measured voice emerges: Patrick Brown, a climate scientist at Johns Hopkins University, warning us — again — not to oversimplify the narrative.
Fair enough. Science thrives on nuance. But here’s the uncomfortable truth:
If you think the climate crisis isn’t costing us now, tell it to the damn insurance industry.
Because while academics debate the degree to which climate change fuels natural disasters, insurance companies are denying coverage, jacking premiums through the roof, and walking away from entire zip codes.
They aren't waiting for peer-reviewed consensus. They’ve already done the math. And the math says: We’re cooked.
Climate Caution vs. Climate Cowardice
Patrick Brown is no climate denier. He agrees the Earth is warming due to human activity. He acknowledges the danger of this planetary experiment we're running without a control group.
But he urges caution when attributing every weather event to climate change. Not all disasters, he says, are climate-driven.
Some extreme events are actually becoming less extreme. That doesn’t play well in headlines — but it’s true.
So yes, nuance matters. But what Brown fails to acknowledge — and what the media too often ignores — is that this “nuance” has been weaponized by the fossil fuel lobby, conservative think tanks, and climate delayists to stall action.
To muddy the waters.
To throw up their hands and say, “Well, maybe we don't really know.”
Newsflash: We do know.
2023 was one of the hottest years on record.
Billion-dollar weather disasters are now monthly.
Wildfires, hurricanes, floods, and megadroughts have gone from “rare” to “routine.”
And insurance companies, the most risk-averse institutions on Earth, are fleeing from these realities faster than you can say “act of God.”
Insurance is the Canary. The Mine Has Collapsed.
Let’s talk about who really believes in climate change: Allstate. Farmers. State Farm. AIG. Swiss Re. Munich Re.
The global insurance and reinsurance markets are pricing climate chaos into their models right now. They aren’t waiting for a neat scientific consensus or a 30-year longitudinal study.
They’re pulling out of California. They're refusing to cover Florida’s coastlines. They're gutting wildfire coverage in Colorado. They're slashing payouts and hiking premiums across Europe.
And yet, when climate scientists like Brown call for caution and context, who listens the loudest? The oil industry. The libertarian billionaires. The denial machine that drove us into this mess.
The Climate Conversation We Should Be Having
Brown rightly says that wildfire risk is more about land use, housing sprawl, and fuel loads than climate alone. True.
But the solution isn’t to throw up our hands and shrug — it’s to overhaul building codes, ban development in high-risk zones, and invest in climate adaptation. That dirty word.
Adaptation isn’t surrender. It’s survival.
Yet for some reason, even discussing adaptation has become taboo in certain circles.
As Brown points out, there's a cultural hostility to talking about living with climate impacts.
Why? Because for decades, climate policy has been driven by moralism, not realism. It’s been a crusade to stop warming, not prepare for it. But we can — and must — do both.
This Is Not About “Balance.” It’s About Survival.
Brown worries that exaggeration undermines trust in climate science. That’s a valid concern. But you know what else undermines public trust?
Telling people their town didn’t flood because of climate change when it clearly damn well did.
You want people to trust science? Don’t play rhetorical games while their homes are burning or drowning.
Don't tell them the models aren't precise when their insurance company just dropped them.
People believe what they experience. And they’re experiencing collapse.
Science Isn’t a PR Campaign — But It Has Consequences
Brown is right about one thing: scientists should tell the truth, even if it’s unpopular.
But half-truths, selective emphasis, and a refusal to call climate what it is — a global accelerant of disaster — isn't neutrality. It’s complicity.
So let’s be clear: nuanced science does not excuse political paralysis.
And if you're still wondering whether climate change is causing more extreme weather, here's a radical idea:
Ask your insurer.
They’ve stopped arguing.
Sources & Suggested Reading:
No comments:
Post a Comment