Is Climate Change Driving Insurance Costs?

Welcome to sanity check brought to you by the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of

Creation.

If you came here for a creative terrain despite the new look, you are in the right place.

We are bringing you the same thoughtful experts, vital topics, and biblical perspective you've

come to expect, now just with the new look and fresher feel.

So be sure to stay tuned and subscribe if you haven't, so you don't miss out on all

we're bringing you this year.

Now back to the episode.

On March 12th, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island and state lawmakers held a

Zoom conference to discuss the climate-fueled home insurance crisis.

They argued that rising home insurance costs were being fueled due to growing damages

from extreme weather disasters worsened by climate change.

Consequently, climate change-driven home insurance priceikes are leading to a growing crisis,

and homeowners and small businesses alike are forgoing insurance because they simply

cannot afford it.

Well, as President Reagan was often heard to say, where they go again, identify a problem

and then leap into a false explanation that climate change is causing it, and you know

where that is likely to lead from there.

So let's revisit this one more time.

I am David Arligates and welcome to the podcast of the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship

of Creation.

The Cornwall Alliance is a ministry dedicated to helping fulfill the mandate God gave mankind

in Genesis 128 to subdue and rule the earth in a way that enhances its fruitfulness,

its beauty and its safety for the glory of God and for the benefit.

Here is the gist of the problem.

Insurance for homes and small businesses is rising in alarming rate.

Why?

Well as the invitation to the Zoom conference read, home insurance is rapidly becoming more

expensive and harder to secure across the country as growing damages from extreme weather

disasters worsened by climate change are being passed through to the public.

Meanwhile, a growing body of evidence shows that big oil firms knew as far back as the

1950s that their products would worsen extreme weather disasters.

Instead of changing course, these firms spent decades misleading the public about the threat

and undermining efforts to transition to clean energy.

So yes, it has all the trappings of the classical environmental conspiracy.

Big oil had more knowledge than scientists at the time, extreme weather disasters have

increased due to climate change caused by the greenhouse gases emitted by big oil, even

though they haven't, and this has caused harm to those with homes and businesses affected

by climate change.

Consequently, big oil must pay for the climate disasters it has caused and only a transition

to so-called clean energy can save us now.

Of course, if you make energy more expensive to produce, the cost will be borne by the

consumer, so energy costs will skyrocket.

But you already knew that.

Let me start with the basics.

One, climate has changed because climate has always changed.

There never has been a period in the history of human civilization that climate has remained

stable, whatever that means.

Two, humans can and do affect our environment, often adversely.

The urban heat island effect is a classic example.

Three, humans have increased the atmosphere content of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse

gases by using coal, oil, and natural gas as well as the development of synthetic fertilizers.

Four, that is led to a slight warming and a greening of the planet.

But civilization has always done better with a warmer climate.

Now let's cut to the specifics.

Tropical cyclones in general and hurricanes in particular have not increased in either

frequency or intensity since the 1950s, when big oil supposedly knew that the use of

their products would worsen extreme weather disasters.

Senator White House and his Zoom friends also suggest that insurance costs are rising because

climate change has caused floods and droughts to increase in frequency and intensity.

When I was Delaware State climatologist, I was often asked, are we seeing more floods

and droughts in northern Delaware?

I would answer without hesitation, yes.

The follow-up question usually was, is it due to human activity?

And once again, I would have to honestly answer, yes.

But I would always force a third question if it wasn't asked.

Is climate change to blame?

After that question, I would always say, no, Mr. McGatts, how do you know that for a fact?

Well the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, for whom I was an official

in the first Trump administration, keeps track of something called the Palmer Drought

Severity Index.

This index is a bookkeeping procedure that uses precipitation as the input and evaporation

from water on the surface, transpiration from plants, and stream flow as the output to

the water balance.

NOAA has data going back to 1895, and while you can identify the severe droughts of the

1930s and 1950s and wet periods as well, the index lacks any long-term trend.

Simply put, weather varies in climate changes, but the increase in greenhouse gas emissions

has not caused a wetter or drier climate.

So let me return to my three questions.

If we are indeed experiencing more floods and droughts, and humans are to blame, but

not through their use of greenhouse gas emissions, then what is going on?

To provide that answer, I show aerial photos of areas in northern Delaware and how they

have changed from the 1930s until today.

What is clear is that the landscape has been dramatically altered.

In the 1930s, the area is covered by farmland that is connected by dirt roads with a very

low population density.

Today the area is a maze of asphalt and concrete roads that interconnect densely packed

housing developments, businesses, and industrial complexes.

When rain fell in this landscape back in the 1930s, it soaked into the ground, was used

by crops, and eventually worked its way into the brandy wine creek.

Now northern Delaware is plagued by urban street flooding.

The roads and storm sewers act as a very efficient conduit to move the water quickly to brandy

wine creek.

Regardless of any change in precipitation, which hasn't occurred, flood peaks on the brandy

wine are exacerbated, leading to increased flooding.

Similarly, when water resources are scarce, the added demand of water by people, businesses

and industry exacerbates droughts.

It has nothing to do with climate change, and everything to do with a change in land use.

As Roger Pilke Jr. has noted, losses from natural disasters have doubled in the last

two years.

But is it indicative of more frequent disasters affecting communities worldwide?

His answer, as his mind, is a resounding, no.

Why?

Well, we are experiencing ever larger losses because we simply have more stuff to lose.

Climate change is not the cause, not in the least.

In Delaware, I have seen coastal communities grow significantly over the past 50 years.

More housing and more economic development along the coast have put more people and more

of our stuff, as Roger Pilke Jr. noted, in harm's way.

And Delaware is hardly an exception of the rule.

Throughout our country, more people are living and building along the coast, in flood plains,

along rivers that occasionally top their levees, and in areas frequented by flash flooding.

We put ourselves and our stuff in harm's way.

But that is not what Senator Whitehouse and his Zoom buddies want to hear.

State leaders from California, Hawaii and New York gathered with Senator Whitehouse to

talk about the impact of climate change on wildfires.

Their goal was to empower their state attorneys general to protect people from rising insurance

costs by taking large oil and gas corporations to court to hold them accountable for their

contribution to major weather disasters supposedly made worse by climate change.

The 2023 Maui wildfire and the 2025 Los Angeles wildfires were front and center in their

discussion on Zoom.

So let's look at these two events.

The 2023 Maui wildfires, particularly the devastating Lahania fire that August, were

primarily ignited by Hawaiian electric power infrastructure, a joint investigation by

the Maui fire department and the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives concluded

that the fire was accidental and stemmed from a single origin.

At around 6.34 a.m., a termite infested utility pole snapped in strong winds, and Hawaiian

electric re-energized the broken power lines without first confirming the safety of their

equipment.

This caused sparks to ignite dry, unmaintained vegetation and overgrown grasses at the base

of the pole.

Although attempts to extinguish the blaze were conducted early on, the blaze rekindled

in the afternoon and then spread downhill into Lahania.

Hawaiian electric acknowledged that it was responsible for the onset of the fire.

The 2025 Los Angeles wildfires, primarily the Palisades Fire and Eaton Fire, along with

the smaller blazes like the Hurst Fire, erupted in early January of 2025 amid extreme Santa

and a winds that frequently occurred in a southern California winter.

The Palisades Fire was linked to the re-ignition of the small ottman brush fire which was set

by arson.

Although firefighters believe the fire was extinguished, smoldering embers remained which

rekindled into a larger blaze.

The Eaton fires believed to have been caused by southern California Edison, the local

energy provider.

Southern California Edison retained a long decommissioned high-voltage transmission line that had been

out of service since 1971, a nearby live line energized this dormant line and arcing

spark to fire in dry vegetation.

It's hard to argue that climate change was the cause of these fires, nevertheless Senator

White House and his colleagues made that leap.

The BBC proclaimed that hot dry weather fueled by climate change gave rise to the devastating

LA fires and a scientific study to confirm it.

But despite the fact that Santa and a winds are common in southern California in the winter,

world weather attribution concluded that climate change made weather conditions about 35%

more likely.

Well, that's pretty specific.

The BBC assures us that world weather attribution is, quote, globally recognized for their studies

linking extreme weather to climate change, unquote.

So who is world weather attribution?

In 2014 by climate scientists in Germany, it claims to specialize in extreme event attribution.

The group determines how human cause climate change influences the intensity, likelihood

or duration of specific extreme weather events by heat waves, heavy rainfall, floods, droughts,

storms, wildfires and cold spells.

They specialize in rapid analysis often in the immediate aftermath or even during major

events to answer questions like, what role did climate change play in this disaster?

Of course, their conclusions are always the climate change was a major player.

As they argue, their rapid response helps inform public discussion, media coverage, adaptation

strategies and policy while the event is still in the news.

As they intend to shape the narrative, even before an accurate post-mortem can be conducted.

But in journalism, there's an idiom called burying the lead.

It represents delaying or obscuring important information in a story, instead starting with

secondary, less relevant details.

It is often associated with bad journalism and the BBC is not immune to this tactic.

If you read down to the 25th paragraph, you read an important finding.

Quote, however, the authors are more cautious about the length between rising temperatures

and the longer fire season or decreased rainfall, saying that the models did not show a significant

connection.

So the scientists used models and found there was no significant connection between rising

temperatures, supposedly caused by greenhouse gas emissions from big oil, and either a longer

fire season or a drought in Los Angeles.

But nevertheless, they ran to the media anyway to push the narrative that the fires were

induced by climate change.

And as true advocate journalists that they are, the BBC had no qualms about claiming that

a warmer world caused by big oil who knew this three-quarters of a century ago increased

the chances of devastating wildfires.

So expect Senator White House and his baby zoomers to press for legislation to get money

from big oil and gas companies to save us from climate change.

Will they use that money to decrease the cost of your insurance?

Of course not, instead your energy prices will continue to skyrocket, and your insurance

costs will increase as well, and Senator White House will have more zoom conferences

to demand that big oil pay more money to their bloated government budget.

There's a song whose lyrics include, Come Save Me From Things I Shouldn't Do.

We shouldn't live in areas that are known to be plagued by natural disasters unless

we're willing to take the responsibility.

Nevertheless, it is now fashionable to blame the oil and gas industry for the damage

that inevitably occurs.

The plan that Senator White House and his colleagues have is to make energy unaffordable and unavailable

by pushing us towards wind and solar energy which are neither clean or green, but destroy

the environment.

Senator White House and his colleagues want big oil to save us by paying for increases

to insurance premiums that have nothing to do with climate change.

But remember, you are the one who ultimately will pay for their anti-scientific rhetoric.

Thank you for listening to the podcast of the Cornwall Alliance for the Storeship of

Creation.

But before you go, I want to alert you to our upcoming conference entitled Heaven and

Earth, The Struggle for Faith and Science in the Public Square.

It will be held on May 1 and 2 in Memphis, Tennessee, and will feature brilliant speakers

addressing some of the most pressing issues facing American Christians today.

I hope to see you there.

And as always, until next time, I am David Arligates and may the Lord of all creation

richly bless you.