We use cookies to give you the best online experience. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy. Learn more here.Close Me
Among recent developments potentially affecting how businesses
manage their climate change risks, on March 1, 2012, Senators
Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) hosted a press conference with representatives of
leading insurance companies to discuss the costs of climate change
on business and taxpayers. Vermont and Rhode Island experienced
extreme flood events in 2011 as a result of Hurricane Irene, which
killed at least 45 people and caused more than $7 billion in
damage. According to the sustainability advocacy
group, Ceres, property and casualty insurers experienced $44
billion in losses last year, attributable in part to more severe
and unpredictable weather conditions.
According to a statement made at the press conference, annual
weather-related claims increased from about $3 billion a year in
the 1980s to approximately $20 billion annually by 2010. Mark Way,
head of Swiss Reinsurance Company Ltd., expressed concern that a
"warming climate will only add to this trend of increasing
losses," asking Congress to act now regarding greenhouse gas
emissions.
This sentiment was endorsed by Pete Thomas, chief risk officer
at Willis Reinsurance, and Franklin Nutter, president of the
Reinsurance Association of America. Speaking to this point, Mr.
Nutter concluded that "[f]rom our industry's perspective,
the footprints of climate change are around us and the trend of
increasing damage to property and threat to lives is clear."
As Senator Sanders put it, "Perhaps no industry better
understands the impact of global warming than the insurance
industry whose job it is to analyze risk."
In addition to providing representatives of the insurance
industry with an opportunity to press for regulatory changes that
may help insurers manage these risks, the event highlighted the
tension between business and insurance carriers over identifying
and attempting to quantify and cover climate change risks. Climate
change risks carry enormous complexities, ranging from causation to
predicting future impacts and the potential costs of those impacts,
including business interruption costs due to supply issues, severe
storms and flooding, and sea level changes. As part of their own
risk management planning, business leaders will need to stay alert
to the developing world of insurance coverage of climate change
risks.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has published a proposed rule entitled Response to Petition for Rulemaking; Findings of Substantial Inadequacy; and SIP Calls to Amend Provisions Applying to Excess Emissions During Periods of Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction.
Last week, the European Parliament rejected a proposal to reduce the quantity of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions allowances in order to fix a supply-demand imbalance in the European Union Emissions Trading System (EU ETS).
It may be time for our federal courts to rethink their reluctance to accept major environmental claims that the courts of other countries are simply not yet able to handle.
After being taken to task by states and its own Inspector General for lack of final guidance on Vapor Intrusion, EPA has just released draft guidance documents for hazardous substances and petroleum products for comment.
California's cap-and-trade program mandates that certain covered entities acquire allowances for each metric ton of greenhouse gas (GHG) they emit during specified compliance periods.
Last Friday, EPA announced release of its draft proposal to revise the effluent guidelines and standards for the steam electric power generating industry, last revised in 1982.
On April 19, 2013, EPA released the proposed "Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category" (Steam Electric ELG). The proposed Steam Electric ELG would revise the existing technology-based effluent limitations guidelines [40 CFR 423] for most steam electric power plants and their discharges to U.S. waters or POTWs.
In a decision that should not have come as a surprise to anyone, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on Thursday, in "Conservation Northwest v. Sherman", that the Bureau of Land Management and other agencies implementing the Northwest Forest Plan could not amend the NFP.
