Your insurance company believes in climate change. Why doesn't the government?

The debate over climate change is a classic example of the unhealthy relationship between science and politics. The reason there is controversy is because understanding climate change is complicated. There are many variables at play and it is difficult to use simplified examples (a favorite trick of scientists) to fully understand the behavior of systems that exhibit chaotic behavior.

I'm not an expert on climate change, but my understanding is that although we have clear evidence that human-induced changes can and do have an effect, some uncertainty remains about specific feedback mechanisms, the role of natural climate variations, and other factors. While there is not enough uncertainty to invalidate the central claim that humans effect climate, but there's enough gray area to muddy the water and allow companies that don't want to have their cash flow affected by climate-saving regulations to create confusion and discord. The federal government has refused to take action an about any meaningful measures to curb greenhouse emissions, raise fuel economy standards, etc.

But as indicated in this interview with Evan Mills, a staff scientist at the U.S. Department of Energy's Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (posted in Environmental Sciences and Technology), insurance companies are fully aware of the increased risk that climate change entails in the form of stronger, more powerful hurricanes. It's true that another reason risk has increased is that more people live in hurricane-prone areas, but that's only part of the story. According to the interview,

[Insurance company internal models project] "...an approximately 45% increase in previously expected insured losses due to changes in the physical characteristics of the extreme weather events alone."

So even though the federal government doesn't appear to be too concerned with climate change, the people that pay the bills sure as heck are paying attention.