

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
We too have a little bird trying to call our attention to a major problem. That bird is the insurance industry with its army of actuaries.
As the cost of insuring our houses escalates around the United States and the world, it appears that property insurance is acting like a canary in a coal mine.
Canaries used to be taken into coal mines because they served as an early warning system if dangerous gases were building up. Since the canaries were more sensitive to these gases than people, they protected the miners from life-threatening conditions. When the canary dropped dead, the miners could still get out.
Like the canaries, the actuaries who interpret data for insurance companies are more sensitive than most individual people to changes going on in the world. Actuaries earn big salaries because the financial health of their employers depends on them.
Things have already gotten so bad that the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) recently sponsored a webinar panel discussion: "Extreme Weather Events and Insurance: Households, Homeowners, and Risk." (This link will take you to a video of the event.)
Any coal miner who refused to evacuate a mine when the mine’s canary keeled over—perhaps saying, “I don’t believe there is any real danger here”—would not have been long for this world.
The panelists were located in the United States (Washington, DC and Madison, Wisconsin) and England (London and Cambridge). Climate changes are not limited to the United States, nor is awareness that we need to do something about them if we can.
The panelists were not grinding particular political axes. They were discussing the measured fact that an increasing number of extreme weather events are destroying valuable property—housing, commercial buildings, streets, bridges, etc.—requiring insurance company payouts to policyholders.
These insurance payouts must be financed by the premiums charged to people who are insuring their property. As damages increase, the premiums also have to increase. Although premiums may be regulated by state regulators, if they do not allow the needed increases insurance companies will pull out of doing business in that state.
As insurance companies pull out, it may become more and more difficult—perhaps even impossible—for people to insure their houses. But if a house cannot be insured, banks won’t finance a mortgage on it, and if it cannot be financed the owner may be unable to sell it.
For many people, their home is their primary investment, and they cannot afford to live in it if they cannot insure it. If it burned down or was otherwise destroyed, they would be wiped out financially. But if they cannot sell it, then the homeowner is a real pickle.
Disrupted housing markets can produce disastrous results for a country’s economy in general, as we Americans discovered during the recession beginning around 2008.
The impact of a world that is heating up is not being felt as much in the United States as in many other countries in Europe, Africa, and Asia which are suffering from unusually long bouts of very hot weather, flooding downpours alternating with extreme droughts, forest fires, etc. Some island nations may be literally wiped out as melting icebergs and glaciers increase sea level, putting them underwater.
But enough extreme weather events are already occurring in the United States that the insurance companies must make major increases in their prices.
Any coal miner who refused to evacuate a mine when the mine’s canary keeled over—perhaps saying, “I don’t believe there is any real danger here”—would not have been long for this world.
Americans who continue to politicize discussion of global warming—either denying its existence, its extent, its speed, or its seriousness—will be like that coal miner. We too have a little bird trying to call our attention to a major problem. That bird is the insurance industry with its army of actuaries. We ignore that warning at our own risk, and at the risk of our children and grandchildren.
The record in Mozambique shows that projects backed by public finance can harm communities and the environment unless local voices guide the process.
The ninth Tokyo International Conference on African Development, or TICAD, opened August 20 in Yokohama, organized by the Japanese government with the United Nations, UN Development Program, World Bank, and African Union Commission. Japan, as host, aims to promote “high quality” development in Africa by applying lessons from Asia. Three decades since TICAD’s launch in 1993, interest in Africa remains strong—and so does the need to reflect on what “development” truly means.
Japan’s record in Mozambique offers sobering lessons.
Before we can discuss “development” we must recognize that many of Africa’s deep crises today are rooted in the continued exploitation of its people and resources, shaped by inherited colonial structures. Public funding and transnational corporations play a large role in perpetuating these patterns.
The Mozambique liquefied natural gas (LNG) project illustrates the problem. Led by French energy giant TotalEnergies, it is one of Africa’s largest gas extraction projects, with Japan as its top financier. The publicly funded Japan Bank for International Cooperation (JBIC) has committed up to $3.5 billion in loans, while Nippon Export and Investment Insurance (NEXI) has agreed to provide $2 billion in insurance.
As leaders gather at TICAD to shape Africa’s future, we urge Japan and all participating governments and businesses to focus on the needs and aspirations of African people themselves.
JBIC justifies this support by citing growing global LNG demand, particularly in developing countries, rising environmental awareness, and Japan’s energy security. Yet revenue flows to a United Arab Emirates-based special purpose entity—enabling gas and mining companies to avoid paying an estimated $717 million to $1.48 billion in taxes to Mozambique. The country is further disadvantaged by the Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) system, which prioritizes loss compensation for investors.
On the ground, grievances remain unresolved. More than eight communities have been affected, and many families still await promised compensation. Others have lost farmland or access to the sea, undermining agriculture and fisheries livelihoods. Local residents report that consultation meetings often involve military presence, stifling open discussion.
Since 2017, the region has suffered violent insurgency, which halted the project in 2021 and brought heavy militarization focused on protecting gas infrastructure. Insurgent activity has surged again in recent weeks, amid signs of project restart. In March 2025, analysts warned that the sense of disenfranchisement created by the project could fuel insurgent recruitment.
Environmental and climate risks are also high. Independent reviews find that the project’s environmental impact assessment understates potential harm, including lacking a rigorous biodiversity baseline study for the deep-sea environment.
This pattern—external actors driving their own agendas rather than responding to locally defined and articulated priorities—is not unique.
A decade earlier, Japan’s own ProSAVANA project in northern Mozambique followed a similar path. Launched in the early 2010s by the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) with Mozambican and Brazilian partners, it aimed to convert land to agricultural use, particularly soybean cultivation for export to Japan. Modeled on Brazil’s Cerrado “green revolution” of the 1970s, it was promoted as a way to promote agricultural and economic development in Mozambique.
In reality, the project facilitated land grabs covering 14 million hectares in the Nacala Corridor, displacing small farmers. Civil society groups denounced the opaque consultation process and backed local farmers’ resistance. After years of protest, the Japanese government ended its involvement in July 2020, belatedly acknowledging these concerns.
Both Mozambique LNG and ProSAVANA demonstrate how “development” promoted from the Global North can harm communities and the environment. When public finance is involved, the risks—and the responsibility—are even greater.
Better outcomes require meaningful, transparent consultation with affected communities, robust due diligence, and genuine accountability. Without these, development risks becoming extraction by another name.
As leaders gather at TICAD to shape Africa’s future, we urge Japan and all participating governments and businesses to focus on the needs and aspirations of African people themselves, and to avoid—or even redress—the mistakes of the past.
The question remains as urgent as ever: Who is this development really for?
"This sends a dangerous message to corporate America that financial fraud and abuse will go unchecked," said one critic.
Consumer advocates on Thursday slammed the Trump administration for dropping various enforcement actions against companies accused of activities that include ripping off savings account holders, illegally collecting on student loans, and engaging in an unlawful mortgage broker kickback scheme.
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's notices of voluntary dismissal came as the U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs held a hearing for Jonathan McKernan, President Donald Trump's pick to lead the CFPB—which Accountable.US executive director Tony Carrk has called "a gift to big banks and special interests."
"We're getting a very strong message here that if you're a bank, if you're a student loan servicer, and you're violating the law, the CFPB is not only not going to pursue you, they're going to let you out of your case scot-free."
While the former Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation board member awaits confirmation from the GOP-controlled Senate, Trump and Russell Vought, the CFPB's temporary leader, have wasted no time trying to gut the agency and undo the work of its former director, Rohit Chopra, who oversaw cases against the following companies:
Court paperwork "in the Rocket Homes case notes that the 'Consumer Financial Protection Bureau dismisses this action, with prejudice, against all defendants,'" according to The Associated Press. "Dismissing a case without prejudice means that it cannot be refiled. Similar wording was used in the dismissals of the CFPB's Capital One and Vanderbilt Mortgage suits."
Those decisions came after the CFPB last week
dropped a case against SoLo Funds, which the agency accused of misleading borrowers about loan costs. Vought had then teased further action, saying on social media Sunday that "shockingly, the CFPB tried to destroy this company, SoLo, which incurred millions in legal fees and had to lay off 30% of its workforce. It was wrong and we dismissed the case. More to come but the weaponization of 'consumer protection' must end."
Meanwhile, critics like Christine Chen Zinner, consumer policy counsel at Americans for Financial Reform, are framing the CFPB's dismissals as a betrayal of the agency's mission.
"The old CFPB stood ready to protect consumers and wrestle back the ill-gotten gains of big banks like Capital One," Chen Zinner said Thursday. "With this decision, the Trump-appointed leadership is letting Capital One steal $2 billion from its depositors, another example of this administration standing up for Wall Street at the expense of everyday people who deserve the CFPB's protection."
Erin Witte, director of consumer protection at the Consumer Federation of America, also released a statement focused on the bank case.
"The CFPB was created to be a watchdog for big banks, not a lapdog, and dismissing this case is a gift to Capital One," said Witte. "$2 billion is a drop in the bucket for Capital One–less than half a percent of its total assets—but returning this money would make a huge difference to the hardworking Americans who trusted Capital One to safeguard their savings and were kept in the dark about how to earn more."
Witte also described the full list of dismissals as "unprecedented," and told Reuters, "We're getting a very strong message here that if you're a bank, if you're a student loan servicer, and you're violating the law, the CFPB is not only not going to pursue you, they're going to let you out of your case scot-free."
Accountable.US highlighted that "the news stands in stark and alarming contrast to McKernan's remarks... to senators, promising to review all existing CFPB lawsuits before making any decisions around dropping litigation."
Student Borrower Protection Center executive director Mike Pierce said in a statement about the PHEAA case that "Russ Vought and Donald Trump sided with a lawless and corrupt student loan company at the expense of borrowers across the country—another sign that powerful financial interests are driving the capture and demolition of the federal consumer watchdog."
"This is a slap in the face to students, student loan borrowers, and working people everywhere," Pierce continued. "PHEAA lied to some of the poorest and most vulnerable Americans, then illegally hounded them for debt that they did not owe, all to make a buck. And today, cowardly political sycophants backed down on the federal government’s only effort to hold PHEAA accountable."
"Of course, like all fascist toadies, Russ Vought will rightly be forgotten by history and sink into well-deserved irrelevance. But until then, law enforcement at every level of government must rush in to fill the void left by a federal consumer protection agency that now stands only to serve billionaires and big corporations," he added. "Remember: these people prey on those in need because they are motivated only by the desire to exercise power, and they are motivated to do so because they are cowards. It is everyone's job to remind Vought and his cronies of their powers' limits, and to remind the world of their cowardice."
Lauren Saunders, associate director of the National Consumer Law Center, also directed some blame at billionaire Elon Musk, the head of Trump's so-called Department of Government Efficiency, which is leading the administration's efforts to slash the federal workforce and spending.
"The Trump administration and Elon Musk are showing us exactly what it means not to have ordinary people protected by a strong Consumer Financial Protection Bureau—they are dismissing enforcement cases that sought to return billions to working families harmed by corporations accused of egregious conduct that violated the law," said Saunders. "On top of the stop-work order and firing of CFPB workers doing their jobs, this sends a dangerous message to corporate America that financial fraud and abuse will go unchecked. We must preserve a strong, independent, and functional CFPB to stand up to corporate bullies."
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), a former bankruptcy professor, is the mastermind behind the CFPB. She is also the ranking member of the panel which McKernan appeared before on Thursday. The American Prospect executive editor David Dayen reported that the senator informed the nominee about the dismissals during the hearing.
"Literally while you've been sitting here and you've been talking about the importance of following the law, we get the news that the CFPB is dropping lawsuits against companies that are cheating American families, or alleged to be cheating American families," Warren said. "It seems to me the timing of that announcement is designed to embarrass you and to show exactly who is in charge of this agency right now: Elon Musk and his little band of hackers."