SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
insurance companies
Extreme Weather Is Sending Home Insurance Rates Through the Roof; Big Oil Should Pay
We and a growing number of lawmakers are proposing legislation to ensure that the companies that helped drive the climate crisis help pay their fair share of the ensuing damage.
Apr 18, 2026
It's not just your rising bills for groceries and healthcare. For many Americans, the affordability crisis is now showing up in skyrocketing costs to keep their homes insured, as communities are battered by worsening weather disasters fueled by climate change.
Our states and our constituents are feeling this directly. Hawai’i is picking up the pieces after several weeks of historic flooding, which caused more than $1 billion in damage and led to widespread evacuations. These costs are sure to increase home insurance rates that have already spiked by as much as 50% since August 2023, when out of control wildfires—worsened by climate change-driven drought conditions—devastated Maui.
In California, communities are still trying to recover from wildfires that tore through Los Angeles in January 2025. These fires stand as the most expensive wildfires in world history—causing more than $65 billion in damage, much of which is being passed onto the public through rising insurance premiums.
Although New York’s insurance market is not yet seeing the levels of climate-driven distress seen in other parts of the country, the average homeowner is paying $1,000 more for coverage in the years since Hurricane Ida—supercharged by warming oceans—caused over $9 billion in flooding damage. And the frequency of highly destructive storms is growing fast.
If a power company is responsible for the spark that ignites a fire, why not the fossil fuel giants that are turning much of the country into a tinderbox?
The average American homeowner isn’t responsible for this climate chaos; why are they the ones picking up the tab for the billions of dollars of damage it leaves in its wake? We and a growing number of lawmakers are proposing a better model: ensuring that the companies that helped drive this crisis help pay their fair share of the ensuing damage.
Large multinational oil and gas giants knew as far back as the 1970s that their dirty fossil fuel products would make weather disasters more destructive, but spent the ensuing decades lying to the public about their contribution to the problem. The real world harms of their deception is becoming increasingly clear, but they’re paying nearly none of the financial consequences.
That’s why we’re working to build a fairer system in our states—one that could be a model for the rest of the country. One that protects people from perpetually rising home insurance premiums by holding Big Oil accountable for their contribution to weather disasters that are a core driver of the affordability crisis in this country.
Our legislation would empower state attorneys general to bring civil actions against the largest oil and gas companies after major climate-driven disasters. Revenue recovered through legal action would be used to reimburse people dealing with higher rates, stabilize “insurer of last resort” programs, and reimburse homeowners facing rising premiums. At a time when housing affordability is already under strain, the growing instability in home insurance markets is making it even harder for families to buy, keep, and protect their homes.
The stakes couldn’t be higher—for individuals, not to mention the broader American housing market. Uninsurable properties are often unsellable properties, as mortgage lenders generally require that home buyers secure insurance.
Last year, Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell told the US Senate Banking Committee that in “10 or 15 years there are going to be regions of the country where you can’t get a mortgage” due to climate change. That ominous prediction seems overly conservative given that realtors in California and Colorado are already reporting pending home sales falling through due to climate risk.
Even as extreme weather becomes more common, more and more Americans are risking financial ruin and going without a safety net altogether. A recent poll in California found that a shocking 1 in 5 California homeowners don’t have insurance, with rising costs the most often cited reason.
Holding polluters accountable for their contribution to a weather disaster isn’t a radical idea. Insurance companies already routinely take utilities to court—and win large settlements—when unmaintained power lines ignite wildfires. If a power company is responsible for the spark that ignites a fire, why not the fossil fuel giants that are turning much of the country into a tinderbox?
The status quo of worsening disasters, perpetual insurance premium increases, and more uninsured families is clearly untenable. But it’s likely to persist until Big Oil companies pay their fair share for the weather chaos they knowingly brought about. It’s time for the fossil fuel giants driving the home insurance crisis to shoulder the growing financial burden, not everyday Americans.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Rio Grande LNG Expansion: a Lose-Lose Proposition
The project jeopardizes the health and environment of frontline communities, threatens local economies and endangered wildlife, and exposes investors to financial and reputational risks.
May 26, 2025
In its 2024 fourth quarter update, NextDecade, a Houston-based liquefied natural gas company, announced its intention to more than double its export capacity at the Rio Grande LNG facility near Brownsville, Texas. Despite NextDecade’s sunny projections, community members and investors in the project’s owner, Global Infrastructure Partners, and its parent company, BlackRock, should be wary of risks associated with the LNG facility. The proposed expansion could further harm local communities, the region, and pose significant risks to investors.
LNG is primarily composed of methane, a potent greenhouse gas with 80 times the atmospheric warming potential of carbon dioxide over a 20-year period. As originally proposed, this project was estimated to emit the equivalent emissions of 44 coal power plants every year, about 163 million tons of carbon dioxide annually. The newly announced expansion would be projected to emit over 300 million tons of carbon dioxide equivalent every year, or the equivalent of the emissions from 83 coal plants annually.
Perhaps in an effort to address criticism about emissions, NextDecade’s original proposal included carbon capture and storage (CCS), though some opponents described this as greenwashing from the beginning. The company withdrew its CCS application with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) in August 2024, yet continues to tout sustainability on its website.
The path forward demands a just transition to clean energy that respects both people and the planet.
The Rio Grande LNG facility sits in a region already burdened by economic hardship and environmental injustice. Its expansion will amplify air pollution, exposing local residents—many of whom are Latino and low-income—to increased risks of respiratory illnesses, cancer, and other serious health conditions.
Several nearby towns and entities formally oppose the project, including Laguna Vista, South Padre Island, Port Isabel, and the Laguna Madre Water District. The Rio Grande LNG terminal is being built on the sacred land of the Carrizo/Comecrudo Tribe of Texas, yet Rio Grande LNG, regulatory agencies, and banks have failed to consult with that Tribe on its impacts.
Additionally, according to an environmental report,, the facilities will likely significantly degrade local fishing, shrimping, and natural tourism industries, putting communities’ livelihoods at risk. The project also threatens critical wetlands adjacent to the Laguna Atascosa National Wildlife Refuge, which protects endangered species such as the ocelot and Kemp’s Ridley sea turtle. The noise, light, and industrial activity will disrupt fragile ecosystems and threaten biodiversity. The opposition shines a light on the environmental risks inherent in this project.
Rio Grande LNG has faced significant challenges, including pending approval and permitting of the project from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Some banks and insurance companies have wavered in their support. Long before the expansion announcement, insurance company CHUBB backed out of the project. Societe Generale, BNP Paribas, and La Banque Postale have also pulled financial support from the project in the last several years.
For investors, this means escalating risks: construction delays, legal battles, potentially stranded assets, and the threat of diminished returns. Continuing to pour capital into this project is not just environmentally irresponsible—it is financially imprudent.
The global energy market is also shifting rapidly. Ongoing trade wars and on-and-off-again tariffs could make it difficult for Rio Grande LNG to meet its Final Investment Decision, the last fundraising hurdle a project like this must clear before beginning a new stage of construction. At the same time, LNG demand is projected to peak before 2030, and an oversupply threatens to depress prices. And the methane emissions from LNG production undermine the climate benefits often touted by proponents.
The Rio Grande LNG expansion is a lose-lose proposition. It jeopardizes the health and environment of frontline communities, threatens local economies and endangered wildlife, and exposes investors to financial and reputational risks. The path forward demands a just transition to clean energy that respects both people and the planet.
Investors in Global Infrastructure Partners and its parent company BlackRock can limit the harms associated with this project. Potential investors with each company should decline to invest in the expansion of the Rio Grande LNG terminal for the sake of local residents, the region’s economy, and returns on investments.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Which Is Not Like the Other: Teeth or a Windshield?
Happy Mother's Day 2025.
May 11, 2025
A pebble is kicked up from traffic in front of you, and a deep pit in the windshield causes a crack that must be fixed. No worries. You have car insurance, you think. The windshield repair team tells you that you have a $500 deductible and that the new windshield is $525. You are confused and angry about paying for car insurance for years, only to discover it is inadequate when you need it. You opt not to file a claim because that would likely raise your insurance rates yet again. It’s cash out-of-pocket for you.
While waiting for the windshield replacement, you crack a tooth on a mint. No worries. You have dental insurance, you think. The dental office staff tells you that you have a 50% benefit for the tooth repair and that your portion of the dental care is $525. You are confused and angry about paying for dental insurance for years, only to discover it is inadequate when you need it. The dentists never take payments anymore (unless you find a financing company in advance to pay the dentist and bill you over many months). What choice do you really have? The tooth must be fixed. It’s cash out-of-pocket for you.
We don’t like to think we are being bilked out of thousands of dollars by insurance companies, and yet we have almost come to accept it. No matter whether it’s your car windshield or your teeth, it’s all the same. You are only covered to the extent that the insurance company has determined will most effectively maximize their profits and keep you paying that monthly premium year after year. Your safety in your vehicle and/or your health are not the goal of car insurance or private dental insurance. Knowing that the entire insurance industry equates your car with part of your physical body as they underwrite is simply gross.
Teeth are not windshields or catalytic converters or bumpers. Teeth are a vital part of our bodies and our health.
Mothers (and fathers) across the country go without a windshield repair due to a lack of cash, whether they file a claim or not. Mothers (and fathers) across the country put off fixing broken teeth due to a lack of cash, whether they file a claim or not. If we didn’t know better, we would think it’s sort of a shakedown every time we need a dentist. It’s wrong. Teeth are not windshields or catalytic converters or bumpers. Teeth are a vital part of our bodies and our health.
I’ve gone almost a year without teeth now. Twenty-four of my teeth were pulled in July 2024. My health has suffered greatly as the weeks and months passed. Soon, I may get my partial dentures. Finally. My Delta Dental covers less than half of the overall cost. So, I went to our wonderful dental school for help. Voila. It seems insurance only gets you in the door, but that coverage and your debit/credit/cash gets you the help you need over time. A long, long time.
Passing a real beautiful bill would be one that insures the entire human body—womb to tomb. Teeth. Ears. Eyes. Toes. Nose. Fingers. Tummy. Health insurance for our whole body that leaves out no bodily system.
Last week, Sen. Bernard Sanders (I-Vt.) in the U.S. Senate and Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) and Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-Mich.) in the House introduced the great, big, and beautiful bills that would improve and expand Medicare to cover my teeth and yours—our whole bodies. We would all pay our premiums through our normal tax process with coverage that really is comprehensive. We would not find ourselves unable to keep our teeth healthy from the get-go so that some far into the future Mother’s Day wish has to include a set of partial dentures, if needed, or better yet, keeps Mom’s teeth in better shape so there is no need to pull them to make way for metal and resin.
Imagine a publicly financed healthcare system that costs less and covers it all. No co-payments and no deductibles. No middle-of-the-night GoFundMe pages set up to pay for care. And no need to fear losing a job and insurance benefits. Your life and mine—equal and valued—in a system that sees not only our oral health but also our whole bodies as worthy of appropriate and necessary healthcare as determined by our doctors and nurses.
People resist the commercialism of Mother’s Day in America, yet I don’t have time for that. It seems that not having teeth has made every day for the past 10 months a reminder of how little we value mothers. If you don’t care enough about moms to make sure they do not spend months of quiet desperation, embarrassment, and shame around a lack of cash to pay for healthcare, at least buy your moms a supply of baby food to enjoy on her special day. If we do care to prevent the need to do that, we must pass improved and expanded Medicare for All. Mom will love it. And she’ll have teeth.
Happy Mother’s Day 2025.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular