This story never quite lives up to the promise of its headline, where it claims to discuss whether insurers who issue discounts and other incentives for ‘green’ buildings and cars may be doing so as a way to remodel their coverage and dump more risky policyholders under the guise of concern about climate change.
That would be the more cynical view. It is instead quite possible that insurers are merely offering the market what it wants: insurance that addresses the concerns of many consumers. That is hinted at in this story in the Christian Science Monitor, but again, the story leaves a lot of stones unturned. I’m going to guess that overall, rates for green insurance come out to be higher, kind of like the extra $10 a month I could pay on my electric bill so the power company could purportedly provide me with energy from renewable sources from wind turbines and the like. I’ve never quite bought into that concept in light of the fact we have a number of huge hydroelectric dams on the Columbia River near Portland that already provide a large amount of renewable energy. But if people want something and are willing to pay for it, why not offer it?