February 18, 2024

Genesis 9:8-17

Then God said to Noah and to his sons with him, “As for me, I am establishing my covenant with you and your descendants after you,  and with every living creature that is with you, the birds, the domestic animals, and every animal of the earth with you, as many as came out of the ark…”

The story of Noah’s ark concludes with a promise from God. The symbol of that promise is the rainbow we see in the sky after it rains, signifying that God’s wrath will never again cause such destruction in the world.

“I establish my covenant with you, that never again shall all flesh be cut off by the waters of a flood, and never again shall there be a flood to destroy the earth.”

God will never destroy everything in the world. God will never strike down all of humanity. God will not do that.

Now a covenant is a particular term found in the Bible, but it is basically an agreement, a contract. God agreed not to flood the world again. But like any agreement, like any contract, there are things being exchanged, a bargain being struck. In legal language, someone has given something in consideration for something else. God gave us the promise that there would never be another flood. What did human beings give?

According to the Bible, human beings gave nothing. Nothing at all. God made a promise, that’s it. Now this is odd, getting something for nothing. Yes, agreeing not to wipe out the world is generally a good thing. But my lawyer-brain rebels at the uneven nature of the consideration. It lacks symmetry.

I am guessing that nagging concern was also on the mind of Jewish scholars who contributed to the set of biblical interpretations known as the Talmud. In the Talmudic tradition, there were expectations imposed upon human beings by God. These are known as the Seven Laws of Noah. These laws are:

Not to worship idols.
Not to curse God.
Not to commit murder.
Not to commit adultery or sexual immorality.
Not to steal.
Not to eat flesh torn from a living animal.
To establish courts of justice.

So, six shall nots and one shall. A few of these are straight out of the Ten Commandments or anticipate the Ten Commandments which are later in the scheme of the Bible.

One key difference is that this agreement was between God and the world, not merely God and human beings. God agreed not to destroy the world again or the creatures in it, not just human beings. The expectations in the other direction, however, are aimed at human beings. Animals do not worship idols or follow the moral structures of human society. So, we are the ones who are expected to follow these rules, even if the whole world benefits. Which of course assumes that we are indeed following the rules, a not always warranted assumption with human beings.

And what happens if we break the rules? God made a promise but if there were expectations behind that promise, God might go back on it, or at least that is a theory. What happens when we do not follow the covenant we have with God?

This Sunday, I am again discussing something we do not talk about. And that topic is climate change. Which is admittedly an odd choice, because I have talked about climate change quite a few times from this pulpit. I have discussed various aspects of it, from the science behind it to the ways we might deal with it. So how is that a topic we do not discuss?

There are aspects of climate change that are happening around us, but that are not as obvious as others. There are responses being made unknown to most people that are changing fundamental forces within our society and particularly our economy.

And I do not mean we are changing our ways. Yes, there are more electric and hybrid cars. Yes, there are more renewable energy options around. Yes, people are installing solar panels and wind turbines on their properties. All true and perhaps more of that type of change is coming.

Of course, there are also plenty of people who have no intention of making such personal changes in their lives. They will keep on driving their gasoline cars and diesel trucks. They will keep traveling by airplane without concern or limit. They will keep on doing what they have always done. That is probably no surprise.

Some do not believe climate change is real. Others do not believe it is the result of the behavior of human beings. It is just happening, oh dear. And there are some who do not believe it is all that bad, enjoying balmy spring days throughout the New England winter.

No, the changes that I am getting at are more subtle. They are just beginning to affect us up here in the Northeast, but they are far more prevalent in other parts of the U.S. What changes?

Changes in insurance. Insurance, yes. This is officially the least interesting topic I have ever preached about.

But this trend is actually very important and extremely serious. In parts of the United States, it has become difficult to buy insurance. Insurance to cover liability for damage suffered because of floods, because of storms, because of wildfires.

Well, isn’t that a shame, another thing got more expensive.

This is not simply a question, however, of things getting more expensive. It is a question of there being places where you cannot buy insurance. Places where no one will write a policy to protect you from the types of damage you want insurance for, such as floods, storms, and wildfires. Places where insurance companies are leaving, like California and Florida. Places where insurance is so hard to find, or so expensive, that the state and federal governments have had to step in, for now.

Again, you might be thinking, that is a mildly concerning but weirdly technical problem. Why take up time on Sunday morning with this? I can go home are read about it in the paper.

But what if I told you that this problem with insurance is one of the greatest hidden threats to the U.S. economy. More so than inflation. More so that whichever person gets elected to be the next president. More so than even the U.S. Congress and its merry band of dysfunctional adults.

At present, sixty (60) percent of American houses have mortgages. I was surprised that 40 percent do not have mortgages, but anyway. In places like California, it is more like 80 percent have mortgages.

In a mortgage, a painfully long document few of you have probably ever read, there are promises made, sometimes known as covenants. I was one of the people required to read those documents, so I know a bit about them.

One of those promises that you made, probably unwittingly, if you borrowed money to buy your house was that you will maintain insurance on your house. You will maintain it in the amounts and with the coverage expected by the bank. And if you do not, you are in default. In default, meaning the bank can take action. It can purchase insurance for you, even at astronomically high prices, and charge you for the privilege. It can also foreclose upon the mortgage and sell your house to recoup their money.

I have never read a mortgage that did not contain such a provision. And yes, I have foreclosed upon people’s property, so I am well aware of how the process works. And, in the not to distant future, I expect to see people in places like Florida and California being unable to get the insurance banks expect them to have.

What happens then? At first, there will be foreclosures on houses and businesses. That will take a few years. And then, like the insurance companies, banks will stop lending money in certain places. And when I say certain places, I mean places like Miami and Los Angeles, like Atlanta and Dallas. Places like Florida and California, Texas and Georgia, where 100 million people live.

When I hear people talk about climate change, it usually comes in one of two trains of thought. It can be a highly scientific conversation about carbon emissions, where someone mentions the parts per billion of certain chemical substances in the atmosphere. The kind of conversation that liberals and environmentalists seem to love and that most other people seem to ignore.

The other train of thought is the big picture moral vision. It is about climate justice. It is about fundamental fairness in society.  It is about coming together to save this precious planet of ours. Again, this is the kind of conversation that some love but many, many people somehow ignore.

The scientific perspective quickly becomes so hard to follow that many people cannot develop any sense of urgency. Even if you simply tell someone that we need to keep the increase in global average temperature below 2 degrees Celsius compared to pre-industrial levels, there is really no way for someone to register that expectation as a practical goal within their life. But that target temperature is a key milestone being used to fight climate change. And yet that number does not mean anything to the typical person. Honestly, it does not mean anything to the typical political decisionmaker. So, nothing happens.

The moral outlook is more understandable to people. But understanding it does not mean that they are willing to change their personal behavior or change the policies within their society. Yes, it would be nice, but I am not capable of making such changes. Even absolutely personal choices, like buying a more fuel-efficient vehicle, are placed behind a long list of competing priorities. I’ll buy an electric car when the prices go down, or when the battery range improves, or when they put more charging stations on the Turnpike. Then I might consider it. Believe me, that is me.

Of course, I know many people who have made those changes in their lives and who have dedicated themselves to climate change as an important personal concern. People in this congregation have engaged in various forms of outreach, philanthropy, and advocacy.

I am not trying to minimize that work and, in fact, I am personally extremely concerned about climate change and its effects. But I have been blessed with a peculiar mind. And, as a result, I occasionally take unusual pathways to reach my conclusions about the world. In my experience, people sometimes need very different motivations to agree to difficult changes.

As I mentioned, the scientific approach is sometimes, oftentimes, hard to follow. And the moral approach is hard to get people to sign onto. This leads me to another angle of persuasion, one that in my experience tends to get people’s attention. And that would be self-interest. Explain to people how they might be personally hurt by all this, in painfully practical terms, and you might get their attention. Explain it through the lens of capitalism and even the most jaded business person will listen.

Which leads me back to the exciting world of insurance. When insurance becomes too expensive in California and Florida, Texas and Georgia, the economy in those states will begin to slow down, maybe even falter. This economic trend will not doubt spread to other states and other regions.

For example, I have been looking into alternative insurance possibilities for the church because our own premiums are going up. We can pay it, but it is a growing expense. Other less well-off churches are making hard choices because they are not finding cheaper insurance options. The option is to pay more for less insurance coverage.

Fortunately, most churches do not have substantial mortgages, because no one wants to lend money to a church. It is bad PR to foreclose. However, many homeowners and businesses do have mortgages. And borrowing money will become much harder, even more so than with high interest rates. Maybe not this year or the next, but within a few years the risks of climate change will even make it difficult to do business here in the Northeast, while in the west and the south there may be severe problems.

But won’t the government step in? Won’t they bail people and businesses out with flood insurance and wildfire insurance? Yes, but for how long and for how much?

California had 30,000 wildfires last year resulting in over 300,000 acres of land being burned. Those fires are encroaching upon inhabited areas, such as the infamous Paradise, California fire in 2018.

Paradise had a population of 4,600 people and that fire has cost to date 16 billion dollars. One little town and the surrounding area cost 16 billion dollars. And, six years later, they are still rebuilding. How many similar fires do you think it will take for the government to decide that they are not going to help rebuild in places where the fires will just keep happening, like Paradise, California?

In our reading this morning, we heard about covenant. The covenant between God and Noah, the covenant between God and all the creatures upon Earth. What sort of covenant is there between the people of any particular city or town and the rest of the United States? A covenant to come to their aid, to rebuild after a natural disaster? How many times do you get to call for help? And will there come a point in time when that covenant to help others, that agreement we have with one another whether explicit or implicit, will be broken? When we decide it is too expensive to fix this or that?

I am not saying any of this because I want it to happen. But it is a very different message than scientific obscurities or highflying moralisms. These fires are happening because the world is getting warming. Storms are destroying place after place around the world for the same reason. Flood waters are flowing and sea levels are rising. People do not seem to respond to messages about science or about social responsibility or about moral claims. But what about when insurance companies and banks decide that you and your house or you and your business have become a bad economic bet?

Last year, a friend of mine had a problem after a storm. A tree on their property fell and hit two cars in the driveway, totaling them both. It also caused damage to the roof of the house.

She called the insurance company who initially said the claim would not be covered. Why? Because it was the result of a windstorm. Now, it was news to her that wind damage was not covered under her insurance policy, but that was indeed the case. Eventually, the claim was covered because it was determined that the tree was rotten and that rot was said to be the cause of the damage. But she is still not covered for storm damage. And that lack of coverage for wind damage was in dear old Massachusetts.

So, what does any of this mean? Climate change can seem like a distant problem or a technical problem or a political problem. Until we appreciate that climate change is a personal problem, one that will cost us money, one that might cost us severely, it can be passed off as someone else’s concern.

But if a tree falls in your driveway and you lose two cars and need a brand new roof, that is another story entirely. If your house near the water floods and there is nothing but your checkbook to help fix things, that is another story. And, if in the not-too-distant future, there are more wildfires, more storms, more floods in places all over the country and right here close to home, and no one is coming to help anymore, that is indeed quite a different story.

So, what to do? When you hear something about climate change, take a moment to wade through the language. The scientific gobbledygook, the efforts to pluck the heartstrings of morality. And think about what it means to someone whose car was flooded, whose house was destroyed. Who can’t get insurance and who can’t get a mortgage. Who is finding it hard to put the pieces back together, even with help, even with insurance, even with the federal government riding to the rescue.

And now imagine that at some point, we will be forced to decide if Paradise, California or Lahaina, Hawaii, or Rockaway, New York is worth rebuilding. If Winthrop or Rockport, Hingham or South Boston is worth rebuilding.

There are things that we can do in our personal lives to help respond to climate change. But more importantly, there are things that we as a city, we as a state, we as a country can do together to respond. Plenty of people can tell you about those. You do not need me to do so.

But what I hoped to do this morning was to give you the perspective to say yes. To say yes to efforts to change how we as a society are dealing with these questions. Not because it is the right thing to do, even though it is. Not that science says it is a real world problem, even though it does. Because it is in each of our personal best interests to see that these changes are made. Because it would be best for ourselves, for our families and friends, for our children and grandchildren. For our pocketbooks and peace of mind.

Sometimes I get up here and I talk about what God wants us to do. This time, I simply want us to understand that we are the only ones coming to our rescue. We are the only ones who can make the changes necessary to reduce the problem and to mitigate the damage.

When the time comes to decide what must be done, we must be ready to say yes, not because of science or morality, but because this is the best way to protect ourselves and those we hold dear. Sometimes it is simply a matter of dollars and cents and, in the case of climate change, it may be a lot of our dollars and cents.

So, we had better pay close attention and read the fine print of our insurance policies.

Amen.