Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I guess I want to start off by addressing one of the comments that was made by the witnesses around climate hysterics.
Hysteria refers to something that is wildly emotional. It comes from the Greek word for womb—of the womb. It is used in ancient Greek to refer to things associated with women. I hope you'll forgive me if I get emotional. Climate emergencies are not gender-neutral. The degradation of ecosystems disproportionally impacts women and girls, and I am wildly emotional. This is the existential crisis of our time. To hear that asking for high ambition is climate hysteria makes we wildly emotional—absolutely.
When I think about my womb, the two children I bore from that womb and what future we are leaving them, I am wildly emotional. It's not surprising to hear this from someone who has written articles that are pro-life. I think that we need to think about the intersection of gender and the climate crisis. I hope that the people around this table and the people listening will refrain from using language like “climate hysteria”. We are facing a “climate emergency”.
I'm going to start off my questions with Mr. Clark. I appreciated your comments about the existential crisis that we're facing. A handful of insurance companies are already setting net-zero goals and climate transition plans. I'm curious how legislative and regulatory mechanisms support insurance companies already doing this work.
How do we get the ones who aren't—the majority, who haven't committed to net-zero goals—headed in that direction?