Close Close
Popular Financial Topics Discover relevant content from across the suite of ALM legal publications From the Industry More content from ThinkAdvisor and select sponsors Investment Advisor Issue Gallery Read digital editions of Investment Advisor Magazine Tax Facts Get clear, current, and reliable answers to pressing tax questions
Luminaries Awards
ThinkAdvisor

Life Health > Health Insurance

Blowing Hot and Cold on Climate Change

X
Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Delegates from the United Nations gathered in Paris in December to discuss ways to limit global warming to less than 2 C (3.6 F). That’s a tall order, particularly when previous conferences undercut targets, weakened objectives and then failed to make them binding — and when leaders of at least one of the major participant countries loudly express doubts that climate change is occurring, even as some research indicates it may already be too late to keep the temperature rise below 2 C.

The insurance industry will be affected by the conference’s outcome one way or another. While the largest insurers, particularly those outside the U.S., are increasingly vocal about the need to act, others are not so proactive.

In a speech at the Association of British Insurers in London at the end of October, UN Framework Convention on Climate Change Executive Secretary Christiana Figueres said insurers aren’t prepared to face the escalating costs associated with climate change and that the conference isn’t going to change that.

“This system is already overloaded, and from an insurance perspective, I would say all alarm bells are ringing,” Figueres said. “The insurance sector is perhaps ready for some natural disasters, but it’s not ready for climate change, which is a systemic threat.”

That threat can carry over from higher costs for property and casualty insurers to added risk and expense for life and health insurers.

In the U.S., an April report by the SmarterSafer coalition, which comprises big insurers, consumer groups and environmental advocates, said that the U.S. needs to become more proactive in its disaster policies, spending more on the front end on pre-disaster mitigation and protecting infrastructure so that when disasters strike, the costs of cleanup won’t be so high.

The report said that states rely too heavily on the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to bail them out financially after a natural disaster, without trying to prevent damage and thus lower the risks insurance companies must take on.

Many insurers aren’t prepared to cope. The National Association of Insurance Commissioners’ (NAIC) Insurer Climate Risk Disclosure Survey asks questions “specifically designed to help examiners identify unmitigated risks and to provide a framework for them when examining such risks and their impact on how an insurer invests its assets and prices its products.”

A 2013 report by nonprofit sustainability advocacy organization Ceres was not encouraging. According to Cynthia McHale, director of the insurance program at Ceres, “only nine insurers, or 3% of the 330 companies overall, earned a ‘Leading’ rating. The vast majority of insurers (83%) earned ‘Beginning’ or ‘Minimal’ ratings.”

Not exactly terrific news, although in the email interview McHale added, “On an encouraging note, the report identified a small subset of strong leading practices by insurers in each of the major themes. Based on anecdotal information, some companies that did not score well we believe are in fact taking strong action on climate, however, many more probably are not.”

Non-U.S. companies are more proactive. McHale said that “15 leading insurance CEOs publicly endorsed the Bank of England’s report [on climate change in the U.K. insurance sector] and welcomed the inquiry into the role that climate change will have on the global insurance sector.”

Considering the opportunity presented by taking action to slow climate change, insurers might want to reconsider their position. A study released in November by the Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University School of Law pointed out that “if sufficient emissions reductions are achieved worldwide to stabilize the earth’s climate at a 2 C average increase, the non-U.S. contribution to such reductions would deliver upwards of $10 trillion in direct benefits to the United States through the year 2050.”

The study also said the U.S. would gain more from global climate change efforts “than proposed U.S. regulations would cost. Should the United States fail to mitigate its emissions,” it pointed out, “it is our country that risks looking like a free-rider and undermining an international climate agreement. […] With trillions of dollars at stake, the United States simply cannot afford not to lead on climate change.”

— Read “Climate Change: What It Means for Advisors” on ThinkAdvisor.com.


NOT FOR REPRINT

© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.