Course:CONS200/2024WT1/Too risky to insure? An overview of the benefits and challenges of climate risk insurance

From UBC Wiki
An image of global temperature change over the past 50 years
Change in Average Temperature With Fahrenheit

Introduction

Climate change poses significant risks to communities, economies, and ecosystems worldwide, manifesting in increasingly severe weather patterns, rising sea levels, and unpredictable climatic events[1]. As these challenges escalate, the need for effective risk management strategies has become paramount. One such strategy is climate risk insurance, which serves as a critical financial tool designed to mitigate the impacts of extreme climate events. Climate risk insurance provides protection against financial losses caused by catastrophic weather phenomena, such as hurricanes, floods, and droughts. It enables individuals, businesses, and governments to manage the economic fallout from these disasters[2]. By offering a financial safety net, climate risk insurance not only aids recovery efforts but also promotes resilience, encouraging proactive measures that safeguard vulnerable populations and help communities effectively adapt to the realities of a changing climate.[3].

History of Climate Risk Insurance in the United States

The largest climate risk insurance program in the United States is the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). The story of its founding and evolution provides insights into the climate risk industry as a whole. A story of disasters, adaptation and reactionary policy. The NFIP, though flood-focused and U.S. specific, demonstrates the global imperative for risk management attempts and successes.

Artificial levee in Mississippi River, 1939.

Levee-only Approach

Contrary to relying on a plethora of flood management practices, the United States originally relied solely on levees. These natural and artificial walls hold back water flow around bodies of water when flooding occurs. Civil engineer Charles S. Ellet Jr. first proposed a levee-only system for the Ohio River in 1853[4]. Later in 1861, topographical engineers Humphrey's -- future Chief Army Engineer -- and Abbot further spur the support for levees specifically in the Mississippi River[5]. However, levees prove reliable until they break. The 1913 Ohio River Valley Flood, due to levee failure, led to $200 million of losses[6]. This disaster and its consequences created a desire for insurance not just infrastructure as risk management and relief.


Governmental Intervention

The Great Mississippi Flood of 1927 hits a power plant in Oswego, Kansas.

Animated by Ohio and Mississippi River flooding, the U.S. House of Representatives established a Committee on Flood Control in 1917[4]. The committee visited flooded zones and concluded that federal aid must be sent to destitute individuals and permanent infrastructure construction[7]. The Flood Control Act then sent $45 million to the Sacramento and Mississippi River regions. In 1927, the Mississippi River flooded catastrophically partly due to levee failure[4]. The region experienced high levels of fatalities, homelessness and property damage. The next year, a revised Flood Control Act abandoned the historical levee-only approach. Significantly more pivotal, private insurers back out of flood risk coverage[8].

The 50's characterized the government's change in their approach to risk management. The 1950 Disaster Relief Act allowed states to request aid from the federal government when in a natural disaster emergency. Yet this program did not prove sufficient[4]. Further flooding in Missouri and Kansas pushed President Truman to advocate for a federally-run flood insurance program. In 1956, President Eisenhower similarly proposed a shared burden approach. That year, the Federal Flood Insurance Act provided $10,000 to flood-affected homes no matter of location[4]. The Act also established the Federal Flood Indemnity Administration whose purpose revolved around dispersing financial burden from disasters between individuals and the government[4]. Though a lack of funding and data ended the Administration after one year, its existence indicated a governmental push towards insurance provision alongside infrastructure development.

Two Acts in 1965, the Water Resources Planning Act (WRPA) and Southeast Hurricane Disaster Relief Act (SHDRA), further spurred governmental involvement in climate disaster assistance[4]. Furthermore, USGS flood maps -- started in 1959[4] -- supplied data for productive action. The SDRHA specifically focused on determining the most effective form of financial assistance for disaster prone areas. The answer lied in insurance.

The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP)

The United States Congress established the NFIP in 1968[9]. Its creation changed the game for climate relief in America. NFIP's main goal is to distribute the financial responsibility[8], similar to Eisenhower's shared burden approach, of climate disasters. The Program insures private and public clients from flood risk. Up until the 21st century, the NFIP's policies and approaches to insurance went through many iterations.

Initially a voluntary program, the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 made acquiring insurance mandatory for landowners in high risk areas[9]. The NFIP began imposing risk insurance onto clients with this Act. In the 1990's, the NFIP shifted its strategy to catastrophe bonds[10]. This method transfers risk to insurance investors[11]. The NFIP then transitioned to weather derivatives (see Parametric or Index-Based Climate Risk Insurance) in 1997[10]. In 1994, the NFIP's tactics evolved further because of a Reform Act; more lender compliance, mitigation assistance and mitigation insurance were implemented[4]. Ten years later, another Reform Act reduced losses for repeated claims, increased policy holder-provider transparency, and created training programs for professionals[4]. These changes aimed to improve the program and better customer experience.

In response to the increasing frequency and intensity of disasters due to climate change, the NFIP enacted the Biggert-Watters Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012 (BW-12)[12]. The Act sought to raise insurance rates for clients to accurately reflect the cost of losses. This led to an equity crisis (see Economic Inequity). The NFIP then amended BW-12 with the Homeowners Flood Insurance Affordability Act two years later[12]. This move demonstrates a governmental understanding of the universal need for flood and climate risk insurance. Homeland Security published an Affordability Framework in 2018 assembled with academics and industry professionals[12].

All the while, international organizations start promoting climate risk insurance as a necessary investment and implementation. In 2012, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) mentioned the importance of climate risk insurance[10]. So did the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in 2013[10]. Two years later, Article 8 of the Paris Agreements signed at COP 21 cited climate risk insurance as an important solution[13][14].

Presently, the NFIP functions as a network of 50+ providers and NFIP Direct administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)[15]. The program covers direct physical losses -- including buildings and content -- caused by flooding for more than 5 million policyholders[15]. It serves high-risk areas where government-lended mortgages make purchase compulsory. The service is also available for 23,000 communities outside the high-risk zones[15]. One-third of claims came from those outside zones[16]. The largest amount of claims occurred in 2005, 2012 and 2017 all which correlated with hurricanes[17]. Outside direct financial assistance, the NFIP also engages in community work.

This case-study exemplifies a successful trial and error process eventually leading to a strong climate insurance practice. As of today, the National Flood Insurance Program is worth $1.3 trillion[15].

Types of Climate Risk Insurance Globally

Parametric or Index-Based Climate Risk Insurance

Parametric and index-based insurance automatically triggers claims when specific meteorological indicators—such as rainfall amount, wind speed, or dry periods—reach predefined thresholds. This type of policy covers the probability of a predefined event occurring (e.g., a major hurricane or earthquake) and pays out according to a predetermined scheme. Events may refer to an index-based trigger (e.g., a specific level of rainfall) or an event within a defined area. This approach contrasts with traditional insurance, which compensates for actual losses incurred[18].

Index insurance pays out benefits based on a predetermined metric—such as inches of rainfall. If these metrics are met, policyholders receive financial support for losses related to assets and investments. Automatic payouts can provide swift financial assistance without lengthy claims processes, allowing farmers and businesses to quickly access funds to mitigate the impacts of extreme weather events. These solutions offer new ways to transfer and finance risks, addressing challenges that traditional insurance might not cover effectively[19].

An image showing Flooded building and tree trunk in the muddy water of the Mekong in Si Phan Don, Laos
Flooded building and tree trunk in the muddy water of the Mekong in Si Phan Don, Laos

Indemnity-Based Climate Risk Insurance

Indemnity-based insurance compensates policyholders for actual losses incurred, providing an accurate assessment of damage up to the insured limit. For example, flood insurance for homeowners covers damage from hydrological events, including river and pluvial floods. After an extreme event, policyholders must provide proof of damage to receive payouts, which is a standard requirement in indemnity-based policies. Insurers typically impose deductibles to discourage moral hazard, where policyholders might neglect risk prevention[20].

While flood insurance is compulsory in some OECD countries, it remains voluntary in others, leading to variations in premium pricing based on local risk levels. Beyond recovery, flood insurance encourages risk mitigation by funding hazard upgrades during repairs and offering premium discounts for implementing flood reduction measures or living in safer areas. This dual role helps reduce overall damage and supports community resilience. However, this process is complex, time-consuming, and often costly, resulting in higher premiums compared to index-based insurance. As a result, these insurance products can be unaffordable and inaccessible for poor and marginalised climate-vulnerable communities[21].

Micro- and Meso-Level Insurance

Micro-level insurance directly covers individuals and small businesses, such as farmers, against specific risks like crop failure. Policyholders have a direct relationship with an insurance company, which compensates them for losses. While common in Europe and North America—particularly in agriculture and fishing—micro-insurance is largely absent in developing countries, especially among small-scale farmers. Micro-level index insurance is implemented in countries such as Senegal and Haiti, where it protects individuals from specific risks based on predefined metrics[22].

On the other hand, meso-level insurance provides coverage to intermediaries like cooperatives, rural development banks, and micro finance institutions. This type of insurance benefits their members, customers, and suppliers by securing loans against potential losses from disasters. Meso-level index insurance is offered to aggregators like banks and agribusinesses[23] and is promoted in countries like the Dominican Republic, particularly through initiatives such as the National Federation of Cocoa Growers. Meso-level parametric insurance is emerging as an effective solution, catering to institutions such as development banks, micro finance organisations, and cooperatives, thereby enhancing risk management on a broader scale[24].

Macro-Level Insurance

Macro-level insurance directly insures states and indirectly insures vulnerable populations against damage to critical infrastructure or crop losses, as seen in the regional risk pools described below. In these cases, the policyholder—and therefore the institution that pays the premium—is generally a country or a state institution. This type of insurance has been promoted in countries like Uruguay to protect federal and/or provincial budgets during catastrophic years. However, in the event of a claim, the payout is often required to be used for prescribed relief and rehabilitation measures for target groups, such as poor, rural populations[25].

Climate Change and the Rising Demand for Climate Risk Insurance

From a technical point of view, climate change insurance relies almost completely on empirical data models, necessary to accurately assess risks associated with extreme weather events stemming from climate change. To ensure data, collaborating with meteorological and climate data organizations, as well as investing in advanced technology to integrate real-time climate and weather data into evaluating future risks. Sources such as satellites and national weather programs such as National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Science Foundation (NSF) provide climate change data to insurance companies. [26] Reliable risk assessment is valuable for insurers to accurately determine pricing as well as for the consumer to make informed decisions for which policy can adequately cover risks affecting their location and circumstance.

Looking at an economic and financial point of view, climate change itself threatens financial stability of the public through increased frequency and severity of climate related insurance claims. Climate related disasters cost the global economy an estimated $4.3 trillion in 2021, with the brunt of impacts hitting poor communities in vulnerable countries. [27] Globally, climate hazards contribute to around 2 percent of global GDP, with the number expected to rise to more than 4 percent by 2050.[28] To combat this, companies provide incentives for eco-friendly practices by offering discounts for eco-friendly initiatives that reduce risks. This has currently not been adopted as a global policy, but small scale initiatives such as distributing premium insurance credits to homeowners who instal mitigation devices in catastrophe-prone areas. [29]

Furthermore, policies significantly influence climate insurance through regulatory frameworks and funding opportunities. Advocating for stronger government support for climate risk mitigation and adaptation can provide the framework to provide financial stability. In Canada, a new category of insurance - overland flood coverage - financially covers Canadians who live in areas of increasing flood risk. The Insurance Bureau of Canada works in partnership with the government to protect Canadians from increasing climate change effects. [30] Insurance is highly privatized, and making it public would base on the ability of the insurer to price, bear the climate risk, and be able to lead towards mitigation practices for the future. Ideally, public climate insurance would be able to achieve these standards, as it does not experience the competitive market that forces private insurers to raise pricing for the public.

Global Applications of Climate Risk Insurance

Climate risk insurance provides coverage for climate related damages to insurers, reducing personal economic burdens. It encompasses various types of insurance such as property damage caused by flooding as well as agricultural insurance for losses to crops and products due to droughts. [31] Different policies and protections are incentivized to promote adaptation to climate change, such as investing in sustainable infrastructure.[32] Climate risk insurance also is crucial to economic stability through helping individuals and businesses financially recover after natural disasters such as floods, hurricanes, wildfires, and droughts. Investing in climate insurance, especially in at-risk regions can contribute to funding for sustainable infrastructure developments to avoid future damages. While there are challenges such as data limitations, affordability and awareness, the rising amount of climate disasters provide incentive for climate insurance to meet the economic challenges that arise with it. [33]

Benefits Provided by the Implementation of Climate Risk Insurance

Risk Reduction and Mitigation

Example of flood maps produced by FEMA indicating likely flood zone from a creek in a residential area

Climate risk insurance incentivizes risk reduction by reducing coverage premiums for climate fortified properties and assets[34]. If enough private actors invest in climate risk insurance and subsequently adapt their properties to reduce rates, a community's climate vulnerability can be greatly reduced[34], demonstrated in the United States' National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).

The NFIP provides flood insurance to households, businesses, and communities. The yearly coverage rate rests at approximately $1,000 USD[35] for enrolled properties, which have an average replacement cost value of $400,587 USD[35]. NFIP coverage access is dependent on if homes or properties are in Special Flood Hazards Areas (SFHAs). Adaptive measures such as elevating homes above projected flood levels within SFHAs are incentivized via reductions in premium prices[36]. Grants are also provided to assist homeowners enrolled in the NFIP with mitigation efforts such as structural supports and flood proofing utilities that benefit both individual holders and the NFIP as a whole by reducing repair costs to properties after flooding[36]. The NFIP encourages voluntary risk reduction through a combination of reduced rates and stimulative grants, accomplishing both flood damage reduction and increased preparedness within the SFHA communities with high NFIP participation[36].

Climate Data Collection and Analysis

Another core benefit of climate risk insurance in it's facilitation of climate data collection and analysis. In order for both public (FIMA, etc.) and private insurers to create rates, risks must first be assessed[37]. Risk assessment tools, including stress tests and scenario analysis[38], are employed to provide illustrative loss estimates to insurers from which they base their rates[38]. The assessment of climate risk hinges on the field work and knowledge of climate scientists, meteorology centers, and other external experts[38] on climatology, geography, and ecology, ultimately stimulating climate vulnerability research in prospective insured areas.

The climate risk metrics developed are often included in public disclosures[38], benefiting the general public by providing pertinent risk and vulnerability information regardless of their enrollment in insurance programs. Furthermore, an opportunity for improvement of climate modeling formulas is provided as internal models created by insurance agencies are compared and contrasted to external models[38].

Protection of Biodiversity

In addition to providing additional climate metrics to scientists and common citizens alike, climate risk insurance can work directly to safeguard biodiversity. The global financial market is inherently dependent on the health and maintenance of global biodiversity and thus is steadily gaining traction as an insurable asset under the umbrella of climate risk insurance [39]. The protection of biodiversity through insurable means is trifold, combining asset protection, liability reduction, and facilitation of market investment [39]to recognize and thus materialize the value of biodiverse ecosystems. This means that a material value is assigned to biodiverse ecosystems that will be reimbursed in part or full by insurance agencies to the governments or organizations holding holding the policy in the event of a catastrophic climate event, providing funding to power the comprehensive conservational efforts necessary to restore the damaged ecosystem and species. [39] Seeing as the 2020 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) recognizes "safeguarding biodiversity and ecosystems is fundamental to climate resilient development"[40], climate risk insurance positively contributing to global biodiversity conservation is an essential positive facet of climate risk insurance's implementation.

Promotion of Economic Resilience and Sustainable Growth

A resounding beneficial impact made possible by the large scale enrollment and implementation of climate insurance is general economic resilience[41] in the face of natural disasters. The effects of climate change are systemic, stressing both local economies and entire global markets[41]. Yet, by offering reliable protection the insurance industry creates economic security[41] by protecting assets that could potentially lose most if not all value in a natural disaster. Seeing as natural resources underpin the value of global currencies and markets,[40] the guarantee of stimulation via reimbursements in the event of climate catastrophes halting the utilization of natural resources protects against complete market failures [41]that could otherwise ensue.

Challenges Posed by Climate Risk Insurance

Economic Inequity

As climate change exacerbates weather catastrophes, climate insurance becomes more expensive for insurers to provide and clients to purchase[42]. Damages in 2023 alone cost $380 billion globally; a 22% increase in the average this century[43]. Furthermore, only $118 billion of those economic losses were insured[43]. This economic burden causes agencies to avoid insuring especially vulnerable areas in hopes of preventing financial loss ('insurance deserts')[42]. Agencies know, for example, which areas are hurricane or wildfire prone because of climate predictions. Thus, the people most likely to experience harm have the least access to protection. These "insurance deserts" represent climate risk insurance's failure. Agencies act counter-productively by circumventing regions.

In conjunction with agencies' irregular support, areas which contribute least to climate change experience more affects[44]. 10 countries, with the EU counting as 1, contribute to 2/3 of the world's greenhouse gas emissions[45]. However, the most vulnerable populations live in the places which emit the least[44][45]. Dealing with the damages caused by climate change disproportionally drives this demographic into extreme poverty[44]. By avoiding susceptible regions, climate risk insurers worsen inequality.

Data Deficiency

A significant challenge facing climate risk insurance is the lack of reliable historical and current climate projection data in many regions. This limitation complicates the creation of suitable insurance plans, as citizens may not have access to enough weather data to feel confident in obtaining insurance. For instance, in countries with rural or marginalized communities, such as Ethiopia and Bangladesh, technology and infrastructure are lacking. The inability to accurately forecast weather patterns can lead to an underestimation of risks[46]. Furthermore, the granularity and timeliness of the data are critical; without localized information, insurers may struggle to assess the specific vulnerabilities of different areas. This results in generalized insurance products that may not meet the unique needs of various communities. Additionally, the lack of long-term data trends makes it challenging to adapt insurance models to evolving climate scenarios, potentially leading to unsustainable premium structures that do not reflect actual risks. As a result, effective product development is hindered, and potential policyholders remain skeptical about the value of insurance, ultimately decreasing participation in these crucial programs[47].

Lack of Resilience

While insurance enhances financial resilience against disasters, it is not a comprehensive solution to climate adaptation. Increased insurance penetration alone cannot adequately address the multifaceted challenges posed by climate change unless it is coupled with strong risk-reduction measures. In areas prone to frequent and severe disasters, such as those experiencing annual flooding or drought, risk-reduction strategies—including improved land-use planning, investment in infrastructure, and community education—are essential to making insurance an affordable and viable option[48]. Moreover, the reliance on insurance as a primary response mechanism can create complacency among governments and communities regarding proactive risk management. When communities believe that insurance will cover their losses, they may be less likely to invest in preventive measures, which can lead to greater long-term vulnerabilities. Therefore, effective climate adaptation requires a multifaceted approach that includes not only financial tools like insurance but also significant investments in renewable energy, sustainable agriculture, and ecosystem restoration[49].

Current Efforts and Solutions To Tackle Climate Risk Insurance Challenges

An image of Bonn climate change conference
Bonn climate change conference

Government Initiatives

Various governments and organizations are actively tackling the challenges of climate risk insurance. A notable example is the InsuResilience Global Partnership, launched at the 2017 UN Climate Change Conference in Bonn. This initiative aims to enhance the capacity of developing countries to access climate risk insurance by creating affordable products tailored to vulnerable populations, ensuring they are not left unprotected. Since its inception, the Partnership has garnered over 120 members, including the V20 and G20+, focusing on strengthening resilience and protecting the livelihoods of those most affected by climate disasters. During its G7 Presidency, Germany initiated the development of a “Global Shield against Climate Risks,” which has received unanimous support from G7 nations. This initiative consolidates efforts in climate risk finance and preparedness, facilitating the swift implementation of protective measures when climate-related damages occur. It links directly to contingency plans in developing countries, ensuring that affected individuals and authorities can access essential assistance more quickly in the aftermath of disasters. Additionally, the Shield aims to mobilize further funding to meet the escalating demand for climate finance[50].

Innovative Insurance Models

Innovative insurance models, particularly parametric insurance, are gaining traction as effective solutions for climate risk management. These models offer payouts based on predefined parameters, such as rainfall levels, enabling rapid disbursement of funds and minimizing administrative costs. This efficiency makes climate risk insurance more attractive to policyholders. While interstate compensation for climate change through legal liability faces significant challenges—such as establishing causation, political resistance from developed nations, and structural incongruities—parametric insurance presents a promising alternative. The UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement have moved away from legal liability, fostering regional sovereign climate risk insurance schemes in areas like the Caribbean, Africa, and the Pacific.

Parametric insurance offers several key advantages over traditional liability frameworks. It eliminates the need to demonstrate causation, simplifying the claims process. Additionally, it provides comprehensive coverage for catastrophic events, ensuring that policyholders are adequately protected. This type of insurance focuses on future risks rather than past incidents, allowing for proactive risk management. Furthermore, it is based on contractual agreements, which helps avoid the adversarial disputes often associated with traditional liability claims. Finally, parametric insurance ensures a high degree of predictability in payouts, giving policyholders confidence in their financial recovery. By leveraging these benefits, parametric insurance represents a novel and effective climate policy option with significant potential to enhance climate resilience and advance international climate cooperation[51].

Analysis of Additional Solutions

Community-Based Approaches

Insurance can be a fully commercial instrument, but it can be prohibitively expensive if the risks it is intended to cover are perceived as too high or costly. To address this issue, premium support for policyholders and/or partial guarantees for insurers can be useful means of increasing the availability of these types of mechanisms. Community-based insurance schemes represent a promising solution to the challenges of climate risk insurance. By pooling resources at the community level, these schemes can lower costs and improve accessibility for low-income households. Moreover, they foster a sense of solidarity and collective responsibility, empowering communities to take charge of their risk management[52].

Public-Private Partnerships

Public-private partnerships (PPPs) play a crucial role in expanding access to climate risk insurance. By collaborating with private insurers, governments can subsidize premiums for vulnerable populations, making coverage more affordable. Additionally, PPPs facilitate the sharing of data and resources, which improves risk assessment and underwriting processes.

The Climate Resilient Infrastructure Officer Handbook, developed by the Global Center on Adaptation (GCA) with support from the Netherlands' Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management, provides tools for structuring investment programs that incorporate climate resilience into infrastructure PPPs. This handbook promotes the integration of physical climate risks and Nature-based Solutions (NbS) throughout the infrastructure lifecycle. Similarly, the Climate Resilient Public Private Partnerships: A Toolkit for Decision Makers by the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) outlines instruments that address climate change within PPP structures, offering low-cost implementation strategies from project identification to contract management. The IDB's report on Improving Climate Resilience in Public Private Partnerships in Jamaica examines the country's PPP policy framework and offers an action plan with short, medium, and long-term steps to enhance climate resilience in planning processes. This includes practical guidelines for identifying, assessing, and mitigating climate-related risks. Together, these initiatives illustrate the potential of PPPs to enhance climate resilience and improve access to climate risk insurance[53].

Conclusion

In light of the growing impacts of climate change, it is clear that climate risk insurance is not too risky to insure; rather, it is a necessary step towards building a resilient future. However, it must be part of a multifaceted strategy that combines financial instruments with significant investments in infrastructure, sustainable practices, and community empowerment. Only through such a holistic approach can we effectively mitigate the impacts of climate change and ensure that all communities are better prepared for the challenges ahead.

References

  1. ↑ Schramek, Camilla; Harmeling, Sven (1945). G20 and climate change time to lead for a safer future. Care climate change.
  2. ↑ Hirsch, Thomas; Hampel, Vera (2020). Chevalier, Rebekah (ed.). Climate Risk Insurance and Risk Financing in the Context of Climate Justice (PDF). ActAlliance. line feed character in |title= at position 42 (help)
  3. ↑ Schäfer, Laura; Warner, Koko; Kreft, Sönke (2018). Mechler, Reinhard (ed.). Loss and Damage from Climate Change. Springer Open. pp. pp 317–341.CS1 maint: extra text (link)
  4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 Federal Emergency Management Agency. (n.d.). Chronology of the National Flood Insurance Program. Retrieved from https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/2020-07/fema_nfip_eval_chronology.pdf
  5. ↑ Humphreys, Andrew Atkinson; Abbot, Henry Larcom (1861). Report upon the physics and hydraulics of the Mississippi river: upon the protection of the alluvial region against overflow. Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott & co.
  6. ↑ Horton, A.H.; Jackson, H.J. (1913). The Ohio Valley Flood of March-April, 1913. Washington: Department of the Interior United States Geological Survey. p. 86.
  7. ↑ Malamy, Tom. (1916). "Flood Committee to Recommend Federal Aid for Levees". The Kansas City Globe, p.2.
  8. ↑ 8.0 8.1 Adelle, Thomas; Leichenko, Robin (2011). "Adaptation through insurance: lessons from the NFIP". International Journal of Climate Change Strategies and Management. 3 (3): 250–263.
  9. ↑ 9.0 9.1 "Laws and Regulations". FEMA. Retrieved December 8, 2024.
  10. ↑ 10.0 10.1 10.2 10.3 Lin, Yang-Han; Wang, Li-Jun; Shi, Xin-Yang; Chen, Min-Peng (August 2023). "Evolution of research on climate risk insurance: A bibliometric analysis from 1975 to 2022". Advances in Climate Change Research. 14 (4): 592–604 – via ScienceDirect.
  11. ↑ Murphy, Chris B. (April 17, 2024). "Catastrophe Bond (CAT) Meaning, Benefits, Risk Example". Investopedia. Retrieved December 7, 2024.
  12. ↑ 12.0 12.1 12.2 FEMA. (April 17, 2018). "An Affordability Framework for the National Flood Insurance Program". Homeland Security. https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/2020-05/Affordability_april_2018.pdf
  13. ↑ Surminksi, Swenja; Bouwer, Laurens M.; Linnerooth-Bayer, Joanne (March 2016). "How insurance can support climate resilience". Nature Climate Change. 6: 333–334.
  14. ↑ United Nation's Framework Convention on Climate Change. (2015). "Article 8". Paris Agreement, p.12, retrieved from https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/english_paris_agreement.pdf
  15. ↑ 15.0 15.1 15.2 15.3 "Flood Insurance". FEMA. Retrieved December 7, 2024.
  16. ↑ "What are Flood Zones and Maps?". FEMA National Flood Insurance Program. Retrieved December 7, 2024.
  17. ↑ "Historical NFIP Claims Information and Trends". FEMA National Flood Insurance Program. Retrieved December 7, 2024.
  18. ↑ "Parametric and Climate Risk Insurance". Aon UK Limited. English and Wales. 2024. Retrieved 8 Dec 2024.
  19. ↑ "Parametric and index insurance". Climate Policy Initiative. 2024. Retrieved 8 Dec 2024.
  20. ↑ Schäfer, Laura; Waters, Eleanor; Kreft, Sönke; Zissener, Michael; et al. (United Nations University and UNU-EHS) (2016). MAKING CLIMATE RISK INSURANCE WORK FOR THE MOST VULNERABLE: SEVEN GUIDING PRINCIPLES. Munich: MUNICH CLIMATE INSURANCE INITIATIVE (MCII). line feed character in |title= at position 60 (help)
  21. ↑ Kraehnert, Kati; Osberghaus, Daniel; Hott, Christian; Wätzold, Frank (October 27, 2021). "Insurance Against Extreme Weather Events: An Overview". Review of Economics. 72 (2). doi:https://doi.org/10.1515/roe-2021-0024 Check |doi= value (help) – via De Gruyter.
  22. ↑ "What is macro-level, meso-level and micro-level index-insurance?". The Global Index Insurance Facility (GIIF). 2024. Retrieved Dec 8 2024. Check date values in: |access-date= (help)
  23. ↑ Weber, Ron; Fecke, Wilm; Moeller, Imke; Mushoff, Oliver (5 May 2015). "Meso-level weather index insurance: Overcoming low risk reduction potential of micro-level approaches". Agricultural Finance Review. Vol. 75 No. 1: pp. 31-46. doi:https://doi.org/10.1108/AFR-12-2014-0045 Check |doi= value (help). ISSN 0002-1466 – via emerald insight.CS1 maint: extra text (link)
  24. ↑ "Scaling Parametric Insurance in Pacific Small Island Developing States through Meso- Level Solutions". Impact Capital for Development UNCDF. March 01, 2024. Retrieved Dec 8 2024. Check date values in: |access-date=, |date= (help)
  25. ↑ Kara, Anaar (26 April 2024). "Resilience at All Levels: From Macro-Insurance Solutions to Micro". CGAP. Retrieved 8 Dec 2024.
  26. ↑ Hersher, Rebecca (May 23, 2023). "Insurance firms need more climate change information. Scientists say they can help". NPR. Retrieved November 3, 2024.
  27. ↑ Nullis, Clare (May 22, 2023). "Economic costs of weather-related disasters soars but early warnings save lives". World Meteorological Organization. Retrieved November 3, 2024.
  28. ↑ Grimaldi, Javanmardian, Pinner, Samandari, Strovink, Antonio, Kia, Dickon, Hamid, Kurt (November 19, 2020). "Climate change and P&C insurance: The threat and opportunity". McKinsey & Company – via Website.CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  29. ↑ Zona, Roll, Law, Rita, Kevin, Zora (Winter 2014). "Sustainable/Green Insurance Products" (PDF). Casualty Actuarial Society – via Website.CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  30. ↑ Martinez-Diaz, L. (2018). Investing in resilience today to prepare for tomorrow’s climate change. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 74(2), 66–72. https://doi.org/10.1080/00963402.2018.1436805
  31. ↑ Surminski, S., Bouwer, L. & Linnerooth-Bayer, J. How insurance can support climate resilience. Nature Clim Change 6, 333–334 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2979
  32. ↑ Yang, J., Savrassov, K., Gorbatchev, N. (2024). Sustainable Infrastructure and Climate Change: Natural Disaster Risk Insurance Solutions for Belt and Road Countries. In: Leal Filho, W., Salvia, A.L., Portela de Vasconcelos, C.R. (eds) An Agenda for Sustainable Development Research. World Sustainability Series. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-65909-6_4
  33. ↑ Jarzabkowski, P. and Chalkias, Konstantinos and Clarke, D. and Iyahen, E. and Stadtmueller, D. and Zwick, A. (2019) Insurance for climate adaptation: opportunities and limitations. Global Commission on Adaptation, UN, Rotterdam, the Netherlands and Washington, DC, U.S.
  34. ↑ 34.0 34.1 "Understanding climate risk insurance" (PDF). InsuResilience. 2022. |first= missing |last= (help)
  35. ↑ 35.0 35.1 "Cost of Flood Insurance for Single-Family Homes under NFIP's Pricing Approach". fema.gov. June 6, 2024. Retrieved 10/28/2024. Check date values in: |access-date= (help)
  36. ↑ 36.0 36.1 36.2 Kousky, Carolyn (Spring 2018). "Financing Flood Losses: A Discussion of the National Flood Insurance Program". Risk Management and Insurance Review – via Wiley Online Library.
  37. ↑ Kousky, Carolyn (Spring 2018). "Financing Flood Losses: A Discussion of the National Flood Insurance Program". Risk Management and Insurance Review – via Wiley Online Library
  38. ↑ 38.0 38.1 38.2 38.3 38.4 Jung, Hyeyoon (July 2023). "Measuring the Climate Risk Exposure of Insurers" (PDF).
  39. ↑ 39.0 39.1 39.2 Smith, J., & Green, L. (2023). Insuring nature's survival: Strategies for biodiversity conservation. Global Environmental Policy Institute. Retrieved from https://www.financialprotectionforum.org/publication/insuring-natures-survival-the-role-of-insurance-in-meeting-the-financial-need-to
  40. ↑ 40.0 40.1 IPCC. (2022). Summary for Policymakers. In H.-O. Pörtner, D.C. Roberts, E.S. Poloczanska, K. Mintenbeck, M. Tignor, A. Alegría, M. Craig, S. Langsdorf, S. Löschke, V. Möller, & A. Okem (Eds.), Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (pp. 3–33). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009325844.001
  41. ↑ 41.0 41.1 41.2 41.3 Cleary, Patrick; Harding, William; McDaniels, Jeremy; Svoronos, Jean-Phillippe; Yong, Jeffery (November 2019). "Turning up the heat - climate risk assessment in the insurance sector".
  42. ↑ 42.0 42.1 Torarp, Veronika; Bochanski, Steve. "Climate risk and insurance: the case for resilience". pwc. Retrieved October 30, 2024.
  43. ↑ 43.0 43.1 "Climate and Catastrophe Insight" (PDF). AON. October 30, 2024.
  44. ↑ 44.0 44.1 44.2 Kreft; Eckstein; Dorsch, Lukas; Fischer, Livia (December 2015). "Global Climate Risk Index 2016".
  45. ↑ 45.0 45.1 Friedrich, Johannes; Ge, Mengpin; Pickens, Andrew; Vigna, Leandro (December 29, 2021). "This Interactive Chard Shows Changes in the World's Top 10 Emitters". World Resources Institute. Retrieved October 30, 2024.
  46. ↑ Lin, Yang-Han; Wang, Li-Jun; Shi, Xin-Yang; Chen, Min-Peng (August 2023). "Evolution of research on climate risk insurance: A bibliometric analysis from 1975 to 2022". Advances in Climate Change Research. Volume 14 (4): pp. 592-604. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.accre.2023.08.003 Check |doi= value (help) – via Science Direct.CS1 maint: extra text (link)
  47. ↑ "Top Risks Facing Insurance Organizations". AON. November 28, 2023. Retrieved Dec 8 2024. Check date values in: |access-date= (help)
  48. ↑ "The Role of Insurance in Climate Adaptation". Wharton, University of Pennslyvania. 2024. Retrieved Dec 8 2024. Check date values in: |access-date= (help)
  49. ↑ Jarzabkowski, Paula; Chalkias, Konstantinos; Clarke, Daniel (2019). INSURANCE FOR CLIMATE ADAPTATION: OPPORTUNITIES AND LIMITATIONS. ” Rotterdam and Washington, DC: the Global Commission on Adaptation.
  50. ↑ "InsuResilience Global Partnership for Climate and Disaster Risk Finance and Insurance Solutions". InsuResilience Global Partnership. 2023. Retrieved Dec 8 2024. Check date values in: |access-date= (help)
  51. ↑ Horton, Joshua (2018). "Parametric Insurance as an Alternative to Liability for Compensating Climate Harms". Carbon & Climate Law Review. Vol. 12: pp. 285-296 (12 pages) – via JSTOR.CS1 maint: extra text (link)
  52. ↑ Khoo, Felicia; Yong, Jeffery (November 2023). FSI Insights on policy implementation No 54 Too hot to insure – avoiding the insurability tipping point. Bank for International Settlements. ISSN 2522-249X.
  53. ↑ "Climate-Smart PPPs: Further Reading and Resources". The World Bank and PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP RESOURCE CENTER. October 20, 2024. Retrieved Dec 8 2024. Check date values in: |access-date= (help)


Seekiefer (Pinus halepensis) 9months-fromtop.jpg
 This conservation resource was created by Course:CONS200. It is shared under a CC-BY 4.0 International License.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.ubc.ca/index.php?title=Course:CONS200/2024WT1/Too_risky_to_insure%3F_An_overview_of_the_benefits_and_challenges_of_climate_risk_insurance&oldid=853794"