Learning Adaptation: Climate-Related Risk Management in the Insurance Industry

Chapter
Part of the Advances in Global Change Research book series (AGLO, volume 42)

Abstract

Insurance is a prominent, well-established mechanism for risk transfer in developed countries. While North American governments have stalled on both mitigation of and adaptation to climate change, the insurance industry (globally and in North America) is already viewing recent catastrophic events as being partially climate change related and exploring new adaptation initiatives. In general, the intent of these initiatives is to assure the prosperity of the insurance sector, not to prevent damage to life and property. Reliance by insurers on predictive risk modeling continues to be limited, as new initiatives are prompted by extreme events rather than modeled projections of damage. As another example of reactive behavior, insurers rely on legal judgments to determine the extent of their liabilities. This pattern of learning and response has two implications. First, opportunities for anticipatory adaptation prompted by insurer initiatives are very limited, which guarantees continued large losses from extreme events into the future. Second, proactive risk mitigation will have to be pursued and implemented on behalf of public welfare by the relevant branches of government and cannot be left to market forces.

Keywords

Anticipatory adaptation Insurance Climate change Institutional learning Climate-related risk management Climate change damages Risk management Property risk Catastrophic events Risk modeling 

References

  1. Abraham KS (2002) The insurance effects of regulation by litigation. In: Viscusi WK (ed) Regulation through litigation. Donnelley, HarrisonburgGoogle Scholar
  2. Adams M (2006) Strapped insurers flee coastal areas. USA Today (26 April 2006)Google Scholar
  3. Carlson JA (2005) The economics of fire protection: from the great fire of London to rural/metro. Econ Aff 25(3):39–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Casman EA, Dowlatabadi H (2002) The contextual determinants of malaria. Resources for the Future, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  5. Catovsky S (2005) Financial risks of climate change. Association of British Insurers, LondonGoogle Scholar
  6. Center on Race Poverty & the Environment, Native American Rights Fund (2008) Kivalina complaint. San Francisco. http://www.climatelaw.org/cases/country/us/kivalina/kivalina. Cited 22 Sep 2008
  7. Changnon SA, Pielke RA, Changnon D et al (2000) Human factors explain the increased losses from weather and climate extremes. Bull Am Meteorol Soc 81(3):437–442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cline WR (1992) The economics of global warming. Institute for International Economics, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  9. Cornell C (1968) Engineering seismic risk analysis. Bull Seismol Soc Am 58(5):1583–1606Google Scholar
  10. Cummins JD (2002) Comment: the insurance effects of regulation by litigation. In: Viscusi WK (ed) Regulation through litigation. Donnelley, HarrisonburgGoogle Scholar
  11. Federal Emergency Management Agency (2002) National flood insurance program description. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington DC. http://www.fema.gov/library/viewRecord.do?id=1480. Cited 8 Sep 2008
  12. Florida Disaster (2008) Florida Division of Emergency Management. Hurricane loss mitigation program. Tallahassee. http://www.floridadisaster.org/brm/fhlmp_section1.htm. Cited 8 Sept 2008
  13. Grossman DA (2003) Warming up to a not-so-radical idea: tort-based climate change litigation. Columbia J Environ Law 28(1):1–61Google Scholar
  14. Guatteri M, Bertogg M, Castaldi A (2005) A shake in insurance history: the 1906 San Francisco earthquake. Swiss Reinsurance Company Economic Research & Consulting, Zurich. http://www.swissre.com/pws/media%20centre/news/news%20releases%202006/swiss%20re%20publication%20recounts%20one%20of%20the%20most%20significant%20events%20in%20insurance%20history%20%20the%201906%20san%20francisco%20earthquake%20and%20fire.html. Cited 8 Sept 2008
  15. Healy JK, Tapick JM (2004) Climate change: it’s not just a policy issue for corporate counsel – it’s a legal problem. Columbia J Environ Law 29(1):89–118Google Scholar
  16. Hsu S-L (2008) A realistic evaluation of climate change litigation through the lens of a hypothetical lawsuit. Social Science Research Network. http://ssrn.com/paper=1014870. Cited 22 Sept 2008
  17. Insurance Information Institute (2008) Insurance Information Institute paper analyzes growth of state-run property insurance plans: number of policyholders doubled between 1997 and 2006; stabilized in 2007–2008. http://www.iii.org/media/updates/press.788572/. Cited 19 Aug 2008
  18. Jeffee DM, Russell T (1997) Catastrophe insurance, capital markets, and uninsurable risks. J Risk Ins 64(2):205–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kunreuther H (1996) Mitigating disaster losses through insurance. J Risk Uncertain 12(2):171–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lott N, Ross T (2006) Tracking and evaluating U.S. billion dollar weather disasters 19802005. NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center, AshvilleGoogle Scholar
  21. Mills E (2005) Insurance in a climate of change. Science 309(5737):1040–1044CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mills E, Roth RJ Jr, Lecomte E (2005) Availability and affordability of insurance under climate change: a growing challenge for the U.S. CERES, BostonGoogle Scholar
  23. Native American Rights Fund [NARF] (2008) NARF & Alaskan native village sues 24 oil and energy companies for destruction caused by global warming. Kivalina, AK. http://narfnews.blogspot.com/2008/02/narf-alaskan-native-village-sues-24-oil.html. Cited 22 Sept 2008
  24. Pielke RA (2007) Future economic damage from tropical cyclones: sensitivities to societal and climate changes. Philos Trans R Soc A 365(1860):1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Pielke R, Sarewitz D (2002) Wanted: scientific leadership on climate. Issues Sci Technol 19:27–30Google Scholar
  26. Pielke RA, Agrawala S, Bouwer LM et al (2005) Clarifying the attribution of recent disaster losses: a response to Epstein and McCarthy. Bull Am Meteorol Soc 86:1481–1483CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Priest GL (2003) Government insurance versus market insurance. Geneva Pap Risk Insur Issues Pract 28:71–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Reiter P, Lathrop S, Bunning M et al (2003) Texas lifestyle limits transmission of dengue virus. Emerg Infect Dis 9(1):86–89Google Scholar
  29. Stern N (2006) The economics of climate change: the Stern review. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge/New YorkGoogle Scholar
  30. Wharton Risk Center (2007) Managing large-scale risks in a new era of catastrophes: the role of the private and public sectors in insuring, mitigating and financing recovery from natural disasters in the United States. In: Doherty N, Grace M, Hartwig R et al (eds) The Wharton Risk Center extreme events project, in conjunction with Georgia State University and the Insurance Information Institute, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Resources, Environment and SustainabilityUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada
  2. 2.Institute of Resources, Environment and Sustainability and Liu Institute for Global IssuesUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada

Personalised recommendations