`Insurance companies should collect a carbon levy`

From Anthony J Webster and Richard H Clarke in Nature, “Insurance companies should collect a carbon levy”:

Governments juggle too many interests to drive global action on climate change. But the insurance industry is ideally placed. With annual premiums amounting to between US$4 trillion and [US]$5 trillion, or about 6% of world gross domestic product (GDP), the industry’s future profitability hinges on limiting the risks of climate change …

The costs of climate-related damage will grow as the world warms. For the United States, the impact on agriculture, crime, storms, energy, human mortality and labour will cost around 1% of GDP for each 1°C increase in global average temperature [1]. If a similar picture holds worldwide, each 1°C rise will cause about [US]$1 trillion of extra damage per year. For present temperatures above the 1980–2010 average, this equates to about 0.4% of world GDP — damages that are growing at around 0.1–0.2% per decade [1,2] …

Two other trends add pressure. Commercial banks, investment funds, university endowments and pension funds are shifting their portfolios away from fossil fuels and towards low-carbon options. They are driven by the fear that trillions of dollars of carbon-intensive assets could be ‘stranded’ as they become unburnable [4]. If assets lose value, so will companies and their investors, including insurance firms …

Instead, we propose a levy managed by the insurance industry to fund adaptation and the low-carbon transition (see ‘Energy levy’). Like a carbon or energy tax, it would have the advantage that the revenues go solely into adaptation and mitigation, not government or individual spending. It would have the same value internationally, be led by business and be set by an objective measure. We believe that the levy could be paid voluntarily. Large petroleum companies have called for a realistic carbon price to increase the pace of low-carbon investments; an insurance levy would be equivalent. Companies that pay up will attract good publicity and may reduce the risks of future litigation. Governments could legislate that it must be paid, as the United Kingdom has done with Flood Re ….

`Energy levy`

[1] Hsiang, S. et al. Science 356, 1362–1369 (2017).

[2] Clarke, R. H. Predicting the Price of Carbon (Predict Ability, 2016).

[3] Maynard, T. & Granger, N. The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance — Issues & Practice,
37, 318–339 (2012).

[4] Fabian, N. Nature, 519, 27–29 (2015).

Hat tip to Mal Adapted, commenting at And Then There’s Physics.

About ecoquant

See https://wordpress.com/view/667-per-cm.net/ Retired data scientist and statistician. Now working projects in quantitative ecology and, specifically, phenology of Bryophyta and technical methods for their study.
This entry was posted in American Statistical Association, Anthropocene, attribution, Bloomberg New Energy Finance, bridge to somewhere, business, capitalism, Carbon Tax, climate business, climate economics, corporate litigation on damage from fossil fuel emissions, corporations, Cult of Carbon, economics, energy levy, finance, fossil fuel divestment, fossil fuels, global warming, Hyper Anthropocene, insurance, investments, Joseph Schumpeter, leaving fossil fuels in the ground, moral leadership, statistics, stranded assets, sustainability, the right to know, the value of financial assets, tragedy of the horizon, transparency, zero carbon. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a reply. Commenting standards are described in the About section linked from banner.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.