In December, negotiators at the Paris climate meeting adopted insurance as an instrument to aid climate adaptation. Earlier in the year, the leaders of the G7 pledged to bring climate insurance to 400 million uninsured individuals in poor countries by 2020. In a new article in the journal Nature Climate Change, experts from the London School of Economics and Political Science, Deltares and International Institute for Applied¹ Systems Analysis welcome these developments, but also lay out the difficulties that policymakers will face in turning the ideas into action. They warn that ill-designed and poorly implemented² insurance instruments could fail to reach the goals of negotiators, or worse, prove detrimental³ to the very people they are intended to protect. Swenja Surminski, Senior Research Fellow the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics and Political Science led the article. She says, "Poor communities are much more impacted by extreme weather such as floods, droughts, and heatwaves. Rather than ad-hoc and unpredictable payments after these events, insurance approaches can be set up in advance of these impacts, and be more efficient and provide better support to these vulnerable people."

 

Bayer was one of the first to propose insurance as a mechanism⁴ to reimburse⁵ people for the impacts of climate change, and to examine the potential benefits and trade-offs of such policies. She says, "With the new momentum⁶ we have for these policies, we now have the opportunity to put the right insurance systems in place."

 

While insurance could provide funding to help people in need, the researchers point out several ways that such mechanisms⁷ could fail: Any new insurance scheme in developing countries needs to overcome difficult challenges, including lack of risk data, limited financial literacy, and weak financial infrastructure⁸; Insurance for the poor will only be viable⁹ if it is linked to adaptation and risk reduction efforts that reduce the underlying¹⁰ risk factors including climate-resilient infrastructure, adapted agricultural practices, and early warning systems; otherwise climate insurance will be short-lived and far from cost-effective; Traditional insurance is an expensive mechanism with high transaction and capital costs, making premiums¹¹ far higher than expected losses. This suggests that adaptation funds might be better spent on other types of safety net rather than on buying insurance cover from international insurance markets; Insurance will need high levels of subsidies¹² or other forms of support to render it affordable¹³ and to avoid shifting responsibility on to those who are the least responsible for climate change, the least able to shoulder the premiums, and in many cases the least able to reduce their losses.

点击收听单词发音