16 L Rickards
existence or causes of human-induced climate change – but of the stark risks
it poses). More specifically, climate risk management calls upon decisionmakers to reduce risk by taking the sensible precaution of investing in commercial insurance. By attaching a price signal to an entity’s risk profile,
property insurance is presented as ‘the disaster management tool of choice’
(Booth & Tranter 2018, p. 2) and a key enabler of longer-term climate change
adaptation. Driving acceptance of insurance as a form of adaptation is raising awareness of the growing ‘adaptation gap’ between what is needed to
reduce or avoid impacts and what action is occurring. In this way, insurance
is emerging both as part of the call for adaptation and, as with its relation
to mitigation, an urgent response to its failures to date. As such, insurance
offers a relatively subdued vision of how life is to be secured under climate
change. Its sombre tone is accentuated by its continual emphasis on risk and
disaster, and its lack of transformational ambition, in contrast to other more
creative and justice-oriented approaches to climate change adaptation. It
is also subdued because although adaptation is a ‘growth area,’ expanding
under climate change like a new modernisation frontier, it is itself acutely
vulnerable to climate change impacts and faces severe, inescapable limits
(Mechler et al. 2020). Commercial insurance is a case in point. As Collier
et al. (2021, p. 164) explain about catastrophe insurance:
Discussions of catastrophe insurance are characterised equally by
urgent calls to dramatically expand insurance cover for climate-related
risks, and warnings that, unless mitigation or adaptation measures are
taken, existing insurance arrangements may collapse, and the risks
faced by certain populations in certain geographical areas may become
uninsurable.
Geoengineering advocates would argue that it should be added to Collier
et al.’s list of measures needed to protect the insurance industry from an
uninsurable future. In positioning geoengineering as a protector of the
insurance industry, geoengineering’s narrative about the future not only
repeats the refrain of insurance, but also comes to engulf it. The basic
insurantial narrative under climate change is ‘If climate change continues, then everyone faces great risks… But what if they had insurance? This
would reduce the impacts.’ It moves from warning to solution, demonstrating Modern prudence and ingenuity. Geoengineering repeats the same
sequence, but in a way that enrols the insurance industry as an entity at
risk, offering it a partial and precarious solution – ‘What if geoengineering
reduced the impacts?’ – just as insurance offers a partial and precarious
solution to others.
Whether the posited solution is provided by geoengineering or other forms
of insurance, the very circulation of these ‘what if?’ proposals dampens the
urgency of ‘If this continues, then…’ warnings about the future. We come
then to the second reason where insurance and geoengineering, especially,
existence or causes of human-induced climate change – but of the stark risks
it poses). More specifically, climate risk management calls upon decisionmakers to reduce risk by taking the sensible precaution of investing in commercial insurance. By attaching a price signal to an entity’s risk profile,
property insurance is presented as ‘the disaster management tool of choice’
(Booth & Tranter 2018, p. 2) and a key enabler of longer-term climate change
adaptation. Driving acceptance of insurance as a form of adaptation is raising awareness of the growing ‘adaptation gap’ between what is needed to
reduce or avoid impacts and what action is occurring. In this way, insurance
is emerging both as part of the call for adaptation and, as with its relation
to mitigation, an urgent response to its failures to date. As such, insurance
offers a relatively subdued vision of how life is to be secured under climate
change. Its sombre tone is accentuated by its continual emphasis on risk and
disaster, and its lack of transformational ambition, in contrast to other more
creative and justice-oriented approaches to climate change adaptation. It
is also subdued because although adaptation is a ‘growth area,’ expanding
under climate change like a new modernisation frontier, it is itself acutely
vulnerable to climate change impacts and faces severe, inescapable limits
(Mechler et al. 2020). Commercial insurance is a case in point. As Collier
et al. (2021, p. 164) explain about catastrophe insurance:
Discussions of catastrophe insurance are characterised equally by
urgent calls to dramatically expand insurance cover for climate-related
risks, and warnings that, unless mitigation or adaptation measures are
taken, existing insurance arrangements may collapse, and the risks
faced by certain populations in certain geographical areas may become
uninsurable.
Geoengineering advocates would argue that it should be added to Collier
et al.’s list of measures needed to protect the insurance industry from an
uninsurable future. In positioning geoengineering as a protector of the
insurance industry, geoengineering’s narrative about the future not only
repeats the refrain of insurance, but also comes to engulf it. The basic
insurantial narrative under climate change is ‘If climate change continues, then everyone faces great risks… But what if they had insurance? This
would reduce the impacts.’ It moves from warning to solution, demonstrating Modern prudence and ingenuity. Geoengineering repeats the same
sequence, but in a way that enrols the insurance industry as an entity at
risk, offering it a partial and precarious solution – ‘What if geoengineering
reduced the impacts?’ – just as insurance offers a partial and precarious
solution to others.
Whether the posited solution is provided by geoengineering or other forms
of insurance, the very circulation of these ‘what if?’ proposals dampens the
urgency of ‘If this continues, then…’ warnings about the future. We come
then to the second reason where insurance and geoengineering, especially,