18 L Rickards
carbon, erecting mechanical trees to suck CO 2 out of the air, or growing and burning real trees, capturing their carbon and sticking it underground (BioEnergy + CCS). More than mere ideas, many of these are
being trialled, formally and informally. While a lack of monitoring and
transparency means the empirical results of many such interventions are
poorly understood, there is clear potential for severely negative impacts
on systems near and far. Even in the testing phase, both SRM and carbon
removal often involve injecting substances of various kinds into the environment, raising the ‘problem of permissible pollution’ (Hale & Dilling
2011). Many geoengineering options are what international law considers
‘ultrahazardous’ (Brent 2018) and require never-ending maintenance to
work and to avoid the disruptions to the climate that would result should
large-scale geoengineering suddenly fail (Wong 2014). Social risks are
equally serious. Numerous authors point out the autocratic tendencies of
geoengineering projects and their potential to trigger conflict at various
scales, from individual projects, to regional climate zones to geopolitical
disputes between powerful nations (Dalby 2015; Rabitz 2016; Szerszynski
et al. 2013). SRM, in particular, is read as a form of ‘stratospheric imperialism’ (Surprise 2020), ‘an extreme, expert–elite technocratic intervention
into the global climate system that would serve to further concentrate contemporary forms of political and economic power’ (Stephens & Surprise
2020, p. 2; Schneider 2019).
‘Rogue geoengineering’ could affect the insurance sector badly, given
the latter’s reliance on knowing the risk landscape. For, if geoengineering
were to change weather patterns, as it wants to but may do in unknown and
unintended ways, the ability of insurers and others to calculate and insure
against specific climatic risks would be badly diminished. That said, for
commercial insurance and its ‘what if?’ creative responses, where there is
risk there is opportunity. Thus, alongside other compensation and liability
mechanisms, insurance is being introduced as an antidote to some of geoengineering’s possible side-effects – or at least, investors’ liability for such
side-effects (Packard 2018). In particular, parametric insurance is being
proposed as means to govern SRM, building on the use of such insurance
across large regions as a climate adaptation mechanism (Horton et al. 2020).
In a given region, a parametric insurance scheme would be underwritten by
those implementing geoengineering, who would pay out others if certain
climate indices are reached (Horton & Keith 2019). It goes without saying
that the feasibility of such a scheme is highly uncertain. The point is that
rather than insurance companies rejecting geoengineering as delusional,
they are exploring the deployment of geoengineering as a new insurance
market, further illustrating the resilience and tumbling interconnections
of commercial insurance and geoengineering, as both are tapped along by
their common insurantial logic, nested ‘what if?’ propositions, shared capitalist orientation and scrambling efforts to keep up with their and others’
cascading effects in the world.
carbon, erecting mechanical trees to suck CO 2 out of the air, or growing and burning real trees, capturing their carbon and sticking it underground (BioEnergy + CCS). More than mere ideas, many of these are
being trialled, formally and informally. While a lack of monitoring and
transparency means the empirical results of many such interventions are
poorly understood, there is clear potential for severely negative impacts
on systems near and far. Even in the testing phase, both SRM and carbon
removal often involve injecting substances of various kinds into the environment, raising the ‘problem of permissible pollution’ (Hale & Dilling
2011). Many geoengineering options are what international law considers
‘ultrahazardous’ (Brent 2018) and require never-ending maintenance to
work and to avoid the disruptions to the climate that would result should
large-scale geoengineering suddenly fail (Wong 2014). Social risks are
equally serious. Numerous authors point out the autocratic tendencies of
geoengineering projects and their potential to trigger conflict at various
scales, from individual projects, to regional climate zones to geopolitical
disputes between powerful nations (Dalby 2015; Rabitz 2016; Szerszynski
et al. 2013). SRM, in particular, is read as a form of ‘stratospheric imperialism’ (Surprise 2020), ‘an extreme, expert–elite technocratic intervention
into the global climate system that would serve to further concentrate contemporary forms of political and economic power’ (Stephens & Surprise
2020, p. 2; Schneider 2019).
‘Rogue geoengineering’ could affect the insurance sector badly, given
the latter’s reliance on knowing the risk landscape. For, if geoengineering
were to change weather patterns, as it wants to but may do in unknown and
unintended ways, the ability of insurers and others to calculate and insure
against specific climatic risks would be badly diminished. That said, for
commercial insurance and its ‘what if?’ creative responses, where there is
risk there is opportunity. Thus, alongside other compensation and liability
mechanisms, insurance is being introduced as an antidote to some of geoengineering’s possible side-effects – or at least, investors’ liability for such
side-effects (Packard 2018). In particular, parametric insurance is being
proposed as means to govern SRM, building on the use of such insurance
across large regions as a climate adaptation mechanism (Horton et al. 2020).
In a given region, a parametric insurance scheme would be underwritten by
those implementing geoengineering, who would pay out others if certain
climate indices are reached (Horton & Keith 2019). It goes without saying
that the feasibility of such a scheme is highly uncertain. The point is that
rather than insurance companies rejecting geoengineering as delusional,
they are exploring the deployment of geoengineering as a new insurance
market, further illustrating the resilience and tumbling interconnections
of commercial insurance and geoengineering, as both are tapped along by
their common insurantial logic, nested ‘what if?’ propositions, shared capitalist orientation and scrambling efforts to keep up with their and others’
cascading effects in the world.