28 November 2017, Moody’s Investor Service, The growing effects of climate change, including climbing global temperatures, and rising sea levels, are forecast to have an increasing economic impact on US state and local issuers. This will be a growing negative credit factor for issuers without sufficient adaptation and mitigation strategies, Moody’s Investors Service says in a new report. The report differentiates between climate trends, which are a longer-term shift in the climate over several decades, versus climate shock, defined as extreme weather events like natural disasters, floods, and droughts which are exacerbated by climate trends. Our credit analysis considers the effects of climate change when we believe a meaningful credit impact is highly likely to occur and not be mitigated by issuer actions, even if this is a number of years in the future. Climate shocks or extreme weather events have sharp, immediate and observable impacts on an issuer’s infrastructure, economy and revenue base, and environment. As such, we factor these impacts into our analysis of an issuer’s economy, fiscal position and capital infrastructure, as well as management’s ability to marshal resources and implement strategies to drive recovery. Extreme weather patterns exacerbated by changing climate trends include higher rates of coastal storm damage, more frequent droughts, and severe heat waves. These events can also cause economic challenges like smaller crop yields, infrastructure damage, higher energy demands, and escalated recovery costs. Read More here
Tag Archives: insurance
15 November 2017, Unfriend Coal, Our new scorecard was released today, finding that most insurers are still failing to take action on coal to prevent dangerous climate change. Leading insurance companies have pulled $20 billion out of investments in coal and a growing number are refusing to underwrite new coal projects, reveals a new scorecard on the industry from the Unfriend Coal campaign. Zurich announced this week that it will divest from and cease offering insurance to companies which depend on coal for more than 50% of their business. It now has some of the strongest policies on the scorecard, which rates 25 of the world’s biggest insurers on their action on coal and climate change. Swiss Re and Lloyd’s have also informed Unfriend Coal that they will announce new policies in the coming months. In all, 15 insurers with over $4 trillion in assets have now taken or are planning action on coal, divesting an estimated $20 billion in equities and bonds or ceasing to underwrite projects, finds Insuring Coal No More: An Insurance Scorecard on Coal and Climate Change. But although the shift away from coal is growing, these early movers still need to do more, and most insurers have yet to do anything to prevent the risk of dangerous climate change. The scorecard finds that no U.S. insurer has taken meaningful action, nor have major European companies such as Generali, Hannover Re, Chubb and Mapfre. Coal is the biggest single source of CO2 emissions and insurers are uniquely placed to support the Paris Agreement commitment to keep climate change well below 2 degrees Celsius. Peter Bosshard, Unfriend Coal coordinator, said: “Coal needs to become uninsurable. If insurers cease to cover the numerous natural, technical, commercial and political risks of coal projects, new coal mines and power plants cannot be built and existing operations will have to shut down. Insurers also manage $31 trillion of assets, and by shifting investments from coal to clean energy they can accelerate the transition to a low-carbon economy. Read More here
”
13 November 2017. Bloomberg, Big Insurers Brace for Perilous Future as Climate Risks Escalate. After one of the worst Atlantic hurricane seasons in history, the world’s biggest insurers say the industry needs to get its act together if it wants to survive climate change. Insuring against weather natural disasters could reach unaffordable levels for households and companies, while the potential damage is so unpredictable it may be impossible to model — an unacceptable risk to insurers. “Sometime in the future there will be the situation where people cannot afford any longer to buy catastrophe insurance — this is what we want to avoid,” Ernst Rauch, the head of the Corporate Climate Centre at Munich Re. The world’s largest reinsurer suffered a 1.4 billion-euro ($1.63 billion) loss after hurricanes Harvey, Irma and Maria sent claims soaring. Contrary to Warren Buffett’s view that climate change will spur demand for coverage and boost profit at his insurance companies, the risk is the opposite unfolds as shifting weather patterns render disaster-prone areas uninsurable. Finding ways to prevent this is on the agenda of United Nations-backed climate talks in Bonn, Germany this week. The onus of bearing the expense of rebuilding after hurricanes, floods and earthquakes already falls disproportionately on governments. Insurers are on the hook for only about 10 percent of $75 billion of damage in Texas caused by flooding after Hurricane Harvey, according to AIR Worldwide. That’s because most standard U.S. home insurance policies don’t cover flooding. It’s a similar story in Fiji, hit last year by its worst cyclone ever, where less than one in ten people own insurance. “It’s a big concern of Swiss Re that there’s such a huge gap between the economic losses and what is insured,” said Peter Zimmerli, the head of atmospheric perils at Swiss Re, the second-biggest reinsurer. “Some of the signals of global warming are just there — they can’t be debated any more.” Read More here
5 April 2017, ECOS, Before the storm. It’s a catastrophe in anyone’s book, not least those of insurance companies anticipating the tens of thousands of claims likely to be lodged.As the floods surged south in the days after Cyclone Debbie hit landfall near Bowen in north Queensland on March 28, a natural disaster was declared in five major centres in northern New South Wales.Citing the chairman of the Insurance Council of Australia, the Australian Financial Review said “in insurance terms, a catastrophe means a disaster that causes a significant number of claims in a region” and for Cyclone Debbie that could be claims over $1 billion. CSIRO’s Dr Chi-Hsiang Wang and colleagues have been researching the cost implications of extreme weather events but with a focus at the other end – predicting the likely cost before the storms. Counting the cost of extreme events Deloitte Access Economics last year delivered a report on building resilient infrastructure which estimated that, between 2002-03 and 2010-11, an annual average of more than $450 million was spent by Australian governments on restoring essential public infrastructure following extreme weather. If it’s business-as-usual, the report said, $17 billion is expected to be spent on direct replacement costs of essential infrastructure due to natural disasters between 2015 and 2050. These estimates don’t factor in the impacts of climate change. In the case of Cyclone Debbie, the wind intensity exceeded the limitations of the building specifications. “It’s not a surprise that we see considerable damage because the intensity is so high,” says Dr Wang. Until now, a cyclone with the force of Debbie was considered a once in a 2,000 year event by Australian design standard for wind actions (AS/NZS 1170.2:2011). That may change. “There’s a consensus among scientists, although not as strong as the consensus around rising global temperatures, that for some tropical cyclone basins around the world they are likely to see events of increased intensity,” he adds. What’s missing? Dr Wang says the current practice for wind impact assessment of physical infrastructure uses only wind intensity (in terms of wind gust) to gauge the damage potential of windstorms. “This ignores other threats brought upon by the accompanying rainfall and storm surge,” he says. Read More here