This report evaluates and benchmarks the quality and comprehensiveness of climate risk disclosures by insurance companies in response to the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) Climate Risk Disclosure Survey.
In 2014, insurance regulators in six states—California, Connecticut, Minnesota, New Mexico, New York and Washington— required insurers writing in excess of $100 million in premiums to ll out the survey. This report analyzes responses by 148 insurance companies, collectively representing about 71 percent of the U.S. insurance market in terms of 2014 direct premiums written. A total of 375 insurance companies submitted Climate Risk Disclosure Surveys.
The aim of the analysis is to provide regulators, insurers, investors and other stakeholders with substantive information about the risks insurers face from climate change and steps insurers are taking to respond to those challenges. It effectively opens a window into the industry’s response to an issue with sweeping implications. Ceres’ report also offers recommendations for insurers and regulators to improve their management and disclosure on wide-ranging climate risks.
A global clean energy transformation is underway—and it has significant implications for fossil fuel companies and their investors.
This new Ceres report, Assets or Liabilities? Fossil Fuel Investments of Leading U.S. Insurers, focuses on the risks to insurance companies—the second-largest type of institutional investor after pension funds based on assets under management.
It is already well understood by U.S. insurance regulators that insurers’ massive bond and equity holdings expose them to both credit risk and systemic/market risk. As insurers also face uncertainty related to the size and timing of their insured loss payouts, insurance regulators require companies to invest conservatively so they can meet their financial obligations and remain financially stable.
In light of these factors, as well as the crucial role of insurers in providing a safety net in the face of climate change, Ceres examined the 40 largest US insurance group’s investments (bonds, common stock, and preferred stock) in the oil and gas, coal and electric/gas utilities sectors.
Are insurers, and the industry’s regulators, taking action to identify and evaluate their potential investment exposure? What are the best strategic options for companies to reduce identified threats, and how should regulators assess insurers’ risk management? Download the report to learn more.
This report summarizes responses from insurance companies to a survey on climatechange risks developed by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC). In 2013, insurance regulators in California, Connecticut, Minnesota, NewYork and Washington required insurers writing in excess of $100 million in direct written premiums, and licensed to operate in any of the five states, to disclose their climate- related risks using this survey.
The aim of the survey, and Ceres’ analysis of the responses, is to provide regulators, insurers, investors and other stakeholders with substantive information about the risks insurers face from climate change and the steps insurers are taking — or are not taking — to respond to those risks. Because virtually every large insurer operates in at least one of the mandatory climate risk disclosure states, this analysis effectively opens a window into the entire industry. The report distills key findings and industry trends, and includes company specific scores based on disclosed actions taken to manage climate risks. It also offers recommendations for insurers and regulators to improve the insurance sectors’ overall management of climate change risks.
]]>This paper presents a four-stage strategic planning framework tested and refined in workshops along with the diverse ideas and innovations identified by workshop participants. The approach is proposed for use as a second stage of climate adaptation planning, following the completion of local vulnerability and risk assessments.
]]>This document distils the key priorities that emerged from the workshop series for collaborative action between key urban resiliency stakeholders to build climate resilience in cities.
]]>When we examine the full costs of public programs that pay for disaster relief and recovery from extreme weather events—ad hoc disaster assistance appropriations, flood insurance, crop insurance, wildfire protection, and state run “residual market” insurance programs—we can begin to understand the price to U.S. taxpayers of inaction on climate change.
As the frequency and severity of extreme weather events intensify with the effects of climate change, our federal and state disaster relief and insurance programs will become increasingly unsustainable as losses from such events increase. The net present value of the federal government’s liability for unfunded disaster assistance over the next 75 years could be greater than the net present value of the unfunded liability for the Social Security program.
Boosting our resiliency to today’s extreme weather events is an urgent priority. Investing concurrently in forward-looking measures that over time will reduce the climate-altering carbon emissions contributing to extreme weather is essential to our long-term physical and economic well-being.