Disclaimer: I know climate change is a thing, and it’s bad (understatement).
As a counter argument, won’t an insurance company always look for risks that they can raise the rates against? Even if the insurance company is the most conservative business, if there is only a slight chance that climate change exists, it would be a win-win for the insurance company to raise the rates. Either it’s a real thing (which it is) and the higher rates now cover the risk. Or it’s not a thing, and the rates are higher now anyways.
I guess taking that logic, a insurance company that doesn’t trust the science could offer lower rates and take the increase in customers and reap the rewards. But strangely no one is??
From what I understand, the insurance business model is to transform individual unpredictable events into very predictable statistics.
A house burning down ? As an individual it is devastating, it’s a lifetime of savings that burn away. For the insurance company, it’s part of the statistics.
The problem of climate change is that it brings unpredictability at the insurer scale.
Disclaimer: I know climate change is a thing, and it’s bad (understatement).
As a counter argument, won’t an insurance company always look for risks that they can raise the rates against? Even if the insurance company is the most conservative business, if there is only a slight chance that climate change exists, it would be a win-win for the insurance company to raise the rates. Either it’s a real thing (which it is) and the higher rates now cover the risk. Or it’s not a thing, and the rates are higher now anyways.
I guess taking that logic, a insurance company that doesn’t trust the science could offer lower rates and take the increase in customers and reap the rewards. But strangely no one is??
That’s also true, fair point
Because they would risk having to pay out more as well. And if they pay more insurance payouts than they make from the customers, they lose money.
Yes but the risk calculation either includes the climate change related statistics or it doesn’t.
If it does, then it indicates that insurance companies see this risk as valid and factual.
No insurance company would make decisions based on paying out against risk they didn’t believe existed. That’s the whole point of calculating risk.
From what I understand, the insurance business model is to transform individual unpredictable events into very predictable statistics.
A house burning down ? As an individual it is devastating, it’s a lifetime of savings that burn away. For the insurance company, it’s part of the statistics.
The problem of climate change is that it brings unpredictability at the insurer scale.