A comprehensive analysis of why major insurance companies believe climate change has the potential to make vast regions uninsurable, threatening global economic activity

1. Executive Summary

The convergence of accelerating climate change with the fundamental limits of the insurance industry's ability to manage risk represents one of the most significant economic challenges of our time. This analysis examines how the world's largest insurers are confronting an unprecedented crisis: the growing possibility that vast regions, economic sectors, and populations may become effectively uninsurable, with profound implications for global economic stability and human development.

The quantitative evidence alone tells a compelling story of a system under unprecedented stress. The $210 billion global protection gap in 2024, representing 60% of total disaster losses going uninsured, illustrates the scale of risks that are already beyond the reach of traditional insurance mechanisms [1]. The European Central Bank's finding that only €13 billion of €30 billion in disaster losses were insured across the eurozone—a 57% protection gap in one of the world's most developed insurance markets, demonstrates that this is not merely a developing country problem [2].

The projections are even more alarming. The Network for Greening the Financial System (NGFS), composed of  147 central banks and financial institutions, estimate that global economic growth could slow by 30% by 2100 due to climate change, with impacts potentially two to four times greater than previously estimated.  This suggests economic disruption on a scale that could fundamentally alter human development trajectories [3]. The potential for $1.2 trillion in losses in the US housing market alone if insurance premiums were properly priced illustrates how the current underpricing of climate risks is creating systemic vulnerabilities that could trigger broader financial instability [4].

Industry leaders across the global insurance sector are sounding increasingly urgent warnings about these trends. John Neal, CEO of Lloyd's of London, has characterized climate change as "the ultimate systemic risk," while Christian Mumenthaler, CEO of Swiss Re, has warned that "climate change is not a risk; climate change is a trend, it's a fact." [5][6]. Thomas Blunck, Member of the Board of Management at Munich Re, has observed that "the destructive forces of climate change are becoming increasingly evident, as backed up by science" [7].

These warnings reflect a fundamental shift in how the insurance industry conceptualizes climate change, not as an environmental issue that can be addressed through corporate social responsibility programs, but as an existential challenge that threatens the viability of traditional business models. The industry's response involves unprecedented innovation in risk assessment technologies, insurance products, and risk transfer mechanisms, but even these efforts are likely to be insufficient as climate risks continue to accelerate beyond the adaptive capacity of existing systems.

The global dimension of this crisis cannot be overstated. The 90% protection gap in developing countries on average means that billions of people and trillions of dollars in assets are exposed to climate risks without any financial protection [8]. This disparity threatens to exacerbate global inequality and undermine development efforts across the Global South, while creating systemic risks that could affect the entire global economy through supply chain disruptions, migration flows, and financial market instability.

The analysis presented in this report identifies five critical mechanisms through which uninsurable climate risks are likely to dramatically slow economic activity: asset repricing and devaluation as insurance becomes unavailable; investment capital flight from uninsurable regions; financial system stress from concentrated uninsured risks; development constraints as new projects become uninsurable; and mounting public sector burden as governments serve as insurers of last resort.

The regulatory response, while unprecedented in scope and coordination, in most cases will still be insufficient given the scale and pace of the challenge. The International Association of Insurance Supervisors' development of global standards for climate risk supervision, the Network for Greening the Financial System's climate scenarios and policy guidance, and the European Central Bank's warnings about systemic risks all represent important steps forward, but they freely acknowledge that current approaches may underestimate the true scale of climate risks.

Humanity faces a critical choice about how to respond to the convergence of climate change and insurance industry limits. This choice will largely determine whether the global economy can successfully adapt to climate risks or will face widespread uninsurability and massive economic disruption. The first path involves rapid, coordinated action to address both climate change itself and the challenges it poses for risk management. The second path involves continued fragmented and inadequate responses that allow climate risks to exceed the adaptive capacity of existing systems.

The window for choosing the first path is rapidly closing. The accelerating pace of climate change, the long lead times required for effective responses, and the potential for tipping points that could create sudden changes in risk profiles all suggest that decisions made in the next few years will largely determine outcomes for the remainder of the century. As Günther Thallinger, a board member at Allianz, has warned, "without decisive action, we risk crossing a threshold where adaptation is no longer possible, and the costs, human and financial, become unimaginable" [9].

This analysis explores the crisis from multiple angles, offering a thorough assessment of how the growing uninsurability problem will “dramatically slow all economic activity,” and identifying potential pathways to avert the most severe consequences. The findings indicate that success is still within reach, but only through levels of coordination, innovation, and investment unprecedented in scope and delivered at a pace equal to the scale of the challenge.

2. The Science of Climate Risk and Insurance Fundamentals

The insurance industry operates on a fundamental principle that has underpinned economic development for centuries: the ability to predict and price risk based on historical data and statistical analysis. This principle, known as stationarity, assumes that future conditions will resemble past conditions closely enough to enable accurate risk assessment and pricing. Climate change is systematically undermining this assumption, creating what industry experts describe as a crisis of insurability that threatens the foundation of modern risk management.

The Breakdown of Stationarity

For more than a century, traditional insurance models have depended on one critical assumption: that the past is a reliable guide to the future. By analyzing decades, sometimes centuries, of historical loss data on natural disasters, weather patterns, and other hazards, insurers have built actuarial models capable of predicting claims and setting premiums with remarkable accuracy. In a relatively stable climate, this approach worked. Extreme events, while unpredictable in their exact timing, followed statistical patterns that could be modeled, priced, and managed.

Climate change has shattered that foundation. We are now living in a non-stationary climate—one in which the historical record is no longer a dependable predictor of future risk. The frequency, intensity, and geographic reach of extreme weather events are shifting in ways that defy the assumptions baked into traditional actuarial models. In this new reality, past data can mislead as much as it informs.

This is not just a technical challenge for risk analysts; it is a systemic threat to the entire economic architecture that depends on functioning insurance markets. From mortgages and infrastructure finance to agricultural investment and manufacturing supply chains, modern economies run on the ability to transfer and manage risk. If insurance markets can no longer accurately price that risk, or withdraw from entire regions altogether, the repercussions will ripple through every sector, stalling development, destabilizing markets, and eroding the very foundation of long-term economic growth.

The World Meteorological Organization’s 2024 State of the Global Climate report delivers a stark warning: climate conditions are now changing at a pace and scale beyond anything in the historical record [11]. It confirmed that 2024 was the hottest year ever recorded, with global average temperatures hitting 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels for the first time, a threshold long viewed as a critical danger zone. 

The Challenge of Compound and Cascading Risks

For the insurance industry, perhaps the most alarming signal from the data is the accelerating rise of compound events, climate disasters that strike in tandem or in rapid sequence. These are not simply multiple hazards occurring at once; their combined force magnifies losses far beyond the sum of individual impacts, breaking the assumptions of traditional risk models, draining reserves, and pushing entire markets perilously close to uninsurability.

One of the greatest emerging challenges is the rise of both compound and cascading risks, threats that defy conventional modeling and pricing. Compound events occur when multiple climate hazards converge on the same region simultaneously, for example, when prolonged drought heightens wildfire danger while also limiting water supplies needed for firefighting. Cascading risks extend this danger further, unfolding when climate impacts in one sector or region trigger a chain reaction across interconnected systems such as flooding that disrupts transport networks, cripples supply chains, and halts production far from the disaster’s epicenter. In a tightly linked global economy, these interwoven shocks can multiply losses exponentially, creating scenarios that neither insurers nor governments are currently equipped to manage.

The 2017 Atlantic hurricane season provides a stark illustration of how compound and cascading risks can overwhelm insurance systems. Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria struck in rapid succession, creating a situation where the insurance industry faced multiple catastrophic losses simultaneously while also dealing with supply chain disruptions that increased reconstruction costs and extended recovery times [12]. The total insured losses from the season exceeded $90 billion, making it one of the most expensive years in insurance history.

Thomas Blunck, Member of the Board of Management at Munich Re, has underscored how rapidly evolving climate risk patterns are forcing the insurance industry to rethink its foundations: “One record-breaking high after another, the consequences are devastating. The destructive forces of climate change are becoming increasingly evident, as backed up by science. Societies need to prepare for more severe weather catastrophes” [13]. His warning reflects a growing consensus within the industry that traditional risk models, built for a world of isolated, statistically predictable events, are no longer sufficient to confront the complex, interconnected realities of climate-driven disasters.

The challenge is magnified by the difficulty of quantifying these new forms of risk using conventional methods. How does one accurately price coverage for a global supply chain disruption sparked by flooding in a country thousands of miles away? How can a model capture the probability and the cost of multiple, simultaneous infrastructure failures rippling across energy, transport, and communications sectors? These are not abstract hypotheticals; they are the emerging contours of a risk landscape that is systemic, global, and increasingly beyond the reach of traditional actuarial tools. Without new approaches, the industry will face mounting blind spots just as the scale of the threat is accelerating.

The Limits of Adaptation and Innovation

The insurance industry is responding to the climate crisis with a wave of innovation unlike anything in its history, deploying advanced risk assessment technologies, redesigning products, and expanding risk transfer mechanisms. Insurers are investing heavily in satellite monitoring, artificial intelligence, and big data analytics to sharpen their understanding of evolving hazards. New offerings like parametric insurance promise faster, more objective payouts, triggered by measurable thresholds such as wind speed or rainfall, rather than lengthy post-disaster damage assessments.

But even the most sophisticated tools are likely to be no match for the speed and scale at which climate change is reshaping the risk landscape. As Evan Greenberg, CEO of Chubb, warns, “Climate change has created tremendous volatility, and it continues to evolve. And the concentrations of values in areas where the climate—the impact of the climate—is greatest continues to increase.” His words underscore a stark reality: while the industry races to innovate, the risks themselves are accelerating faster, expanding in scale, intensity, and complexity. Without transformative shifts in how risks are reduced, shared, and absorbed, the gap between insurance capacity and real-world need will continue to widen, pushing more regions and sectors toward the brink of uninsurability.

Nowhere is this more dangerous than in the growing concentration of economic value in climate-vulnerable regions. In the United States, roughly 40% of GDP is generated in coastal counties, areas increasingly threatened by rising seas, intensifying hurricanes, and other climate-driven disasters. Comparable patterns exist across other developed nations, creating a dangerous dynamic in which vast portions of national economies sit squarely in the crosshairs of climate impacts that may overwhelm the very insurance systems meant to protect them. Unless this imbalance is addressed, the foundation of economic resilience itself could erode beyond repair. 

The industry’s response to these escalating challenges has been anything but uniform, and the consequences are already reshaping markets. Some insurers are pulling out of high-risk regions altogether, abandoning communities just as their need for protection peaks. Others are driving premiums so high that coverage slips beyond the reach of ordinary households and small businesses, effectively pricing resilience out of the market. A smaller but growing group is betting on new technologies and innovative models to stay in the game, though these solutions often come with steeper costs and tighter restrictions. The result is a fragmented system where access to insurance, and the security it provides, depends less on need than on geography, wealth, and the willingness of companies to shoulder mounting climate risks.

The Role of Climate Tipping Points

From an insurance standpoint, few threats are more alarming than climate tipping points—critical thresholds where shifts in the climate system become self-reinforcing and potentially irreversible. Once crossed, they can unleash sudden, cascading changes that defy prediction and overwhelm any traditional risk model.

Scientific research has already flagged several such flashpoints with profound implications for insurance markets. The rapid collapse of major ice sheets could drive sea levels high enough to render vast coastal regions uninsurable almost overnight. A shutdown of key ocean circulation patterns could disrupt weather across entire continents. And the release of methane from thawing permafrost could supercharge global warming beyond anything current projections anticipate.

The core challenge for insurers is that these tipping points are both identifiable and unknowable: scientists can map the conditions that might trigger them but cannot pinpoint when they will occur, or how severe their impacts will be. This uncertainty makes it nearly impossible to set prices for risks that may appear manageable today yet could escalate into economic catastrophes without warning.

The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has warned that some tipping points could be triggered at relatively modest levels of warming, potentially within the next decade. For an industry accustomed to planning decades ahead, with liabilities and investments stretching into the distant future, this compressed timeline threatens to upend fundamental assumptions about risk, solvency, and the very viability of long-term coverage.

The Economics of Risk Transfer

John Neal, CEO of Lloyd’s of London, has called climate “the ultimate systemic risk,” likening it to a global-scale version of COVID-19 in its capacity to disrupt markets, communities, and governments (18). His point underscores a pivotal truth: confronting climate change will require an entirely new paradigm for risk management, but for those who can innovate effectively, it also presents an opportunity to redefine the industry’s role as a pillar of resilience.

The industry's response has included efforts to develop new forms of risk transfer that can handle the scale and complexity of climate risks. Catastrophe bonds, which transfer insurance risk to capital markets, have grown rapidly in recent years as insurers seek additional capacity for managing large losses. Parametric insurance products, which pay out based on objective measures rather than damage assessments, offer the potential for faster response and lower administrative costs.

However, even the most promising innovations may fall short of matching the scale of the threat. The combined capacity of the world’s insurance and reinsurance markets is estimated at roughly $6 trillion, but in severe climate scenarios, potential losses would easily surpass that figure (19). In other words, even if risk were managed flawlessly, the sheer magnitude of possible climate-related disasters could overwhelm the system. The danger is greatest when multiple catastrophic events strike in close succession, draining reserves and leaving vast segments of the economy exposed. This reality underscores a sobering truth: the industry may simply lack the capacity to shield society from the most devastating impacts of a warming world.

The Global Protection Gap

The world’s protection gap, the difference between total economic losses from natural disasters and the portion covered by insurance, has been widening for decades. In 2024, it swelled to a staggering $210 billion, meaning 60% of global disaster losses were uninsured (20). The problem is most acute in developing countries, where insurance coverage is scarce and government disaster-response budgets are already stretched thin.

This widening gap is more than a financial statistic. It’s a destabilizing force for economies and societies. When disasters strike uninsured communities, the burden of recovery falls entirely on victims or cash-strapped governments, diverting resources from long-term development into perpetual crisis management. The result is a vicious cycle: repeated shocks erode infrastructure, drain savings, and lock communities into “development traps” that make them ever less able to prepare for the next disaster.

Tobias Grimm, Chief Climate Scientist at Munich Re, has highlighted the global implications of this challenge: "Everyone pays the price for worsening weather extremes, but especially the people in countries with little insurance protection or publicly funded support to help with recovery. The global community must finally take action and find ways to strengthen the resilience of all countries, and especially those that are the most vulnerable" [21].

The protection gap is not just a developing country problem. Even in wealthy countries with sophisticated insurance markets, significant portions of climate-related losses go uninsured. The European Central Bank found that only 43% of disaster losses in the eurozone were insured in 2024, despite the region having some of the world's most developed insurance markets [22]. This suggests that the challenges of insuring climate risks are fundamental rather than simply a matter of market development.

The Feedback Loop Between Climate and Economics

The interplay between climate change and insurance is creating a dangerous self-reinforcing spiral, one that threatens to accelerate both environmental damage and economic instability. As premiums soar or coverage disappears altogether, businesses and homeowners have fewer resources and incentives to invest in climate resilience. That underinvestment leaves them increasingly exposed to the next disaster, driving losses higher. Those losses, in turn, push insurance further out of reach, tightening the spiral until communities are left both unprotected and economically stranded.

This self-reinforcing cycle is already unfolding in real time. In California, the growing difficulty, or outright impossibility, of securing wildfire insurance has depressed property values and stalled new development in high-risk areas (23). Paradoxically, it has also stripped away the financial incentives for homeowners to invest in fire-resistant landscaping or resilient building materials. The result: these properties are becoming more, not less, susceptible to catastrophic loss.

The loop operates across scales, from individual homes to entire regions. At the macroeconomic level, when climate risks become uninsurable, investment dries up. Communities in vulnerable areas then face shrinking tax bases, job losses, and declining infrastructure making adaptation harder just when it is most urgent. Over time, climate damage and economic deterioration feed on each other, accelerating decline. Left unchecked, this vicious cycle will force the retreat from once-thriving areas that are rendered both uninhabitable and economically unsustainable.

The Search for Solutions

Even in the face of mounting challenges, the insurance industry is racing to innovate, seeking tools and strategies that might keep climate risk within the bounds of insurability. Companies are experimenting with advanced technologies, reimagined products, and creative risk-transfer mechanisms to expand their capacity to absorb and distribute climate-related losses. Artificial intelligence and machine learning are sharpening risk assessment and forecasting. Satellite imagery and IoT sensors deliver real-time intelligence on weather patterns and asset vulnerabilities. Blockchain promises faster, more transparent claims processing and novel avenues for distributing risk.

Yet even the most sophisticated tools cannot alter the underlying physics of a warming planet. As Swiss Re’s Christian Mumenthaler cautions, "We cannot make it cheaper, more affordable. We can maybe through cost cutting, but overall, we're not the solution to climate change, we are just warning about it and giving pricing signals to society, to hopefully finally take it very seriously" [24].

This perspective reflects a growing recognition within the industry that insurance cannot solve the climate crisis by itself. Instead, the industry's role may be to provide accurate pricing signals that reflect the true costs of climate risks, thereby encouraging adaptation and mitigation efforts by businesses, governments, and individuals.

The next section examines how industry leaders are grappling with these challenges and what their responses reveal about the future of climate risk management and economic development.

3. Industry Transformation and Expert Voices

The global insurance industry is confronting its most profound upheaval since modern actuarial science emerged in the 17th century. This time, the driver is neither a breakthrough in technology nor a shift in regulation.  It is the seismic transformation of the very risk landscape on which the industry is built. The candid warnings of industry leaders make clear: the challenge is not simply adapting to climate change, but surviving in an environment where the risks themselves are being fundamentally redefined.

The Allianz Perspective: A Systematic View of Uninsurability

Günther Thallinger, a board member at Allianz and one of the most prominent voices in the climate risk discussion, has articulated perhaps the most comprehensive framework for understanding how climate change could lead to widespread uninsurability. His analysis, developed through Allianz's extensive global operations and research capabilities, provides a systematic view of how climate risks could overwhelm traditional insurance mechanisms.

In a February 2025 interview, Thallinger outlined what he describes as the "uninsurability threshold"—the point at which climate risks become so frequent, severe, or unpredictable that they cannot be effectively managed through traditional insurance approaches [25]. This threshold is not a single global phenomenon but rather a series of regional and sectoral tipping points that could occur at different times and in different ways.

"We are seeing early warning signs of this threshold being approached in several markets," Thallinger explained. "In some parts of California, Florida, and Australia, we are already seeing insurance markets withdraw or price coverage at levels that make it effectively unavailable to many property owners. This is not a temporary market adjustment as it represents a fundamental shift in the relationship between climate risk and insurability" [26].

Thallinger’s analysis pinpoints three decisive forces that determine when and where insurance markets may collapse under climate pressure. First is the frequency of extreme events, which erodes predictability and undermines the basic principle of pooling risks. Second is the severity of losses, which can exceed the industry’s capacity to absorb them. Third is the correlation of risks across regions and sectors, which limits the ability to spread exposures.

According to Allianz research, these forces are now converging pushing the threshold of uninsurability closer than most had imagined. “Our models suggest that without urgent adaptation and mitigation, vast segments of the global economy could become uninsurable within just two to three decades,” Thallinger warns. “This is not a distant, hypothetical future.  It is an imminent reality demanding immediate action.”

Swiss Re's Fundamental Challenge: Insuring Facts vs. Trends

Christian Mumenthaler, CEO of Swiss Re, has offered one of the most philosophically penetrating assessments of the crisis confronting the insurance industry. His stark observation, “you cannot insure facts,” captures the essence of how climate change is transforming risk itself, in ways that may be fundamentally incompatible with the very premise of insurance.

As one of the world’s largest reinsurers, Swiss Re’s vantage point reveals that climate change is not just another insurable hazard, it is a different category of risk altogether. “Climate change is obviously close to our hearts,” Mumenthaler noted in a 2021 interview, “because on one hand it touches us on the loss side, but also because we are seeing it—we’re early, we’re at the forefront of the events.(28)” That early exposure has given Swiss Re a uniquely urgent understanding: climate change is not merely straining the industry’s models, it is rewriting the rules of the game.

The company’s research highlights a phenomenon it terms “climate risk amplification” representing the compounding effect by which climate change intensifies not only the frequency and severity of individual hazards, but also the degree to which those hazards are interconnected. A single trigger, such as prolonged drought, can unleash a cascade of concurrent crises: elevating wildfire danger, slashing agricultural yields, straining water resources, and driving up energy demand for cooling. This web of correlated risks undermines one of insurance’s core defenses, the ability to spread exposure across sectors and geographies making systemic losses far harder to contain.

Mumenthaler has been particularly vocal about the limitations of insurance as a solution to climate change. "We cannot make it cheaper, more affordable. We can maybe through cost cutting, but overall, we're not the solution to climate change, we are just warning about it and giving pricing signals to society, to hopefully finally take it very seriously," he emphasized [29]. This perspective reflects a growing recognition within the industry that insurance cannot solve the climate crisis but can play a crucial role in providing accurate information about climate risks.

Lloyd's of London: Climate as the Ultimate Systemic Risk

John Neal, CEO of Lloyd’s of London, has described climate change as “the ultimate systemic risk” [30], a term that underscores both the unprecedented scale of the challenge and its potential to trigger cascading economic disruption. As the world’s oldest insurance market, Lloyd’s has weathered centuries of technological upheaval and geopolitical change. Yet Neal warns that climate change is a qualitatively different threat, one that transcends traditional risk categories.

Lloyd’s analysis emphasizes the systemic nature of climate risks: their capacity to strike multiple sectors, regions, and timeframes at once. “We think of Covid as systemic risk and climate is the ultimate systemic risk, so this is our chance to show businesses, communities and even governments how we can help,” Neal explained [31]. The comparison is telling. If the COVID-19 pandemic could upend the global economy in months, climate change could inflict disruptions on a scale that is broader, deeper, and far more enduring.

Lloyd’s research has identified several pathways through which climate risks could trigger systemic economic disruption. First, direct physical damage to infrastructure, property, and productive assets can immediately erode economic capacity. Second, supply chain breakdowns can ripple through interconnected global networks, amplifying localized shocks into worldwide disruptions. Third, financial market instability can arise from the sudden repricing of climate-exposed assets, undermining investor confidence and destabilizing capital flows [32].

Lloyd’s stresses that these risk mechanisms rarely occur in isolation as they can collide and compound, triggering cascading failures across multiple systems simultaneously. As CEO John Neal explains, “The advantage we have is unlike, say, life assurers where they’re making long, long-term decisions, we are repricing our products every 12 months. So in real time, we’re managing weather and trying to understand weather and then trying to extrapolate that through a climate lens” [32]. This constant recalibration provides Lloyd’s with an unparalleled, front-line perspective on how rapidly, and unpredictably, climate risks are evolving.

Yet Neal frames this volatility not only as a threat but as a historic opportunity. “I genuinely, genuinely think … climate is the biggest single opportunity the insurance industry has ever seen” [33]. In his view, the accelerating pace of climate change demands bold innovation for new products, services, and risk-transfer mechanisms capable of both protecting economies and positioning the insurance sector as a pivotal driver of global climate resilience.

Munich Re's Scientific Approach: Evidence-Based Risk Assessment

Munich Re which is one of the world’s largest reinsurers and a recognized leader in natural catastrophe research has adopted an intensely scientific lens for understanding climate risks. Under the guidance of executives like Thomas Blunck and Chief Climate Scientist Tobias Grimm, the company anchors its strategy in rigorous, evidence-based assessment, recognizing that traditional assumptions no longer hold in an era of accelerating change.

Blunck underscores the urgency: “One record-breaking high after another….the consequences are devastating. The destructive forces of climate change are becoming increasingly evident, as backed up by science,” he stated in January 2025 [34]. This commitment to grounding risk assessment in climate science, meteorology, and advanced statistical modeling reflects Munich Re’s conviction that only a deep, data-driven understanding of evolving hazards can equip the industry to manage the unprecedented volatility of the climate era.

Munich Re’s research has tracked systematic shifts in the frequency, intensity, and geographic reach of natural catastrophes over recent decades. These are not random fluctuations but are clear, measurable trends that align with climate science projections. The problem for the insurance industry is that these trends are accelerating, eroding the reliability of traditional risk models and exposing their inability to keep pace with a rapidly changing hazard landscape.

Tobias Grimm warns of the global stakes: “Everyone pays the price for worsening weather extremes, but especially the people in countries with little insurance protection or publicly funded support to help with recovery. The global community must finally take action and find ways to strengthen the resilience of all countries, and especially those that are the most vulnerable” [35].

Chubb's Market Reality: Volatility and Concentration

Evan Greenberg, CEO of Chubb, offers a sharply pragmatic view of how climate change is reshaping insurance markets in real time. Rather than focusing on distant projections, his analysis zeroes in on the immediate operational challenges of pricing and managing climate risk.

“Climate change has created tremendous volatility, and it continues to evolve. And the concentrations of values in areas where…the impact of the climate…is greatest continues to increase,” Greenberg noted in a 2024 interview [36]. His observation underscores two intertwined threats: the growing unpredictability of climate-driven losses and the rising concentration of economic assets in the very regions most exposed to those losses.

The concentration of assets in climate-exposed regions is proving just as challenging as the volatility itself. As development surges along coastlines, in floodplains, and in other high-risk areas, the scale of potential catastrophic losses grows ever larger. This clustering of economic value makes it harder to diversify risk and raises the stakes for single events, which now have the potential to generate industry-wide losses.

Greenberg has been blunt about the economic constraints shaping the industry’s response. “We intermediate money, we don’t produce money. And so, therefore, reflecting loss cost, when you think general inflation, when you think climate change, when you think litigation, that is driving the pricing of insurance,” he explained [37]. His point is clear: insurers cannot simply absorb the escalating costs of climate impacts. They must either pass those costs on to policyholders making coverage less affordable, or withdraw from markets altogether, leaving communities exposed and economies vulnerable.

Zurich's Market Analysis: The Alarmingly Bleak Outlook

Zurich Insurance Group has delivered some of the most sobering warnings yet about the impact of climate change on global insurance markets. In research published alongside recent climate resilience studies, the company described the outlook as “alarmingly bleak,” a reflection of both the unprecedented scale and the accelerating pace of changes in the risk landscape [38].

Zurich’s analysis zeroes in on a critical pressure point: the link between rising climate risks and insurance affordability. “If insured losses continue to grow at this rate, premiums for climate risk coverage will need to increase to reflect the additional risk. This in turn, will affect the level of protection that individuals and businesses are willing and able to purchase, with potential consequences for the overall functioning of the market,” the company warned [39]. The implication is stark.  Without intervention, escalating premiums will erode coverage levels to the point where entire segments of the market become unprotected, undermining the stability and purpose of insurance itself.

Zurich’s findings expose a dangerous feedback loop in insurance markets: as climate risks intensify, premiums must rise to match the growing threat. Yet higher premiums inevitably push more individuals and businesses out of the market. With fewer participants to share the burden, the cost of coverage climbs even further for those who remain setting off a self-reinforcing spiral that can ultimately drive markets toward collapse.

The company’s research also underscores the accelerating pace of this shift. Over the past three decades, global insured losses have increased far faster than the global economy itself, a clear sign that climate risks are outstripping both economic growth and adaptation efforts [40]. If this trajectory continues, insurance could become prohibitively expensive for vast segments of the global economy, leaving critical assets and communities exposed to escalating, unmitigated losses.

The Convergence of Expert Opinion

Despite their differing vantage points and analytical methods, the leaders of the world’s largest insurance companies have arrived at strikingly similar conclusions about the threat climate change poses, not only to their industry, but to the global economy as a whole. Their assessments converge on several critical points.

First, there is broad agreement that climate change is not simply another risk to be priced and pooled but is a fundamentally different category of risk. Its systemic, correlated, and accelerating nature erodes the very assumptions upon which modern insurance markets are built.

Second, consensus is growing that current climate trends are incompatible with traditional insurance models. Whether framed as “approaching uninsurability thresholds,” “the ultimate systemic risk,” or an “alarmingly bleak” outlook, the industry’s message is clear: without aggressively addressing climate change, the system will break.

Third, there is recognition that the insurance sector cannot shoulder this burden alone. While insurers can provide vital risk management tools and powerful pricing signals, addressing the root causes of climate risk demands coordinated action across governments, industries, and communities.

Finally, there is a shared acknowledgment that the cost of inaction will be catastrophic, not just for insurers, but for the entire global economy. The prospect that widespread uninsurability could “dramatically slow all economic activity” is not a remote hypothetical; it is a looming near-term danger that demands urgent, collective response.

The Industry's Response: Innovation and Adaptation

Despite the immense challenges, the leaders of the global insurance industry are far from passive spectators in the face of climate change. Across the sector, companies are channeling significant investment into new technologies, products, and strategies aimed at managing climate risk more effectively.

These innovations range from parametric insurance, which delivers rapid payouts triggered by objective metrics rather than lengthy damage assessments, to advanced tools like satellite monitoring, artificial intelligence, and big data analytics that sharpen risk assessment and forecasting. New risk-transfer mechanisms, including catastrophe bonds, are also expanding access to capital markets, providing additional capacity to absorb climate-related losses.

However, industry leaders are clear-eyed about the limits of these solutions. As Mumenthaler has cautioned, technological advances and cost efficiencies can ease the strain at the margins, but they cannot reverse the relentless upward trajectory of climate risk [41]. These innovations may buy a few years, but they are no substitute for the systemic, society-wide action needed to address the root causes of climate change itself.

The Global Dimension: Developed vs. Developing Country Challenges

The perspectives of industry leaders also highlight the uneven burden of climate risk across the global economy. Wealthier nations, bolstered by stronger institutions and deeper financial reserves, may temporarily find ways to absorb rising premiums or create alternative risk management tools. Yet even these advantages will prove insufficient to shoulder the escalating costs of climate change as its impacts intensify in the decades ahead.

Developing countries, by contrast, face far steeper challenges.  In these regions, the protection gap, the share of losses that go uninsured already stands at roughly 90%, meaning that the overwhelming majority of climate-related damages receive no insurance coverage at all [42]. This absence of financial protection leaves countries far more vulnerable to climate shocks and severely constrains their ability to adapt. The likely result is a widening divide between developed and developing nations in their capacity to manage climate risk creating an imbalance with profound global consequences.

Industry leaders increasingly recognize that these vulnerabilities are not contained by national borders. Disruptions to supply chains, climate-driven migration, and financial instability can all radiate outward from climate-vulnerable developing countries, creating systemic risks for the global economy as a whole.

The trajectory toward widespread uninsurability, however, is not preordained. As Thallinger warns, “the choices we make in the next few years will largely determine whether we can maintain a functioning system for managing climate risks or whether we face widespread economic disruption” [43].

4. The Economics of Uninsurability: How Climate Risks Will Slow Global Growth

The link between insurance availability and economic activity is far more foundational than many policymakers and business leaders appreciate. Insurance is not just a safety net against losses.  It is the invisible infrastructure that makes modern economies possible, allowing long-term investment, development, and innovation to proceed despite uncertainty. When coverage becomes unavailable or prohibitively expensive, the damage extends well beyond the immediate impact of uninsured losses. It disrupts the very mechanisms that power economic growth and development, threatening the stability and dynamism of entire economies.

The Five Pathways to Economic Disruption

Economic analysis of climate-related uninsurability reveals five powerful pathways through which the loss of insurance can choke economic activity. Each pathway operates at different scales and timelines, yet they can intersect and amplify one another creating cascading shocks capable of destabilizing the global economy.

1. Asset Repricing and DevaluationWhen insurance is withdrawn from certain asset classes or high-risk regions, market values must recalibrate to reflect the full weight of uninsured exposure. This repricing can be sudden and severe, particularly when it affects large concentrations of assets. In the U.S. housing market alone, the potential for up to $1.2 trillion in losses, if premiums were adjusted to fully reflect climate risks, illustrates the staggering scale of devaluation that could unfold [44].

2. Investment Capital FlightThe inability to secure insurance forces investors into an unpalatable choice: absorb sharply higher, uncompensated risks or shift capital to more insurable markets. This flight of capital accelerates economic decline in already vulnerable regions, stripping away the very resources needed for adaptation and resilience, and locking them into a vicious cycle of disinvestment and mounting vulnerability.

3. Financial System StressClimate risk does not stop at property lines. It penetrates deeply into the balance sheets of banks, pension funds, and institutional investors. When significant portions of these portfolios become uninsurable, institutional exposure spikes, threatening financial stability. The European Central Bank clearly warns that such concentrations of uninsured climate risk could escalate into systemic threats for the entire global financial system [45].

4. Development ConstraintsNew infrastructure, real estate, and industrial projects rely on insurance to unlock financing and meet regulatory standards. When coverage is unavailable, these projects grind to a halt, curbing growth and innovation. The impact is particularly severe in developing nations, where infrastructure expansion is the backbone of economic progress—and its absence stalls long-term development.

5. Mounting Public Sector BurdenAs private insurers retreat, governments are compelled to act as insurers of last resort, absorbing the financial shock of disaster relief and reconstruction. These obligations strain public budgets, diverting funds from critical infrastructure, healthcare, and education. Over time, this erodes economic efficiency, undermines growth, and can tip vulnerable governments into fiscal crisis.

Together, these pathways form a feedback loop of economic fragility. Left unchecked, they will not only slow growth but erode the foundations of market confidence, deepen inequality, and drive the world closer to an uninsurable future.

Asset Repricing: The $1.2 Trillion Question

The potential for massive asset repricing may be the most immediate and visible economic consequence of climate-related uninsurability. Real estate markets are particularly exposed, as property values hinge on the availability of mortgage financing which itself requires insurance coverage. When insurance becomes unavailable or unaffordable, values can collapse almost overnight.

Research from the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco estimates that fully pricing climate risks into U.S. housing markets could wipe out up to $1.2 trillion in value, with the heaviest losses concentrated in coastal regions and wildfire-prone areas [46]. This scenario assumes that premiums reflect the true actuarial cost of climate risks, without subsidies from government programs or cross-subsidization from lower-risk policyholders.

The impact would be uneven. Properties in the highest-risk areas could lose 50% or more of their value, while those in lower-risk areas might see smaller declines, or even gains, as buyers shift toward locations that remain insurable. This shift would amount to a massive redistribution of wealth, with far-reaching economic and social consequences.

Commercial real estate faces similar, and potentially greater, vulnerabilities. Office towers, shopping centers, and industrial facilities in climate-exposed areas could see steep devaluations if coverage disappears. Given that U.S. commercial real estate is valued at over $20 trillion, even modest repricing could unleash enormous economic impacts [47].

The timing of such repricing will determine its severity. A slow, gradual adjustment over years might give markets and institutions time to adapt. But a sudden shift triggered by a major disaster or abrupt withdrawal of insurance could destabilize financial markets and disrupt the economy on a scale rivaling the 2008 financial crisis.

The Geography of Risk

Insurance availability is a decisive factor in shaping where businesses operate and where investors commit their capital. When coverage becomes unavailable or prohibitively expensive in a given region, it sends a powerful market signal driving capital toward more insurable alternatives. This movement of capital can accelerate regional economic decline, further eroding the resources needed for climate adaptation and resilience.

California’s wildfire insurance crisis offers an early warning. Rising costs and reduced availability of coverage have prompted some businesses to relocate to other states, while discouraging new investment in high-risk areas [48]. For now, California’s vast and diversified economy has managed to absorb these impacts, but smaller or less diversified regions could suffer far greater damage from similar insurance market disruptions.

The global implications are even more sobering. International investors are increasingly factoring climate risks and insurance availability into their decisions. Countries or regions unable to provide adequate coverage for climate-related hazards may struggle to attract foreign direct investment, potentially stalling economic growth and development.

Evan Greenberg of Chubb has warned that “the concentrations of values in areas where…the impact of the climate…is greatest continues to increase” [49]. This trend is deeply concerning: even as climate risks escalate in certain locations, economic activity and development continue to cluster there, magnifying potential losses and raising the stakes for a sudden withdrawal of insurance.

The feedback loop from capital flight can be especially destructive. As businesses and investors exit climate-vulnerable areas, local tax bases and economic activity shrink, leaving fewer resources for adaptation and resilience. Over time, this dynamic can trap regions in a vicious cycle where climate vulnerability and economic decline intensify each other.

Systemic Risk and Contagion

The concentration of climate-exposed assets within the portfolios of major financial institutions poses a clear threat of systemic risk to the entire global financial system. Banks, insurers, pension funds, and other institutions collectively hold trillions of dollars’ worth of assets vulnerable to climate impacts. If a portion of these assets become uninsurable, the exposure borne by their holders rises sharply, potentially to levels that could jeopardize their financial stability.

The European Central Bank (ECB) has been especially outspoken about these dangers. Its analysis warns that climate risks could strain the financial system through several interconnected channels: direct physical losses from climate events, the repricing of climate-exposed assets, and an increase in risk correlation across asset classes and geographic regions [50].

For regulators, the challenge is that climate risks differ fundamentally from the threats traditional financial oversight was designed to manage. They are systematic rather than idiosyncratic, striking large numbers of assets at once. They are forward-looking, with future risks often untethered from historical patterns making past performance an unreliable guide.

Compounding the danger is the potential for contagion effects. Losses from uninsured climate risks at one institution can force asset sales or lending cutbacks, rippling through other firms and markets. Such knock-on effects can magnify the original shock, pushing localized climate losses into full-scale financial instability.

John Neal of Lloyd’s has aptly called climate change “the ultimate systemic risk” [51], a recognition that its impacts are capable of disrupting multiple sectors and institutions simultaneously. For regulators, this means grappling not only with direct threats to individual institutions but with the far more complex challenge of safeguarding the stability of the system as a whole.

Governments as Insurers of Last Resort

When private insurance markets retreat from high-risk areas, governments are often compelled to step in as insurers of last resort funding disaster relief and reconstruction when catastrophe strikes. This role carries enormous fiscal burdens that can crowd out other public investments and undermine overall economic efficiency.

The United States offers a telling example. As climate risks have intensified, federal disaster relief spending has averaged more than $100 billion annually in recent years, with certain years far exceeding that figure [54]. Such expenditures weigh heavily on federal budgets and taxpayers, especially when concentrated in regions repeatedly struck by disasters.

The problem is exacerbated by poor incentives for risk reduction. Generous disaster relief can unintentionally create moral hazard, diminishing the motivation for individuals and businesses to invest in resilience measures or avoid building in high-risk areas. This dynamic fuels continued development in vulnerable zones, locking in higher future losses and swelling government liabilities.

International development assistance faces a parallel challenge. Donor countries and multilateral organizations are increasingly called upon to provide post-disaster aid to climate-impacted developing nations. While essential for humanitarian reasons, this aid can strain development budgets and divert funding from other pressing priorities.

The fiscal strain of acting as insurer of last resort also carries broader macroeconomic risks. Governments facing massive potential liabilities from climate disasters may suffer credit rating downgrades, raising their borrowing costs. This can trigger a vicious cycle in which climate risks drive up financing costs, leaving even less fiscal space for the adaptation and resilience investments needed to break the cycle.

Sectoral Analysis: Differential Impacts Across the Economy

The economic fallout from climate-related uninsurability will be far from evenly distributed. Different sectors vary widely in their dependence on insurance and in their exposure to climate hazards, meaning the consequences will hit some industries far harder than others. Understanding these disparities is essential for gauging the full scope of the threat.

Real estate is uniquely exposed to the insurance crisis, since property values are directly tied to the availability of affordable coverage. Without insurance, mortgages cannot be issued, development slows, and existing property values collapse. Around the world, climate change is already driving these dynamics.

• California (Wildfires):After record-breaking wildfire seasons, major insurers including State Farm and Allstate stopped issuing new homeowners’ policies in high-risk areas of California in 2023. Thousands of homeowners were forced into the state’s high-cost FAIR Plan, which provides only limited coverage. Property values in fire-prone areas such as parts of Napa and Sonoma counties have already begun to decline as buyers struggle to secure insurance.
• Florida (Hurricanes):In the wake of Hurricane Ian in 2022—one of the costliest storms in U.S. history with insured losses of $60 billion—multiple insurers went insolvent, and others sharply raised premiums or withdrew from the market. Citizens Property Insurance Corporation, the state’s insurer of last resort, now covers over 1.4 million policies, raising concerns about fiscal sustainability. Homeowners in coastal regions are paying insurance premiums that rival or exceed mortgage payments, depressing demand and property values.
• Louisiana (Storm Surges & Floods):After repeated hurricanes, including Hurricane Ida in 2021, over 20 insurance companies exited the Louisiana market, leaving tens of thousands of homes without coverage. Property transactions slowed dramatically in flood-prone parishes, with lenders refusing to finance uninsured homes.
• Australia (Flooding):Following the 2022 east coast floods, which caused over $4.8 billion in insured losses, insurers raised premiums to unaffordable levels or withdrew entirely from flood-prone regions of Queensland and New South Wales. Some households reported annual premiums exceeding $10,000, rendering properties effectively unmarketable.
• United Kingdom (Flooding):Before the creation of the government-backed Flood Re scheme, many homes in flood-prone areas of England and Wales were effectively uninsurable on the private market. Property sales in floodplains stagnated, with values falling sharply compared to similar properties outside high-risk zones.

Agriculture is among the most climate-sensitive sectors, and crop insurance has long been the backbone of farm financing—enabling farmers to secure credit and manage weather-related risks. Yet climate change is now pushing traditional agricultural insurance systems to their limits.

• United States (Midwest Floods, 2019): Record rainfall and flooding across the Corn Belt led to more than $4 billion in prevented planting indemnities, the largest payout in U.S. crop insurance history. This event revealed how extreme precipitation patterns can overwhelm actuarial models, straining the federal crop insurance program that underpins U.S. farm credit.
• Canada (Prairie Heat Dome, 2021): An unprecedented heatwave and drought devastated wheat, barley, and canola production across the Prairies. Insurance claims under provincial AgriInsurance programs soared, with Manitoba alone paying out over $500 million in crop losses. Officials warned that climate extremes were eroding the financial sustainability of existing programs.
• India (Erratic Monsoons): The government’s flagship Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana (PMFBY) crop insurance scheme has faced mounting strain as monsoons become more erratic. Rising losses have led many private insurers to exit the program, forcing the government to assume a larger share of risk and creating gaps in coverage for smallholder farmers.
• Southern Africa (Recurring Droughts): Severe, prolonged droughts in Zimbabwe, Zambia, and South Africa have made traditional multi-peril crop insurance increasingly unviable. Insurers have shifted toward parametric products (triggered by rainfall data), but these offer only partial coverage and leave many risks uninsured, reducing farmer resilience.
• Australia (Bushfires and Drought): Repeated cycles of drought and catastrophic bushfires have caused insurance costs to surge for both crop and livestock producers. In some high-risk regions, premiums have become prohibitively expensive, leading to underinsurance or complete withdrawal of coverage.

The energy sector faces a dual challenge: rising physical risks from extreme weather that directly damage infrastructure, and transition risks from the rapid global pivot toward clean energy, which threatens to strand fossil fuel–based assets. Both dynamics increasingly undermine the insurability and financial viability of critical energy systems.

• Texas (Winter Storm Uri, 2021):A historic winter storm froze natural gas wells, disabled power plants, and collapsed large portions of the Texas grid, leaving millions without power. The event generated tens of billions of dollars in insured and uninsured losses and forced some local energy cooperatives into bankruptcy. Insurers have since reassessed coverage terms for grid infrastructure exposed to extreme cold, recognizing that such “once-in-a-century” events are becoming more frequent.
• Louisiana & Gulf Coast (Hurricane Ida, 2021):Hurricane Ida caused extensive damage to oil refineries, petrochemical plants, and offshore platforms, disrupting U.S. energy supply chains for weeks. Insured losses were estimated at over $30 billion, much of it tied to energy infrastructure. In response, insurers sharply raised premiums for offshore oil facilities in hurricane-prone waters, with some underwriters withdrawing from the Gulf market altogether.
• California (Wildfires, 2017–2020):A series of megafires destroyed not only homes but also energy transmission lines owned by PG&E. Liability claims against the utility exceeded $30 billion, driving it into bankruptcy in 2019. Insurers and reinsurers have since reassessed the risk of wildfire-related grid liabilities, increasing costs for utilities operating in high-risk areas.
• Germany (Floods, 2021):Catastrophic flooding in Germany’s Ahr Valley inundated power plants and damaged energy distribution infrastructure. This event reinforced concerns that critical energy assets in floodplains are underpriced for risk, prompting insurers to raise premiums and impose stricter underwriting standards for utilities across Europe.
• Transition Risk: Stranded AssetsThe International Energy Agency (IEA) has warned that achieving net-zero by 2050 could strand trillions in fossil fuel assets. For example, coal plants in India and China, many built in the last two decades, face premature retirement to meet global climate targets. Investors and insurers are already scaling back coverage for coal projects; over 40 insurers and reinsurers worldwide have adopted coal-exit policies, making new fossil infrastructure increasingly uninsurable.

Transportation systems—ports, airports, highways, and railways, are highly exposed to climate risks. These networks concentrate enormous economic value in fixed assets that are difficult to relocate, making them especially vulnerable to climate-driven losses. As a result, insurance costs for transport infrastructure are rising sharply, and in some cases coverage is being withdrawn altogether.

• Ports (U.S. Gulf Coast & Asia):Hurricanes Harvey (2017) and Ida (2021) caused billions in damages to critical port infrastructure in Houston, New Orleans, and along the Gulf Coast, disrupting global supply chains for weeks. Insurance claims spiked so severely that some underwriters either raised premiums drastically or withdrew coverage for facilities in high-risk coastal zones. In Asia, Typhoon Mangkhut (2018) inflicted major damage on port infrastructure in Hong Kong, highlighting similar vulnerabilities.
• Airports (Florida, U.S.):Miami International Airport, located barely above sea level, faces mounting risks from storm surge and sea-level rise. Insurers have warned that continued exposure could drive premiums higher or make parts of the airport uninsurable by mid-century. Globally, nearly 350 airports are at risk of coastal flooding by 2050 (World Bank/World Resources Institute), raising concerns for both insurers and investors.
• Railways (Europe & North America):Extreme heat waves in Europe (2019, 2022) forced widespread rail closures after steel tracks buckled in record-breaking temperatures. While insured losses for physical damage were significant, insurers are increasingly factoring in business interruption risks as extreme heat events make such shutdowns more frequent. In the U.S., Amtrak has already had to suspend service multiple times due to flooding and extreme heat, raising questions about long-term insurability of certain routes.
• Highways (Australia):The 2011 Queensland floods destroyed over 8,000 kilometers of roads and dozens of bridges, resulting in claims so high that several insurers temporarily withdrew coverage for transport projects in flood-prone regions. Since then, premiums for highway infrastructure in Australia have risen significantly, and some local governments report difficulties securing affordable coverage for reconstruction projects.

Manufacturing faces a mix of direct risks, where facilities themselves are damaged or rendered uninsurable, and indirect risks, where cascading supply chain disruptions undermine production even in areas spared from direct climate impacts.

• Thailand Floods (2011):Historic flooding inundated seven major industrial estates, shutting down over 14,000 factories producing cars, electronics, and textiles. Global supply chains were severely disrupted, especially in the automotive and electronics industries. Insured losses exceeded $12 billion, one of the largest industrial insurance payouts in history. Many manufacturers subsequently faced higher premiums, stricter underwriting, or withdrawal of coverage in flood-prone regions.
• Germany (Floods, 2021):Severe flooding in the Ahr Valley and surrounding regions damaged industrial facilities, including chemical plants and automotive suppliers. Many businesses discovered that their flood insurance coverage was inadequate or prohibitively expensive, sparking national debates about whether parts of Germany’s industrial base might become effectively uninsurable in floodplains.
• U.S. Gulf Coast (Hurricanes Katrina, Harvey, and Ida):Repeated hurricanes have caused billions in damages to refineries, petrochemical plants, and manufacturing facilities in Louisiana and Texas. After Hurricane Harvey in 2017, which flooded major chemical production hubs around Houston, insurers tightened terms and raised premiums for industrial facilities in hurricane-prone zones, with some withdrawing from the market altogether.
• Indirect Risks – Semiconductor Shortages:Extreme weather has also triggered global manufacturing disruptions indirectly. In 2021, severe drought in Taiwan, the world’s leading semiconductor hub, limited water availability for chip production, compounding global supply shortages. While not all losses were insured, insurers and investors began reassessing how climate-linked resource scarcity can ripple across manufacturing-dependent industries worldwide.

Taken together, these sector-specific vulnerabilities paint a picture of systemic economic risk where uninsurability in one sector can reverberate through others, amplifying the overall impact on growth, stability, and resilience.

Regional Analysis: Geographic Patterns of Risk and Impact

The economic consequences of climate-related uninsurability will vary sharply by geography, reflecting both the degree of climate exposure and the capacity of each region to adapt to shifting insurance markets.

Coastal regions face some of the gravest threats. Rising seas, intensifying hurricanes, and storm surges place enormous concentrations of property and economic activity at risk. In the United States alone, as much as $1.2 trillion in potential housing value losses is concentrated primarily in coastal areas [55], making these regions especially vulnerable to market destabilization if coverage disappears.

Small island developing states confront existential stakes. With limited economic diversification and disproportionate exposure to climate hazards, these nations are acutely sensitive to insurance market shocks. In some cases, the loss of coverage for critical infrastructure and housing could render entire islands effectively uninhabitable.

Arctic regions are grappling with rapid and destabilizing change. Thawing permafrost threatens buildings, pipelines, and roads, while shifting ice patterns disrupt transportation and resource extraction. The speed and volatility of these changes make accurate risk assessment and thus insurability exceptionally difficult.

Arid and semi-arid regions face intensifying threats from prolonged drought, advancing desertification, and extreme heat, hazards that are projected to grow much worse over the coming decades. Nowhere is this more evident than in much of the United States west of the Mississippi River, where shifting precipitation patterns, depleted groundwater reserves, and record-breaking heat waves are converging into a long-term water crisis.

These conditions place enormous strain on agriculture, particularly water-intensive crops and livestock operations, threatening both production and profitability. Municipal water supplies are also at risk, forcing difficult trade-offs between agricultural, industrial, and residential use. As the cost and complexity of maintaining reliable water access escalate, the basic habitability of some communities will be called into question.

For insurers, the implications are stark. Regions already grappling with chronic water scarcity may become increasingly difficult, or impossible, to underwrite for certain economic activities, from large-scale farming to real estate development. The gradual withdrawal of coverage could, in turn, drive depopulation, reduce land values, and create cascading economic effects well beyond the region.

Ultimately, the combination of environmental stress and insurance retreat in these arid and semi-arid zones could reshape the demographic and economic map of the American West, with consequences that ripple across the national economy.

Mountain regions are contending with shifting precipitation patterns, accelerated glacial melt, and more frequent extreme weather events. These changes imperil water resources, tourism industries, and other economic sectors that depend on stable mountain ecosystems.

Across all these geographies, the uneven distribution of climate risks and insurance availability will not only reshape local economies but also reverberate through national and global markets.

The Macroeconomic Implications: Growth, Inflation, and Stability

The macroeconomic consequences of widespread climate-related uninsurability will be both profound and destabilizing. The Network for Greening the Financial System (created by the world’s central banks) estimates that climate change could reduce global economic output by as much as 30% by 2100, with much of this loss stemming from the inability to effectively manage and mitigate climate risks [56]. This projection assumes that current patterns in risk exposure and adaptation persist, without major breakthroughs in risk management or decisive reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.

The inflationary effects of uninsurability are particularly concerning. As coverage becomes prohibitively expensive, or disappears entirely, the costs of climate risks shift directly to businesses and households. This not only raises prices in the most climate-exposed sectors but can also drive economy-wide inflation.

For central banks and monetary policymakers, this presents an unprecedented challenge. Climate-driven inflation differs fundamentally from traditional price pressures, which usually stem from supply-demand imbalances or cyclical economic shifts. Monetary policy tools that work in conventional inflationary environments may prove blunt or ineffective against persistent, structural price pressures generated by physical climate risks which will force a rethinking of macroeconomic strategy and financial stability safeguards.

The Path Forward: Adaptation, Innovation, and Transformation

After half a century of warnings, awareness campaigns, and international agreements to cut emissions, global greenhouse gas output has not only failed to decline, it has continued to climb year after year. Projections show this trajectory will continue to persist as more of the world adopts resource- and carbon-intensive, consumption-based lifestyles modeled on the West. Compounding the challenge, the United States has stepped back from a leadership role in addressing global warming, leaving a unsettling gap in collective action.

In this context, the growing threat of climate-related uninsurability demands urgent attention. While the challenge is immense, it is not insurmountable. There are viable pathways to manage these risks and blunt their economic impact through pathways rooted in a blend of aggressive adaptation, targeted innovation, and deep economic transformation. If pursued decisively, these strategies can help sustain economic growth and stability, even as climate risks mount.

Targeted adaptation investments can significantly reduce vulnerability to climate risks, helping to keep assets and economic activities insurable. These measures range from building sea walls and flood defenses to deploying drought-resistant crops and upgrading to climate-resilient infrastructure. While the upfront costs will be substantial, such investments can mitigate long-term losses and preserve insurability in high-risk regions.

Innovation in insurance products and risk-transfer mechanisms also holds promise for expanding the industry’s ability to manage climate risks. Tools like parametric insurance, catastrophe bonds, and other nontraditional approaches can address hazards that conventional models struggle to cover. Advances in technology, particularly in risk assessment, modeling, and prediction can further equip insurers to more accurately understand, price, and manage climate-related exposures.

A broader economic transformation toward climate-resilient activities and geographies is equally critical. This could mean strategically shifting economic activity away from the most climate-vulnerable areas and sectors and toward alternatives better aligned with a changing climate reality.

However, achieving these shifts will require coordinated action on a scale and at a speed unprecedented in modern history. As Christian Mumenthaler of Swiss Re warns, “everybody has to adapt to the new realities. But unfortunately, we clearly see the consequences of climate change” [57]. The defining challenge is whether adaptation, innovation, and transformation can happen fast enough to avert widespread uninsurability and the cascading economic decline it would unleash.

V. Regulatory and Policy Responses: Coordinated Action in an Era of Systemic Risk

The growing recognition that climate change poses systemic threats to both insurance markets and the broader economy has sparked an unprecedented wave of coordination among financial regulators, central banks, and international institutions. This emerging response marks the most significant shift in financial oversight since the post-2008 crisis reforms. Unfortunately, the magnitude, complexity, and interconnected nature of climate risks suggest that even these measures may fall short, demanding nothing less than a fundamental rethinking of how financial systems are regulated, supervised, and managed in the face of a rapidly changing climate.

The International Association of Insurance Supervisors: Global Standards for Climate Risk

The International Association of Insurance Supervisors (IAIS), representing regulators from more than 200 jurisdictions, has emerged as a central force in shaping the global regulatory response to climate risks in insurance markets. Its work reflects a clear recognition of two realities: that insurance markets are inherently global, and that climate risks are too vast, complex, and interconnected to be effectively managed within purely national frameworks.

To meet this challenge, the IAIS has developed a comprehensive framework for climate risk supervision, addressing both the prudential risks that climate change poses to individual insurers and the systemic risks capable of destabilizing entire markets [58]. This framework explicitly acknowledges that climate risks differ fundamentally from traditional insurance risks in their scale, complexity, and capacity to generate correlated losses across multiple companies and geographies simultaneously.

A cornerstone of the IAIS approach is forward-looking risk assessment, moving beyond the traditional reliance on historical loss data to consider how climate risks may evolve over time. This is a significant departure from conventional insurance regulation, which has long leaned heavily on backward-looking performance metrics. The challenge, however, lies in the inherent uncertainty of climate risks, which may unfold in ways that defy historical precedent.

The IAIS also underscores the necessity of new models for international coordination and information sharing. Climate events routinely cross borders, and insurers often operate across multiple jurisdictions, rendering purely national responses inadequate. In response, the IAIS has established mechanisms to exchange climate risk data and coordinate supervisory actions globally.

Yet, the IAIS framework is candid about its limits. It warns that current regulatory tools are insufficient to confront the full scope of climate risks, particularly the danger of sudden shifts in risk profiles that could overwhelm traditional safeguards [59]. This has prompted growing calls for deeper, structural reforms in how insurance markets are regulated and supervised to ensure resilience in the climate era.

The Network for Greening the Financial System: Central Bank Coordination

The Network for Greening the Financial System (NGFS) which is a coalition of central banks and financial supervisors from around the globe, has become a pivotal force in shaping the analytical foundations for understanding climate risks to financial stability. Its work has been instrumental in building the scientific and economic case for decisive regulatory action.

At the core of the NGFS’s contribution is its development of detailed climate scenarios used by both regulators and financial institutions to assess potential risks [60]. These scenarios span a range of possibilities from orderly transitions to low-carbon economies, to disorderly transitions that could trigger substantial financial instability. They also map physical risk pathways, exploring how varying degrees of climate change could disrupt economic activity and destabilize financial markets.

The NGFS has been especially influential in quantifying the potential economic toll. In a scenario with limited climate action, its analysis suggests that climate change could reduce global GDP by 13% by 2100 and warns that the damage could be far greater if climate risks are left unmanaged [61]. By clearly linking inaction to massive economic costs, the NGFS has strengthened the case for urgent policy and regulatory responses.

Other major institutions have issued similarly stark warnings. The Swiss Re Institute projects that unchecked climate change could shrink the global economy by as much as 18% by 2050, with the most severe impacts falling on Asia, Africa, and the Middle East. The London School of Economics’ Grantham Research Institute estimates that, under high-emissions scenarios, global GDP could decline by over 20% by the end of the century, with severe disruptions to trade, agriculture, and infrastructure. Meanwhile, a report from Deloitte Economics warns of cumulative global economic losses exceeding $178 trillion by 2070 if climate risks are not rapidly addressed, an outcome that would fundamentally alter patterns of growth, investment, and global stability.

Together, these analyses paint a unified and alarming picture: without aggressive mitigation and adaptation, climate change could trigger an economic contraction unparalleled in modern history, erasing decades of progress and destabilizing markets worldwide.

The NGFS also acknowledges critical gaps in current knowledge. Existing climate scenarios may understate the likelihood of sudden, non-linear shifts in climate systems, tipping points that could unleash far greater economic and financial disruption than anticipated [62]. This uncertainty makes crafting precise regulatory responses challenging, underscoring the need for continual refinement of climate risk modeling and analysis.

The European Central Bank: Leading by Example

The European Central Bank (ECB) has become the most proactive central bank in confronting climate risks to financial stability. Its strategy reflects both the European Union’s leadership in climate policy and a clear recognition that climate change poses material threats to the resilience of the eurozone’s financial system.

As part of this effort, the ECB has carried out comprehensive climate stress tests on eurozone banks to evaluate their exposure to climate-related risks [63]. These tests model the impact of various climate scenarios on bank portfolios and capital adequacy, revealing substantial vulnerabilities particularly in institutions with high exposure to climate-sensitive sectors and regions.

The ECB has also been outspoken about the potential for climate risks to trigger systemic financial instability. Its analysis points to several channels through which this could occur: direct physical losses from climate events, the repricing of climate-exposed assets, and a heightened correlation of risks across asset classes and geographies [64].

One of the ECB’s most significant warnings concerns the growing protection gap in insurance markets and its implications for financial stability. In 2024, only 43% of disaster losses in the eurozone were covered by insurance, despite the region having some of the world’s most mature insurance systems [65]. This means that the majority of climate-related losses are being absorbed directly by households, businesses, and governments, creating hidden fault lines of financial vulnerability.

The ECB has further stressed the necessity of forward-looking climate risk assessment. Traditional risk models, anchored in historical data, are ill-suited to capture the unprecedented scale, complexity, and potential non-linear shifts inherent in climate risks [66]. In response, the bank is calling for new assessment frameworks capable of anticipating sudden, systemic changes, tools that can prepare financial institutions for a risk landscape unlike any they have faced before.

National Regulatory Responses: Divergent Approaches and Challenges

While global coordination is essential, the practical regulation of climate risks in insurance markets is largely carried out at the national, and often subnational level. Countries have taken widely different approaches, shaped by their unique exposure to climate hazards, the structure of their insurance markets, and their broader political and economic priorities.

In the United States, insurance regulation is handled at the state level, resulting in a patchwork of responses to mounting climate pressures. Nowhere are the challenges more visible than in California and Florida, two states facing some of the nation’s most severe climate-related losses.

California has been hit by a succession of record-breaking wildfire seasons, with the 2017–2020 period alone generating tens of billions of dollars in insured losses. In 2018, the Camp Fire became the costliest wildfire in U.S. history, causing over $16 billion in insured damages. As wildfires have grown more frequent and severe, major insurers have begun scaling back or withdrawing entirely from the California homeowners’ market, citing unsustainable risk and unprofitable loss ratios. In response, the state has imposed temporary restrictions on insurer withdrawals and capped certain premium increases in an effort to keep coverage available. However, this has pushed more homeowners into the state’s Fair Access to Insurance Requirements (FAIR) Plan which is a high-cost, last-resort pool that is growing rapidly and already straining under increased demand.

California’s Fair Access to Insurance Requirements (FAIR) Plan, originally intended as a temporary safety net for homeowners unable to obtain private coverage, has become a rapidly expanding cornerstone of the state’s insurance market in high-risk wildfire zones. In recent years, the number of FAIR policies has more than doubled, surpassing 350,000 in 2024, with coverage heavily concentrated in areas most exposed to catastrophic fire losses. 

Premiums under the plan are often 50–100% higher than traditional homeowners’ insurance and provide more limited protection, forcing homeowners to seek supplemental coverage at additional cost. This affordability challenge, coupled with reduced coverage options, risks depressing property values and eroding local tax bases, particularly in rural and mountainous communities. The FAIR Plan’s funding structure, requiring all insurers operating in California to share in its losses proportionally to their market share, creates systemic vulnerabilities: a single megafire season could exhaust reserves and trigger large-scale industry assessments, prompting further insurer withdrawals from the state. 

Florida is grappling with mounting financial pressures from an escalating barrage of climate-related disasters, including hurricanes, flooding, and severe convective storms. Hurricane Ian alone caused an estimated $60 billion in insured losses in 2022, ranking among the costliest natural disasters in U.S. history. The combination of intensifying climate impacts and soaring litigation expenses has driven multiple insurer insolvencies, triggered mass policy cancellations, and left many homeowners with few private coverage options. As a result, the state’s insurer of last resort, Citizens Property Insurance Corporation, has seen its policy count surge past 1.4 million, concentrating vast exposure in high-risk areas and raising urgent questions about whether it could survive a severe hurricane season without a substantial public bailout.

Originally intended to serve only those unable to secure private coverage, Citizens is now the largest property insurer in the state. This rapid growth has concentrated significant exposure in some of Florida’s most climate-vulnerable coastal and inland flood-prone areas, where replacement costs are high and the potential for catastrophic losses is extreme. Premiums under Citizens are generally lower than equivalent private-market coverage, a politically popular approach that helps maintain affordability for policyholders but also discourages risk-based pricing and relocation from high-risk zones. 

This underpricing creates substantial actuarial risk: in the event of a major hurricane season, Citizens’ reserves would be rapidly depleted, forcing the issuance of post-event assessments on all Florida policyholders, regardless of whether they are insured by Citizens. Such assessments, essentially a statewide tax, would ripple through the broader state economy, raising insurance costs across the board and reducing disposable income. 

Additionally, the program’s reliance on state backing means that a truly catastrophic event, such as a Category 4 or 5 hurricane striking a densely populated area, could trigger multi-billion-dollar shortfalls and put pressure on the state government to provide a fiscal rescue. This scenario would strain Florida’s budget, potentially affecting credit ratings and diverting resources from infrastructure, disaster mitigation, and other public priorities. As with California’s FAIR Plan, Citizens’ ballooning role in the market reflects a dangerous cycle: climate risks push private insurers out, public insurers absorb the exposure, and concentrated liabilities build toward a tipping point where a single event could destabilize both the insurance market and the state’s broader economy.

Both states illustrate the deep structural strains climate change is placing on U.S. insurance markets. As private carriers retreat from high-risk zones, states are forced to assume growing financial exposure through public insurance pools. These mechanisms can provide short-term stability, but they shift climate risk onto taxpayers and public budgets, creating systemic vulnerabilities if a truly catastrophic event overwhelms state-level resources [67].

These state-level interventions have introduced their own complications. Restrictions on insurer withdrawals, while intended to preserve market stability, can distort proper risk pricing and ultimately undermine long-term solvency by preventing companies from adjusting to evolving hazard conditions. Mandated coverage for certain risks can also lead to cross-subsidies, where low-risk policyholders effectively subsidize high-risk ones, that may prove financially unsustainable over time.

Other nations have pursued different models. The United Kingdom has favored market-based mechanisms supplemented by targeted government backstops to address climate-related insurance gaps. Its Flood Re program, launched in 2016, is a public-private reinsurance scheme designed to keep flood insurance affordable for households in high-risk areas. Under the program, private insurers continue to sell and service policies, but they can cede the flood risk for eligible properties to Flood Re in exchange for a fixed premium based on the property’s council tax band. This structure ensures that premiums remain predictable and affordable for policyholders, while enabling insurers to offload catastrophic flood exposures that would otherwise be prohibitively costly to underwrite.

Flood Re is funded through a combination of these fixed premiums and a levy collected from all UK home insurers, spreading the cost of covering high-risk properties across the broader insurance market. Importantly, the program is designed as a transitional measure, with a planned 25-year lifespan, during which the government and industry aim to invest in flood defenses, implement better land-use planning, and encourage property-level resilience measures. The long-term goal is to reduce underlying flood risk so that, by the program’s scheduled end, the private insurance market can once again provide affordable flood coverage without government support.

To date, Flood Re has been credited with making coverage accessible to tens of thousands of households that might otherwise have been priced out of the market. However, the scheme’s success ultimately depends on parallel investments in climate adaptation, particularly in floodplain management and infrastructure, without which the affordability it provides could prove unsustainable as flood risks intensify [68].

Australia has faced some of the most severe climate-related insurance challenges among developed economies, driven by its exposure to catastrophic bushfires, tropical cyclones, flooding, and hailstorms. These hazards have made certain regions, particularly in northern Queensland and other cyclone-prone areas, extremely costly to insure. In response, the Australian government has implemented a series of targeted interventions to stabilize insurance markets and improve affordability.

A cornerstone of this effort is the Cyclone Reinsurance Pool, launched in 2023 and administered by the Australian Reinsurance Pool Corporation (ARPC). This government-backed scheme provides reinsurance coverage for cyclone and cyclone-related flood damage to residential, strata, and small business properties in high-risk regions. By assuming the most extreme loss layers, the pool reduces the risk burden on private insurers, allowing them to offer lower premiums while maintaining solvency. Participation in the pool is mandatory for insurers, ensuring broad market coverage and risk sharing.

Beyond reinsurance, Australia has made substantial investments in risk reduction and adaptation measures to address the root causes of rising insurance costs. These include funding for community-level flood levees, bushfire fuel load management, cyclone-resilient building upgrades, and revised building codes that require higher resilience standards in hazard-prone areas. The government has also expanded data-sharing initiatives between meteorological agencies, insurers, and local councils to improve hazard mapping and support more accurate, forward-looking risk pricing.

However, while these measures have delivered some early premium relief, the long-term sustainability of affordable coverage will depend on continued and large-scale climate adaptation efforts. Without significant progress in strengthening infrastructure, improving land-use planning, and reducing hazard exposure, even a government-backed reinsurance pool could face mounting liabilities as climate extremes intensify.

Still, all of these national strategies share an inherent limitation: climate risks do not respect borders, and insurance markets themselves are increasingly global. As a result, purely domestic responses, no matter how innovative are insufficient for managing the full scale and interconnectedness of climate threats to the global insurance system.

International Development and Climate Finance

The challenges of climate-related uninsurability are especially severe in developing countries, where insurance markets are often underdeveloped and exposure to climate hazards is disproportionately high. These nations frequently face the double burden of heightened physical vulnerability and limited financial capacity to absorb losses, making insurance both more essential and more difficult to sustain. International development organizations and climate finance mechanisms are increasingly acknowledging that closing this protection gap must be a central element of global climate adaptation and development strategies.

The World Bank and other multilateral development banks have launched a range of initiatives aimed at strengthening insurance market infrastructure and improving climate risk management in vulnerable economies [70]. These efforts include providing technical assistance to expand local insurance capacity, establishing regional risk pooling mechanisms such as the Caribbean Catastrophe Risk Insurance Facility that allow smaller nations to share and spread large-scale risks, and developing innovative insurance products tailored to the needs of climate-vulnerable populations, such as weather-indexed crop insurance and parametric disaster coverage.

Climate finance institutions, including the Green Climate Fund, are also placing greater emphasis on insurance and risk transfer as integral tools for building resilience [71]. By providing rapid post-disaster liquidity, insurance can help governments, communities, and businesses recover faster, protect livelihoods, and maintain investment flows.

However, the funding currently available falls far short of the scale required. The annual $100 billion climate finance commitment made by developed countries represents only a small fraction of the estimated needs to address climate risks in developing nations, needs that run into the hundreds of billions per year. Without a dramatic expansion in both financial resources and the integration of insurance solutions into broader adaptation strategies, many developing countries will remain trapped in a cycle of repeated disaster losses, slow recovery, and deepening vulnerability.

Several pilot programs across Africa, Asia, and the Pacific have, however, demonstrated the potential of targeted insurance interventions to stabilize economies after climate shocks. In Africa, the African Risk Capacity program uses parametric triggers to release funds to member states within days of drought or flood events, enabling governments to scale up food assistance and protect agricultural livelihoods before crises deepen. In South and Southeast Asia, the Index-Based Livestock Insurance initiative in Mongolia has helped pastoralist communities recover from extreme winter events, reducing the need for government disaster relief. In the Pacific, the Pacific Catastrophe Risk Assessment and Financing Initiative has provided small island nations with rapid payouts following cyclones, helping to fund emergency response and early recovery while international aid is still being mobilized.

However, the funding currently available falls far short of the scale required. The $100 billion annual climate finance commitment made by developed countries represents only a small fraction of the estimated $2.4 trillion per year that developing nations require for climate adaptation and mitigation [72]. Without a dramatic expansion in both financial resources and the integration of insurance solutions into broader adaptation strategies, many developing countries will remain trapped in a cycle of repeated disaster losses, slow recovery, and deepening vulnerability.

The Limits of Current Regulatory Approaches

Despite the unprecedented scope and coordination of today’s regulatory responses to climate risks, concerns are mounting that these efforts will fall short of meeting the full scale of the challenge. Several structural limitations are driving this skepticism.

First, most current regulatory strategies rest on the premise that climate risks can be contained through incremental refinements to existing systems. Yet the sheer speed and magnitude of climate change will quickly demand a fundamental transformation in the way financial systems function, allocate capital, and price risk.

Second, regulatory frameworks tend to focus narrowly on the threats climate change poses to existing financial institutions and markets, while paying far less attention to the broader economic and social fallout of widespread uninsurability—impacts that could destabilize entire regions, sectors, and populations.

Third, much of the regulatory response remains reactive, addressing climate risks only after they materialize rather than confronting the underlying drivers in a proactive, preventive manner. This lagging approach is especially problematic for hazards that can escalate rapidly and with little warning. The core drivers of climate change, continued dependence on fossil fuels, deforestation, unsustainable agricultural practices, industrial processes with high greenhouse gas emissions, and rapid urbanization without climate-resilient planning are deeply embedded in global economic systems. These structural forces not only generate escalating emissions but also lock societies into high-risk development pathways, such as building critical infrastructure in floodplains, expanding settlements into wildfire-prone areas, and depleting natural buffers like wetlands and mangroves. 

Without regulatory strategies that explicitly address these root causes, by accelerating the transition to renewable energy, reforming land use, incentivizing low-carbon industrial production, and integrating climate resilience into urban and infrastructure planning, financial supervision will remain trapped in a cycle of escalating losses and the likelihood that certain regions and sectors will become uninsurable.

Fourth, there is a heavy reliance on market-based solutions and private-sector innovation. While these mechanisms can be powerful, bringing efficiency, creativity, and capital to the table, they are inherently limited in scope when confronting risks that are too vast, complex, or uncertain to be absorbed within the traditional bounds of private insurance and capital markets. Climate risks, by their nature, exceed the diversification capacity of private actors: extreme weather events can strike multiple regions simultaneously, disrupt entire supply chains, and cause correlated losses across sectors. In such scenarios, insurers, reinsurers, and even large institutional investors can face exposures so concentrated and systemic that they threaten solvency.

When risks are this large and interconnected, relying solely on market forces risks creating a gap between what is insurable and what is necessary for societal stability. Bridging this gap requires complementary public-sector intervention: government-backed reinsurance schemes, targeted subsidies for resilience investments, international risk-pooling arrangements, and regulatory frameworks that align market incentives with long-term climate risk reduction. Without this public-private balance, systemic climate threats will overwhelm the very market mechanisms designed to manage them.

The Need for Transformative Policy Approaches

The limitations of current regulatory approaches have intensified calls for far more transformative policy responses, measures that address not only the financial manifestations of climate-related uninsurability but also the deeper economic, social, and environmental systems that generate and amplify climate risks. These responses would go well beyond the boundaries of traditional financial regulation, reshaping how societies build, invest, insure, and ultimately coexist with a rapidly changing climate.

One major pathway involves massive public investment in climate adaptation and resilience to directly reduce the underlying vulnerabilities that drive insurance markets toward collapse. Such investments would include large-scale coastal defenses, upgraded stormwater systems, urban cooling infrastructure, drought-resilient water supply systems, wildfire buffers, ecosystem restoration projects, and climate-proofed transportation and energy networks. To be effective, this spending would need to be coordinated across multiple sectors including transportation, housing, energy, agriculture and across municipal, regional, and national levels of government. It would also require unprecedented levels of public expenditure, potentially rivaling the scale of post–World War II reconstruction or the interstate highway system in the United States.

A second pathway calls for fundamental reforms to land-use planning and development policies to reduce direct exposure to climate hazards. This would mean implementing strict zoning restrictions in floodplains, wildfire zones, and low-lying coastal areas; requiring all new construction in hazard-prone regions to meet stringent climate-resilient building codes; and offering financial incentives or buyout programs for voluntary relocation away from the most at-risk areas. Such policies could prevent the locking-in of future liabilities and reduce the concentration of assets in zones where insurance is already under strain.

A third pathway involves new forms of risk sharing to distribute climate-related losses more broadly across society, preventing concentrated shocks that can destabilize households, communities, or entire industries. Options include mandatory basic insurance schemes that ensure universal coverage for certain hazards, government-backed reinsurance facilities that support private markets in absorbing catastrophic losses, and social insurance mechanisms funded through general taxation to provide rapid payouts after disasters. These models could also be paired with international risk-pooling arrangements to protect smaller or less wealthy countries from economic collapse after extreme events.

However, all of these approaches face formidable political and practical barriers. They would demand unprecedented coordination across every layer of governance—local, regional, national, and even international, along with deep collaboration between the public sector, private markets, and civil society. Implementing them would require societies to rethink fundamental questions about risk: who bears it, how it is shared, and how much public investment should be devoted to prevention rather than post-disaster recovery. Without such a paradigm shift, the structural drivers of climate-related uninsurability will continue to outpace the capacity of both markets and regulators to respond.

As Günther Thallinger of Allianz has warned, "the window for effective action is rapidly closing, and the consequences of inadequate responses could be catastrophic for both the insurance industry and the broader economy" [73]. This perspective reflects growing concerns within the industry that current policy responses will not be sufficient for the scale of the challenge.

VI. Economic Growth and Development Implications

The looming threat of widespread climate-related uninsurability presents especially grave challenges for economic development, most acutely in developing countries that bear the highest exposure to climate hazards yet have the weakest capacity to manage them. As climate risks intensify, the availability and affordability of insurance will increasingly shape where and how economies can grow. This dynamic risks entrenching a new form of global inequality, in which access to insurance becomes not merely a financial safeguard but a decisive determinant of investment flows, economic opportunity, and even basic human development.

Urban Development and Climate Risk: The Megacity Challenge

Rapid urbanization in developing countries is intensifying the challenge of managing climate risks and securing affordable insurance coverage. Many of the world’s fastest-growing cities, such as Lagos in Nigeria, Dhaka in Bangladesh, Karachi in Pakistan, and Manila in the Philippines are located in coastal zones, river deltas, or other areas highly exposed to flooding, cyclones, storm surges, and extreme heat. The rapid influx of people and capital into these urban centers concentrates population and economic activity in hazard-prone areas, magnifying the potential for catastrophic losses when disasters strike. A single event, such as Typhoon Haiyan’s impact on Tacloban and surrounding cities in the Philippines in 2013, can displace millions, cause billions of dollars in damage, and overwhelm local and national recovery capacities.

This urban concentration also challenges the core principles of insurance risk management, which rely on spreading losses across uncorrelated geographies. When a disaster affects an entire metropolitan region such as the 2022 floods in Karachi or Cyclone Idai’s impact on Beira, Mozambique, millions of policyholders and vast amounts of infrastructure can be hit simultaneously, creating loss levels that private insurance markets struggle to absorb.

The problem is even more acute in informal settlements, which house hundreds of millions of urban residents in the developing world. These settlements often occupy the most vulnerable land, such as floodplains, reclaimed wetlands, or unstable hillsides, where exposure to landslides, flooding, and storm damage is highest. In cities like Dhaka, Mumbai, and Nairobi, informal neighborhoods are routinely affected by seasonal flooding that destroys homes and livelihoods. The lack of formal land titles in these areas makes it nearly impossible for residents to obtain insurance, even when coverage exists in the broader market.

At the same time, the infrastructure needs of rapidly growing cities are staggering. Expanding populations require massive investments in clean water supply, sanitation networks, resilient transportation systems, and reliable energy grids. In cities like Lagos and Jakarta, much of this infrastructure must be built in locations that already face significant climate risks, namely coastal erosion, subsidence, sea-level rise, and heat waves, complicating both the design of climate-resilient systems and the ability to secure insurance necessary for financing. Without substantial public and private sector collaboration, these urban growth patterns risk locking cities into cycles of high exposure, low insurability, and repeated economic setbacks from climate-related disasters.

Climate change is increasingly challenging the basic habitability of cities, not only in developing countries but across the globe. Rising temperatures, intensified by the urban heat island effect, are making some cities dangerously hot for human health, productivity, and long-term economic activity. In Europe, the 2022 heat waves killed more than 60,000 people, demonstrating that even advanced economies are not immune to lethal temperature extremes. In the Gulf States, including Dubai, Abu Dhabi, and Doha, climate projections indicate that extreme heat and humidity could, within decades, push conditions beyond the limits of human survivability for much of the year, threatening to make some of the region’s flagship cities effectively uninhabitable without massive and costly adaptation measures.

Meanwhile, more frequent and intense flooding is overwhelming urban drainage systems, damaging infrastructure, and contaminating water supplies. Cities like Jakarta, Bangkok, and Dhaka experience seasonal floods that not only destroy homes and businesses but also trigger disease outbreaks, further straining public health systems. The combination of extreme heat, flooding, and other climate hazards is eroding the attractiveness of these urban centers for both domestic and foreign investment, as businesses weigh the rising costs of operating in high-risk environments. If these trends continue unchecked, some of the fastest-growing cities in the world will face economic contraction and escalating insurance withdrawals pushing them toward a tipping point where maintaining urban viability becomes increasingly difficult.

Agricultural Systems and Food Security

Agriculture remains the backbone of many developing economies, employing hundreds of millions of people and serving as the primary source of food security for billions worldwide. In countries such as Ethiopia, Bangladesh, and Guatemala, agriculture accounts for a large share of GDP, export earnings, and rural employment. Yet climate change is introducing new and more severe risks to agricultural systems, risks that are increasingly difficult to manage through traditional insurance models.

Shifting precipitation patterns are disrupting planting and harvesting cycles across continents. In East Africa, prolonged and repeated droughts in Somalia, Kenya, and Ethiopia have led to widespread crop failures, livestock deaths, and severe food shortages, pushing millions into acute hunger. Conversely, in South Asia, countries like Pakistan have faced catastrophic flooding, as seen in 2022 when unprecedented monsoon rains inundated one-third of the country, destroying crops, farmland, and critical irrigation infrastructure. These extremes, whether too little or too much water, are devastating agricultural productivity and destabilizing food supply chains.

Rising temperatures are compounding these threats. In India, extreme heat waves have scorched wheat crops, forcing the government to restrict exports to protect domestic supply. In West Africa, higher temperatures and shifting rainfall have altered the range and lifecycle of pests such as the fall armyworm, which can devastate maize crops. Similarly, livestock sectors in regions like the Sahel are under strain from heat stress, which reduces animal productivity and increases mortality rates, undermining rural incomes and food availability.

The insurance implications are profound. Crop insurance programs which are vital for securing farm credit and managing weather-related risks are being tested by the increased frequency and intensity of climate shocks. In some regions, the unpredictability of losses is driving up premiums beyond the reach of smallholder farmers, while in others, insurers are withdrawing from high-risk markets altogether. For example, in parts of southern Africa, traditional multi-peril crop insurance has become financially unviable, prompting a shift toward more limited parametric products that still leave many risks uncovered.

North America’s agricultural sector, spanning large-scale industrial farms, specialty crop producers, and livestock operations, has historically been a global leader in productivity and export capacity. However, climate change is introducing new volatility into the system, with mounting consequences for yields, profitability, and the stability of agricultural insurance programs.

In the western United States, prolonged drought conditions, driven by rising temperatures and reduced snowpack have severely constrained water supplies in critical agricultural regions such as California’s Central Valley, which produces more than one-third of U.S. vegetables and two-thirds of its fruits and nuts. Water scarcity has forced farmers to fallow fields, reduce high-value perennial crops like almonds, and make costly investments in irrigation efficiency. These losses and input cost increases have translated into rising claims for multi-peril crop insurance (MPCI) and, in some cases, the shifting of coverage toward drought-specific policies under the federal crop insurance program.

Meanwhile, in the Midwest, often referred to as America’s “Corn Belt,” climate change is driving more frequent and intense rainfall events during spring planting season, leading to waterlogged fields, delayed sowing, and increased incidence of crop disease. In 2019, record-breaking rains and flooding across the region triggered over $4 billion in prevented planting indemnities under the federal crop insurance program, the largest such payout in U.S. history. This event highlighted the growing exposure of the public crop insurance system to correlated losses over large areas.

Canada is experiencing parallel challenges. In the Prairie Provinces, which produce the majority of the country’s wheat, canola, and barley, extreme heat waves and drought, such as the 2021 “heat dome” event caused widespread crop damage and reduced yields. That year, payouts from the AgriInsurance program in Manitoba alone exceeded $500 million, straining provincial risk pools and prompting discussions about program redesign to address climate-driven extremes.

Rising temperatures are also expanding the range and lifecycle of agricultural pests, including the corn rootworm and soybean aphid in the U.S. Midwest and grasshoppers in the Canadian Prairies. These changes increase both yield losses and production costs, adding to insurance claims while complicating risk modeling for underwriters.

The insurance implications across North America are significant. In the U.S., where the federal crop insurance program covers more than 445 million acres, climate-driven yield volatility is pushing up indemnity payments and raising questions about the long-term sustainability of current premium subsidies. In Canada, provincial and federal authorities are exploring hybrid models that blend traditional yield-based insurance with parametric triggers to speed payouts after extreme weather events. Without reforms, the combination of rising loss ratios and increasingly correlated risks will strain both public budgets and private reinsurance markets, limiting coverage availability and driving up premiums for farmers.

North America’s experience demonstrates that even advanced economies with highly developed insurance systems are not immune to the destabilizing effects of climate change on agriculture. As extreme weather events intensify, maintaining affordable and effective agricultural insurance will require both structural adaptation in farming practices and innovation in risk transfer mechanisms.

VII. Future Scenarios and Critical Pathways: Navigating the Uninsurability Crisis

The path toward widespread climate-related uninsurability is not fixed. The decisions taken by governments, businesses, and international institutions over the next decade will be pivotal in determining whether the world can reconcile escalating climate risks with the capacity of insurance systems or whether we drift toward a future where large segments of the global economy become effectively uninsurable, triggering severe and lasting economic disruption. The following section explores three potential scenarios for how this crisis could evolve and outlines the critical actions and policy pathways that offer the best chance of steering toward a more stable and resilient outcome.

Scenario 1: The Managed Transition - Coordinated Adaptation and Innovation

In the most optimistic but unlikely future, coordinated global action succeeds in transitioning to a climate-resilient economy while preserving functional insurance markets for the vast majority of economic activities. Achieving this outcome would demand unprecedented cooperation among governments, the insurance industry, and international organizations, but it would avert widespread uninsurability and allow economic development to continue.

This managed transition hinges on the rapid and full implementation of the Paris Agreement’s objectives, culminating in net-zero global emissions by 2050 and limiting warming to roughly 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels. Under such a trajectory, climate impacts would continue to intensify for several decades due to the legacy of past emissions, but the acceleration of risk would slow and eventually stabilize over a century giving insurance markets the breathing space to adapt and innovate.

However, this pathway is already nearly past its due date. The United States, historically the world’s second-largest emitter, under President Trump has stepped back from actively pursuing the Paris targets, dramatically rolling back federal climate policies, weakening environmental regulations, and shifting toward an energy strategy that prioritizes fossil fuel production. This retreat undermines the collective momentum required for global emissions to peak this decade and begin to decline to avert the worst impacts of global warming.  Without renewed U.S. leadership, the likelihood of meeting even a 2°C target diminishes sharply, putting the stability of insurance markets and the feasibility of a managed transition at great risk.

Massive public and private investments on a scale far beyond current levels would need to flow into climate adaptation and resilience to achieve a managed transition. Coastal protection systems, flood defenses, drought-resistant infrastructure, and climate-resilient agriculture substantially reduce the frequency and severity of climate-related losses. These measures are supported by new international financing mechanisms that channel resources and technical expertise to developing countries.

The insurance industry evolves rapidly, deploying innovative products and risk-transfer tools capable of handling the scale and complexity of climate risks. Parametric insurance, catastrophe bonds, and other nontraditional mechanisms become mainstream, covering risks previously deemed uninsurable. Advances in artificial intelligence, satellite monitoring, and big data analytics transform risk modeling and pricing, making assessments more precise and forward-looking.

Governments play a central role in sustaining market stability through comprehensive policy frameworks. These include robust building codes, climate-informed land-use planning, and public-private partnerships that distribute extreme risks between governments and private markets. Social safety nets provide a fallback for vulnerable populations when insurance is unavailable or unaffordable.

International cooperation reaches post–World War II levels. Expanded regional risk pools protect more countries and hazard types, while global technology transfer programs equip developing economies with the capacity to measure, manage, and insure against climate risks. Adequate financing ensures that insurance markets can expand and adapt in even the most climate-vulnerable regions.

Under this scenario, the global protection gap narrows over time. While premiums rise in high-risk areas, coverage remains available for most economic activities, supporting continued investment and growth. Economic expansion slows modestly due to the cost of adaptation and higher premiums, but the world avoids the systemic disruption that would accompany widespread uninsurability.

Four conditions are essential for success of a Managed Transition scenario:

1. Global greenhouse gas emissions must peak and decline rapidly within the next few years.
2. Adaptation and resilience investments must scale up by an order of magnitude.
3. The insurance industry must deploy transformative risk management solutions at unprecedented speed.
4. International cooperation must be deep, sustained, and politically resilient across multiple election cycles.

While this pathway is technically achievable with today’s knowledge and technology, it faces formidable political and economic obstacles. Success would demand unwavering political will across multiple nations, the mobilization of unprecedented financial resources, and seamless coordination between governments, markets, and civil society. For the United States, it would require a complete reversal of the current administration’s climate stance, a decisive pivot toward aggressive emissions reductions, renewed commitment to the Paris Agreement, and large-scale investment in adaptation. If such a shift were realized, this scenario would offer the most credible path to managing climate risks while preserving global insurance capacity and avoiding systemic economic disruption.

Scenario 2: The Fragmented Response - Partial Adaptation and Regional Divergence

In a more likely but less favorable scenario, the global response to climate-related uninsurability is partial, uneven, and ultimately insufficient. Some regions and sectors succeed in adapting to rising climate risks and maintaining functional insurance markets, while others slide into widespread uninsurability and chronic economic disruption. This outcome reflects the political and economic realities that make sustained, coordinated global action difficult to achieve.

In this scenario, climate policies are implemented inconsistently, limiting global warming to roughly 2.5°C above pre-industrial levels. While this represents progress compared to current trajectories, it fails to prevent major increases in climate risk. Severe climate impacts overwhelm adaptation capacity and insurance markets in some regions, particularly those with limited resources.

Wealthy nations and economically strong regions are forced to invest heavily in climate adaptation, building sea walls, upgrading infrastructure, and climate-proofing critical systems, allowing them to maintain relatively stable insurance markets, albeit at significantly higher premiums. These “climate-resilient enclaves” continue to attract investment and sustain development but grow increasingly disconnected from regions unable to afford similar protections.

For many developing countries with over half the world’s population, the picture is far bleaker. Key economic sectors such as agriculture, coastal tourism, and fishing become widely uninsurable, and inadequate international support leaves these nations to manage growing climate risks with minimal resources. The result is a widening global divide between the climate-secure and the climate-exposed.

The insurance industry concentrates its operations in markets where risks can be priced profitably, withdrawing entirely from regions deemed too risky or uncertain. While this strategy preserves profitability, it deepens regional inequalities in access to coverage. Innovation in insurance products such as parametric coverage and catastrophe bonds emerges but at a limited scale, serving only niche markets and failing to meaningfully close the global protection gap.

Government responses vary sharply. Some implement robust policies to stabilize insurance markets and encourage adaptation; others lack the capacity or political will to act. The result is a patchwork of uncoordinated approaches, with incompatible standards and uneven levels of protection.

Economically, the fragmented response leads to significant but uneven disruption. Growth nearly stops in climate-vulnerable regions, while in resilient areas growth slows significantly. Global supply chains suffer repeated shocks from climate disasters in vulnerable regions, driving up costs and eroding efficiency. Migration from uninsurable to insurable areas accelerates, fueling social tensions and political instability.

This scenario rests on the assumption that nations will act chiefly in their own short-term interests, while insurers focus on profitability rather than universal coverage. Although it averts a complete collapse of global insurance capacity, it locks in deep structural inequalities, fuels geopolitical tensions, and heightens the risk of humanitarian crises in climate-vulnerable regions left without protection. Over time, the concentration of economic activity and investment in resilient areas would harden these divides into entrenched fault lines of inequality and instability that ushers in a world marked by large-scale migration flows, intensifying conflicts over water and other critical resources, the rise of authoritarian “strongman” governance throughout the world, and the erosion of the very idea of a cooperative global community.

Scenario 3: The Uninsurability Crisis - System Breakdown and Economic Disruption

In the most pessimistic, and increasingly plausible scenario, climate risks outstrip the adaptive capacity of both insurance markets and the broader global economy, triggering widespread uninsurability and severe economic disruption. This outcome reflects a world in which climate change adaptation measures prove insufficient to match the scale, complexity, and speed of escalating risks.

The crisis unfolds under conditions of continued high greenhouse gas emissions, pushing global warming beyond 3°C above pre-industrial levels. According to the latest scientific research and climate projections, such a trajectory would mark a tipping point into an era of accelerating climate breakdown, with catastrophic implications for human civilization, financial stability, and economic systems worldwide. Emerging evidence indicates that warming is occurring faster than most models predicted, driven by multiple, interacting pathways, each capable of propelling extreme temperature increases through self-reinforcing feedback loops.

Current Trajectory and Near-Term Outlook

Global average temperatures are already about 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels, and 2025 is on track to be the hottest year in recorded history. The World Meteorological Organization’s Global Annual  Decadal Climate Update (2025–2029), forecasts a 70% probability that the five-year average temperature from 2025–2029 will exceed 1.5°C, placing humanity in what climate scientists describe as the “danger zone.” Under existing climate policies, the UN Emissions Gap Report (2024) projects a trajectory of roughly 3.1°C warming by 2100. Even if all current national pledges were fully implemented, the projected range remains between 2.6°C and 2.8°C, levels considered “unsafe” for avoiding the activation of climate tipping points.

IPCC High-Emissions Pathways

In the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) AR6 framework Scenario projects a 3.6°C temperature increase by 2100, with CO₂ emissions doubling from current levels as nations prioritize national security and economic competition. The worst-case pathway (“Avoid at All Costs”) forecasts 4.4°C by 2100, driven by rapid fossil-fuel-based economic growth and energy-intensive consumption patterns, similar to those currently being undertaken by the Trump Administration in the U.S.

Emerging Extreme Scenarios

Recent Climate Endgame research (2022) explores the most extreme warming pathways, modeling scenarios in which global average temperatures exceed 4.5°C above pre-industrial levels. The results are stark: outcomes range from the loss of at least 10% of the global population to scenarios approaching the threshold of human extinction. Under these conditions, vast swaths of the planet could become effectively uninhabitable.

One of the most alarming findings is the potential expansion of regions with annual average temperatures exceeding 29°C, levels considered near the physiological limit of human survivability without constant access to cooling and water. By 2070, such conditions could encompass areas currently home to up to 2 billion people, including parts of South Asia, the Middle East, North Africa, and the Sahel. Prolonged exposure to this level of heat would make outdoor labor nearly impossible, devastate agricultural productivity, strain water resources, and drive mass migration on a scale unprecedented in modern history.

Accelerated Warming Beyond Model Projections

All major supercomputer-based climate models have underestimated the pace of observed warming over the past three years, in part because they do not fully account for reflectivity feedback loops such as the rapid loss of Arctic snow and ice cover. These missing feedbacks could trigger non-linear, exponential temperature increases if albedo loss accelerates. Expert assessments now warn that an “exponential warming pathway” is plausible if current trends persist.

Climate Tipping Points and Cascading Risks

Recent research published in 2025 by the University of Exeter and the University of Hamburg in Earth System Dynamics estimates that, under current emissions policies, there is a 62% probability of triggering one or more major climate tipping points this century. The study identifies nine tipping elements, including Amazon rainforest dieback, permafrost thaw, and destabilization of the West Antarctic ice sheet, each with an estimated probability of more than 50% of activation by 2100 if present trends continue. Alarmingly, some tipping points could be crossed at as little as 1°C above pre-industrial levels, well below both current (~1.5°C) and projected warming. Once triggered, these changes could amplify warming through powerful feedbacks such as large-scale methane release, collapse of carbon sinks, and loss of reflective cloud cover, pushing the Earth system toward a self-reinforcing “Hothouse Earth” trajectory from which recovery could be impossible on human timescales.

Timelines for Exceeding 3°C

Under conservative assumptions, current policy trends point toward 3.1°C by 2100. The IPCC’s high-emissions pathway reaches 3.6°C by 2100, while accelerated scenarios incorporating feedback loops and cascading failures suggest that similar warming could occur as early as the 2050s–2070s. The IPCC’s worst-case envisions 4.4°C by 2100, with some extreme models placing potential warming at 5–6°C in the event of a complete breakdown of the climate system.

Beyond these, systemic breakdowns become increasingly likely, including climate-driven financial crises, infrastructure failures during extreme heat events, collapse of democratic institutions under sustained crisis conditions, and an impaired ability to recover from concurrent shocks such as pandemics or geopolitical conflicts.

Key Uncertainties and Risks

Scientific models continue to underestimate certain high-impact climate risks due to incomplete representation of feedback mechanisms, limited understanding of tipping point interactions, and insufficient analysis of low-probability/high-consequence ("fat tail") events. These gaps in our knowledge suggest that the most extreme and destabilizing scenarios may be far more likely and more damaging than current projections indicate. Crossing the 2°C threshold could trigger irreversible Earth-system changes, while exceeding 3°C is projected to activate multiple interacting tipping points, accelerating warming toward levels beyond human adaptive capacity.

Moreover, paleoclimate records reveal that abrupt climate shifts can occur in as little as a decade. Ice cores from Greenland document rapid warming events, known as Dansgaard–Oeschger cycles, in which temperatures rose sharply by 8–15 °C within mere decades.  One of the sharpest abrupt transitions occurred at the end of the Younger Dryas, around 11,600 years ago, where average temperatures increased by approximately 10 °C in just ten years.  These events highlight the climate system’s capacity for sudden and dramatic shifts, changes so swift that they would overwhelm even the most robust adaptation mechanisms.

If such abrupt transitions occur under current warming trajectories, the implications for insurance systems and economic stability are dire. In a rapid-climate-breakdown scenario, multiple tipping points such as polar ice–sheet collapse, massive permafrost thaw releasing methane, and large-scale tropical forest diebacks could be triggered in quick succession. These cascading shocks would produce losses so sudden and severe that they would overwhelm existing adaptation and insurance frameworks.

The insurance industry would face catastrophic, correlated losses from simultaneous climate disasters, megastorms, floods, wildfires, and heatwaves striking across multiple regions within the same timeframe. Losses of this magnitude would exceed industry capital reserves and reinsurance capacity, triggering complete failure among major insurers. Financial contagion would swiftly spread, causing systemic instability as credit tightens, assets lose value, and risk perceptions shift dramatically. 

Governments, compelled to act as insurers of last resort, would face overwhelming fiscal pressures. Recurrent, large-scale disasters would fully drain public coffers, crowding out spending on infrastructure, healthcare, and essential services.  This creates a downward spiral: as services erode, insufficient fiscal capacity would escalate into sovereign debt crises, undermining governmental functionality and regional stability.

Economic activity contracts sharply as most businesses and individuals cannot obtain the coverage needed for investment and development. Real estate values collapse, creating massive wealth destruction that affects financial institutions and pension funds. International cooperation breaks down as countries focus on protecting their own populations and economies rather than providing assistance to others. Climate finance mechanisms collapse as donor countries face their own climate challenges, leaving developing countries without the resources needed for adaptation and recovery.

Migration flows increase dramatically as people flee areas for regions that can still provide basic services. This migration creates social and political tensions that can lead to conflict and further economic disruption. Many regions become effectively uninhabitable as basic services and economic activities become impossible to maintain.

In this scenario, global economic growth collapses as the costs of climate impacts exceed the capacity of economic systems to adapt. The global economy fragments into climate-resilient enclaves and abandoned regions, creating unprecedented instability. International trade and cooperation cease as countries focus on survival rather than development.

While this scenario represents the worst possible outcomes, it is not inevitable. It would require a combination of rapid climate change, inadequate adaptation efforts, and policy failures that could still be avoided through appropriate action. However, the scenario illustrates the potential consequences of inaction and the importance of taking climate risks seriously.

The uninsurability crisis scenario could be triggered by several factors: faster-than-expected climate change that overwhelms adaptation capacity, financial system instability that reduces the insurance industry's capacity to manage risks, political instability that prevents effective policy responses, or international conflicts that disrupt cooperation on climate issues.

Critical Pathways: The Choices That Determine Outcomes

The divergence between these scenarios will be determined largely by the choices made over the next decade in several critical domains. Decisions in these areas will decide whether humanity can reconcile the mounting tension between escalating climate risks and the capacity of global insurance systems, or whether the world will slide toward widespread uninsurability and systemic economic disruption.

1. Pace and Scale of Emissions ReductionsThe most decisive factor is the speed and ambition of greenhouse gas mitigation. Rapid decarbonization that limits warming to under 2.0°C creates a climate risk profile that is vastly more manageable than pathways allowing warming to exceed 2°C or 3°C. The risk increase is not linear: each additional degree of warming generates disproportionately greater hazards, many of which become exponentially harder to manage.

2. Scale and Coordination of Adaptation InvestmentsMaintaining insurability at a global scale will require massive, coordinated investments in climate adaptation and resilience. This means building coastal defenses, upgrading infrastructure, deploying drought-resistant agriculture, and reinforcing critical systems. To be effective, these measures must be implemented at unprecedented scale and speed, with strong coordination across sectors and borders.

3. Innovation in Insurance and Risk Transfer MechanismsThe insurance industry must expand its capacity through new products and risk-transfer innovations such as parametric insurance, catastrophe bonds, and climate-linked reinsurance structures. While promising, these tools can only reach full potential if supported by robust regulatory frameworks, adequate capitalization, and broad market adoption.

4. International Cooperation and Support for Developing CountriesGlobal stability depends on ensuring that developing countries can manage climate risks effectively. This will require a dramatic increase in climate finance and technical assistance, enabling vulnerable economies to strengthen insurance markets, invest in resilience, and reduce exposure. Current commitments fall far short of what is needed, and disputes over the scale and form of assistance continue to impede progress.

5. Policy Frameworks for Insurance Market StabilityGovernments will need to design policy frameworks that safeguard the stability of insurance markets while promoting accurate risk pricing and incentivizing adaptation. Achieving this balance is complex: overly suppressing premiums can destabilize insurers, while purely risk-based pricing may render coverage unaffordable in high-risk areas. Effective solutions will require nuanced, data-driven policy design and sustained regulatory competence.

The Role of Tipping Points and Non-Linear Change

One of the most difficult challenges in managing climate-related uninsurability is the potential for tipping points—critical thresholds whose crossing could trigger sudden and dramatic shifts in risk profiles. These tipping points may occur within climate systems, economic systems, or social and political systems, and they can interact in ways that produce cascading failures across multiple domains.

Climate tipping points such as the rapid collapse of major ice sheets, the dieback of the Amazon rainforest, or the shutdown of key ocean circulation patterns would trigger abrupt increases in hazard frequency and severity, overwhelming even the most advanced adaptation measures and insurance capacity. Their timing, magnitude, and exact triggers remain inherently unpredictable, making adequate preparation extraordinarily difficult.

Economic tipping points could emerge when climate-related losses exceed the absorptive capacity of financial systems. The insolvency of major insurance or reinsurance firms, or the collapse of real estate markets in climate-vulnerable regions, could destabilize credit systems and send shockwaves through global capital markets, amplifying systemic risk.

Social and political tipping points could occur when climate shocks fuel civil unrest, undermine government stability, or spark geopolitical conflicts over resources. Such developments could fracture international cooperation, disrupt global supply chains, and derail collective climate action accelerating the march toward widespread uninsurability.

The prospect of tipping points poses fundamental challenges for scenario planning and risk management. Conventional risk assessment assumes gradual, predictable change, but tipping points can unleash abrupt, nonlinear shifts that outpace the capacity of existing institutions, infrastructure, and markets to respond, forcing insurance systems and economies into crisis faster than anticipated.

The Time Factor: Windows of Opportunity and Points of No Return

The timing of actions and responses will be decisive in determining which of the outlined scenarios becomes reality. There will be limited windows of opportunity when effective intervention is still possible, and points of no return beyond which certain adverse outcomes will be locked in.

The next decade will be especially critical. Decisions made in this period on emissions reductions, adaptation investments, insurance market innovation, and international cooperation will largely determine whether a managed transition remains within reach or whether the world slides irreversibly toward more negative trajectories.

The principle of path dependence is central to this dynamic. Choices made today on infrastructure development, institutional capacity, and policy frameworks will shape and constrain the options available in the future. Poorly aligned investments and weak governance structures risk locking economies into high-exposure, low-resilience pathways for decades.

As Günther Thallinger of Allianz warns, “the window for effective action is rapidly closing, and the consequences of inadequate responses could be catastrophic for both the insurance industry and the broader economy” [78]. His assessment underscores the urgency of the decisions now facing policymakers, regulators, and business leaders.

VIII. The Path Forward

The path forward from the current crisis of climate-related uninsurability is neither simple nor assured—but it remains within reach if pursued with urgency, determination, and the necessary resources. Success will depend on confronting the scale of the challenge with clear-eyed realism while sustaining the conviction that effective, large-scale solutions are still possible.

Step 1: Acknowledge the Inadequacy of Current ApproachesThe first requirement is to accept that incremental improvements and isolated pilot projects are insufficient. Meeting the challenge demands system-wide transformation implemented at the scale and speed dictated by the accelerating nature of climate risks.

Step 2: Build Durable Political and Social CoalitionsTransformative action will require broad, long-term political and social support. This means engaging all sectors—government, business, civil society, and local communities in a shared understanding of both the risks of inaction and the opportunities of decisive climate risk management.

Step 3: Mobilize and Redirect Financial ResourcesA transformation of this magnitude demands significant capital. Existing investments must be reallocated toward climate-resilient infrastructure, adaptation measures, and insurance market innovation, while new financing streams—public, private, and blended—must be mobilized to close the substantial funding gap.

Step 4: Strengthen Institutional CapacityEffective coordination and sustained implementation require robust institutions. Existing bodies must be strengthened, and new institutions created where necessary, to manage the complexity and interconnectedness of climate risk across local, national, and international levels.

Step 5: Maintain Long-Term Commitment and MomentumClimate resilience is a multi-decade endeavor. Transformation efforts must be designed with resilience to political shifts, economic downturns, and unforeseen crises, ensuring that progress can continue despite inevitable setbacks. Sustaining momentum over decades will be as critical as initiating action today.

Steps Towards Effective Action 

Translating these steps into sustained, effective action will require a set of enabling conditions that align political will, financial capacity, technical expertise, and public engagement. These enablers are the foundation upon which transformative climate risk management and the preservation of global insurability must be built.

1. Political Leadership and Policy AlignmentLeaders at all levels of government must commit to climate risk management as a core policy priority. This requires aligning climate, economic, and social policies to avoid contradictory objectives and embedding long-term climate resilience targets into legislative and regulatory frameworks.

2. Stable and Scalable FinancingDedicated, predictable funding streams are essential for adaptation and insurance market stability. This includes expanding climate finance commitments, leveraging private capital through blended finance mechanisms, and establishing sovereign and regional risk pools capable of absorbing catastrophic losses.

3. Innovation EcosystemsGovernments, insurers, and research institutions must cultivate an innovation ecosystem that accelerates the development and deployment of new risk-transfer products, advanced climate analytics, and adaptation technologies. Public-private partnerships will be critical in scaling these innovations beyond pilot projects.

4. Capacity Building and Knowledge SharingClosing the resilience gap requires strengthening institutional and technical capacity in both developed and developing economies. International cooperation should focus on sharing best practices, data, and modeling tools, enabling all nations to assess and manage their climate risks effectively.

5. Public Engagement and Social Buy-InLasting change depends on broad public understanding and support. Communication strategies must make the risks tangible, the benefits of action clear, and the pathways to participation accessible—ensuring that climate resilience is seen as a shared societal responsibility rather than a niche policy issue.

6. Resilience in Governance StructuresInstitutions and coalitions must be designed to endure political turnover, economic shocks, and evolving climate realities. This includes embedding adaptive management practices that allow for policy recalibration as risks and scientific understanding evolve.

By embedding these enablers into national strategies, industry roadmaps, and international agreements, governments and markets can create the structural conditions necessary to avoid the uninsurability crisis scenario and steer toward a managed transition that safeguards both economies and communities.

Final Reflections

The evidence presented in this report makes one fact indisputable: the question is no longer whether climate change will affect insurance markets and the global economy, it already is. The real question is whether society will respond at the necessary scale, speed, and level of coordination to avert the most severe outcomes.

The voices of insurance industry leaders featured throughout this analysis deliver a consistent and urgent warning. Their assessments converge on a single conclusion: climate change poses unprecedented challenges to traditional risk management, challenges that cannot be addressed by the insurance sector alone. Their acknowledgment of the industry’s limits underscores the need for coordinated, cross-sectoral action involving governments, businesses, civil society, and international institutions.

The economic evidence is equally clear: the costs of inaction will far exceed the costs of decisive action, even when that action demands unprecedented investment and transformative change. Scenario analysis confirms that positive outcomes remain achievable, but only through choices and commitments that go well beyond current efforts.

Given the global nature of the threat, no country or region can address these risks in isolation. International cooperation and support for developing countries are not only moral imperatives, they are strategic necessities for managing interconnected risks that threaten the stability of the entire global economy.

The time dimension is equally unforgiving. Every year of delay narrows the range of viable options, raises the cost of solutions, and increases the likelihood of irreversible damage. The next decade will be decisive in determining outcomes for the remainder of the century. As Tobias Grimm of Munich Re has emphasized, “The global community must finally take action and find ways to strengthen the resilience of all countries, and especially those that are the most vulnerable” [95].

The choice is stark: commit now to the scale and urgency the moment demands, or accept a trajectory that will lock in escalating losses, deepening inequality, and mounting instability for generations. The uninsurable future is not inevitable, but only if we choose today to act as though it is not.

References

[1] Swiss Re Institute. (2025). "Natural catastrophes in 2024: A year of unprecedented losses." Sigma Report 1/2025.

[2] European Central Bank. (2024). "Climate change and insurance: The growing protection gap." ECB Economic Bulletin, Issue 8/2024.

[3] Network for Greening the Financial System. (2024). "Climate scenarios for central banks and supervisors: Updated scenarios and new analysis." NGFS Technical Report.

[4] Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco. (2024). "Climate risks and housing markets: Evidence from coastal areas." Economic Letter 2024-15.

[5] Neal, John. (2021). "Climate biggest single opportunity for insurance: Lloyd's CEO." CNBC Interview, November 9, 2021. https://www.cnbc.com/2021/11/09/climate-biggest-single-opportunity-for-insurance-lloyds-ceo.html

[6] Mumenthaler, Christian. (2021). "Climate change is not a risk, it's a fact: Swiss Re CEO Mumenthaler." Reinsurance News, September 16, 2021. https://www.reinsurancene.ws/climate-change-is-not-a-risk-its-a-fact-swiss-re-ceo-mumenthaler/

[7] Blunck, Thomas. (2025). "Climate change is showing its claws: The world is getting hotter, resulting in severe hurricanes, thunderstorms and floods." Munich Re Press Release, January 9, 2025. https://www.munichre.com/en/company/media-relations/media-information-and-corporate-news/media-information/2025/natural-disaster-figures-2024.html

[8] World Bank. (2024). "Global Economic Prospects: Navigating Climate Risks." World Bank Group, Washington DC.

[9] Thallinger, Günther. (2025). "Beyond policies: Why climate action remains essential." Allianz Interview, February 7, 2025. https://www.allianz.com/en/mediacenter/news/interviews/250207-beyond-policies-why-climate-action-remains-essential.html

[10] Mumenthaler, Christian. (2021). "Climate change is not a risk, it's a fact: Swiss Re CEO Mumenthaler." Reinsurance News, September 16, 2021.

[11] World Meteorological Organization. (2025). "State of the Global Climate 2024." WMO-No. 1347, Geneva.

[12] Insurance Information Institute. (2018). "2017 Hurricane Season: Lessons Learned and Industry Response." III White Paper, New York.

[13] Blunck, Thomas. (2025). "Climate change is showing its claws." Munich Re Press Release, January 9, 2025.

[14] Greenberg, Evan. (2024). "Chubb CEO: Climate change created 'volatility' for insurance companies." CNBC Interview, June 6, 2024. https://www.cnbc.com/2024/06/06/chubb-ceo-climate-change-created-volatility-for-insurance-companies.html

[15] National Ocean Economics Program. (2024). "Coastal Economy Report 2024." Center for the Blue Economy, Monterey Institute.

[16] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2023). "AR6 Synthesis Report: Climate Change 2023." IPCC, Geneva.

[17] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2023). "AR6 Synthesis Report: Climate Change 2023." IPCC, Geneva.

[18] Neal, John. (2021). "Climate biggest single opportunity for insurance: Lloyd's CEO." CNBC Interview, November 9, 2021.

[19] Insurance Information Institute. (2024). "Global Insurance Market Capacity and Climate Risks." III Research Report, New York.

[20] Swiss Re Institute. (2025). "Natural catastrophes in 2024: A year of unprecedented losses." Sigma Report 1/2025.

[21] Grimm, Tobias. (2025). "Climate change is showing its claws." Munich Re Press Release, January 9, 2025.

[22] European Central Bank. (2024). "Climate change and insurance: The growing protection gap." ECB Economic Bulletin, Issue 8/2024.

[23] California Department of Insurance. (2024). "Wildfire Insurance Market Report 2024." CDI Annual Report, Sacramento.

[24] Mumenthaler, Christian. (2021). "Climate change is not a risk, it's a fact: Swiss Re CEO Mumenthaler." Reinsurance News, September 16, 2021.

[25] Thallinger, Günther. (2025). "Beyond policies: Why climate action remains essential." Allianz Interview, February 7, 2025.

[26] Thallinger, Günther. (2025). "Beyond policies: Why climate action remains essential." Allianz Interview, February 7, 2025.

[27] Thallinger, Günther. (2025). "Beyond policies: Why climate action remains essential." Allianz Interview, February 7, 2025.

[28] Mumenthaler, Christian. (2021). "Climate change is not a risk, it's a fact: Swiss Re CEO Mumenthaler." Reinsurance News, September 16, 2021.

[29] Mumenthaler, Christian. (2021). "Climate change is not a risk, it's a fact: Swiss Re CEO Mumenthaler." Reinsurance News, September 16, 2021.

[30] Neal, John. (2021). "Climate biggest single opportunity for insurance: Lloyd's CEO." CNBC Interview, November 9, 2021.

[31] Neal, John. (2021). "Climate biggest single opportunity for insurance: Lloyd's CEO." CNBC Interview, November 9, 2021.

[32] Neal, John. (2021). "Climate biggest single opportunity for insurance: Lloyd's CEO." CNBC Interview, November 9, 2021.

[33] Neal, John. (2021). "Climate biggest single opportunity for insurance: Lloyd's CEO." CNBC Interview, November 9, 2021.

[34] Blunck, Thomas. (2025). "Climate change is showing its claws." Munich Re Press Release, January 9, 2025.

[35] Grimm, Tobias. (2025). "Climate change is showing its claws." Munich Re Press Release, January 9, 2025.

[36] Greenberg, Evan. (2024). "Chubb CEO: Climate change created 'volatility' for insurance companies." CNBC Interview, June 6, 2024.

[37] Greenberg, Evan. (2024). "Chubb CEO: Climate change created 'volatility' for insurance companies." CNBC Interview, June 6, 2024.

[38] Zurich Insurance Group. (2025). "Climate resilience research findings." CNBC Report, August 8, 2025. https://www.cnbc.com/2025/08/08/climate-insurers-are-worried-the-world-could-soon-become-uninsurable-.html

[39] Zurich Insurance Group. (2025). "Climate resilience research findings." CNBC Report, August 8, 2025.

[40] Zurich Insurance Group. (2025). "Climate resilience research findings." CNBC Report, August 8, 2025.

[41] Mumenthaler, Christian. (2021). "Climate change is not a risk, it's a fact: Swiss Re CEO Mumenthaler." Reinsurance News, September 16, 2021.

[42] World Bank. (2024). "Global Economic Prospects: Navigating Climate Risks." World Bank Group, Washington DC.

[43] Thallinger, Günther. (2025). "Beyond policies: Why climate action remains essential." Allianz Interview, February 7, 2025.

[44] Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco. (2024). "Climate risks and housing markets: Evidence from coastal areas." Economic Letter 2024-15.

[45] European Central Bank. (2024). "Climate change and insurance: The growing protection gap." ECB Economic Bulletin, Issue 8/2024.

[46] Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco. (2024). "Climate risks and housing markets: Evidence from coastal areas." Economic Letter 2024-15.

[47] Commercial Real Estate Finance Council. (2024). "US Commercial Real Estate Market Report 2024." CREFC Annual Report, New York.

[48] California Department of Insurance. (2024). "Wildfire Insurance Market Report 2024." CDI Annual Report, Sacramento.

[49] Greenberg, Evan. (2024). "Chubb CEO: Climate change created 'volatility' for insurance companies." CNBC Interview, June 6, 2024.

[50] European Central Bank. (2024). "Climate change and insurance: The growing protection gap." ECB Economic Bulletin, Issue 8/2024.

[51] Neal, John. (2021). "Climate biggest single opportunity for insurance: Lloyd's CEO." CNBC Interview, November 9, 2021.

[52] World Bank. (2024). "Global Economic Prospects: Navigating Climate Risks." World Bank Group, Washington DC.

[53] Grimm, Tobias. (2025). "Climate change is showing its claws." Munich Re Press Release, January 9, 2025.

[54] Congressional Budget Office. (2024). "Federal Disaster Relief Spending: Trends and Projections." CBO Report, Washington DC.

[55] Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco. (2024). "Climate risks and housing markets: Evidence from coastal areas." Economic Letter 2024-15.

[56] Network for Greening the Financial System. (2024). "Climate scenarios for central banks and supervisors: Updated scenarios and new analysis." NGFS Technical Report.

[57] Mumenthaler, Christian. (2021). "Climate change is not a risk, it's a fact: Swiss Re CEO Mumenthaler." Reinsurance News, September 16, 2021.

[58] International Association of Insurance Supervisors. (2024). "Climate Risk Supervision Framework." IAIS Technical Report, Basel.

[59] International Association of Insurance Supervisors. (2024). "Climate Risk Supervision Framework." IAIS Technical Report, Basel.

[60] Network for Greening the Financial System. (2024). "Climate scenarios for central banks and supervisors: Updated scenarios and new analysis." NGFS Technical Report.

[61] Network for Greening the Financial System. (2024). "Climate scenarios for central banks and supervisors: Updated scenarios and new analysis." NGFS Technical Report.

[62] Network for Greening the Financial System. (2024). "Climate scenarios for central banks and supervisors: Updated scenarios and new analysis." NGFS Technical Report.

[63] European Central Bank. (2024). "Climate stress test results for eurozone banks." ECB Banking Supervision Report, Frankfurt.

[64] European Central Bank. (2024). "Climate change and insurance: The growing protection gap." ECB Economic Bulletin, Issue 8/2024.

[65] European Central Bank. (2024). "Climate change and insurance: The growing protection gap." ECB Economic Bulletin, Issue 8/2024.

[66] European Central Bank. (2024). "Climate change and insurance: The growing protection gap." ECB Economic Bulletin, Issue 8/2024.

[67] National Association of Insurance Commissioners. (2024). "State Responses to Climate Risk in Insurance Markets." NAIC Annual Report, Kansas City.

[68] UK Government. (2024). "Flood Re Annual Report 2024." Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, London.

[69] Australian Prudential Regulation Authority. (2024). "Climate Risk Management in Australian Insurance Markets." APRA Report, Sydney.

[70] World Bank. (2024). "Insurance for Climate Resilience: Innovations and Opportunities." World Bank Group, Washington DC.

[71] Green Climate Fund. (2024). "Climate Risk Insurance and Adaptation Finance." GCF Annual Report, Songdo.

[72] OECD. (2024). "Climate Finance Provided and Mobilised by Developed Countries: Aggregate Trends Updated with 2022 Data." OECD Publishing, Paris.

[73] Thallinger, Günther. (2025). "Beyond policies: Why climate action remains essential." Allianz Interview, February 7, 2025.

[74] World Bank. (2024). "Global Economic Prospects: Navigating Climate Risks." World Bank Group, Washington DC.

[75] World Bank. (2024). "Global Economic Prospects: Navigating Climate Risks." World Bank Group, Washington DC.

[76] Grimm, Tobias. (2025). "Climate change is showing its claws." Munich Re Press Release, January 9, 2025.

[77] Mumenthaler, Christian. (2021). "Climate change is not a risk, it's a fact: Swiss Re CEO Mumenthaler." Reinsurance News, September 16, 2021.

[78] Thallinger, Günther. (2025). "Beyond policies: Why climate action remains essential." Allianz Interview, February 7, 2025.

[79] Neal, John. (2021). "Climate biggest single opportunity for insurance: Lloyd's CEO." CNBC Interview, November 9, 2021.

[80] Swiss Re Institute. (2025). "Natural catastrophes in 2024: A year of unprecedented losses." Sigma Report 1/2025.

[81] European Central Bank. (2024). "Climate change and insurance: The growing protection gap." ECB Economic Bulletin, Issue 8/2024.

[82] Network for Greening the Financial System. (2024). "Climate scenarios for central banks and supervisors: Updated scenarios and new analysis." NGFS Technical Report.

[83] Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco. (2024). "Climate risks and housing markets: Evidence from coastal areas." Economic Letter 2024-15.

[84] Mumenthaler, Christian. (2021). "Climate change is not a risk, it's a fact: Swiss Re CEO Mumenthaler." Reinsurance News, September 16, 2021.

[85] Neal, John. (2021). "Climate biggest single opportunity for insurance: Lloyd's CEO." CNBC Interview, November 9, 2021.

[86] Blunck, Thomas. (2025). "Climate change is showing its claws." Munich Re Press Release, January 9, 2025.

[87] Greenberg, Evan. (2024). "Chubb CEO: Climate change created 'volatility' for insurance companies." CNBC Interview, June 6, 2024.

[88] Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco. (2024). "Climate risks and housing markets: Evidence from coastal areas." Economic Letter 2024-15.

[89] World Bank. (2024). "Global Economic Prospects: Navigating Climate Risks." World Bank Group, Washington DC.

[90] Greenberg, Evan. (2024). "Chubb CEO: Climate change created 'volatility' for insurance companies." CNBC Interview, June 6, 2024.

[91] Mumenthaler, Christian. (2021). "Climate change is not a risk, it's a fact: Swiss Re CEO Mumenthaler." Reinsurance News, September 16, 2021.

[92] Thallinger, Günther. (2025). "Beyond policies: Why climate action remains essential." Allianz Interview, February 7, 2025.

[93] Neal, John. (2021). "Climate biggest single opportunity for insurance: Lloyd's CEO." CNBC Interview, November 9, 2021.

[94] Neal, John. (2021). "Climate biggest single opportunity for insurance: Lloyd's CEO." CNBC Interview, November 9, 2021.

[95] Grimm, Tobias. (2025). "Climate change is showing its claws." Munich Re Press Release, January 9, 2025.