It’s possible that I shall make an ass of myself. But in that case one can always get out of it with a little dialectic. I have, of course, so worded my proposition as to be right either way (K.Marx, Letter to F.Engels on the Indian Mutiny)
A Saudi official said Thursday that the 22-nation Arab Group would reject any UN climate deal that goes after fossil fuels at the COP29 talks in Azerbaijan.
The negotiations in Baku have centred on reaching a climate finance deal to help developing nations tackle global warming, but countries have also clashed over a push to renew a pledge to transition away from fossil fuels.
"The Arab Group will not accept any text that targets any specific sectors, including fossil fuel," Albara Tawfiq, a Saudi official speaking on behalf of the bloc, told delegates in Baku.
Last year's COP28 in Dubai produced a landmark agreement on "transitioning away from fossil fuels" following opposition from Saudi Arabia and the OPEC group of oil producers.
"We all know that there has been a backsliding. There has been an attempt to interpret what we agreed last year as a menu," Irish climate minister Eamon Ryan told reporters.
22 Arab countries at COP29 have rejected the targeting of fossil fuels [Getty]
"That has to stop in the interests of the Arab group, too," he said.
Developed nations and countries vulnerable to climate impacts have pushed for the Dubai commitment to be reaffirmed at COP29.
"It is an embarrassment to all of us if we back away as climate impacts worsen all over the world," Tina Stege, climate envoy of the Marshall Islands, told delegates.
"We need to transition away from fossil fuels," she said.
World leaders, negotiators, lobbyists and NGOs are meeting in Baku, the capital of Azerbaijan, for COP29.
COP (Conference of Parties) is comprised of approximately 200 countries that ratified the UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) in 1992. The representatives of these countries meet every year to negotiate the best approaches to tackling the root causes of climate change.
But this year, a black cloud hangs over the conference as the United States is expected to pull out of climate discussions under a Trump administration.
President-elect Donald Trump aims to give a free pass to polluting nations while ignoring the catastrophic weather changes such as massive fires, floods, and storms that have devastated cities and communities around the world.
Many experts see this as not just irresponsible but downright dangerous, risking lives and livelihoods for the sake of short-term political gains.
The UN climate conference – the 29th such gathering, which will run from 11-22 November – has been billed as the “finance COP” as countries are due to set a new global climate finance goal this year.
Ahead of COP30 in Brazil next year, representatives will be submitting strong national climate commitments – known as Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs).
More than 100 heads of state and government have confirmed their attendance, according to UN sources.
But several world leaders and government officials have said they won’t be attending the conference.
The UN’s decision to host COP29 in Baku has been criticized, given the ongoing tensions between Armenia and Azerbaijan.
As the BBC noted, Azerbaijan plans to expand gas production over the next decade. Many experts believe that with such a goal, Azerbaijan should not be hosting a conference that aims to transition away from fossil fuels. Azerbaijani officials are being accused of using the climate conference as a tool to boost investment in the country’s national oil and gas company.
There are also deep reservations about holding this key event in a country with a poor human rights record, where political opposition isn’t tolerated.
Naturally, Armenian NGOs are boycotting COP29, accusing Azerbaijan of “greenwashing” its dismal human rights record and environmental damage in Nagorno-Karabakh.
The NGOs accuse Azerbaijan of engaging in deforestation, landmine planting, and the destruction of cultural heritage in the occupied territories.
Aside from the anger over hosting COP29 in Baku, Trump’s return to the White House in January means we can expect a second U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement and a weakened global front against climate change.
During his first administration, in 2020, Trump withdrew the U.S. from the Paris Climate Agreement, arguing that it imposed unfair economic burdens on the country.
But Trump’s disengagement from the Agreement damaged America’s international reputation and leadership on climate issues.
Contrary to his views, most countries support active participation in global climate initiatives such as the COP meetings and the Paris Agreement, seeing collaboration as essential for addressing the scale of global warming.
Under the Paris agreement signed in 2015, world leaders pledged to try to collaborate on preventing global temperatures rising by more than 1.5C. Without this concerted effort, climate change will only worsen.
Trump’s withdrawal is a retreat from global responsibility and will only weaken international efforts to reduce greenhouse emissions. By favoring fossil fuel industries over renewable energy investments, Trump willfully ignores the economic benefits of clean energy and environmental protection.
The point of COP is to underscore the urgency of cutting emissions and to emphasize that the climate crisis requires immediate, collaborative action. Now, Trump’s own actions will encourage other nations to disregard COP’s importance.
The right thing to do would be to remain in the Paris agreement and participate in COP summits. By doing so, the U.S. would be able to maintain its role as a global leader on climate change, influencing other countries to follow suit and collectively achieve meaningful emissions reductions.
But nothing will come of COP29 if Trump dismisses the urgency of the climate crisis, undermines global cooperation, and puts America at odds with the rest of the world in combating an existential threat.
Trump’s approach to the Paris Agreement isn’t just wrong; it is a reckless, short-sighted betrayal of responsibility, a shameful abdication of leadership, and an outrageous disregard for the catastrophic impacts of climate change that are already evident today.
Chloe Atkinson is a climate change activist and consultant on global climate affairs.
Storm-ravaged house, Knappa, Oregon. Photo: Jeffrey St. Clair.
Home insurance rates are rising in the United States, not only in Florida, which saw tens of billions of dollars in losses from hurricanes Helene and Milton, but across the country.
According to S&P Global Market Intelligence, homeowners insurance increased an average of 11.3% nationwide in 2023, with some states, including Texas, Arizona and Utah, seeing nearly double that increase. Some analysts predict an average increase of about 6% in 2024.
These increases are driven by a potent mix of rising insurance payouts coupled with rising costs of construction as people build increasingly expensive homes and other assets in harm’s way.
When home insurance averages $2,377 a year nationally, and $11,000 per year in Florida, this is a blow to many people. Despite these rising rates, Jacques de Vaucleroy, chairman of the board of reinsurance giant Swiss Re, believes U.S. insurance is still priced too low to fully cover the risks.
It isn’t just that premiums are changing. Insurers now often reduce coverage limits, cap payouts, increase deductibles and impose new conditions or even exclusions on some common perils, such as protection for wind, hail or water damage. Some require certain preventive measures or apply risk-based pricing – charging more for homes in flood plains, wildfire-prone zones, or coastal areas at risk of hurricanes.
Homeowners watching their prices rise faster than inflation might think something sinister is at play. Insurance companies are facing rapidly evolving risks, however, and trying to price their policies low enough to remain competitive but high enough to cover future payouts and remain solvent in a stormier climate. This is not an easy task. In 2021 and 2022, seven property insurers filed for bankruptcy in Florida alone. In 2023, insurers lost money on homeowners coverage in 18 states.
But these changes are raising alarm bells. Some industry insiders worry that insurance may be losing its relevance and value – real or perceived – for policyholders as coverage shrinks, premiums rise and exclusions increase.
How insurers assess risk
Insurance companies use complex models to estimate the likelihood of current risks based on past events. They aggregate historical data – such as event frequency, scale, losses and contributing factors – to calculate price and coverage.
However, the increase in disasters makes the past an unreliable measure. What was once considered a 100-year event may now be better understood as a 30- or 50-year event in some locations.
What many people do not realize is that the rise of so-called “secondary perils” – an insurance industry term for floods, hailstorms, strong winds, lightning strikes, tornadoes and wildfires that generate small to mid-size damage – is becoming the main driver of the insurability challenge, particularly as these events become more intense, frequent and cumulative, eroding insurers’ profitability over time.
Climate change plays a role in these rising risks. As the climate warms, air can hold more moisture – about 7% more with every degree Celsius of warming. That leads to stronger downpours, more thunderstorms, larger hail events and a higher risk of flooding in some regions. The U.S. was on average 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.6 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer in 2022 than in 1970.
Insurance companies are revising their models to keep up with these changes, much as they did when smoking-related illnesses became a significant cost burden in life and health insurance. Some companies use climate modeling to augment their standard actuarial risk modeling. But some states have been hesitant to allow climate modeling, which can leave companies systematically underrepresenting the risks they face.
Each company develops its own assessment and geographic strategy to reach a different conclusion. For example, Progressive Insurance has raised its homeowner rates by 55% between 2018 and 2023, while State Farm has raised them only 13.7%.
While a homeowner who chooses to make home improvements, such as installing a luxury kitchen, can expect an increase in premiums to account for the added replacement value, this effect is typically small and predictable. Generally, the more substantial premium hikes are due to the ever-increasing risk of severe weather and natural disasters.
Insurance for insurers
When risks become too unpredictable or volatile, insurers can turn to reinsurance for help.
Reinsurance companies are essentially insurance companies that insure insurance companies. But in recent years, reinsurers have recognized that their risk models are also no longer accurate and have raised their rates accordingly. Property reinsurance alone increased by 35% in 2023.
Reinsurance is also not very well suited to covering secondary perils. The traditional reinsurance model is focused on large, rare catastrophes, such as devastating hurricanes and earthquakes.
Maps illustrate the average loss from flooding alone and expected increases by mid-century. About 90% of catastrophes in the U.S. involve flooding, but just 6% of U.S. homeowners have flood insurance. Fifth National Climate Assessment
As an alternative, some insurers are moving toward parametric insurance, which provides a predefined payment if an event meets or exceeds a predefined intensity threshold. These policies are less expensive for consumers because the payouts are capped and cover events such as a magnitude 7 earthquake, excessive rain within a 24-hour period or a Category 3 hurricane in a defined geographical area. The limits allow insurers to provide a less expensive form of insurance that is less likely to severely disrupt their finances.
Protecting the consumer
Of course, insurers don’t operate in an entirely free market. State insurance regulators evaluate insurance companies’ proposals to raise rates and either approve or deny them.
The insurance industry in North Carolina, for example, where Hurricane Helene caused catastrophic damage, is arguing for a homeowner premium increase of more than 42% on average, ranging from 4% in parts of the mountains to 99% in some waterfront areas.
If a rate increase is denied, it could force an insurer to simply withdraw from certain market sectors, cancel existing policies or refuse to write new ones when their “loss ratio” – the ratio of claims paid to premiums collected – becomes too high for too long.
Since 2022, seven of the top 12 insurance carriers have either cut existing homeowners policies or stopped selling new ones in the wildfire-prone California homeowner market, and an equal number have pulled back from the Florida market due to the increasing cost of hurricanes.
To stem this tide, California is reforming its regulations to speed up the rate increase approval process and allow insurers to make their case using climate models to judge wildfire risk more accurately.
Florida has instituted regulatory reforms that have reduced litigation and associated costs and has removed 400,000 policies from the state-run insurance program. As a result, eight insurance carriers have entered the market there since 2022.
Looking ahead
Solutions to the mounting insurance crisis also involve how and where people build. Building codes can require more resilient homes, akin to how fire safety standards increased the effectiveness of insurance many decades ago.
By one estimate, investing $3.5 billion in making the two-thirds of U.S. homes not currently up to code more resilient to storms could save insurers as much as $37 billion by 2030.
In the end, if affordability and relevance of insurance continue to degrade, real estate prices will start to decline in exposed locations. This will be the most tangible sign that climate change is driving an insurability crisis that disrupts wider financial stability.
Justin D’Atri, Climate Coach at the education platform Adaptify U and Sustainability Transformation Lead at Zurich Insurance Group, contributed to this article.
Andrew J. Hoffman is Holcim (US) Professor of Sustainable Enterprise, Ross School of Business, School for Environment & Sustainability at the University of Michigan.
