Climate change doesn't fit the model of "insurance." It's not a low probability, high impact event that randomly affects a small subset of assets, with a low total cost relative to the whole pool of assets at risk.

It's a high probability, high impact event that affects everybody, with a high total cost relative to the value of the pool of assets at risk.

https://www.climatechangenews.com/2024/05/03/seismic-shifts-are-underway-to-find-finance-for-loss-and-damage/

Seismic shifts are underway to find finance for loss and damage

The new UN fund can channel taxes and other innovative ways of raising money to pay for climate loss and damage - we just have to decide to apply them

Climate Home News
Which is why, absent (unfunded) subsidies from the state, homeowner's insurance in Florida, Louisiana, and fire-prone California can look like a "second mortgage." You really do need a second mortgage if the asset you've financed is likely to be destroyed before you've paid off the loan!
Like if you start a health insurance company that only serves patients who already have cancer, it is not going to go well financially.

@ZaneSelvans you should have seen the consternation in a Hacker News discussion when someone suggested a fossil fuel tax to be applied to an insurance offset fund.

Noo the market should deliver a solution.

How would the market operate if the fundamental carbon pollution cost driver isn’t linked with the price?

@ZaneSelvans
Climate change will break the insurance industry before it breaks everything else.

Actuaries are the world’s oldest data scientists.

The math doesn’t lie.

They are paid to avoid #AdverseSelection.

When the risks manifest everywhere, on everything, all the time, actuarial models collapse.