D. Crichton
1
The Implications of Climate Change for the Insurance Industry
Wilton Park Conference,
“Climate Change, What can be done?”
15th May, 2002.
Professor David Crichton1
Chartered Insurance Practitioner, Fellow of the Chartered Insurance Institute.
Abstract
Climate change will have direct impacts on the global insurance industry in terms of
increasing frequency and severity of natural disasters. It will also have indirect
effects, not only those arising from government actions to mitigate climate change,
but also from likely increases in civil unrest and terrorism caused by poverty, famine,
and water shortages.
Climate change will require society to adapt, and during this time, it will be more
vulnerable to “sideswipes” from such events as volcanic eruptions and earthquakes.
In many cases, insurers will be in the “front line” in dealing with the aftermath of
such events.
Some insurers are beginning to take action, both to mitigate climate change and to
encourage adaptation to its effects. Closer partnerships are needed between insurers
and government to respond to these challenges, but as yet many remain to be
convinced.
The author
The author has many years’ experience as a senior manager in the insurance industry,
dealing with property and casualty insurance underwriting for one of the biggest
global insurers. Three years ago, he set up as an independent consultant, and has been
advising insurance companies, governments and universities around the world on
strategies to deal with climate change. He has often appeared on radio and TV, and
has addressed conferences in four continents. He is a member of several Government
expert committees and boards in England and Scotland. He is also a member of the
UK Advisory Committee on Natural Disaster Reduction.
He can be contacted at david@crichton.sol.co.uk .
A note for visitors to Great Britain
Many of the examples in this paper relate to insurance activities in Great Britain
(GB), and it may be useful to explain that Great Britain is made up of the three
countries of England, Scotland and Wales. Scotland has its own distinctive laws and
education system, and since devolution, it now has its own Parliament, which deals
with internal affairs. Wales has its own Assembly, but in many ways is similar to
England for the purposes of this paper. For many of the issues considered below, it is
necessary to distinguish between England and Wales on the one hand, and Scotland
on the other, because the approaches are significantly and increasingly different.
(The United Kingdom consists of Great Britain, plus the province of Northern Ireland.
The “British Isles” is a geographical term rather than political, and consists of the UK,
plus the Republic of Ireland, and the UK Crown Dependencies of the Isle of Man and
the Channel Islands.)
1
Affiliations: Benfield Greig Hazard Research Centre, University College, London, Middlesex
University Flood Hazard Research Centre, London, and University of Dundee, Scotland.
© Copyright David Crichton, May, 2002.
D. Crichton
2
Introduction
The early European settlers in Australia were puzzled by the Aboriginal custom of
“walkabout”. What they did not realise was that the young men who went walkabout
were actually arranging their clan’s insurance policies…
By forming links with other clans, often extraordinarily far away, they were arranging
somwhere they could go should there be a prolonged drought in their area. In times
of plenty, the aborigines would have great feasts, called “corroborees” where they
invited other clans to come and share in their good fortune. In effect “paying a
premium” for protection when times were hard. It is possible that these customs go
back tens of thousands of years, and were perhaps the earliest form of insurance.
Such practices are not limited to Australia: similar customs exist among the Tswana
tribe in Africa, the Kalahari Bushmen, and the hill and lowland tribes in New Guinea.
In North West Alaska, the coastal Tarumiut Eskimo hunt bowhead whales, while the
inland Nunamiut Eskimo hunt caribou. They trade whale oil for caribou skins, but
they do more. In times of plenty, the bounty is shared, and if one year the whales do
not come, for example, Tarumiut families head inland to live with Nunamiut families,
who happily share their food, shelter and even their wives (Couper-Johnston, 2000).
Modern insurance is a bit like the insurance practiced by the Eskimo. While wife
sharing may not be a part of it, the sharing of resources and expertise certainly is, and
with insurance, the sharing of losses can be spread around the whole world, using
reinsurance. Insurance is therefore a very important topic in any consideration of
climate change.
Is Global warming making insurers sweat? The answer perhaps is “not enough”.
What does concern insurance executives is that the costs of disaster claims has shown
an enormous increase in recent decades, even without the effects of climate change
(Munich Re, 2000), as society becomes more exposed and vulnerable to natural
hazards. More people are living in low-lying coastal areas or on floodplains, and
industry is more dependent on transport infrastructure and communications, which
can easily be disrupted in a disaster. Lightweight building materials and designs are
in greater use, but are more vulnerable to storms. The risk is growing every day and
indeed, some say that by 2065, the costs of natural disasters could exceed the total
GDP for the whole world (Retallack, 2001).
As a result, an increasing number of insurers are becoming proactive in dealing with
mitigation and adaptation. Many would welcome the opportunity to work more
closely with governments.
As Kofi Annan has said:
“Prevention policy is too important to be left to governments and
international agencies alone.
To succeed, it must also engage civil society, the private sector
and the media”
Programme Forum 1999, July 1999, Geneva.
This paper is concerned with some of the direct and indirect impacts of climate
change on insurers. The impacts are many and varied (Crichton, 2001), and there is
only space here to give some examples of how insurers could be affected and how
they are taking steps to manage risks.
© Copyright David Crichton, May, 2002.
D. Crichton
3
Mitigation
Greenhouse Gases
In terms of climate change, the most effective long-term solution is clearly mitigation,
through reductions in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. More than 90 insurers around
the world have joined with the United Nations Environment Programme to sign up to
a “Statement of Environmental Commitment”, and a group has been established to
lobby for reduced GHGs. (In small way, the author helped to found this initiative.)
For more details of the initiative, see www.unepfi.net .
Insurance industry representatives have been present at all of the Conference of the
Parties (COP) talks and will be represented at Rio +10 in Johannesburg and at COP 8
in Delhi. The insurance industry could however do much more. Globally, it is three
times bigger than the fossil fuel industry, and its investment managers control 30% of
the world’s stocks and shares. To a great extent the industry is a “sleeping giant”,
preferring to work quietly behind the scenes. The industry increasingly supports
socially responsible investment, and a recent publication of the British Chartered
Insurance Institute (Agnew et al, 2001), expressed support for “Contraction and
Convergence”, as have many other institutions (Meyer, 2000). It is pleasing to see
that Aubrey Meyer, the author of this initiative, is also speaking at this conference.
Renewable Energy
Some would argue that C&C implies a reduced standard of living. This is not
necessarily the case, if alternative energy sources and energy saving measures are
used. Often these can offer a lower level of risk, and there is a strong underwriting
case for insurance industry support in the form of premium incentives (Chen, Mills,
and Vine, 1998). In addition, insurers could lend their support to such changes as
part of their socially responsible investment policies.
There are many alternative sources of energy for the production of electricity. Some,
such as solar and wind are weather dependent and unsuitable for base load supply, but
much more could be done with biomass, tidal power, micro hydro, and nuclear. The
fossil fuel companies should be looking more closely at these alternative energy
sources, and perhaps insurance investment managers could play a greater role in
persuading them of the merits of this.
As John Ritch has pointed out (Ritch, 1999) demand for electricity is going to grow so
quickly that it is hard to see how renewable power sources can reduce our dependence
on fossil fuel, unless we maintain and expand nuclear power. This view seems to be
shared by a recent British Royal Commission on the subject (Royal Commission,
2000). At one time, the author helped to administer the British Atomic Energy
insurance pool, and knows that this has an excellent claims record. Despite
Chernobyl, the nuclear power industry record on deaths, diseases, and pollution is still
many times better than that of the coal industry, and from an insurance point of view,
the modern nuclear power industry represents a much more acceptable risk than coal.
Alternatives to fossil fuels for surface vehicles and aircraft are more limited.
Hydrogen fuel cells are being developed for surface transport, but we are a long way
from using them in aircraft. At present the only non fossil fuel option which is
practical for both surface and air transport is a “biofuel” called ethanol, a form of
© Copyright David Crichton, May, 2002.
D. Crichton
4
alcohol produced from organic material. It is already mixed with petrol in parts of the
USA and Canada, and with minimal modification, motor vehicles could run perfectly
well on ethanol alone. South Africa ran military aircraft on ethanol when the country
was subject to oil sanctions. Such a fuel is less likely to explode in an accident, and it
cannot pollute the oceans or soil because it dissolves in water. It does not pollute the
air, uses simple technology, and is renewable, plentiful, and carbon dioxide neutral.
Henry Ford had planned to run his Model T car on ethanol which was his preferred
fuel until prohibition came along. If it had not been for prohibition, it is quite likely
that all our motor vehicles would be powered by ethanol already.
Insurers could use the safety aspects to justify encouraging ethanol using incentives in
motor insurance premiums, and premiums for tankers and filling stations. As US
Senator Richard Lugar has pointed out (Lugar and Woolsey, 1999), the cost of
production of ethanol could be very low using new catalysts recently developed in
Florida. These catalysts enable any organic material, even waste paper, to be a source
of ethanol without the need for massive oil wells or refineries. (Perhaps this is why
there is not more support for it from petrol companies?)
Adaptation
Whatever is done about mitigation on a global basis, it is already too late to prevent
climate change from increasingly affecting society, and so regional, national and local
adaptation measures are also very important to manage and hopefully reduce the risk.
Risk
How should one define “risk”? It seems that every profession has its own definition.
Insurers like to believe that they are experts in risk, after all it is their core business.
For some years now, insurers have been using catastrophe risk models, many of
which are based on the concept of the “Risk Triangle” methodology (© Crichton,
1997). This argues that risk is a function of the three elements of hazard, exposure,
and vulnerability. If these three elements are the sides of a triangle, risk can be
considered to be the area of the triangle. Reduce any one side, and you reduce risk.
Eliminate any one side, and you eliminate risk.
In the risk triangle, hazard represents the frequency and severity of an event or
condition that can cause a loss. Vulnerability is the extent to which people or
property can suffer injury or damage from the hazard, and depends on preparedness,
resilience, and recovery. Exposure is the proximity and value of vulnerable people or
property to the hazard.
The most efficient way to reduce risk, is to look for the “low hanging fruit”, the
cheapest and most effective solutions from each of the three sides of the triangle.
The next section of this paper looks at the three sides of the risk triangle and
comments on them from a British perspective
© Copyright David Crichton, May, 2002.
D. Crichton
5
Hazard
In Britain, climate change is likely to have a number of impacts in terms of hazards:
Health
Heat stress, skin cancer, air pollution, disease, insect infestation, especially dust mites
and mosquitoes, will cause illness and deaths. Milder winters will save more lives,
however, and life insurance actuaries tend to see climate change as not causing them a
problem. Storms and floods could cause trauma for many people, if not death and
injury.
Subsidence
This already costs insurers £1m every day on average, and is likely to be a growing
problem as summers become drier and warmer, causing soils to shrink. Subsidence
should not be a major hazard, the fact that it is so costly in Britain, especially
England, is more to do with inadequate building foundations on shrinkable soils, and
a failure to consult with the insurance industry on building standards. A new
technique using satellite data, called Permanent Scatterer Synthetic Aperture Radar
Interferometry (PS InSAR) is making it possible to measure sub millimetre
movements in buildings. This could identify the worst subsidence areas. It could also
give early warning of failure of mass structures such as bridges, flood defences,
power stations and dams.
Dam break
More than 50% of Britain’s dams are over 100 years old and made of earth
embankments which have not been properly compacted. Many are in a defective
condition, and the warm, dry, summers resulting from climate change will bring will
cause cracking. When followed by winters which could be 30% wetter than now,
combined with higher wind speeds causing overtopping and erosion, dam failure is
becoming increasingly likely (Babties and Institute of Hydrology, 2002). Dam
owners in Britain follow a culture of strict secrecy about the condition of their dams
and the areas that would be flooded should a dam fail (Hughes et al., 2000). One
cannot help wondering why? Do they have something to hide?
The industry also seems to be characterised by a feeling of complacency that nothing
can go wrong which contrasts with countries such as France and the USA where dam
owners are much more open about the risks.
Even the existence of the British dam defects database is denied. As a member of the
steering committee on a project that examined reservoir risks in Britain, the author has
seen extracts from the database, but is not at liberty to reveal them. However the fact
that the contents are so secret might lead the reader to conclude that all is not well
with the condition of the nation’s dams. The author could not comment on this. Of
equal concern is the secrecy surrounding the areas that would be inundated by a dam
break. Again the author has seen some of them but is not at liberty to reveal their
contents. Suffice it to say that many dams are near urban areas including schools and
hospitals, and that planners are allowing new housing developments in such areas
simply because they are unaware of the hazard. There are no evacuation
arrangements in the case of dam break, because the information needed is even kept
secret from the emergency planning officials and the police.
Storms
© Copyright David Crichton, May, 2002.
D. Crichton
6
Storms are likely to be more frequent and severe. What is more important, and is not
generally realised, is that their tracks will change. Normally in the winter, blocking
high pressure areas over Switzerland and Germany divert storm tracks over the North
of Scotland or Spain where houses have been designed to cope with them. In future
there will be more storms across the South of England where buildings are designed
and constructed to lower standards. Two such storms in January and February 1990
caused insured losses of £2,400m. Another such storm in December 1999 devastated
large areas of France. (A much more severe storm in January 1993 caused very little
damage because it only passed over the North of Scotland where buildings are more
resilient.)
Floods
All the world’s climate change models agree that in Britain climate change will bring
increased rainfall, more prolonged rainfall, and more extreme rainfall events which
will increase the river flood hazard, (Palmer, and Rälsänen, 2002). More storms, a
higher wave climate, and sea level rise, will increase the chances of coastal floods.
New remote sensing techniques, such as Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) satellites,
and LiDAR (LASER instrument Detection and Ranging) will enable flood hazard
areas to be mapped to far greater accuracy in the future and the author is involved
with some of this work.
Flood hazards, can be controlled to an extent by structural solutions (for example
flood walls) and by non structural solutions (for example tree planting, or changes in
agricultural practices). However in England and Wales, according to insurance
funded research (Halcrow, 1994, 1995) and government funded research (Burgess et
al, 2000), spending on structural flood defences has been inadequate for many years.
This inadequate funding is due to government constraints that are reflected in the
artificial cost benefit rules that ration spending in England and Wales. Where
defences are built they are often inadequate and poorly maintained. In addition,
according to the Middlesex Flood Hazard Research Centre, the relevant government
department in England, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
(DEFRA) are not authorised to spend anything on more sustainable non-structural
defences (Green, 2002).
The position is different in Scotland, where, since devolution, central grant aid for the
construction of flood defences has never been refused on the grounds of lack of funds,
and there are no artificial cost benefit rules to ration spending. Also Scotland has
taken the lead in researching what changes are needed to flood defences to take
climate change into account (Price and McInally, 2001), and a major research project
for the Scottish Executive by the University of Dundee and Entec has quantified the
overall flood risk for Scotland (Werritty et al, 2002).
One of the biggest contributory factors for urban flood in Britain is the condition of
urban drainage systems, which are often very old. Even new ones are designed to
cope only with normal rainfall levels. Recent research in Scotland has shown that
climate change will mean that many of these systems will surcharge several times a
year in the future (Futter and Lang, 2001). (This research relates only to Scotland, but
similar research is about to be started in England)
© Copyright David Crichton, May, 2002.
D. Crichton
7
Terrorism
Climate change will lead to increased poverty, famine and water shortages around the
world. This in turn will lead to increasing desperation and resentment in poorer
countries, especially if the affluent West continues with its profligate use of energy,
water, and other resources. Terrorism could spread like a vector borne disease, but
possibly with much more serious consequences. The events of September 11th in
New York are symptomatic of such disaffection. While these could increasingly be
repeated around the world, the USA is the most likely target for such resentment.
Already reinsurance against terrorism will become hard to obtain after this year, and
primary insurers may wish to withdraw cover from certain “target risks”. The
Environmental Liability Directive recently agreed by the EU Parliament, could result
in legislation to make liability insurance compulsory for certain high hazard
installations in the EU (Already such legislation has been proposed for Scotland for
installations such as oil rigs and waste disposal sites). Where terrorism is an issue,
there is a possibility that such installations might have to close if insurance cannot be
obtained.
“Sideswipes”
Until society has adapted to climate change, it will be increasingly vulnerable to
sideswipes such as earthquake or volcanic eruptions. Adaptation could reduce such
vulnerability. According to Professor Bill McGuire of the Benfield Greig Hazard
Research Centre at UCL in London, perhaps the most imminent danger comes from
the La Palma volcano in the Canary Islands (McGuire, 2002). When this next erupts,
and this could happen any time in the next 30 years, the whole side of the mountain
will slip into the ocean causing a giant tsunami that could engulf the coasts of USA,
Canada, North Africa and Europe. In North Africa and Spain the wave could be 100
metres high, and travelling at 600 miles an hour. By the time it reaches Britain, the
wave would still be around 10 metres high along the south coast of England.
Vulnerability
Insurance can help to reduce vulnerability by providing expertise and funding to help
a community get back on its feet after a disaster. Recovery from natural disasters
depends on the protection of assets, which enable people to engage in their
livelihoods. This can be represented by the mnemonic “SHINE”:
 Social - networks, institutions
 Human - skills, knowledge
 Infrastructure, food stocks, buildings
 Natural - minerals, water, fertile land, trees
 Economic - savings, INSURANCE
(For more details, see www.livelihoods.org )
Poverty can lead to increased vulnerability, which means that hazards can have more
severe effects. This in turn leads to increased poverty and increased vulnerability in a
vicious circle that can only be broken by some form of intervention to manage the
risk. There is a growing acceptance that private industry has a role to play in
promoting environmental justice not only in the developing world, but also in
relatively wealthy countries like Britain (Bullock et al, 2001).
Insurers could be involved in such intervention, using their risk management expertise
and providing speedy financial assistance for recovery. Obviously insurers as
© Copyright David Crichton, May, 2002.
D. Crichton
8
commercial companies will require a premium, but at least this is a cost which is
relatively stable and known in advance. At the moment, relief agencies have to search
for donors after the disaster. If it were possible for donors to be found to pay for the
insurance of essential infrastructure before the disaster, then disaster recovery would
be much quicker. Speedy recovery work can also reduce levels of damage. A new
British initiative, the Commonwealth Disaster Management Agency, is aimed at
enabling developing countries to have access to disaster insurance. For details see
www.commonwealthdma.com .
Not everyone can afford insurance premiums even in “wealthy” countries, however,
and insurers are exploring different solutions. For example, in Britain, special
insurance schemes are available for those in rented accommodation whereby they can
pay a weekly premium along with their rent for basic cover. Government could assist
this by extending housing benefit to cover such insurance, and recover the costs from
the taxes they collect from insurers.
The insurance industry can also assist with disaster preparedness. They have access
to a wealth of data about which parts of buildings are most likely to fail during a
storm or flood, for example, and this could be a valuable resource in updating
building standards to make buildings more resilient, and therefore safer.
Unfortunately the government in England and Wales has shown no interest in these
data and there is no consultation with the insurance industry on new building
standards in England and Wales. Again the position is different in Scotland, where
the author is a member of the building standards research committee. If building
standards were made more resilient, this would not only reduce vulnerability on new
buildings, but could gradually reduce the vulnerability of existing stock. If the new
building standards were made retrospective, as in proposed new Scottish legislation
on building standards (at the author’s suggestion), it would mean that when paying for
reinstatement, insurers would have to reinstate to a higher standard of resilience. This
is something insurers would be happy to do, so long as there is the “level playing
field” which comes from legislation.
Exposure
Where people chose to live can very much affect their risk. This is especially true for
flood hazards. In the United Kingdom, the government regulator for insurance is the
Financial Services Authority (FSA). In 2001, the FSA issued risk-based criteria for
assessing the solvency of insurers. One of the effects of this is that an insurer that
takes on too much business in areas at risk of flood, could find the FSA deciding to
audit it.
Since 1961, private insurers in Britain have had a form of partnership with
government in that they would offer flood insurance for every household at a
reasonable price. This arrangement is unique to Britain. In recent years, however,
government in England and Wales has failed to maintain flood defences or control
new housing developments in floodplains to the satisfaction of insurers (although
Scotland has made enormous progress since devolution). There are now large
accumulations of exposure in flood hazard areas in England and Wales, especially in
the South East of England. This is due to the demand for housing in areas where
suitable sites are limited, together with the availability of insurance even in hazardous
areas which has enable people to borrow money to buy the houses. There is a good
example at Eastbourne (not far from Wilton Park) where there is a new development
© Copyright David Crichton, May, 2002.
D. Crichton
9
of 2,500 houses on an undefended section of the coast. According to the Environment
Agency, most of these homes will flood during the next severe coastal storm, putting
many lives at risk.
The combined effect of government regulation of insurance exposures, government’s
failure to control new developments in hazardous areas in England, the deterioration
of flood defences in England and Wales, and insurers’ concerns about climate
change, has placed insurers in a difficult situation. When in 2001, despite warnings
from the insurance industry, the government in England issued new draft planning
guidelines (DEFRA 2001), that would, in effect, continue to allow floodplain
development this signalled a further breakdown in the partnership between insurers
and government, at least in England. Insurers immediately advised government that
they would have no choice but to give notice of their withdraw from the guarantee
and this is due to happen at the end of 2002. The consequences of this should not be
underestimated; currently some 27% by value of new houses in England are being
built against the advice of the Government’s own Environment Agency, which
believes the flood hazard is too great to allow the houses to be built.
By contrast, the Scottish government has co-operated fully with the insurance
industry, and local planners throughout Scotland have recognised the problems and
accepted advice from the author, which means there should be very few problems
North of the border.
Insurance withdrawal from certain areas will cause problems for many living in
floodplains or near the coast. Without insurance, their loans to buy the property could
be foreclosed, and even if the owner can afford to pay off the mortgage, the next time
there is a flood, the owner may not be able to afford the repairs. Homes could be
abandoned or blighted, causing misery for the owners, but at least reducing the risk of
future death or injury.
Government compensation for such people is very unlikely. Even after the record
breaking floods in 2000, this was still government policy, according to Nick
Raynsford, at that time the Secretary of State for Planning in England (Raynsford,
2000) who stated that “it would be foolish for any government” to provide
compensation in such circumstances. He did not seem to be aware that there are
many governments around the world, which do behave in this “foolish” way. In the
longer term, insurance withdrawal from the most hazardous areas should discourage
building in floodplains and low lying coastal areas. It is unfortunate that the transition
will be at such a high cost to innocent victims.
In Ontario in Canada, they have a different approach. Instead of spending money
defending flood plains, they simply refuse to allow any new building. They also buy
up existing property if the owner wishes to sell, and then demolish it for parkland. As
a result they have many fine recreation areas, and no bills for maintenance of flood
defences. It is probably too late to try such a solution in England or Wales, but it may
be a possibility in Scotland.
© Copyright David Crichton, May, 2002.
D. Crichton
10
Conclusions
Insurers are starting to act to support mitigation measures, but could do much more,
for example, by supporting Contraction and Convergence, and by promoting the use
of non fossil fuel energy sources to maintain standards of living.
In the area of hazard, vulnerability, and exposure, there are many ways in which the
insurance industry can help society to adapt to climate change. They can give risk
management advice, and use premium incentives to encourage greater resilience, or to
discourage people from living in hazardous areas, for example. Partnership is the key,
as highlighted in the quote from Kofi Annan shown at the beginning of this paper.
The partnership in Scotland is flourishing, but England and Wales look set to become
a case study in what can happen when the partnership breaks down.
David Crichton, May 2002.
Possible Topics for discussion






Should insurers become more proactive in trying to influence governments and
multi national companies on mitigation and adaptation issues?
How can public-private partnerships be encouraged?
Should building standards use insurance claims data to assess how buildings could
be made more resilient?
Should insurers reinstate flood or storm damaged buildings to a higher standard of
resilience?
How can insurance cover be made more available and affordable in developing
countries?
Further Reading
Crichton, D., 2001 The Implications of Climate Change for the Insurance Industry –
an update and outlook to 2020. Published January 2001 by the Building Research
Establishment, Watford, England. Reprinted with updating supplement, November
2001. ISBN 1-903852-00-5.



“An authoritative and up to date review…” Prof. Alan Werritty, University of
Dundee.
“…an important work and one which adds greatly to the efforts of the insurance
sector to define an appropriate and progressive role in efforts to confront climate
change.” Klaus Topfer, Executive Director, United Nations Environment
Programme.
“I can strongly recommend this report to scientists, businesses and government
agencies and departments concerned with climate change.” Lord Hunt of
Chesterton (Professor Julian Hunt, former chief executive of the UK
Meteorological Office.)
© Copyright David Crichton, May, 2002.
D. Crichton
11
References
Agnew, M., Cooper, M., Crichton, D., Kelly, N., Loster, T., Radevsky, R., Salt, J., Viner, D., Walden,
J., Walker, T., 2001. “Climate Change and Insurance.” Ed. Dlugolecki, A. Chartered Insurance
Institute Research Report, London 2001. (Available on www.cii.co.uk )
Bullock, S., Scott, A., and Stephens, C., (2001) ‘Environmental Justice’. Economic & Social Research
Council, Special Briefing No. 7. Swindon, England.
Burgess, K., Deakin, R., Samuels, P., Chatterton, J., and Penning-Rowsell, E., (June 2000): Assessment
of Economic Value of National Assets at Risk from Flooding and Coastal Erosion.” Final Report, July
2001 (published September 2001, placed on the web in October 2001.) Available for downloading
from:
www.defra.gov.uk/environ/fcd/default.htm
Chen, A., Mills, E., Vine, E., 1998. "Energy - efficiency and renewable energy options for risk
management and insurance loss reduction: an inventory of technologies, research capabilities, and
research facilities at the US Department of Energy's National Laboratories"
Environmental Energy Technologies Division, Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National
Laboratory, California, USA.
US Department of Commerce, August 1998.
Couper-Johnston, R., 2000 “El Niño, the Weather Phenomenon that Changed the World”. Hodder &
Stoughton, London.
Crichton, D. 2001 “The Implications of Climate Change for the Insurance Industry.” (ISBN 1903852-00-5), Building Research Establishment, Watford, England.
DEFRA 2001. “Policy Planning Guidelines – Flooding – PPG 25” HMSO, London.
Futter, M and Lang, I (2001) – Montgomery Watson “Implications for Scotland of Recent
Developments in Design Rainfall Estimation and Climate Change”
Scottish Wastewater Planning Users Group (WaPUG) Meeting 12th June 2001, Dunblane
Green, C., 2002. Personal Communication.
Sir William Halcrow & Partners Ltd. (October 1994). "Identification of Coastal Flood Areas in
England and Wales" Association of British Insurers, London.
Sir William Halcrow & Partners Ltd. (August 1995). "Identification of Coastal Flood Areas in
England and Wales : Supplementary Report - Updating the Sea Defence Survey" Association of British
Insurers, London.
Hughes,A; Hewlett, H W M; Samuels, P G; Morris, M; Sayers, P; Moffat, I; harding, A; Tedd, P. 2000
“Risk Management for UK Reservoirs.” Construction Industry Research and Information Association
(CIRIA) Research project report C542. London.
Lugar, R and Woolsey, J. 1999, "The New Petroleum" Foreign Affairs magazine, New York, USA,
January/February 1999
McGuire, W., 2002. Personal communication.
Meyer, A., 2000. “Contraction and convergence. The global solution to climate change.” Green
Books Ltd, Devon, England.
Munich Re, 2000, "Topics 2000". Published January 2000
Palmer, T.N., and Rälsänen, J. (2002) ‘Quantifying the risk of extreme seasonal precipitation events in
a changing climate’ Nature, Vol 415, pp.512-514.
© Copyright David Crichton, May, 2002.
D. Crichton
12
Price, D.J., and McInally, G. 2001: Climate Change: Review of Levels of Protection Offered by Flood
Prevention Schemes. Scottish Executive Central Research Unit Report No 12. Edinburgh, May 2001
Raynsford, N (2000). Evidence to the Environment Transport and Regional Affairs Select Committee
Report on the Autumn floods in 2000. Published on 20th December 2000. HMSO, London.
Retallack, S (2001). ‘We’ve saved Kyoto (shame about the world’s climate)’ Ecologist Journal Special
Report, London, November 2001 pp18-22.
Ritch, J., "Nuclear Green", Prospect Magazine, March 1999. (At the time, Mr Ritch was US
Ambassador to the UN Organisation in Vienna, which includes the International Atomic Energy
Agency. He is now Director General of the World Nuclear Association.)
Royal Commission Report on Environmental Pollution, 2000. “Energy – The Changing Climate” June
2000 (Cm 4749) Available from the Royal Commission web site, http://www.rcep.org.uk
Werritty, A., Black, A., Duck, R., Finlinson, W., Shackley, S., Crichton, D., “Climate Change, Flood
Occurrences Review.” Scottish Executive Environment Group Research Program Research Findings
No. 19. Scottish Executive, Edinburgh.
Available from www.scotland.gov.uk/cru/resfinds
Web sites for additional information
Association of British Insurers (ABI)
http://www.abi.org.uk
Guidelines on Socially Responsible Investment
http://www.ivis.computasoft.com/
Building Research Establishment (BRE)
http://www.bre.co.uk
Commonwealth Disaster Management Agency
http://www.commonwealthdma.com
Construction Industry Research and Information Association (CIRIA)
http://www.ciria.org.uk
Earthwatch initiative (UN)
http://earthwatch.unep.net/
Global Commons Institute (Contains details of Contraction and Convergence.)
http://www.gci.org.uk/main.html
Global Monitoring For Environment And Security
http://gmes.jrc.it
Livelihoods and disaster reduction
http://www.livelihoods.org/
Munich Reinsurance (Publishes a great deal of useful information and statistics.)
http://www.munichre.de
UNEP Finance Initiative and The Insurance Industry Initiative for
http://unepfi.net/iii/index.htm
United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR).
http://www.unisdr.org/
© Copyright David Crichton, May, 2002.
the
Environment