Climate Crisis On Track To Destroy Capitalism, Warns Top Insurer (theguardian.com)
- Reference: 0176915947
- News link: https://news.slashdot.org/story/25/04/03/1820226/climate-crisis-on-track-to-destroy-capitalism-warns-top-insurer
- Source link: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/apr/03/climate-crisis-on-track-to-destroy-capitalism-warns-allianz-insurer
> The world is fast approaching temperature levels where insurers will no longer be able to offer cover for many climate risks, said Günther Thallinger, on the board of Allianz SE, one of the world's biggest insurance companies. He said that without insurance, which is already being pulled in some places, many other financial services become unviable, from mortgages to investments.
>
> Global carbon emissions are still rising and current policies will result in a rise in global temperature between 2.2C and 3.4C above pre-industrial levels. The damage at 3C will be so great that governments will be unable to provide financial bailouts and it will be impossible to adapt to many climate impacts, said Thallinger, who is also the chair of the German company's investment board and was previously CEO of Allianz Investment Management. The core business of the insurance industry is risk management and it has long taken the dangers of global heating very seriously. In recent reports, Aviva said extreme weather damages for the decade to 2023 hit $2tn, while GallagherRE said the figure was $400bn in 2024. Zurich said it was "essential" to hit net zero by 2050.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/apr/03/climate-crisis-on-track-to-destroy-capitalism-warns-allianz-insurer
Tiring (Score:1, Insightful)
I get that global warming is an issue. I get that it should be addressed, but these alarmist things where global warming is basically the root of all evil don't really help the cause. I swear we're not far from "Yo - global warming gonna make yo dick fall off.".
Re:Tiring (Score:4, Funny)
I was wondering how that happened.
Re:Tiring (Score:4, Funny)
Have you heard of Fournier's Gangrene? Cause it makes your wiener fall off and is made worse by warming climate.
Re: (Score:3)
> Have you heard of Fournier's Gangrene? Cause it makes your wiener fall off and is made worse by warming climate.
I hear it pairs well with testicular microplastics.
Re: (Score:3)
Have you seen "don't look up"? If not watch it and come back to read the rest of my comment.
That's very precisely what is happening right now. And you're on the side of the TV host saying "Stop ruining the mood."
Re: (Score:2)
> Have you seen "don't look up"? If not watch it and come back to read the rest of my comment.
> That's very precisely what is happening right now. And you're on the side of the TV host saying "Stop ruining the mood."
That movie so perfectly encapsulates so much of our current society. Including the dumbass thinking he can use the planet killer to make a profit. Good grief.
Re: (Score:2)
Better to be alarmed and actually do something about the problem than to not be alarmed and think you have more time to solve it than you actually do.
Re: (Score:3)
Or maybe, you know, it really is as bad as they say. You're trying to sound like the reasonable person by saying, "Yeah it's a problem, but don't be alarmist." Except in this case the people you're calling alarmist are basing their predictions on solid evidence, and the people calling them alarmist are basing their predictions on a vague feeling that it can't really be as bad as all that.
So who's actually being reasonable?
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, the people making these predictions are actuaries. Actuaries can put a price on your grandmother and her pet poodle, I too will take them seriously.
Mixed feelings and all... (Score:4, Funny)
The Guardian: "Climate Crisis will destroy Capitalism"
Guardian Readers: "Pass me more coal! That fire ain't big enough!"
Sorry I don't get the joke (Score:1)
Could you explain it?
Re: (Score:2)
> Could you explain it?
DesScorp is obviously saying that The Guardian tries to shape the minds of a labor socio-economic class in the UK that is more pedestrian & proletarian about its blue-collar-focused needs & mental state than The Guardian's editorial board and journalists will ever understand.
Re: (Score:2)
Except he did it with a shit coal joke, and the UK closed its last coal fired power station last year, and working class and middle class and ruling class Britons are all A-OK with that, by and large.
Re:Sorry I don't get the joke (Score:4)
Seeing as how the site is British, I just assumed it's some variant of "don't threaten me with a good time!" Kinda like the supposed Bernie bros in 2016 who voted for Trump out of spite, in order to burn down the system that they'd believed had failed them.
Of course, I'm also open to the possibility that some British conservatives took the rage bait. Hell, we do the same thing here on Slashdot: "President Trump to do $THING - does disaster loom?" and it'll be the top commented story that day.
Re: (Score:3)
> Seeing as how the site is British, I just assumed it's some variant of "don't threaten me with a good time!" Kinda like the supposed Bernie bros in 2016 who voted for Trump out of spite, in order to burn down the system that they'd believed had failed them.
> Of course, I'm also open to the possibility that some British conservatives took the rage bait. Hell, we do the same thing here on Slashdot: "President Trump to do $THING - does disaster loom?" and it'll be the top commented story that day.
To be completely fair though, President Trump to do $THING is often followed by disaster. Check the stock market today, for example. Oh, I know, fifth dimensional chess and all that, but still. My 401k valuations look like a rollercoaster this week.
Re: (Score:1)
I gather the joke is that Guardian readers think Capitalism is bad, because a huge propaganda outlet (Guardian ain't news) says so, so he figures they'll try to make things worse to hasten it's end and replacement with a totalitarian dictatorship which will probably shoot most of them.
Good (Score:3, Insightful)
Let it destroy capitalism. If capitalism isn't destroyed, then capitalism will destroy humanity.
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
> Let it destroy capitalism. If capitalism isn't destroyed, then capitalism will destroy humanity.
Bold of you to assume it won't just be replaced by a worse *ism.
Re:Good (Score:4, Insightful)
He's young. Every generation seemingly needs to re-discover the 'worse -isms'.
Re: (Score:2)
Jesus, just when I didn't think anyone could say anything dumber than rsilvergun you pop your head up and spout utter garbage.
The "old people" your describing are baby boomers who I will fully admit ruined the planet but from completely hard left of your description.
I think the people your actually trying to describe is Gen X who after watching the utter failure of our parents in the 1970's and 1980's are mostly center right as a generation. I'll let you in on a little secrete, we have never had any power
Re: (Score:2)
> Jesus, just when I didn't think anyone could say anything dumber than rsilvergun you pop your head up and spout utter garbage. The "old people" your describing are baby boomers who I will fully admit ruined the planet but from completely hard left of your description.
> I think the people your actually trying to describe is Gen X who after watching the utter failure of our parents in the 1970's and 1980's are mostly center right as a generation. I'll let you in on a little secrete, we have never had any power and never will our parents fucked us out of a better life that there parents gave them and then held onto power until the last couple of years.
> My only hope for the future is that Gen Z and Alpha can slightly un-fuck the world after the boomers die out.
I'm GenX, so I know what I'm saying when I say this. We were born, told to get the fuck out of the way so our parents could continue having a good time, and most all of us have stayed out of the way so effectively we're nothing at all to the powers that be. On the bright side, most of us don't spend all day every day whining about it, because we got used to the idea pretty early on that nobody wants to hear word one from us, so we pretty much just keep our heads down and try to carve out a little niche of p
Re: (Score:2)
> My only hope for the future is that Gen Z and Alpha can slightly un-fuck the world after the boomers die out.
You’re talking about the very ones making our energy world burn because of shitcoin mining they invented.
If that’s their idea of un-fucking the world, don’t hold your breath.
Re: (Score:2)
What one could be worse than one that destroys humanity? One that destroys humanity and ridicules it before?
Re: (Score:3)
> Let it destroy capitalism. If capitalism isn't destroyed, then capitalism will destroy humanity.
Look at the bright side. Mother nature gettin' right pissed just might take care of both capitalism *AND* humanity.
Re: (Score:2)
[raccoons staring in from just past the firelight]
Wonder if North America's B-Team will do better?
Re: (Score:2)
> Look at the bright side. Mother nature gettin' right pissed just might take care of both capitalism *AND* humanity.
George Carlin had it right, “the earth isn’t going anywhere, we are.”
Re: (Score:2)
>> Look at the bright side. Mother nature gettin' right pissed just might take care of both capitalism *AND* humanity.
> George Carlin had it right, “the earth isn’t going anywhere, we are.”
Just think how happy the cockroaches will be!
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
> Let it destroy capitalism. If capitalism isn't destroyed, then capitalism will destroy humanity.
This is the same argument the maggots are using to justify destroying the government instead of fixing it, with "the government" changed to "capitalism" and "family values" crossed out and "humanity" written in.
Capitalism is not worse than other isms, it's letting ANY system run without sufficient oversight (which also means citizen involvement .) You cannot take your hands off the reins, ever, or the horse will scrape you off on a tree and run free.
Re:Good (Score:5, Informative)
> That's because the donkeys keep growing it to criminally wasteful sizes. ... The thing needs pruning. Badly. And one side wants to prune, and the other side clutches pearls and starts with the whining. Same thing in 1980 with Reagan. Oh man. The Reagan Cuts.
The Reagan "cuts" didn't exist. I do remind you that the size of government grew under Reagan.
If you're looking to name a president under whom the government was cut, that was... Bill Clinton.
[1]https://www.economicpolicyjour... [economicpo...ournal.com]
and, a good article about Reagan's massive government spending increase here: [2]https://theweek.com/articles/6... [theweek.com]
[1] https://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2015/01/how-ronald-reagan-actually-expanded.html
[2] https://theweek.com/articles/642128/how-ronald-reagan-zapped-recession-massive-government-spending
Re: Good (Score:2, Interesting)
That's fine, Congress has the power to decommission federal agencies and reduce spending, so barring a constitutional amendment that's how it should be done. The executive branch doesn't have any such authority.
Re: (Score:3)
And yet, Republicans, who hold the majority in both the House and Senate, stand by silent while the executive branch usurps their authority.
Re: (Score:2)
> Capitalism is not worse than other isms, it's letting ANY system run without sufficient oversight (which also means citizen involvement.) You cannot take your hands off the reins, ever, or the horse will scrape you off on a tree and run free.
100% spot on, its authoritarianism that is the problem, the more distributed the government power and accountability is among its citizens the healthier and better it is for everything, even capitalism. For capitalism to meet that distributed allotment you need substantial system charges placed on the wealthy, no matter how they structure it, so that the system can continue to function for everyone. Letting the wealth concentrate has been the cause of rebellion after rebellion in history.
Re: (Score:2)
We let corporate fiefdoms into and control the government. The government for the people was already destroyed, you just didn't recognize it.
Re: (Score:2)
> Let it destroy capitalism. If capitalism isn't destroyed, then capitalism will destroy humanity.
There are too many other things that would be destroyed by climate change. If the cost of reducing or eliminating the consequences of climate change is that capitalism survives, then fine, I can live with that.
Climate change is an existential threat. Capitalism is not. But I'm not saying both don't cause harm.
Re: Good (Score:2)
Have you considered that climate change is the natural consequence of Capitalism?
Re: (Score:3)
> Have you considered that climate change is the natural consequence of Capitalism?
Yes I have. Then I considered there are countries one would not consider particularly capitalistic who are among the biggest contributors of greenhouse gasses.
I think it's industrialism -- not capitalism -- that has led us to where we are. And I think industrialism and capitalism could help to get us out of this mess, if they're properly directed.
Re: (Score:3)
We currently have Corporatism more than Capitalism. Corporatism is just the return of Fiefdoms, and that usually reaches a tipping point of extreme rebellion or just plain society collapse and we start the whole process all over again under new names.
GROK summary of YOY 2024 earnings for Ins. Co.s (Score:4, Informative)
Summary Publicly Traded Status: Only Allstate among the major US homeowners insurance companies is publicly traded on a US exchange. Farmers is part of the publicly traded Zurich Insurance Group, but the others (State Farm, USAA, Liberty Mutual) are mutual companies.
Q1 2024 YOY Earnings: Allstate reported strong YOY earnings growth in Q1 2024, with revenue up 10.7% to $15.3 billion and net income at $1.4 billion. For the non-publicly traded companies, specific earnings are not publicly available, but industry data showing a 13% rise in premiums and improved loss ratios suggests a generally positive performance.
Easy to call BS on this story. And I live in CA; major insurers threaten to pull out all the time, but this is their TACTIC to get permission from state regulators to RAISE RATES.
AC post 'cus I'm modding.
GROK didn't quite get my query but above was good enough to post.
Re: (Score:2)
> And I live in CA; major insurers threaten to pull out all the time, but this is their TACTIC to get permission from state regulators to RAISE RATES.
It might seem like NBD in California where wildfires and mudslides have always been a regular thing, and earthquakes aren't affected by climate change. Here in Florida though, where we're getting slammed with at least one devastating hurricane (and huge expenses to clean up the mess) nearly every year, insurers actually are making good on their threats to get outta Dodge.
Not that I have any tears to shed for the insurance industry (bunch of scumbags, the whole lot of 'em), but the entire scheme only works
Re: GROK summary of YOY 2024 earnings for Ins. Co. (Score:2)
A lot of home insurers have actually left California. They didn't want to operate in a market where they couldn't sell worthless insurance to old people.
It's not working out great, but they do have a point. Our building and zoning laws allowed people to build a bunch of flammable structures close enough to each other that they could easily catch one another on fire. In large part this was done to enable our lumber industry. Instead of the broken window fallacy, it's the burnt shit shack fallacy. I live in o
Re: (Score:2)
" Our building and zoning laws allowed people to build a bunch of flammable structures close enough to each other that they could easily catch one another on fire."
And if you build your house out of brick and concrete when you live right on a fault line, you get killed when the big one hits.
Re: GROK summary of YOY 2024 earnings for Ins. Co. (Score:4, Interesting)
Insurers are undeniably greedy bastards that, like casinos, absolutely have a thumb on the scales to ensure things turn out in their favour. It's kind of their business model, afterall. To do that optimally, they need to be completely on top of the odds of having to pay out so they can offer a competetive premium in markets where it's usually trivial to compare quotes and pick the cheapest that meets a client's needs with a few clicks on a market comparison website. If they're starting to get nervous and actually backing that up with actions as opposed to just making a song and dance to raise premiums for more profits (there's no profit if there's no policy), then they are probably correct that the data backs up making the decision.
The predicted knock-on effects about no mortgages without insurance also seem quite plausible; losing your home without insurance is very likely to lead to bankruptcy, and that means the mortgage provider likely gets the short end of the stick too - even after clawing back what they can from whatever assets are left. I'm not so sure I'd say it will eventually lead to the collapse of the entire financial system because it had more facets than that and would almost certainly adapt (a big part of the insurer's part of it however...), but it does seem highly likely to cause massive upheaval during any adaptation which is going to have an impact on everyone.
And yet here we are, still mostly voting in leaders on agendas of doing all they can to make the problem worse rather than doing whatever they can to try and solve what they can and buy more time for their successors to try and deal with the rest. While we're all in this together, at some point it's going to turn into everyone for themselves (probably when mass climate change induced migration starts), and when that happens it's going to get very ugly, very fast.
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty much this. I have raised this point on several occasions and a lot of people just scoffed at it. It's very simple, if you can't get insurance or if the premium is exorbitant in a particular area - move ASAP . The alternative, as you mentioned, is a high chance of loosing everything and going bankrupt.
Re: GROK summary of YOY 2024 earnings for Ins. Co. (Score:2)
And then the government (which is, in theory, the people) can decide whether to offer insurance at a loss or not.
The oligarchs will beat climate change to it (Score:4, Interesting)
We already have a fundamental breakdown in capitalism going on right now. All regulation necessary for capitalism to be functional is being stripped away. The networks of free trade required for the system to function are also being broken down so that the oligarchs can build little fiefdoms where they control everything absolutely.
At the rate we are going we are going to be a kleptocracy long before climate change breaks down our civilization. Techno feudalism
Good point... (Score:3)
Actually maybe this is what Musk and Co. are doing...
They can see the collapse and expect it to go in similar way to Roman Empire - with feudal structure they can have full control of....
Climate change is real but this isnt the threat (Score:5, Informative)
Climate change is real and it will raise costs for insurance, but the real driver behind raising costs for insurance is the inflationary monetary supply. The cost to insure a building is far higher in 2025 than it was in 1980, not because its more likely to be destroyed but because the cost for replacement is so much higher. The labor isnt there, the materials arent there, all of the economic value has been sucked out of the economy and replaced with air.
Destruction is more than an election cycle away (Score:3, Insightful)
Thus of little real interest to our politicians. Yes: some of the better ones, and better countries; are doing things but they get a lot of flack from their political opposition -- especially the right. Far too many just lie about it.
Spreading the Risk (Score:3)
I think what you are hearing is that there are lots risks to investments that could turn out to be worthless. "Capitalism" relies on those losses being widely shared through insurance and government bailouts. Insurance companies are faced with far greater risks in the future and higher costs in the short run. They aren't going to be able to make good on all their promises and its unlikely governments will be able to bail them out or the people they insured. I doubt that is the end of capitalism, but it may be the end of some capitalists' individual wealth.
Karl Marx is right about capitalism (Score:1)
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism
I suggest to start with Florida...Mar-o-Lago... (Score:1)
Like denying coverage to some areas of Florida like Mar-o-Lago...
Setting aside the idiotic premise (Score:2, Insightful)
...so there was no investment or capitalism before insurance?
Pretty sure that'd be a fucking surprise to the Assyrian merchants trundling all over Mesopotamia ca 1400bc.
Back to feudalism! (Score:1)
Now, most of you will have to be serfs, but that's the price you need to pay.
Re: (Score:3)
most working class people already are serf class, Bezos rather burn down a warehouse than allow employees unionize
And this is bad? (Score:2)
“We live in capitalism. Its power seems inescapable. So did the divine right of kings. Any human power can be resisted and changed by human beings. Resistance and change often begin in art, and very often in our art, the art of words.” — Ursula K. Le Guin
Thank you Mother Nature for giving us a hand.
As We Know It (Score:2)
Insurance is a parasite. It was never necessary for capitalism to succeed. The burden of insurance distorts the market so much, it would be a great relief if it were to fail. Of course, it would destroy our economy as we know it, but capitalism would persist.
Re:As We Know It (Score:5, Informative)
Insurance is a fundamental necessity for any system with private ownership. It allows risk to be shared so that everyone pays a little bit to protect them against bad luck wiping them out economically. It is fundamentally the same as the concept of a company, or investing in a business venture - multiple people coordinating their resource use to allow them to achieve things no individual otherwise could.
Without it, the big projects only happen under despotic rulership and that's really not great for the average person.
Re: (Score:3)
> It allows risk to be shared
It allows risk to be securitized. All you have to do to protect yourself is to diversify your portfolio. There is no evidence that [1]CDSs [wikipedia.org] were ever a good buy, aside from being bundled with garbage mortgage backed securities in order to con the market and get better bond ratings.
In 2008, they should have made anyone expecting payment on a CDS to bring in the underlying defaulted security as proof of insurable interest. Otherwise, it's like buying fire insurance on your neighbor's house and waiting for it to
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_default_swap
Re: (Score:2)
While I won't claim it happens in practice, especially for the 'big' players gaming the system, the fundamentals of insurance include, 'you can only insure a pre-existing risk' (so you shouldn't be able to get a policy to insure your next game of poker before entering a casino), and 'you can't get insurance on someone else's risk' (like a fire policy on someone else's real estate when you don't have a personal stake in it).
Of course, if you let finance bros near the regulators and legislators, and it's a ma
Re: As We Know It (Score:2)
How does diversifying your portfolio protect you from your house burning down or being blown over?
Re: (Score:1)
You just go live in one of your other houses. Or you can sell some of your massive stock holdings and buy another one.
Sheesh... poor people are soo dumb. /s
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously you're supposed to own multiple houses, in different parts of the country.
Re: As We Know It (Score:2)
Without insurance, the non wealthy couldn't afford the risk of things like buying a house (or a car for many), or getting sick.
In that case ... (Score:4)
... I'd expect all the left-wing commie Marxists to run out and buy diesel bro-trucks. To help hasten capitalism's demise.
They already burn down businesses and generate all the associated greenhouse gasses.
Current Policies have no upper bound (Score:2)
Our current policy is to not only increase the greenhouse gas content every year but to increase the rate of increase of greenhouse gas content every year. This policy does not have some magical asymptote at 3.4C. They do not seem to understand the difference between de-facto policy and non-binding agreements grounded in fantasy. Our current policy is that we are setting the stage for a very warm planet for the people being born today to live in.
Re: (Score:1)
By "our", do you mean China's? Because they're the ones who are about to produce more greenhouse emissions in a year than the rest of the world produced ever. The West, even when the GOP is in charge of the US, is trying to pollute less. We like clean air and water.
Capitalism doesn't need any help (Score:3)
Capitalism is a lovely motivational system for a few generations, until the wealth concentration is too great.
That's why to make it last, you need a regulated market that includes a wealth tax to prevent the runaway wealth concentration issue. And why you need a decent education system so the population understands why it's necessary. And a combination of responsible free speech and a free press to keep everyone up to date on those who are trying to subvert the system. And an adversarial legal system divorced from the political system. And a proper democracy to allow the population to throw out bad leaders.
When you allow obscene wealth concentration, you get a handful of people who can control speech, kill education, subvert the law, and end democracy. Any civics teacher or historian could tell you that... but you have to be willing to listen.
The guardian - the bastion for the entitled (Score:3)
The insurance companies didn't say it will destroy capitalism. Places with increased risk due to climate change won't be suitable for investing in. If you can't get insurance at a reasonable rate then what you are doing is to risky. You aren't entitled to cheap insurance especially if you are doing something risky. You aren't entitled to a mortgage or any other secured borrowing especially if the lenders think your collateral could be destroyed.
What does this have to do with "capitalism?" (Score:4)
> The damage at 3C will be so great that governments will be unable to provide financial bailouts and it will be impossible to adapt to many climate impacts
If "the damage is so great that governments will be able to provide bailouts" then this suggests that whatever "ism" you choose to mention is going to be equally fucked, here. So why are the alarm bells ringing for capitalism in particular? Is socialism going to somehow magically solve this problem?
Re: (Score:2)
Nah.
"Despotism" will do just fine; Warlord Bob isn't going to bail you out when your crop fails, he's just going to order you beaten until morale improves.
Re: (Score:1)
Why would they? China is funding the environmentalists in the West to hamstring their economies. Why would the environmentalists bite the hand that feeds them?
Let me re-write that for you (Score:3)
"We've been raking in profits and overcapitalising our risk for decades. Get ready to bail us out if something goes wrong, we've already taken all the money!"
So Long, Thanks for all the fish ... (Score:2)
oh wait capitalism has seen all of them off as well.
Isn't that the goal? (Score:2)
Somehow it seems like every crisis can only be solved by abolishing capitalism. Over-population, ozone hole, incipient ice age, global warming, uh, sorry, climate change. You name it.
...laura
When debt doesn't matter. (Score:1)
Capitalism doesn't care about debt, it only cares about taking more of what you have. Capitalism is for crooks and hoarders, and that only ends badly.
Re: (Score:1)
And that's the problem with our education system. You clearly don't know what Capitalism is, just what people who think they don't like it say about it.
Re: (Score:2)
It'll take a lot of brainwashing to overpower a lifetime of first-hand experience.
Translation (Score:2)
"It would still be possible to provide insurance but we would no longer be able to make unreasonable, horrendous profits in the process, so we're out."
Does this twit think finance = capitalism? (Score:1)
Because it sure doesn't. Finance is an emergent feature and tool of Capitalism. It would be economically disastrous, for a while, but so long as individuals are free to make their own political and economic decisions then Capitalism will survive.
Re: (Score:2)
I was just going to say something like that. Capitalism is an idea, a pattern of human behavior, not a thing. The existing companies may fail, investments may shift, but the idea will remain.
Even after a climate disaster, I'm quite sure all the surviving humans will continue to specialize, trade, save, and invest and that's what capitalism is.
No insurance? (Score:2)
> He said that without insurance, which is already being pulled in some places, many other financial services become unviable, from mortgages to investments.,/quote>
> Oh noes! I can't build a mansion on the South Carolina dunes. Or along the crumbling cliff sides along the Pacific Coast highway. The system is just so unfair!
DTs (Score:4, Insightful)
Trump will do that first.
Re:DTs (Score:4, Funny)
Nah, it'll be fine. He'll put tariffs on mother nature or send her to a third world prison.
Re: (Score:1)
Ironically, he may save us by reducing our constant purchasing of plastic crap.