A range of macro-level risks should be considered in climate change mitigation technology assessments. Three broad types of risk are natural hazards, threats to ecosystems, and security concerns. Two parallel dimensions of risk to be considered are the strategy’s causal influence on risks (for example, hydroelectric systems can disrupt river ecosystems) as well as the vulnerability of the technology itself to various risks (for example, hydroelectric systems can suffer under drought). Both are indicated, using pairs of rows, on the matrix (here).
No weighting is given or implied in the matrix. While one could argue with these assessments (for example, whether nuclear plants are vulnerable to wildfire), the intention is to indicate whether the cause of, or vulnerability to, a risk is a reasonably common or otherwise material one. These assessments are, by necessity, qualitative and generalized. Within each broad family of technologies are many variants, each with their own risk factors. For example, space-based solar energy production presents an entirely different risk profile in terms of security than do land-based systems (Wood 2012). The matrix simply offers building blocks that could be used in a robust process of risk-benefit comparison to help stakeholders make reasoned choices about mitigation options.
For accompanying discussion, see: Mills, E. 2012. "Weighing the Risks of Climate Change Mitigation Strategies." Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (in press).
While there is well-founded interest in potential downsides of energy-efficient and renewable energy technologies, in the vast majority of the cases these technologies reduce everyday insurance risks while trimming greenhouse-gas emissions that will challenge insurers in the longer term.
Some of these dual benefits involve enhanced disaster resilience [PDF], while others involve other types of losses. Taken together, these technologies and practices comprise potent "no-regrets" responses to climate change.
Energy efficiency also manages financial risks [PDF] associated with energy price volatility, and offers financial benefits in many cases (e.g. in the business case for green buildings [PDF]).
We have also made the case that the proper deployment of energy-efficient and renewable technologies helps mitigate liability risks [PDF] associated with greenhouse-gas emissions.
Last but not least, many green technologies and practices reduce the greenhouse-gas that will cause increased insured catastrophe losses [PDF] in the future.
Selected Examples [many more in the links above]
Indoor air quality problems, premature equipment failure, construction defects liability, underperformance — Loss Prevention Strategy: Building commissioning and retrocommissioning
Fires caused by torchire light fixtures — Loss Prevention Strategy: Replacement high-efficiency light fixtures [PDF]
Fires caused by furnace flame roll-out; carbon monoxide deaths; ice dams — Loss Prevention Strategy: Sealing leaky ducts
Waterborne diseases or contamination during natural disasters — Loss Prevention Strategy: Ultraviolet Water Disinfection
Urban heat deaths — Loss Prevention Strategy: Improving buildings' thermal envelope
Egress from buildings during emergencies — Loss Prevention Strategy: LED and CFL exit signs
Workers compensation, business interruption, health problems from poor indoor air quality — Loss Prevention Strategy: Energy-efficient approaches to improved indoor environmental quality
In 1998, LBNL assembled an inventory of technologies developed or supported within the US DOE national laboratory system. About 80 examples of technologies that reduce energy use and/or greenhouse-gas emissions, while providing insurance loss-prevention benefits were documented in "Energy-Efficiency and Renewable Energy Options For Risk Management and Insurance Loss Reduction: An Inventory of Technologies, Research Capabilities, and Research Facilities at the U.S. Department of Energy's National Laboratories." [Report PDF] [Appendices PDF] Many more similar technologies exist, although this database has not been updated since 1998.
The most difficult mitigation strategies to assess are climate-engineering approaches that are still purely experimental—and in many cases, nothing more than ideas on paper (see matrix here). Mindlessly engineering the climate by injecting hundreds of gigatons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere for more than a century got us into the greenhouse problem. There is an ongoing spirited debate within the scientific community (Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 2008) about whether climate engineering—this time on purpose—is a necessary element of the solution. Opponents, who perceive an element of hubris, argue that climate engineering carries unacceptable risks, treats symptoms and not causes, and could foster a false sense of security among the public (if not policymakers). Moreover, there is no international governance structure for starting or stopping such activities.
Climate engineering includes strategies ranging from removal of carbon dioxide from the smokestackes (or even the atmosphere) to solar radiation management. Most of these strategies, if they were to run amok, could amplify rather than lessen climate problems, or create other unforeseen headaches. Some of these proposals can only be fully validated when “tested” at a global scale, and not all of them are readily reversible. Conversely, climate could change abruptly and radically if the interventions were, for whatever reason, halted. Climatologist Alan Robock (2008) has raised concerns about misuse of weather modification for military and geopolitical purposes.
Climate engineering is positioned as a “last resort insurance policy,” although, ironically, private insurers have yet to offer their products to this sector. In the view of the US Government Accountability Office (2011): “Climate engineering technologies do not now offer a viable response to global climate change,” and significant improvements are decades off. On a Technology Readiness Level scale of 1 to 9, none of the technologies studied by the GAO scored above 3. Often connoting a panacea, some of these technologies would in fact offset carbon dioxide emissions from human activity by only small percentages, while other technologies that are potentially 100 percent effective in reducing emissions are estimated to cost billions or even trillions of dollars annually. All of the technologies come with a host of potential and poorly understood risks but very few potential co-benefits.