guest column

Capitalism and climate: How financial shifts will shape our behavior


The insurance crisis is reverberating across the nation. Photograph by Geoffrey George/Getty Images

I never imagined I would see Los Angeles engulfed in flames in this way in my lifetime. As someone who has devoted years to studying climate science and advocating for climate technology solutions, I'm still caught off guard by the immediacy of these disasters. A part of me wants to believe the intensifying hurricanes, floods, and wildfires are merely an unfortunate string of bad luck. Whether through misplaced optimism or a subconscious shield of denial, I hadn't fully processed that these weren't just harbingers of a distant future, but our present reality. The recent fires have shattered that denial, bringing to mind the haunting prescience of the movie Don't Look Up. Perhaps we aren't as wise as we fancy ourselves to be.

The LA fires aren't an isolated incident. They're part of a terrifying pattern: the Canadian wildfires that darkened our skies, the devastating floods in Spain and Pakistan, and the increasingly powerful hurricanes in the Gulf. A stark new reality is emerging for climate-vulnerable cities, and whether we acknowledge the underlying crisis or not, climate change is making its presence felt – not just in death and destruction, but in our wallets.

The insurance industry, with its cold actuarial logic, is already responding. Even before the recent LA fires, major insurers like State Farm and Allstate had stopped writing new home policies in California, citing unmanageable wildfire risks. In the devastated Palisades area, 70% of homes had lost their insurance coverage before disaster struck. While some homeowners may have enrolled in California's limited FAIR plan, others likely went without coverage. Now, the FAIR plan faces $5.9 billion in potential claims, far exceeding its reinsurance backup – a shortfall that promises delayed payments and costlier coverage.

The insurance crisis is reverberating across the nation, and Houston sits squarely in its path. As a city all too familiar with the destructive power of extreme weather, we're experiencing our own reckoning. The Houston Chronicle recently reported that local homeowners are paying a $3,740 annually for insurance – nearly triple the national average and 60% higher than the Texas state average. Our region isn't just listed among the most expensive areas for home insurance; it's identified as one of the most vulnerable to climate hazards.

For Houston homeowners, Hurricane Harvey taught us a harsh lesson: flood zones are merely suggestions, not guarantees. The next major hurricane won't respect the city's floodplain designations. This reality poses a sobering question: Would you risk having your largest asset – your home – uninsured when flooding becomes increasingly likely in the next decade or two?

For most Americans, home equity represents one of the largest components of household wealth, a crucial stepping stone to financial security and generational advancement. Insurance isn't just about protecting physical property; it's about preserving the foundation of middle-class economic stability. When insurance becomes unavailable or unaffordable, it threatens the very basis of financial security for millions of families.

The insurance industry's retreat from vulnerable markets – as evidenced by Progressive and Foremost Insurance's withdrawal from writing new policies in Texas – is more than a business decision. It's a market signal. These companies are essentially pricing in the reality of climate change, whether we choose to call it that or not.

What we're witnessing is the market beginning to price us out of areas where we've either built unsustainably or perhaps should never have built at all. This isn't just about insurance rates; it's about the future viability of entire communities and regional economies. The invisible hand of the market is doing what political will has failed to do: forcing us to confront the true costs of our choices in a warming world.

Insurance companies aren't the only ones sounding the alarm. Lenders and investors are quietly rewriting the rules of capital access based on climate risk. Banks are adjusting mortgage terms and raising borrowing costs in vulnerable areas, while major investment firms are factoring carbon intensity into their lending decisions. Companies with higher environmental risks have faced higher loan spreads and borrowing costs – a trend that's accelerating as climate impacts intensify. This financial reckoning is creating a new economic geography, where access to capital increasingly depends on climate resilience.

The insurance crisis is the canary in the coal mine, warning us of the systemic risks ahead. As actuaries and risk managers factor climate risks into their models, we're seeing the beginning of a profound economic shift that will ripple far beyond housing, affecting businesses, agriculture, and entire regional economies. The question isn't whether we'll adapt to this new reality, but how much it will cost us – in both financial and human terms – before we finally act.

---

Nada Ahmed is the founding partner at Houston-based Energy Tech Nexus.

Trending News

A View From HETI

Rice University scientists' “recharge-to-recycle” reactor has major implications for the electric vehicle sector. Photo courtesy Jorge Vidal/Rice University.

Engineers at Rice University have developed a cleaner, innovative process to turn end-of-life lithium-ion battery waste into new lithium feedstock.

The findings, recently published in the journal Joule, demonstrate how the team’s new “recharge-to-recycle” reactor recharges the battery’s waste cathode materials to coax out lithium ions into water. The team was then able to form high-purity lithium hydroxide, which was clean enough to feed directly back into battery manufacturing.

The study has major implications for the electric vehicle sector, which significantly contributes to the waste stream from end-of-life battery packs. Additionally, lithium tends to be expensive to mine and refine, and current recycling methods are energy- and chemical-intensive.

“Directly producing high-purity lithium hydroxide shortens the path back into new batteries,” Haotian Wang, associate professor of chemical and biomolecular engineering, co-corresponding author of the study and co-founder of Solidec, said in a news release. “That means fewer processing steps, lower waste and a more resilient supply chain.”

Sibani Lisa Biswal, chair of Rice’s Department of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering and the William M. McCardell Professor in Chemical Engineering, also served as co-corresponding author on the study.

“We asked a basic question: If charging a battery pulls lithium out of a cathode, why not use that same reaction to recycle?” Biswal added in the release. “By pairing that chemistry with a compact electrochemical reactor, we can separate lithium cleanly and produce the exact salt manufacturers want.”

The new process also showed scalability, according to Rice. The engineers scaled the device to 20 square centimeters, then ran a 1,000-hour stability test and processed 57 grams of industrial black mass supplied by industry partner Houston-based TotalEnergies. The results produced lithium hydroxide that was more than 99 percent pure. It also maintained an average lithium recovery rate of nearly 90 percent over the 1,000-hour test, showing its durability. The process also worked across multiple battery chemistries, including lithium iron phosphate, lithium manganese oxide and nickel-manganese-cobalt variants.

Looking ahead, the team plans to scale the process and consider ways it can sustain high efficiency for greater lithium hydroxide concentrations.

“We’ve made lithium extraction cleaner and simpler,” Biswal added in the release. “Now we see the next bottleneck clearly. Tackle concentration, and you unlock even better sustainability.

Trending News