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

ExxonMobil Chairman and CEO Darren Woods said during the company’s recent second-quarter earnings call that the company is "concerned about the development of a broader market" for its low-carbon hydrogen plant in Baytown. Photo via exxonmobil.com

Spring-based ExxonMobil, the country’s largest oil and gas company, might delay or cancel what would be the world’s largest low-carbon hydrogen plant due to a significant change in federal law. The project carries a $7 billion price tag.

The Biden-era Inflation Reduction Act created a new 10-year incentive, the 45V tax credit, for production of clean hydrogen. But under President Trump’s "One Big Beautiful Bill Act," the window for starting construction of low-carbon hydrogen projects that qualify for the tax credit has narrowed. The Inflation Reduction Act mandated that construction start by 2033. But the Big Beautiful Bill switched the construction start time to early 2028.

“While our project can meet this timeline, we’re concerned about the development of a broader market, which is critical to transition from government incentives,” ExxonMobil Chairman and CEO Darren Woods said during the company’s recent second-quarter earnings call.

Woods said ExxonMobil is working to determine whether a combination of the 45Q tax credit for carbon capture projects and the revised 45V tax credit will help pave the way for a “broader” low-carbon hydrogen market.

“If we can’t see an eventual path to a market-driven business, we won’t move forward with the [Baytown] project,” Woods said.

“We knew that helping to establish a brand-new product and a brand-new market initially driven by government policy would not be easy or advance in a straight line,” he added.

Woods said ExxonMobil is trying to nail down sales contracts connected to the project, including exports of ammonia to Asia and Europe and sales of hydrogen in the U.S.

ExxonMobil announced in 2022 that it would build the low-carbon hydrogen plant at its refining and petrochemical complex in Baytown. The company has said the plant is slated to go online in 2027 and 2028.

As it stands now, ExxonMobil wants the Baytown plant to produce up to 1 billion cubic feet of hydrogen per day made from natural gas, and capture and store more than 98 percent of the associated carbon dioxide. The company has said the project could store as much as 10 million metric tons of CO2 per year.

Trending News