Can insurers help bypass a stalling Earth System by deploying geoengineering?
· 10 min read
Early this year, when I sat down to write my submission for the China International Conference on Insurance & Risk Management (CICIRM2026), a slowing Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) was a settled fact. Stefan Rahmstorf consistently reminded us of AMOC's fragility. The Ditlevsen siblings had updates on the timeline for AMOC tipping. The earliest possibility, according to their findings, had moved to the 2030s. Needless to mention, the UK government declared biodiversity collapse a national security risk just then.
Amongst the many manifestations of climate breakdown, the one most threatening is the AMOC. Despite growing evidence of its slowing and the adverse implications for much of the planet, Iceland is the only country which has accepted this probability and declared a national security threat, thereby prompting a high-level response into how to prepare for this "existential threat."
AMOC is a system of currents responsible for shuttling warm water northward and colder, denser water to the south.
"This 'conveyor belt's process helps redistribute heat, nutrients, and carbon around the planet." It is the main ocean current in the Atlantic, including at the surface and at great depths, driven by changes in weather, temperature, and salinity, explains phys.org. And further: its collapse would radically alter regional weather patterns, the water cycle, and the ability of every country to feed its inhabitants.
With seven of the nine Planetary Boundaries breached, we had Johan Rockström urging: place climate risk analysis at the centre of security and stability and go beyond sector-specific impacts to analyse potential domino effects when climate change affects people and communities locally and regionally.
A Super El Niño that is now playing havoc sounded remote at the beginning of this year. The Institute & Faculty of Actuaries' (IFoA) compelling paper, in conjunction with the University of Exeter, on Planetary Solvency, was in circulation. A failed Net Zero Insurance Alliance (NZIA) sounded pre-historic. Any resolve on the part of the insurance industry was amiss. Rather than addressing Earth's Energy Imbalance (EEI), in James Hansen's analogy, we continue 'loading the dice'. At just under 1.5°C, Earth systems were rattled. One wondered what it would be like at +3°C or +4°C. As we are witnessing today, heat impacts are non-linear, so this higher severity can lead to much greater suffering.
El Niño is expected to intensify next year. How does one provoke insurers to start thinking, in the least. Thankfully the CICIRM gave the green light to my proposed paper: "Can insurers help bypass a stalling Earth System, by deploying geoengineering?" And as I explored geoengineering, along came the IFoA paper Parasol Lost: Recovery plan needed.
The total cost of climate physical risk for the world's largest companies that make up the S&P Global 1200 is projected to reach $1.2 trillion annually by 2050. According to S&P Global, this figure assumes no adaptation measures and is not adjusted for future inflation. The highest costs come from extreme heat and water stress.
Utility companies are projected to experience the largest costs from climate physical risk: the average electric utility in the S&P Global 1200 is projected to face $4.6 billion in annual costs in the 2050s, absent adaptation. Importantly, utilities are more advanced than many sectors in terms of adaptation planning.
A seriously impaired or stalled AMOC could bring an end to insurability as we know it today. Would insurers be the last of financial services to respond? Could their shareholders and investors, sensing the dead-end, be the ones initiating defensive action? Needless to mention the rising protection gap, and growing uninsurability. My concern ahead of COP2025: does the AMOC deserve to be a flop at the COP? It did.
Given there is already a debate ensuing, for and against geoengineering, shouldn't we be looking at its merits and demerits? Again, will it then proceed with the assumption that CO2 emission is the primary culprit responsible for global warming? Isn't it time ripe for looking beyond predominant CO2 causation and solutions?
Insurers are not just facing higher claims and premiums, but the potential collapse of insurability itself. Historically, climate risk has been managed through gradual decarbonisation pathways and portfolio alignment metrics. But this framing is outdated.
The real challenge is a rapidly destabilising Earth system, where tipping points could overwhelm adaptation capacity. Insurers must ask: do we remain passive risk calculators, or become proactive stewards of planetary stability?
Once warming exceeds 1.5°C, cascading tipping points may be triggered. Ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica have begun to collapse. Eventually, this could lead to metres of sea-level rise, threatening coastal megacities and trillions in insured assets.
Likewise, permafrost thawing will release methane, a potent greenhouse gas, accelerating warming beyond human control. Amazon dieback can destroy biodiversity, eliminating one of Earth's largest carbon sinks.
While AMOC is not the only Earth system under existential threat, it is the central concern in my paper. Its collapse would disrupt rainfall, agriculture, and food systems globally, and trigger extreme temperatures, hot and cold, depending on the geography. Monsoon failure in Asia and Africa could threaten billions. Tens of millions could be displaced.
These are not isolated risks. They are interlinked feedback loops, amplifying each other in domino-like cascades. Iceland is the only nation to declare AMOC collapse a national security threat, underscoring global complacency.
There was a window of opportunity where mitigation through decarbonising our society would have been enough, but that window closed a long time ago. Likewise, there was a point up to which even though mitigation was slower than hoped, the global economy, society and infrastructure could have adapted. Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR), if it were only scalable, was a plausible solution. Given this situation, and when we are not inclined to give up on business as usual, can Solar Radiation Management delay a 2°C rise? That window too shall pass by quickly.
Techniques:
Stratospheric Aerosol Injection (SAI) involves injecting sulphate or other aerosols into the Earth's stratosphere, mimicking volcanic eruptions in blocking a small proportion of incoming solar radiation.
Glacial geoengineering involves targeted cooling in polar regions to slow ice melt, for instance by shading glaciers or modifying local albedo.
Potential benefits: could reduce global temperatures by around 1°C, stalling for decarbonisation.
Risks:
Craig Segall and Baroness Worthington argue banning geoengineering research is reckless. Humanity has already "accidentally geoengineered" the planet via fossil fuels; deliberate interventions may be necessary. Geoengineering could stall warming, giving the energy transition breathing room.
Jessica Wan's study shows regional interventions (e.g. MCB off California) could worsen heatwaves in Europe due to teleconnections. This highlights the risk of unintended consequences and lack of governance.
Academics call for banning for-profit solar geoengineering ventures, fearing corporate capture by billionaires and tech firms. They stress the need for democratic governance and transparency.
Could insurers facilitate intervention, helping prevent further warming while the world pursues energy transition, biodiversity protection, and emissions cuts?
Insurers are uniquely positioned as:
Their stewardship role requires vigour, rigour, and responsibility, integrating mitigation, adaptation, and risk reduction.
The world is on track to breach 1.5°C by 2030 and 2°C by 2040, triggering irreversible changes.
Geoengineering is not a substitute for emission cuts but may serve as a temporary complement.
Insurers, facing existential risks to their industry, could help shape responsible exploration of interventions.
The dilemma: do insurers step up as stewards of planetary stability, supporting deliberate geoengineering to bypass a stalling Earth system? Or do they risk being overwhelmed by escalating claims, premiums, and systemic collapse?
We urgently need more open, democratic debate, informed by the latest science and by expert risk assessments, says Parasol Lost: Recovery plan needed. It welcomes the UK government's funding of research into climate cooling methods via ARIA 80, and agrees with their assessment that "ethical and governable interventions to prevent tipping points, or adaptations to adjust to a post-tipping-point climate, could be possible, but an enormous amount of research is needed to determine how such approaches could work and what their regional and global effects might be."
IFoA, an insurance 'insider', together with the University of Exeter, has put forth an approach. Would the insurance industry now choose to embrace it, to ensure that we preserve the integrity of Earth systems? AMOC, or whatever else might manifest ahead of it.
While we may root for technology, allow me to quote Herman Daly: "The economy is a wholly owned subsidiary of the environment." The ultimate solution to address biodiversity impairment, pollution, and climate breakdown calls for working with nature.
As I conclude, allow me to draw some hard truth from Rob de Laet: "Mainstream climate science remains largely trapped in a physicochemical paradigm... while ignoring the extraordinary role the living biosphere plays in regulating our climate... Until climate science fully embraces the biosphere as the central actor rather than a passive backdrop, our models will keep underestimating... The scientists will take too long to embrace this view, but for insurers it is their bread and butter to integrate the biosphere risks and abilities in their models... Let us just assume the Earth is alive and see how it changes our thinking... It is time both our science and our risk models caught up with that reality."
illuminem Voices is a democratic space presenting the opinions of leading Sustainability Thought Leaders, their views do not necessarily represent those of illuminem.
The world needs sustainability knowledge. At illuminem, no interest group or shareholder can influence our work. Thank you for supporting our mission to make high-quality and independent sustainability information free for all. Every contribution helps. Thank you for donating today.
illuminem briefings
Climate Change · Insurance
illuminem briefings
Climate Change · Insurance
illuminem briefings
Sustainable Finance · ESG
Green Central Banking
Insurance · Sustainable Finance
World Economic Forum
Sustainable Investment · Insurance
The Business Standard
Insurance · Sustainable Finance