Not really; the concept is only plausible if there is always some uncertainty whether a catastrophe will actually happen. If the climate catastrophe was actually an inevitability, the premiums would have rise as the eventuality gets closer to reality, and at some point in time, the premiums will have to equal the actual risk, otherwise, the re-insurance companies will also go bankrupt and take down the global economy.
Have we learned nothing from the Great Recession and the notion of re-packaged risks?
TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!
Rather than divide the World into "climate warriors" and the rest, why not just recognise that emissions of greenhouse gasses will have future costs, and legislate to ensure that those costs are included in the cost of whatever activities generate the emissions? We can then allow open markets to generate the activities that will minimise long term costs, rather than hiding them as they do at the moment.
