This post was initially written in French https://freakonometrics.hypotheses.org/87347
Last summer, I published in Le Monde (the French newspaper) a piece that started from an observation that has become commonplace and yet is still not fully absorbed by financial institutions. Extreme climate events are no longer marginal risks, and the banking sector is slow to grasp their implications. That op-ed, reposted on my blog under the (original) title Climate crisis the next time bomb for the financial system, was mainly an attempt to describe a perception gap, almost a difference in reflexes. On the one hand, there is an insurance perspective, reasoning in frequency, intensity, pooling, and a long time horizon. It accepts uncertainty, as long as it can be priced, and as long as the rules of the game remain stable. That is what I know well. On the other hand, there is a banking perspective. It reasons in collateral value, resale possibilities, default risk, and correlations. It rather quickly loses interest in the debate about annual probabilities if, in the end, the collateral becomes hard to liquidate. If I had to sum it up, insurers reason in probability and a long time horizon, while banks reason in collateral and a short time horizon. I admit it took me time to understand this point. As I recall, I really became aware of it in 2022, while reading House prices falling in flood-prone areas, in Quebec, and I rediscovered it this autumn, through Floods, drought… these climate hazards that push house prices down, this time in France. I wrote a post this autumn, Insurance, real estate, and the manufacturing of ignorance, taking advantage of some U.S. news on this topic. The point was that, for many decision makers, and probably also many citizens, the climate crisis remains an abstraction as long as no line in the accounts moves. It becomes urgent when an asset becomes less tradable.