Skip to content

David Cameron Rehashes Worn Out Insurance Argument

October 10, 2013

By Paul Homewood



In an interview in the Sunday Telegraph last week, (sorry, no link), David Cameron repeated the “It’s worth taking out insurance” line, regarding climate change. He says:


If someone came to you and said there is a 95% chance that your house might burn down, even if you are in the 5% that does not agree with it, you still take out the insurance, just in case”


There are two fatal flaws in this argument.


1) The cost of the premium.

Would you pay £200,000 insurance premium every year for a house worth £100,000? Of course not.

Yet this is the logic of Cameron’s argument. The cost of acting “to stop climate change”, as far as the UK is concerned, is many times greater than any potential costs, which might otherwise arise. (Assuming there are any such costs at all, or indeed that there are no benefits).


2) What you can claim back

Would you pay, say, £500 to insure your £100,000 house, if the insurance company policy stated that they would only pay you back £10 if it burnt down? Of course not.

We know that, however much much the UK reduces its CO2 emissions, there will be no tangible effect either on global or UK temperatures.

In other words, we are paying into an insurance policy, that won’t pay anything back to us under any circumstance.



Cameron’s argument quite simply has no logic to it.

  1. mitigatedsceptic permalink
    October 10, 2013 11:09 am


  2. Dugo permalink
    October 10, 2013 2:23 pm

    Hear Hear!

  3. October 10, 2013 10:46 pm

    A rough estimate of the premium would be the probability of loss X value of loss, all amortized over the relevant period. A minute fraction of the enforced mitigation in the pipeline.

    A bad deal that only a fool would accept.

    • Billy Liar permalink
      October 11, 2013 10:48 am


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: