Action Day - intervention du PDG Swiss Re Michel Liès

One thing that stands out—the most impressive is that this 180 billion comes from them. The figures were much lower 40 years ago, barely 50 or 60 billion. What is striking in our industry is that only 25% of these climate catastrophes are covered by insurance companies, more in industrialized countries and less in developing ones. We can talk about the price—the price we have to pay for the decisions we will take, but also for the decisions we didn't take. I think there is also a need for solidarity to help countries protect themselves and get coverage. But one of the key issues to address is why states almost never budget for insurance, or very rarely. I believe we insurers need to be more visible and ensure that governments try to cover the financial consequences. We are very humble here; we cover the financial consequences, especially on the humanitarian front. But why is insurance so poorly used by governments at the political level? Small states in the Pacific and the Caribbean are most affected by these climate disasters, and they have taken out insurance. Insurance has provided money, for example, before the drought in the Sahel, and that money was made available before the humanitarian catastrophe occurred. So we must absolutely understand the consequences of the decisions we do not take. We can also have more transparency in the prices and insurance premiums, and we encourage policymakers to take into account the tools, including insurance, that can provide solutions to the situations described. As an insurer, I want to say a word: in mature countries, we ask ourselves what is missing in terms of solidarity when it comes to pensions. Are the young supposed to pay for the current generations to guarantee the level of retirement? The climate problem is ten times more important, and we face the same solidarity challenge here. Are we ready to show solidarity or not? If not, let's be ready to pay the price of the decisions we will not take. We put a price on decisions not taken. Something that hasn't been said: that price will be paid in 10, 20, or 30 years. I think the general public, when their house is destroyed, wonders if it is possible for you to answer the question you yourself asked: why isn't the insurance problem given more consideration? Well, I believe the dramatic consequences of not being insured come much later, and that timeline is out of sync with the political calendar. A decision made today to address a natural catastrophe will not materialize in five years but rather in 15. The political timeline is much shorter. But you know, sometimes it is reasonable to bet on the long term. That is why I am glad to see that many political leaders today are willing to tell the truth, even though the catastrophes that might affect us are much longer-term than the political careers of those leaders.