Underpreparing for severe climate risks can cost the UK far more than overpreparing, experts warn

Experts from various fields are urging the UK government to adopt a more integrated approach to assessing climate and nature risks. In a commentary published in Nature Climate Change, they warn that conflicting advice can create conflicting pictures of risk severity, making it difficult for policymakers to determine the level of action and spending required.

This issue was highlighted during a particularly hot summer in the UK, which saw record temperatures and drought conditions, leading to garden hose bans, wildfires, and reduced harvests. The commentary points out that national security assessments and economic modeling use different approaches - one considers worst-case scenarios and the other focuses on central estimates and cost-benefit calculations.

Both inform fiscal decisions, but the government lacks a unified framework to reconcile these approaches. A consistent method is crucial, as climate risks do not occur in isolation. Extreme events can have widespread impacts, affecting food prices, infrastructure, and the economy. Coordinated risk assessments and economic modeling can provide a more comprehensive view of potential consequences.

The authors argue that while overpreparing may seem costly, underpreparedness can result in far greater financial losses. Investing in nature-based solutions, such as restoring wetlands and floodplains, can protect against climate extremes and provide additional benefits. The proposed integrated approach would combine expert analysis with model estimates to ensure all risks are considered.