Tom Philp is a research associate at the London School of Economics and founder of Maximum Information, a consultancy that is developing climate risk analytic tools and launching collaborative projects aimed at improving our understanding of climate risk.
Described by one industry expert as "someone who understands the science, its impacts and the moving parts of the risk chain that go to create the impact – rather than just preaching about it", Tom's work is part of a crucial effort in the insurance sector to quantify and communicate climate risks.
He sits on a number of insurance industry advisory groups, including the International Underwriting Association's climate risk group.
What inspired you to work on climate change issues?
I have a research and employment trajectory that spans a wide variety of disciplines, all of which are touched by climate risk and change. This gives me a panoramic view of one of the most complex challenges facing society, and I feel I have a responsibility to communicate this. Incidentally, this was the primary motivation for starting my venture, Maximum Information.
What are your work priorities right now?
Laying the foundations for collaborative private and not-for-profit projects that aim to improve our understanding of climate risk. The majority of Maximum Information's work revolves around quantifying climate uncertainty in both the present and future, and identifying real-world decisions that can be improved with knowledge of that uncertainty. I think this aspect of climate risk is under-explored, yet it's really one of the most valuable when it comes to making decisions for effective climate resilience.
Tell me one step the insurance industry needs to take, to improve its response to climate change?
To be bold and unafraid to say things as they are. Many of the extreme weather events of recent years have been fingerprinted in the media as primarily climate change induced; while climate change undoubtedly has its impacts, extreme weather events are not new. Fingerprinting them all as primarily climate change driven is dangerous because it can remove culpability, allowing people to hide behind statements like "who could predict this?".
"Fingerprinting all extreme weather events as primarily climate change-driven is dangerous"
Beyond that, it removes the ability to effectively respond to when and where climate change is likely to have its worst impacts. In climate risk modelling, the insurance industry can validate these fingerprints, but many shy away from the issue for fear of being accused of playing down the risks. We need to get better at managing the conversation.
Are you optimistic or pessimistic we can avoid the worst effects of climate change?
Optimistic: we, as a global society, are driving so much research and behavioural change that we are beginning to see meaningful pledges in all sectors and in all regions. That said, I'm concerned that we're not yet asking the questions to give those most vulnerable to climate risk the voice that they need. We need to start explicitly considering them more – and not just in the future either. Climate risk is now, whether it's climate change or not. Protect the present and we build the foundations for protecting the future.
What are you doing personally to reduce your climate impact?
All of the little things that I like to think many of us are doing. But they're still not big enough. Individuals need to move beyond thinking about the micro and try to think about their ability to influence the macro more. I hope my work helps people to make those leaps.