Search

Carbon capture, use and storage (CCUS) has the potential to significantly reduce carbon emissions, however, because CCUS technology almost exclusively aims for carbon mitigation without co-benefits, this expensive technology has not been widely adopted. In order to make this technology viable, a robust regulatory and legal regime is required both internationally and within the European Union (EU). A comprehensive insurance system is also required to ensure that efficient running of CCUS. With this understanding in mind, this article analyses the regulatory regime governing CCUS both internationally and in the EU and also the law governing insurance of this technology. It argues that whilst European regulation has improved with respect to filling regulatory gaps, a number of gaps are identified which still need to be closed. In addition, the article will argue that special insurance coverage for specialized risks must be in place to diminish any environmental impact and hazard, including cyber-related risks that need to be identified and insured to be properly handled and adequately covered to allow for the successful deployment of CCUS. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The paper implements an institutional and functional approach to determining the place and role of insurance in shaping a “green” economy. The ways of integrating it as a constituent element of the financial system have been considered. The views of scientists involved in various aspects of modelling the “green” economy on the functional utility of insurance have been summarised. The use of the term “green insurance” and the meanings it implies have been analysed. The author has concluded that the relevant concept of “green insurance” is not yet so unambiguous that it can be used as a scientific concept. Another important conclusion that has been brought up for discussion is that the potential of insurance as a risk management tool within the green economy strategy is not to be confined to environmental insurance, but should be considered in expanding its scope of application to include both the fuller coverage of risk carriers and the range of potential hazards.

This article analyzes the development of the environmental insurance legislation of the European Union and the Russian Federation. The advantages of this mechanism in matters of compensation for harm caused to the environment due to environmental offenses are determined. The analysis of Directive No. 2004/35 / CE of the European Parliament and the Council of the EU on environmental responsibility, aimed at preventing environmental damage and eliminating its consequences. A comparison of Russian legislation with the norms of environmental insurance adopted in the European Union is carried out. The conclusion is formulated that environmental insurance should become a priority direction of the state natural resource policy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The state of regulatory support of the compensatory and preventive functions of environmental insurance has been studied. As a research method, a systematic approach has been chosen, which explores environmental insurance not only as a separate type of profit-seeking activity, but first of all as the component of economic and legal mechanism in the field of environmental relations, an element of the legal mechanism for providing environmental safety and a means to prevent and compensate for environmental abuses. The system of environmental funding sources financing has been analysed. It is determined that, unlike other funds for financing environmental protection measures, environmental insurance funds are used exclusively to protect the policyholders’ proprietary interests. Despite the fact that in case of an insured event occurrence a natural object may be destroyed or damaged, the obligation to use the funds received as insurance payments for environmental protection measures is not provided for in the legislation of Ukraine. It has been established that the possibility of using the insurance funds in environmental insurance for financial support of preventive measures related to the reduction of environmental insurance risk, provided for by the environmental legislation of Ukraine, contradicts the provisions of the insurance legislation of Ukraine as it pertains to insurance reserves placement. The conclusion has been drawn on the suitability of legal support of the ecological function of environmental insurance, which is to ensure the quality of the environment. In order to reflect the ecological function of environmental insurance at the regulatory level, it has been proposed: to capture in the legislation of Ukraine the obligation of the insured to use the insurance payment associated with causing harm to natural objects, to restore the wholesomeness of such objects and to eliminate the negative changes in the environment that led to the occurrence of the relevant insured event; to create a guarantee fund for financing activities related to the environmental insurance risks mitigation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Política & Sociedade: Revista de Sociologia Política is the property of Revista Politica & Sociedade and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Motivation: Compulsory insurance is one of the possible optional responses to the Environmental Liability Directive (ELD) call for development of financial instruments. The article is a contribution to the analysis of the development of financial instruments relating to environmental liability. The above has been continuously discussed in both local and European circles. Aim: There are two research purposes of this article. Firstly, to identify the attributes of the EU countries which have implemented a system of obligatory environmental insurance. Secondly, to recognise and assess the premises for introduction of a system of obligatory environmental insurance by the example of Poland. Results: Insurance obligation has been legitimised in relatively poorly developed countries of the European Union. Economic indicators (GDP, GDP per capita) in majority of the above are usually below the EU average. Also, the attributes of insurance markets (non-life insurance gross premium written, non-life insurance density and insurance penetration rates) in these countries are the evidence of a large discrepancy between them and the highly developed markets. Overall economic indicators for Poland and the attributes of the Polish insurance market put this country (in economic terms) in the group of states which have decided to introduce obligatory environmental insurance. Simultaneously, the doctrine and practitioners alike consistently criticise 'inflation of obligatoriness' which has been seen in the Polish regulations for decades and indicate disadvantages of such solution. Possible introduction of environmental insurance obligation, if considered in Poland, should be preceded by action taken in order to strengthen the supply side of the market. Only in this condition will it be possible for obligatory insurance -- if flexible enough in its structure -- to strengthen the incentives for market development on the demand side. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Revista Ibero-Latinoamericana de Seguros is the property of Pontificia Universidad Javeriana and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Environmental insurance policies and the success of claims brought under them depend upon the intersection of both the legal and technical issues involved. The evolution of environmental insurance policies, from their origin in the Commercial General Liability policies up to the creation of new insurance products designed to cover specifically environmental concerns are addressed in this work. Both scientists and attorneys will have to develop a fuller understanding of environmental damage and assessments. The intent of this article is to provide a starting point for members of both disciplines in their quest for a fuller understanding of the legal and technical issues involved in environmental claims. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]