Environmental Regulation has developed very significantly over the past 30 years, principally with respect to pollution prevention and, protection of valuable sites and resources such as drinking water. But biodiversity is a more generalisable concept which helps in the understanding of the “Common Good” that nature provides. Protection of this could be achieved by a combination of regulation and liability for remediation. The scope of the latter is currently unpredictable, but would initially operate through regulation and nuisance. This could change if concepts such as material interest, proximity and
foreseeability are changed to suit political ends. While there is uncertainty, there is a need for insurers to engage with politicians.
Evidence from:
andrew@reliabilityoxford.co.uk
Investment in response to adverse events could be insured, e.g. remediation of contaminated land. If this route is favoured then the price of insurance will depend very strongly on the specified quality of an adequate intervention. Adequacy could to be determined by sentimental or economic standards. E.g. a preference for returning land to its pre-contamination state would be sentimental, returning land to pre-contamination state of utility would be economic. The civil courts would tend to identify with economic standards (via the concept of indemnity), the statute approach could follow both sentimental and economic models. The price would vary accordingly.