Original title: How Do Voters Respond to Gradual Climate Costs? Evidence from the Insurance Crisis
Eric Scheuch · September 2026
Climate change slowly raises everyday living costs across the United States, but we know little about how this shapes public behavior and political views. A researcher studied this by tracking the home insurance market. When climate risks grow, insurance companies quietly raise their prices. Looking at millions of insurance records, the author found that voters definitely notice these rising costs and respond by turning away from buying homes. However, higher insurance bills do not change their opinions on climate change. Through an original survey, the study shows that people fail to connect high insurance rates to climate problems or climate policy. This disconnect happens because local news outlets and public officials rarely explain that climate change drives up insurance bills.
Imagine you pay more each month for your car insurance, and you decide to drive less. But you don't realize the increase is because the roads are getting more dangerous from weather. You just think insurance got expensive for no clear reason. In this paper, homeowners react to rising insurance costs by selling or not buying homes, but they don't attribute the cost to climate change, partly because officials and news rarely mention the connection.
As climate change gradually raises insurance premiums, homeowners are making costly decisions to sell or delay buying. Yet the public fails to connect these costs to climate policy, stalling support for action. This study pinpoints a breakdown in communication: officials and the media rarely link insurance to climate change, leaving voters unaware of the true cause.
The abstract does not specify limitations explicitly, but the study focuses solely on the U.S. home insurance market and does not measure how other gradual climate costs (e.g., energy, food) affect opinions. It also does not establish why officials and media avoid linking insurance to climate, nor does it test whether different messaging would change voter behavior. The findings rely on correlation, not causation, for the attribution gap.
Ask anything about this paper. Answers come from its abstract, and say so when the abstract doesn't cover your question.
How Do Voters Respond to Gradual Climate Costs? Evidence from the Insurance Crisis — Eric Scheuch — SocArXiv — doi:10.31235/osf.io/8jmu2_v3
Abstract licence: CC BY
Explanation generated by Synthesis from the abstract — it is not the original paper. This is a preprint, so it hasn't necessarily been peer reviewed.