Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
We conceptually investigate Climate Risk Stress Testing (CRST) exercises to assess the impact of climate-related shocks on financial system stability. We distinguish between climate, economic, and financial modeling steps, and classify CRST exercises into six types of climate shocks and four different approaches (macro-financial, micro-financial, non-structural, and disaster risk). We identify several key limitations in current CRST approaches: (i) neglect of certain climate shock types (Green Swan and Minsky-type events); (ii) overreliance on macro models (with low sectoral and spatial granularity); (iii) incomplete modeling (lack of feedback effects); and (iv) limited scope (subset of causal channels and asset classes). We argue that these limitations may lead to significant underestimation of potential system-wide financial losses and offer suggestions for improving CRST approaches. They have also led CRST exercises to diverge from the traditional stress testing objective of capital adequacy.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Reinders et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: