[HN Gopher] Connecticut, USA wants to penalize insurers for back...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Connecticut, USA wants to penalize insurers for backing fossil-fuel
       projects
        
       Author : PaulHoule
       Score  : 16 points
       Date   : 2024-03-27 19:33 UTC (3 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (grist.org)
 (TXT) w3m dump (grist.org)
        
       | nashashmi wrote:
       | This would be like a rule that prevents trade with Iran Energy
       | Sector. Except on insurance companies who do business with fossil
       | fuel companies.
        
         | toomuchtodo wrote:
         | If you consider climate change an emergency, and/or the fact
         | that fossil fuel externalities are rarely internalized (vs
         | dumped on the collective commons), this is a reasonable policy
         | position.
         | 
         | If we can't pass a carbon tax due to lack of political will,
         | find other points of leverage and exert force.
        
         | mc32 wrote:
         | What this might accomplish is the acceleration of Insurers
         | moving out of CT. If CT had an otherwise well diversified
         | economy, it might not be a biggie. If they have a lot of
         | insurers there, then it might not be such a good move.
         | 
         | In addition, if there is less resource extraction in the US
         | which has higher regulation, this will move extraction overseas
         | where there is lighter regulation, but the local politicians
         | feel good about doing something.
        
       | 01HNNWZ0MV43FF wrote:
       | Or just https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_tax
        
       | bloppe wrote:
       | > Insurers are helping make the problem worse by underwriting the
       | very projects that warm the Earth even as they bear the costs of
       | mounting climate disasters and pass them on to customers.
       | 
       | This the same fallacy people fall for when they say things like
       | "100 companies responsible for 70% of emissions" [1]. It doesn't
       | make any sense. Those companies aren't emitting CO2 in isolation.
       | They're selling products that billions of people are creating
       | demand for, either directly or indirectly.
       | 
       | It's the customers (i.e. "us") who are responsible for those
       | emissions. And the cost is being passed on to those customers.
       | The insurance system is working just fine.
       | 
       | [1]: https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-
       | business/2017/jul/10...
        
         | jmholla wrote:
         | > It's the customers (i.e. "us") who are responsible for those
         | emissions. And the cost is being passed on to those customers.
         | The insurance system is working just fine.
         | 
         | The companies don't just get a pass. Especially not if those
         | companies aren't working to reduce emissions from their
         | processes. And let's not even get started on situations where a
         | company has basically cornered a market and consumers who need
         | their products don't have a choice.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2024-03-27 23:01 UTC)