3 ms·

> 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 an

by bloppe 3y ago

> 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/10/100-fossil-fuel-companies-investors-responsible-71-global-emissions-cdp-study-climate-change https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jul/10...

jmholla 3y ago
> 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.
_aavaa_ 3y ago
This is not a fallacy at all. For starters, these are not neutral sellers, "oh I guess we'll see this stuff if people want it". They induce demand, they actively work to conceal the negative externalities of the things they sell, they actively fight regulations that negatively impact them but positively impact the rest of the planet.
grecy 3y ago
> It's the customers (i.e. "us") who are responsible for those emissions No, you're confusing cause and effect, or putting the cart before the horse. Yes, there are companies that sell products that produce a huge amount of pollution, and it would all stop if consumers stopped buying those products. It would stop faster and more directly if the companies stopped making the horribly pollutant products in the first place. They have a responsibility in this, it's not OK to just hide behind "we just make stuff, it is someone else's fault they're buying it".
yongjik 3y ago
> It's the customers (i.e. "us") who are responsible for those emissions. And the cost is being passed on to those customers. So, by making fossil fuel projects uninsurable, we will make fossil fuels more expensive, which will reduce consumption, and since it's ultimately we the consumers who consume those fossil fuels (and their products), it seems "fair" that we have to pay for our indulgence. Sounds like the policy is going to work exactly as intended?
- bloppe 3y ago
  Ya, even better. I'm all for carbon taxes actually. Just saying that fossil fuel consumption reverberates through the whole economy. You cannot blame the suppliers that much more than you can blame anybody else.

by bloppe 3y ago

jmholla 3y ago

> 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.

_aavaa_ 3y ago

This is not a fallacy at all. For starters, these are not neutral sellers, "oh I guess we'll see this stuff if people want it". They induce demand, they actively work to conceal the negative externalities of the things they sell, they actively fight regulations that negatively impact them but positively impact the rest of the planet.

grecy 3y ago

> It's the customers (i.e. "us") who are responsible for those emissions No, you're confusing cause and effect, or putting the cart before the horse. Yes, there are companies that sell products that produce a huge amount of pollution, and it would all stop if consumers stopped buying those products. It would stop faster and more directly if the companies stopped making the horribly pollutant products in the first place. They have a responsibility in this, it's not OK to just hide behind "we just make stuff, it is someone else's fault they're buying it".

yongjik 3y ago

> It's the customers (i.e. "us") who are responsible for those emissions. And the cost is being passed on to those customers. So, by making fossil fuel projects uninsurable, we will make fossil fuels more expensive, which will reduce consumption, and since it's ultimately we the consumers who consume those fossil fuels (and their products), it seems "fair" that we have to pay for our indulgence. Sounds like the policy is going to work exactly as intended?

bloppe 3y ago
Ya, even better. I'm all for carbon taxes actually. Just saying that fossil fuel consumption reverberates through the whole economy. You cannot blame the suppliers that much more than you can blame anybody else.