- cross-posted to:
- politicalmemes@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- politicalmemes@lemmy.world
You must log in or register to comment.
They believe in it only because it allows them to make more money by increasing premiums due to “increased risk” of whatever, or deny claims due to “acts of god”.
If there was profit in denial, then that’s what they would do. Thats why fossil fuel industries try so hard to hide the impact they are making.
Yes but that’s what we call “analytical thinking”, which we can in this case assume the audience (MAGA in the classroom) is incapable of
In Florida some insurance companies refuse to offer housing insurance. Part of the reason why so many left the state completely. Then I did.
this is wrong. insurance companies don’t believe in anything. they know climate change is real because that’s what the data shows.
MAGA are gonna make a conspiracy that climate change is invented by insurance corpos to gain money.
(Watch them have the right instict that the common person is getting swimdled and then somehow end up blaming exactly the wrong things)
Then they invented weather control machines to cover their tracks! Devious!
we wish they had weather control machines.
Add the US military too!
Hard to believe when they pollute more than entire countries. If they believe in it, it’s because they know they have to prepare for the consequences, not because they want to avoid it.
Yeah? We’re on the same page I think. If the military and insurance companies are figuring climate change into risk management, who’s saying they’re idiots?!
I think lots of those people believe in climate change but not in ‘man made climate change’. It’s about denying that we are responsible for it and that we can do something to mitigate further damage.
Belief implies blind acceptance. The insurance actuaries are very analytical people who have read and understood the science. There a difference between understanding and believing.
Disclaimer: I know climate change is a thing, and it’s bad (understatement).
As a counter argument, won’t an insurance company always look for risks that they can raise the rates against? Even if the insurance company is the most conservative business, if there is only a slight chance that climate change exists, it would be a win-win for the insurance company to raise the rates. Either it’s a real thing (which it is) and the higher rates now cover the risk. Or it’s not a thing, and the rates are higher now anyways.
I guess taking that logic, a insurance company that doesn’t trust the science could offer lower rates and take the increase in customers and reap the rewards. But strangely no one is??
That’s also true, fair point
Because they would risk having to pay out more as well. And if they pay more insurance payouts than they make from the customers, they lose money.
Yes but the risk calculation either includes the climate change related statistics or it doesn’t.
If it does, then it indicates that insurance companies see this risk as valid and factual.
No insurance company would make decisions based on paying out against risk they didn’t believe existed. That’s the whole point of calculating risk.
From what I understand, the insurance business model is to transform individual unpredictable events into very predictable statistics.
A house burning down ? As an individual it is devastating, it’s a lifetime of savings that burn away. For the insurance company, it’s part of the statistics.
The problem of climate change is that it brings unpredictability at the insurer scale.
I don’t know
If the air had more CO2 then they would increase their insurance, which makes more money.
So yes they believe in the potential for climate change to increase profits.
If they really cared about climate change, they could stop insuring most polluting industries, such as oil companies.
They could also offer reduced rates for carbon negative industries and renewable energy.
This is exactly why insurance companies “believing” in climate change is meaningless - they adjust their bussiness model to profit from it rather than help prevent it, just like how they could check out some portable power stations on gearscouts.com for emergency backup during climate disasters instead of actually reducing emissions.
They aren’t trying to lower overall risk. They are in the business of accurately assessing risk.
Giving a discount for behavior that lowers climate risk is different than a discount for behavior that affects the client more proportional to effort, like defensive driving. A customer cutting emissions in half, drop in the ocean to climate change, so how much have they lowered their climate risk?
They don’t care, but that’s not the same as not believing in it.
Whats got their believes got to do with anything? They are as worthless as a chocolate fireguard.
Not every department within insurance companies understand the risks:
Insurance Majors Invest In Fossil Fuels While Cutting Coverage Due To Climate Risks
