Comment box Scope: summary, some personal opinion Tone: neutral Opinion: yes, demarcated as such Sarcasm/humor: none The human burning of fossil fuels for energy and other purposes contributes...
Comment box
Scope: summary, some personal opinion
Tone: neutral
Opinion: yes, demarcated as such
Sarcasm/humor: none
The human burning of fossil fuels for energy and other purposes contributes significantly to pollution, destruction of the natural environment, and changing climate patterns which serve as a significant financial and existential threat to human presence around the world.
All large commercial operations are legally required (or effectively required) to have insurance policies to protect themselves against various disasters, including disasters that they cause.
The US state of Connecticut is proposing that insurance companies be required to pay a significant fee (tax) if they want to financially insure a project that burns fossil fuels (both new and existing projects). This may tip the balance of financial profitability, as insurers would pass that cost onto the projects they're backing. If the fossil fuel companies requesting insurance cannot afford the fee while remaining profitable, the projects will not be insured, so the projects will halt, and therefore emissions will not increase.
Connecticut would use the revenue from the tax to mitigate the effects of climate change within the state.
In my opinion, every state should have legislation like this. It should be exceedingly expensive to operate fossil fuel projects considering their immense negative externalities. Alternative energy sources are readily available. A carbon tax on fossil fuels themselves would be my preference, but going after the financial mechanisms that make these destructive practices possible is a good second choice.
This sounds like an indirect carbon tax, assuming they pass on the costs to consumers, and why wouldn't they? Carbon taxes are good since they encourage conservation and adopting alternative...
The assessment would apply not only to new pipelines and fuel terminals, which require ample insurance to attract lenders and investors, but to current coverage for existing infrastructure as well. This means anyone covering the state’s dozens of oil- and gas-fueled power plants would be contributing to the resilience fund.
This sounds like an indirect carbon tax, assuming they pass on the costs to consumers, and why wouldn't they?
Carbon taxes are good since they encourage conservation and adopting alternative energy sources. But since this tax is indirect, there might be side effects? Discouraging investment in infrastructure might result in shortages or safety issues.
Comment box
The human burning of fossil fuels for energy and other purposes contributes significantly to pollution, destruction of the natural environment, and changing climate patterns which serve as a significant financial and existential threat to human presence around the world.
All large commercial operations are legally required (or effectively required) to have insurance policies to protect themselves against various disasters, including disasters that they cause.
The US state of Connecticut is proposing that insurance companies be required to pay a significant fee (tax) if they want to financially insure a project that burns fossil fuels (both new and existing projects). This may tip the balance of financial profitability, as insurers would pass that cost onto the projects they're backing. If the fossil fuel companies requesting insurance cannot afford the fee while remaining profitable, the projects will not be insured, so the projects will halt, and therefore emissions will not increase.
Connecticut would use the revenue from the tax to mitigate the effects of climate change within the state.
In my opinion, every state should have legislation like this. It should be exceedingly expensive to operate fossil fuel projects considering their immense negative externalities. Alternative energy sources are readily available. A carbon tax on fossil fuels themselves would be my preference, but going after the financial mechanisms that make these destructive practices possible is a good second choice.
This sounds like an indirect carbon tax, assuming they pass on the costs to consumers, and why wouldn't they?
Carbon taxes are good since they encourage conservation and adopting alternative energy sources. But since this tax is indirect, there might be side effects? Discouraging investment in infrastructure might result in shortages or safety issues.