Citing Climate Change, Chubb Will Limit Insuring, Investing in Coal Plants

July 1, 2019

  • July 1, 2019 at 12:18 pm
    Craig Cornell says:
    Hot debate. What do you think?
    Thumb up 40
    Thumb down 43

    How a real journalist would have covered this:

    “Chubb Caves to Far Left Nonsense, Goes for Pointless Virtue Signaling”

    “Public respect for Chubb drops dramatically as the public realizes Chubb is just another corporation willing to sell out it’s self-respect in order to answer liberal pressure for feel-good posturing that accomplishes nothing.”

    • July 1, 2019 at 1:19 pm
      Jack says:
      Hot debate. What do you think?
      Thumb up 33
      Thumb down 26

      Craig- or this: Chubb helps to shut down less expensive means of energy to cause poor people to beg for “free” energy from their government…kinda like free college…because everything should be free.

    • July 1, 2019 at 2:59 pm
      Jon says:
      Hot debate. What do you think?
      Thumb up 19
      Thumb down 12

      So in your mind, real journalists fill their headlines with opinion? Boy, at least you’re consistent in your crazy.

      • July 1, 2019 at 4:11 pm
        Craig Cornell says:
        Hot debate. What do you think?
        Thumb up 19
        Thumb down 15

        You bet. “Journalism” is ALL opinion these days. They ignore data that contradicts the narrative they are trying to push. Telling the truth? HAH. What an old-fashioned, naive concept.

        Which is why you will never see the headline I suggested, which is factually correct.

        • July 2, 2019 at 3:46 pm
          Craig WAHface says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 3
          Thumb down 0

          Lol you’re so salty

          • July 3, 2019 at 11:49 am
            Craig Cornell says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 0

            Thanks!

          • July 3, 2019 at 2:30 pm
            Jack says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 7
            Thumb down 0

            $10,000 says Chubb executives got on their private jets and flew around the world for July 4th.

            Let them cake!!

    • August 11, 2019 at 8:40 pm
      Agent says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 1
      Thumb down 0

      What a joke!

  • July 1, 2019 at 1:15 pm
    Captain Planet says:
    Hot debate. What do you think?
    Thumb up 20
    Thumb down 16

    “…commitment to do our part as a steward of the Earth.”

    Noble!

    • July 1, 2019 at 1:26 pm
      Jack says:
      Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 25
      Thumb down 7

      Cap- Chubb’s investment in China proves otherwise.

    • July 1, 2019 at 1:38 pm
      craig cornell says:
      Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 4
      Thumb down 16

      Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

  • July 1, 2019 at 1:22 pm
    Agency says:
    Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 18
    Thumb down 8

    This is PR, thought it can come at a cost to Chubb. Notice how insuring and investing in coal plants. If they were truly passionate about this questionable cause, they would divest in all of it. Hence this could be an underwriting decision and using politics to make themselves look good for a certain segment of society.

    • July 1, 2019 at 1:24 pm
      Jack says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 10
      Thumb down 9

      Agency- so they are blowing smoke up your you know what?

  • July 1, 2019 at 1:28 pm
    Jracksa says:
    Hot debate. What do you think?
    Thumb up 25
    Thumb down 27

    Hey Chubb,
    First suggestion; Fire your stupid CEO. Coal is much more efficient than the next closest fuel for energy production. This decision is based on Disneyland fantasy that had no basis in fact. Coal has been providing effective energy to the world for a century and will continue to do so. Just goes to show that just because one is a CEO, doesn’t mean he isn’t stupid.

  • July 1, 2019 at 1:41 pm
    Lou says:
    Hot debate. What do you think?
    Thumb up 27
    Thumb down 30

    This is so dumb. The CEO should be fired. Most thinking people, i.e. people that are business know that the climate change issue is a canard for those in power the get more power and gain. Basically it’s the weather, and the weather changes, and the weather has changed throughout history. Ugh

    • July 1, 2019 at 3:00 pm
      Jon says:
      Hot debate. What do you think?
      Thumb up 21
      Thumb down 14

      Or, you know, you could actually use your brain and critically examine the issue. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to realize you’re being lied to, just a willingness to stop listening to Fox News, bud.

      • July 1, 2019 at 4:14 pm
        Craig Cornell says:
        Hot debate. What do you think?
        Thumb up 15
        Thumb down 14

        Oh, no! Not the Fox News attack. Must be a deep thinker at work.

        Let’s see how honest and informed you are: if every insurance company in the world refused to insure fossil fuel plants, would it reduce CO2 production by even a tiny, tiny fraction?

        Of course not. The fossil fuel companies would form self-insurance pools and/or captives and keep right on rolling.

        Now that is how dumb this is (and how dumb everyone is who thinks it a good idea).

        • July 2, 2019 at 10:12 am
          Captain Planet says:
          Hot debate. What do you think?
          Thumb up 15
          Thumb down 8

          Or, maybe some companies are just displaying their convictions and principles. Perhaps, they know their actions may not make an immediate impact, but they don’t have to support an industry they no longer wish to. I’m so old, I remember when it was admirable to stand for your principles.

          • July 2, 2019 at 12:12 pm
            Craig Cornell says:
            Hot debate. What do you think?
            Thumb up 10
            Thumb down 11

            If I throw an ice cube outside every morning to stop climate change, am I displaying my convictions and principles?

            No. Unless you are doing something that actually addresses the problem, you are just Virtue Signaling. In reality, your support of such stupid ideas is taking away from the focus on real solutions in favor of feel-good nonsense.

            Congratulations! Your convictions and principles are revealed.

  • July 1, 2019 at 6:34 pm
    Maria S. says:
    Hot debate. What do you think?
    Thumb up 16
    Thumb down 9

    I think this is really good news. At this point, most major re/insurance companies in Europe have done similar with coal, and some also with tar sands, due to concerns about climate change and local pollution. Restricting the insurance pool for new coal plants, combined with divestments and government policy, is a clear path to phasing it out, which the global climate science community says has to be done as quickly as possible. I’d love to see greater investments in and more coverage for renewables from insurance companies to complement this. The insurance industry could be a serious part of the solution to a global crisis it and its customers are reckoning with right now.

    • July 1, 2019 at 7:39 pm
      Craig Cornell says:
      Hot debate. What do you think?
      Thumb up 13
      Thumb down 13

      Clue meet Less. China and India are building so many new coal plants that this is all just pointless.

      Don’t you have any real solutions other than raising energy prices on poor and middle class people? I mean solutions that would actually limit CO2 production, not just make you feel all warm inside. (How about nuclear power, which makes up 75% of power in France and Sweden? Care to get serious?)

      Let me know what you have. The Left’s punishment of the poor is embarrassing. Out here in California, with the highest percentage of people in poverty in the country, gas taxes just went to 79 cents a gallon, highest in the country. Congratulations for making life for poor people harder.

      And for what? Bullet trains to nowhere? (10 year ridership of public transportation is way down in Southern California. How’s that all working out for you?)

      • July 2, 2019 at 11:20 am
        Rosenblatt says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 11
        Thumb down 2

        I see you are still posting false information about Sweden’s nuclear power. 40% is not even close to 75%. I suggest you leave out Sweden the next time you post that comment.

        “In 2016, Sweden generated 156 TWh, of which 63 TWh (40%) was from nuclear and 62 TWh (40%) from hydro. Wind provided 15.5 TWh (10%), various fossil fuels 2 TWh, and biofuels & waste 13 TWh (8%).”

        h ttp://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-o-s/sweden.aspx

        • July 2, 2019 at 12:53 pm
          Craig Cornell says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 7
          Thumb down 7

          Good one! How much more does Sweden produce as a percentage of the total than we do? And France?

          Try to focus on the real issues Rosenblatt. Sweden and France both believe nuclear is the solution to Climate Change, something American lefties have rejected out of some religious purity. There is NO other solution at this time, so waiting is embracing a warming climate. Congratulations.

          Did you see NASA revised their historical temperature records? For the fourth time! Because you can trust NASA.

          You see, Version 3 (called “unadjusted”, ha ha), showed a cooling planet from 1880 to 2016. You read that right. (But don’t look for the NY Times or CNN or the Insurance Journal for that kernel of truth.)

          So NASA produced Version 4. And Shazaam!, a slight warming showed up instead!

          Keep that in mind the next time the media screams about the “hottest on record”!!!!!! The truth is that temperature records can only be trusted since 1979, when satellites were first used to track weather.

          (You can look up why the records prior to that are so unreliable, but don’t wait for Insurance Journal to report on the issue.)

          • July 2, 2019 at 1:23 pm
            Rosenblatt says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 8
            Thumb down 3

            “Sweden…believe[s] nuclear is the solution to Climate Change, something American lefties have rejected out of some religious purity. There is NO other solution at this time”

            What are you talking about?

            I JUST cited the fact that 40% of Sweden’s power comes from nuclear and 50% comes from solar and wind.

            So “NO other solution” than nuclear is viable, yet the country you cited to support that argument gets MORE THAN HALF their energy from renewable sources and LESS THAN HALF from nuclear.

            As previously mentioned, I suggest you stop citing Sweden when making your argument because not only do they get less than 75% of their power from nuclear like you claim, but they’re actually getting less than half from it.

          • July 2, 2019 at 2:41 pm
            Craig Cornell says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 4
            Thumb down 8

            Did you see the hysterical press playing you and everyone else for a fool? “France sees Record Temperatures!!!!!!”.

            Seriously, Rosenblatt. You’re the guy who nitpicks small details and ignores the real issues entirely. 40%? 75% Congratulations. You got me.

            Now embarrass yourself by endorsing the “hottest year ever” nonsense like you did before.

          • July 2, 2019 at 3:56 pm
            Rosenblatt says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 8
            Thumb down 2

            A *small* detail is you claiming a country gets 3/4 of their energy from nuclear when it’s not even 1/2 AND you saying there are no viable alternatives yet that same country gets 1/2 their energy from those “non-existing” viable alternatives?

            If you’d like to debate like a rational adult, simply follow my suggestion and stop misrepresenting Sweden’s dependence on nuclear power compared to alternative sources of energy.

          • July 2, 2019 at 5:34 pm
            Craig Cornell says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 6
            Thumb down 7

            I gave you the point! 40%. You win! What else do you want, a Participation Trophy?

            Now address my question: if NASA keeps revising the historical record on temperature, why should we believe the liberal media when they hysterically cite “highest on record” temps.?

            (And if NASA hasn’t settled the science, then nobody has.)

          • July 3, 2019 at 10:23 am
            Rosenblatt says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 8
            Thumb down 3

            The scientific method is iterative – at any stage it is possible to refine its accuracy and precision. Repeated studies are necessary to confirm or refute hypotheses.

            That’s just science 101 right there.

          • July 3, 2019 at 11:38 am
            Craig Cornell says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 4
            Thumb down 8

            Then why did Obama and tons of other Lefties tell us it was all “settled science” Mr. Open Minded?

            And you STILL didn’t answer the question. (But what do you expect from a liberal, honesty?)

          • July 3, 2019 at 12:19 pm
            Rosenblatt says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 8
            Thumb down 3

            I thought my answer was obvious, but I guess not.

            The scientific method is iterative – at any stage it is possible to refine its accuracy and precision. Repeated studies are necessary to confirm or refute hypotheses. We can “believe the liberal media when they hysterically cite “highest on record” temps” because the increased accuracy of historical temps does not refute the current data that still supports the Climate Change hypothesis as the recent data they cite is still the highest on record.

            As for why Obama said it was settled science, it’s probably because (1) he knew he was trying to explain something simple to people who have no understanding about even the most basic parts of the scientific method (man, I can totally relate to that). It’s a much easier concept to grasp than him making a disclaimer-based statement of “based on all the data we have collected, it is settled science right now, but because we’re talking about science and the scientific method, nothing can ever truly be settled because we’re always reviewing our hypothesis and collecting additional data which is important for the process but the likely hood of finding new evidence that refuses the hypothesis is slim to none, which may be less than 3%, but it’s science so there’s always the possibility it could change, but we’ve looked at this for so long and in many different ways, it’s pretty much settled science as much as any science can ever be considered settled”

            Also, come on Craig. You are the king of making absolute statements knowing full well it is not actually absolute. You do this for effect to simplify your argument and get your point. I presume that’s also what he was doing, and you should’ve been able to see that pretty clearly since you use the same tactic all the time.

          • July 3, 2019 at 1:09 pm
            Craig Cornell says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 4
            Thumb down 6

            From today’s Associated Press report:
            JUNE WAS EUROPE’S HOTTEST ON RECORD.

            Buried further in the report, far below where most stop reading:

            “Measurements collected by the European Union’s Copernicus satellite program revealed average temperature in June was more than 2 degrees Celsius higher than during the 30-YEAR reference period from 1981 to 2010.”

            “Geert Jan van Oldenborgh, a researcher at the Dutch meterological institue KNMI and one of the report’s authors, said factors other than climate change may be further affecting the frequency and extent of extreme temperature events.”

            OH MY GOD! A 30 year high! And it might not be from Climate Change after all. Run, liberals, run!

          • July 3, 2019 at 2:20 pm
            Rosenblatt says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 4
            Thumb down 3

            Goalpost shifting from Craig again? I’m shocked!! (end sarcasm) I don’t think you understand what “may be further affecting” means.

            Emphasis on FURTHER AFFECTING….

            It means other factors MAY BE CAUSING IT TO BE WORSE than if Climate Change was the ONLY reason it was happening.

            Here’s some more of that article for your edification:

            “World Weather Attribution group concluded that every heat wave occurring in Europe today “is made more likely and more intense by human-induced climate change.”

            “They found the extreme conditions measured during that three-day period, when a blast of hot air swept up from the Sahara Desert, are at least five times more likely now than they were around 1900, before greenhouse gas emissions from industry had a major effect on the atmosphere.”

            “Martin Hoerling, a research meteorologist at the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration who wasn’t involved in the study, said its findings were consistent with other measurements showing European summers getting hotter since the start of the 20th century.”

            So everyone quoted in that article agrees temp’s are going up since we started adding to greenhouse gases, but Climate Change is also being exacerbated by other factors.

            I do commend you for reading past the headline this time, but I do not commend you for failing to understand what “other factors may be further affecting” actually means.

          • July 3, 2019 at 4:14 pm
            Craig Cornell says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 2
            Thumb down 4

            Martin Who???? He wasn’t even involved in the study. Has he even read it? Probably not, just some reliable voice of doom for the corrupt media.

            I’ll stick with NASA, who has changed the historical temperature records since 1880 FOUR TIMES!!!!!!

            How many more changes are coming soon? AOC wants to know.

            Settled Science, folks! (but only for the weak thinkers and Religious Fanatics)

          • July 3, 2019 at 4:26 pm
            Rosenblatt says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 4
            Thumb down 3

            Umm … you do actually know about NOAA and what they do, right?

        • July 3, 2019 at 12:50 pm
          Billy says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 0
          Thumb down 0

          See if you can discern the conundrum:
          https://europe.autonews.com/automakers/swedens-ev-boom-under-threat-power-crunch

      • July 2, 2019 at 4:51 pm
        jsmooth says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 7
        Thumb down 0

        I was shocked to see this; https://www.carbonbrief.org/mapped-worlds-coal-power-plants
        You can see the existing coal plants as well as the plants being built currently. Wow. India has more coal plants than cars. lol China is right there with them, but Indonesia, North and South Korea, Japan….. Wow. It honestly does not appear as if it would make a difference if the USA gave up coal entirely. Look at the Asian region of the map. It’s absolutely covered. Europe appears to have more than the USA as well. Africa and South America seem to be the only continents without many coal plants. I never knew there were so many, or that some nations were so coal dependent. Until seeing this, I would have named the US as the leader in coal plants. Not by a long-shot.

        • July 2, 2019 at 5:35 pm
          Craig Cornell says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 3
          Thumb down 7

          Chubb won’t insure them in China or India. I’m sure THAT has them so upset in China and India. (Chubb who?)

  • July 2, 2019 at 3:28 pm
    jsmooth says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 5
    Thumb down 1

    This is sort of a non-story. When is the last time Chubb insured anything related to the coal industry? A decade? It’s funny to see folks get riled up over nothing though. Whether they said it was environment related or because Kermit the Frog told them not to insure coal doesn’t matter. They weren’t insuring it before and haven’t been insuring it in a VERY long time. It’s sort of like saying California will now arrest all drivers without licenses under the age of 10. Duh. There are no drivers under 10. Duh. Chubb wasn’t insuring, nor planning to insure, anything pertaining to coal anyway.



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*