Back

@aspensmonster @Rex_Tail how about we ban the things that harm us before the things that we can use to repair the harm. Like as long as we're making climate change/human health worse we need more insurance options not fewer. If we ban everything that makes us or the climate worse off for profit, I'm fine with then banning for profit insurance.

@thesquirrelfish @Rex_Tail If you're concerned with climate change, then you should *definitely* be against for-profit insurance. If meaningfully addressing climate change and remediating its damages is the goal, then there should be only one, state-funded insurance fund, not dozens of privateers all gunning for their own profit first and for covering their customers second. If insurance is the tool for remediating climate change damage, then that tool should be universal, in the same way that healthcare is universal.

@aspensmonster @Rex_Tail sure in the world where healthcare is universal. In this world insurance companies have been funders of climate change education and lobbying to prevent climate change since at least the 90s. The state provides drivers who are so bad they're uninsurable with licenses, the same thing with houses built in flood zones & fire zones - state funded insurance (& so called protections) exacerbate climate problems. Greenfield developments that should not be built in fire zones with supercommutes further destroying the environment are only possible because of state insurance programs & regs that prevent for profit insurance companies from denying them insurance.

@aspensmonster @Rex_Tail and insurance for people in sustainable dense climate friendly locations is higher to subsidize the cheaper insurance for unsustainable exurbs and suburbs :(

@thesquirrelfish @Rex_Tail The state, at present, serves the ruling capitalist class at the expense of the working class. I am not proposing that we merely have such a state subsidize a for-profit insurer or mandate coverage. That leads to the very problems you recognize, as different capitalists vie for favorable conditions to externalize as many costs as they can and internalize as much profit as they can.

I am proposing that we dismantle capitalism intentionally, and engage in socialist reconstruction, building a government that serves that working class at the expense of the capitalist class. It is not "the state" exacerbating climate change; it is *capitalism*. And climate change will not be addressed until capitalism falls.

@aspensmonster
It is both the state & capitalism exacerbating climate change. There is active popular demand for climate destructive choices like single family homes, cars, flying, cheap industrial food. Eliminating capitalist industries like advertising which help to generate demand would absolutely help, but a switch to socialism doesn't help if people still think it's desirable to drive every day, eat meat in every meal, fly for every vacation, etc. State produced cars, state owned oil companies etc are still bad for climate. The demand won't magically disappear if it's no longer profitable.