Industry must be carbon-neutral

Industry must be carbon-neutral

Industry must be carbon-neutral

Insurance Business readers have thrown their weight behind the view that industry could best respond to climate change by becoming a carbon-neutral sector.

The industry has long pondered what more it could do to combat battle change, as Australia prepares to do battle with blazes and grapples with storm surges, and fuels the flood cover debate.

There has been a great deal of emphasis on flood cover and levy reform but the results of our poll suggest more could be done.

In an online Insurance Business poll conducted last week, we asked readers how the industry should respond to climate change. Twenty-four per cent said the industry should be carbon neutral; 18% suggested the industry harnesses a joint modelling skill, and a further 18% urged the industry to take part in climate change forums. At the lower end of the scale, 14% sided with advice on flood management and relief, 11% respectively, called for education on cutting CO2 emissions, and developing new eco-friendly products.

The Productivity Commission, in March, released its final report into climate change, in which it said insurance can help households, businesses and governments manage risk. Like the ICA, it said state taxes and levies are barriers to effectively tackling climate change, governments should not subsidise household of business property insurance, whether directly or by underwriting risks; and that the Australian Government should only proceed with reform that require all household insurers to offer flood cover if the  benefits to the community exceed the costs.

The report has been sent to Government to be decided upon.

2 Comments
  • John Curtin 14/10/2013 9:46:04 AM
    I have never read so much crap. A headline that says Industry must be carbon neutral. The majority couldn't give a bugger about a non existant problem. Beat up by scientists who are more concerned about gaining grants to feather their nests.
    If you want a clean environment then fight smog causing pollution, not spend billions of dollars that will have no effect on temperature.
    Post a reply
  • Robert Cooper 14/10/2013 11:14:46 AM
    What? "A non-existent problem"? That attitude should have died out back when John Curtin was Prime Minister. But more than that, what do you think smog causing pollution is? What do you think are the ramifications of not doing anything about reducing smog causing pollution? Why knock thousands of scientists who have higher intelligence and qualifications than the rest of us when they advise us of the consequences of not reducing smog causing pollution (another term for carbon by the way) to weather and more extreme variations around the world. Then if you are in the Insurance Industry, you might care about reducing the risk and ultimately the costs (including rising insurance premiums) for our clients. Who else do we get to advise about our environment? Scientists or your silly conservative shock jocks which the climate sceptics seem to prefer to gain their knowledge from? Setting an example as an industry by becoming carbon neutral is an excellent idea. We should be doing more listening and giving the environment the benefit of the doubt instead of simply dismissing the increasing and mounting evidence. Otherwise it will cost our industry dearly.
    Post a reply