Insurance is a sensible device for managing risk. We use it everyday for peace of mind and dealing with unforeseeable and catastrophic events. The premiums we pay are based on very well researched information. The competitive market requires car insurers for example to know a great deal about various models of car, which ones are susceptible to theft, cost of repairs and much more.
It would be unthinkable to have annual premiums where the cost exceeded the amount agreed to be paid out. Or would it? President Obama thinks its OK.
In a recent speech to the military he outlined his plans for reducing CO2. His aim is an 80% reduction in emissions by 2050. The costs of achieving this are horrendous, even if you use the most optimistic calculations. One government-based assessment has it at US$13,000 trillion – whatever that amount is. Reality says it is impossible to even hazard a guess that is going to come in close. We know from Germany’s very short flirtation with renewable energy, that electricity consumers there are now paying three times more than they were. The USA situation is potentially much worse, because of their greater dependence on fossil fuels. And that’s just one aspect of the cost. An even greater cost is the loss of food production to ethanol production. Who really cares though about starvation in Haiti or Sudan? Certainly not the well-fed, cosseted, do-gooder alarmists. The US Navy has already calculated that biofuels will cost more than four times their present fuel budget.
The proponents of “doing something” are not concerned about the cost. They argue any cost can be justified. Read more »