Skip to comments.
The Latest: Berkshire investors reject climate change report
washingtonpost.com ^
| 4/30/2016
| unknown
Posted on 05/01/2016 7:44:23 AM PDT by rktman
Berkshire Hathaway shareholders have overwhelmingly rejected a resolution calling for the company to write a report about the risks climate change creates for its insurance companies.
CEO Warren Buffett says he agrees that dealing with climate change is important for society, but he doesnt think climate change creates serious risks for Berkshires insurance businesses.
Buffett says the fact that Berkshire generally writes insurance policies for one-year periods allows it to regularly re-evaluate risks, such as climate change.
The activists who proposed the motion tried to urge Buffett to take a public stance in favor of measures to reduce consumption of fossil fuels, but he resisted.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: berkshire; berkshirehathaway; biginsurance; buffett; climatechange; climatechangefraud; epa; globalwarming; globalwarminghoax; popefrancis; romancatholicism; stockholders; warrenbuffett
OVERWHELMINGLY REJECTED! Got that? So maybe there is hope. At least until the next shareholders meeting. Some of the "deniers" may get a "good talking to" before the next one and have their priorities uh, corrected. Yeah, that's it.
1
posted on
05/01/2016 7:44:23 AM PDT
by
rktman
To: rktman
Global Warming Insurance ?
To: butlerweave
Global warming is only for the little people.
3
posted on
05/01/2016 7:53:09 AM PDT
by
StAntKnee
(Add your own danged sarc tag)
To: rktman
It would make far more sense for them to evaluate the risks and costs associated with governmental increase in taxes and regulations based on whipping up global warming fears.
Government shutting down coal mining is a far greater investment risk to Buffet than an increase in global temperature of 0.1°.
4
posted on
05/01/2016 7:54:00 AM PDT
by
KarlInOhio
(An orange jumpsuit is the new black pantsuit.)
To: butlerweave
I have to pay for terrorism insurance on my business policy.
To: butlerweave
Hey, seems like a pretty good scam with millions of potential customers plus it is endorsed by the elites with no down side for the insurance company.
A win-win.
Then again, every natural disaster is caused by AGW.
6
posted on
05/01/2016 8:05:40 AM PDT
by
dhs12345
Comment #7 Removed by Moderator
To: KarlInOhio
You thinkin’ choo choo trains transporting coal and oil? Yeah, that could hurt the bottom line with a push to phase out the cheapest(?) fuel sources we have.
8
posted on
05/01/2016 8:18:23 AM PDT
by
rktman
(Enlisted in the Navy in '67 to protect folks rights to strip my rights. WTH?!)
To: rktman
Insurance companies adjust to threats and always have.
When mold became known as a major health issue, insurance companies excluded it from coverage.
Ling-term imaginary weather conditions don’t affect annually written policies unless those conditions are ignored for long periods.
9
posted on
05/01/2016 9:12:59 AM PDT
by
SaxxonWoods
(Ride To The Sound Of The Guns.)
To: SaxxonWoods
Whatever happened to the Ozone Hole that the Acid- Rain fell through?
10
posted on
05/01/2016 11:01:41 AM PDT
by
gigster
(Cogito, Ergo, Ronaldus Magnus Conservatus)
To: gigster
The ozone hole returned bigger than ever. Seems as if the apes eating banana, while swinging from tree branch to tree branch, had absolutely nothing at all to do with the ozone hole. NASA knows this now and refuses to admit its mistake.
11
posted on
05/01/2016 1:25:28 PM PDT
by
justa-hairyape
(The user name is sarcastic. Although at times it may not appear that way.)
To: rktman; 11B40; A Balrog of Morgoth; A message; ACelt; Aeronaut; AFPhys; AlexW; alrea; ...
To: KarlInOhio
Somebody at or published by the Cato institute actually proposed a private program of insurance against acts of government. It seems like a sensible thing to do nowadays.
To: rktman
Warren the hypocrite stays the course of hypocrisy. Lol.
14
posted on
05/02/2016 4:09:33 PM PDT
by
jwalsh07
To: rktman
I'll bet the SEC or some other regulatory body over publicly traded companies will ultimately start requiring climate change mitigation activities as a condition of listing.
15
posted on
05/02/2016 4:17:53 PM PDT
by
Truth29
To: rktman
16
posted on
05/02/2016 4:26:40 PM PDT
by
PROCON
To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
To: Truth29
Some companies already require their suppliers to provide climate change mitigation documentation. So sad that these people have bought the lie hook line and sinker.
18
posted on
05/02/2016 6:17:44 PM PDT
by
rktman
(Enlisted in the Navy in '67 to protect folks rights to strip my rights. WTH?!)
To: AdmSmith; AnonymousConservative; Berosus; Bockscar; cardinal4; ColdOne; Convert from ECUSA; ...
19
posted on
05/03/2016 4:35:15 AM PDT
by
SunkenCiv
(Here's to the day the forensics people scrape what's left of Putin off the ceiling of his limo.)
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson