The only thing that I can see the market re-pricing in regards to global warming is land, i.e. you could buy some land in Siberia now because it will be livable in the future. However, that future is so far away it doesn't make sense to buy in this lifetime. Furthermore you could be shorting any business that depends on a stable climate.
Scientists employed by the US government leaked drafts of a climate change report out of fear of White House interference.
There is no hedge against the apocalypse. But some people will create enormous shareholder value during the runup.
Good. Let their money burn.
>Let their money burn.
Unfortunately, it will not be just "their money" if the economy has a hard time weaning itself off oil and gas. It will be everybody's money, and lifestyle.
I also assume you are not on Instagram, where Miami is huge - it's the 6th global instagrammed city, second US one (London, NY, Paris, Dubai, Istanbul, Miami, LA) - https://www.statista.com/statistics/655550/most-hashtagged-c...
Instead of shorting it you might want to long "defending it".
The only thing that may help is quickly lowering CO2 emissions worldwide. I think no amount of care, willpower or even unlimited amounts of federal money can save Miami otherwise.
Cities aren't just a collection of buildings. They're like your grandfather's axe.
Miami is already being impacted by sea level rise. It is not ridiculous, at all, to think that in <30 years areas of Miami will be uninsurable, and therefore unmortgageable, and the water supply for the entire area will be threatened.
""thermal expansion" of the ocean has contributed about half of the 2.8 inches (7 centimeters) of global mean sea level rise we've seen over the last 25 years, Nerem said. Second, melting land ice flows into the ocean, also increasing sea level across the globe."
The state of journalism today. Even the august NYT can't afford fact checkers or editors any more.
All the while the amoral(note I'm not saying immoral) players in finance and industry(ie smart money) continue to clean house. And at the end of the day it's really not their priority to look out for the environment (nor is it even desirable to have environmental protection and regulations handled by industry).
And so 150 years from now when we're in the Mad max future the compassionate people will get to look back and say "i told you capitalism would destroy the world" while failing to see that it was their responsibility to play the game to make it better.
That implies there are other buyers who are happy to pay money to take it, doesn't it? That doesn't seem to be happening though:
I suppose some countries agree to take the trash in return for some kind of economic favor from the US?
In many senses having an unpolluted local environment is a luxury good that many poorer communities "don't purchase" - i.e. a richer community would choose cleaner air while a poorer community would choose less restrictions on factories because they need these jobs; a richer community would implement proper wastewater treatment because they can afford to divert their resources to that infrastructure, while a poorer community would do without because they choose to spend their resources on more important things they're lacking.
Disaster capitalism at its finest. So the future in fact does look bright for profiting off the collapse where there will be another huge transfer of wealth to those with lots of capital laying around... from those who actually own productive assets and manage them.
I think you’re right. Progress is a marathon, every minute, every day. And it’s slow.