Semi-Hemi-Demigod ( @Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social ) 10•9 months agoGood I hate the economy.
ComradeKhoumrag ( @ComradeKhoumrag@infosec.pub ) 2•9 months agoI think you’re conflating the economy with the financial market.
From an economic standpoint, we objectively are fucking up our system of resources with greenhouse gasses and other anti environmental policy.
From a financial standpoint, selling oil makes money.
Minarble ( @Minarble@aussie.zone ) 6•9 months agoThis is probably why the Australian government won’t release the climate threat report.
Stone cold actuarial analysis predicting devastating results.
It would literally panic the population.
Tropical Asia uninhabitable is not good for the economy. Like at all.
Nor is 60-80 million climate refugees controllable with “tough border policies”
NotAPenguin ( @NotAPenguin@kbin.social ) 3•9 months agoIt should panic the population
Minarble ( @Minarble@aussie.zone ) 2•9 months agoAye.
I read the actual report, well worth looking at.
Very sobering when you see actuaries - the dry math types that make accountants look like party animals state:
… at what point do we expect 50% GDP destruction – somewhere between 2070 and 2090 depending on how you parameterise the distribution.
quicklime ( @quicklime@lemm.ee ) 2•9 months agoEven just the small part of the disaster that falls under the heading of sea level rise would be just a little bad for trillions in current real estate valuation. And then there’s what true risk valuation in river flood plains and wildfire risk zones would do. And then…
query ( @query@beehaw.org ) English4•9 months agoDestruction is easier than construction, that’s physics.
Which makes it always cheaper to prevent and not do the destruction in the first place, but we’re going to keep polluting until we can pollute no more except we’ll always be able to pollute more, because it’s easy. The consequences aren’t.
Article is probably a bit sensacionary but link to the publication is in the first paragraph