Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How Big Business Is Hedging Against the Apocalypse

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 68 posts

Re: How Big Business Is Hedging Against the Apocalypse

#41

Post by gridlockd »

1e-9 wrote: post #20

The title is misleading as the article doesn't really describe hedging. It gives examples of various individuals and groups who are placing increasing value on technologies and resources related to global warming. Their investments naturally reflect their assessments, which is actually a good thing. If global warming is happening, then price adjustments are needed to encourage conservation, the search for alternative…

Global warming itself is an externality, it's not priced by the market. If you buy into solar for example, you profit from the energy it produces (which is disjoint from global warming) and/or from the price put on global warming by a government. The developments are absolutely dependent on the ongoing doomsday hype (the world ends in 12 years you guys!), not global warming itself.

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.

Re: How Big Business Is Hedging Against the Apocalypse

#42

Post by gridlockd »

aetherson wrote: post #36
eanzenberg wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Explain why?

The thought is that rising sea levels and/or hurricanes will doom them.

Which is a ridiculous thought. Sea levels are going to rise in the span of hundreds of years. You can move the whole city in that time span.

Cities aren't just a collection of buildings. They're like your grandfather's axe.

Re: How Big Business Is Hedging Against the Apocalypse

#43

Post by baroffoos »

massivecali wrote: post #40
blackoil wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And, 1st world countries dump their trash in 3rd world countries. Also, they ignore that there 1st world status is fueled by unsustainable development over last couple of centuries.

What third world company do we dump our trash in? AFAIK we sell it to them.

Recently these countries have blocked the import of the trash because it absolutely destroys these countries. The "recycling" companies buy in mountains of trash, pick out a few bits that are profitable and dump the rest somewhere. Currently only a tiny part of recyclables actually gets recycled or downcycled because the rest is cheaper to pull fresh resources out of the ground.

Re: How Big Business Is Hedging Against the Apocalypse

#44

Post by baroffoos »

massysett wrote: post #39
PeterisP wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, no, the impact of consumerism is not the same everywhere - the first world has much more consumerism, but less environmental impact due to higher standards and regulations. 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 beca…

The first world’s consumer goods come from the third world, and the first world trash gets “recycled” in the third world. First world is just exporting its environmental damage to the third world—and does it in a way that makes it look like it’s the third world’s fault.

Its also typical to look at a first world country with a low population and say they aren't the problem because india and china pollute way more without thinking about the fact that india and china pollute far far less per person than the people in first world countries.

Re: How Big Business Is Hedging Against the Apocalypse

#45

Post by selimthegrim »

Animats wrote: post #23

How do I short Miami and New Orleans on a scale of 30 years?

New Orleans has enough vital infrastructure that it isn’t going anywhere. As for Miami, maybe short some REITs based around there or whatever art you think cartel people like to launder money with when they’re done with the banks

Re: How Big Business Is Hedging Against the Apocalypse

#46

Post by 1e-9 »

gridlockd wrote: post #41
1e-9 wrote: post #20

The title is misleading as the article doesn't really describe hedging. It gives examples of various individuals and groups who are placing increasing value on technologies and resources related to global warming. Their investments naturally reflect their assessments, which is actually a good thing. If global warming is happening, then price adjustments are needed to encourage conservation, the search for alternative…

Global warming itself is an externality, it's not priced by the market. If you buy into solar for example, you profit from the energy it produces (which is disjoint from global warming) and/or from the price put on global warming by a government. The developments are absolutely dependent on the ongoing doomsday hype (the world ends in 12 years you guys!), not global warming itself. The only thing that I can see the m…

There is an enormous number of portfolios that can be constructed to be highly profitable if global warming becomes more widely accepted. There is no need for an actual apocalypse to occur. There just needs to be an increasing awareness that continuing on our current emissions path will lead to disaster if allowed to continue. Those who accept this hypothesis, and invest accordingly, will be helping to avoid an apocalypse. They are the ones who will help drive down the value of things that contribute to global warming, while driving up the value of things needed to combat it. If we are lucky, this process will play out quickly enough that we can avoid irreversible destruction of our environment. Governments could dramatically accelerate the needed changes through appropriate incentives/penalties to make long-term improvements/harms more profitable/unprofitable in the near-term.

Re: How Big Business Is Hedging Against the Apocalypse

#47

Post by WaltPurvis »

gridlockd wrote: post #42
aetherson wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thought is that rising sea levels and/or hurricanes will doom them.

Which is a ridiculous thought. Sea levels are going to rise in the span of hundreds of years . You can move the whole city in that time span. Cities aren't just a collection of buildings. They're like your grandfather's axe.

You might be a little quick with your cavalier dismissal.

https://www.businessinsider.com/miami-floods-sea-level-rise-...

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.

Re: How Big Business Is Hedging Against the Apocalypse

#48

Post by ahnick »

gridlockd wrote: post #42
aetherson wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thought is that rising sea levels and/or hurricanes will doom them.

Which is a ridiculous thought. Sea levels are going to rise in the span of hundreds of years . You can move the whole city in that time span. Cities aren't just a collection of buildings. They're like your grandfather's axe.

hundreds of years? No, by 2050 Miami will be uninhabitable. (https://www.miaminewtimes.com/news/united-nations-climate-re...) Rate of sea level rise is accelerating. (https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2680/new-study-finds-sea-level...) It is not a linear growth curve. Miami is a city scale game of musical chairs. The question is who will be left holding the land when there are no buyers?

Re: How Big Business Is Hedging Against the Apocalypse

#49

Post by dmak »

781 wrote: post #31
Animats wrote: post #23

How do I short Miami and New Orleans on a scale of 30 years?

You make a very big assumption - that people don't care about Miami, a city with global name recognition and so on... 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".

You say that as if Miami's current popularity will preserve through global climate change. I don't think Miami can "defend" against the earth's inevitable climate change for better or worse.

Re: How Big Business Is Hedging Against the Apocalypse

#50

Post by rohit2412 »

massivecali wrote: post #40
blackoil wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And, 1st world countries dump their trash in 3rd world countries. Also, they ignore that there 1st world status is fueled by unsustainable development over last couple of centuries.

What third world company do we dump our trash in? AFAIK we sell it to them.

Yes, not only the western countries dump it in developing countries, they get money for it.
Post reply on HN