• ComradeKhoumrag@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      I 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.

    • neanderthal@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      No, you really don’t. You may hate how the current economy functions, which is fair. Any system where people barter, use currency, or even a pure centrally planned communist system is an economy.

      I.e. unless you live off the land, the economy is how you keep food in the table.

  • Minarble@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    1 year ago

    This 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”

      • Minarble@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Aye.

        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@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Even 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@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Destruction 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.

  • anzich@feddit.deOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Article is probably a bit sensacionary but link to the publication is in the first paragraph