h a l f b a k e r yI like this idea, only I think it should be run by the government.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
This pair of stock indices/other investment vehicles would allow an investor to bet with or against anthropogenic global warming. One would include stocks, bonds, and futures expected to rise if there is instability in countries expected to get warmer, increasing climate destabilization, better farming
in more northern areas of the world, worse farming in southern areas, insurance companies which hedge strongly against coastal erosion/hurricane damage/sea level rise risk, and all the like. The other set of vehicles would favor oceanfront property, land in low-lying areas, bets on the economies of countries predicted to be warming past the point of habitability, and so forth.
These indexes would be changed over time to adjust for reactions to predictions of global warming. Strong reactions (such as laws against coal power and gasoline engines) would lead the AGW set to be more bullish and vice versa.
Thus it is possible for people predicting one or the other set of consequences to publicly put their money where their mouths are.
https://condenastst...royed-tom-toro.html
[pocmloc, Nov 19 2022]
Thoughts on how much nuclear reactor fuel we have.
https://www.scienti...nium-deposits-last/
[doctorremulac3, Nov 20 2022]
Why would anybody get on an airplane today?
https://www.thought...plane-crash-1779178
Look how dangerous these things are! And you want me to get on a Boeing 777 with my whole family and fly across the ocean in one of these crazy airplane things? [doctorremulac3, Nov 20 2022]
How to say 'Life is meaningless and we're all gonna die' in Polish
https://www.youtube...watch?v=JW50-YruRuA
[Voice, Nov 25 2022]
[link]
|
| |
Never bet against the man! |
|
| |
Betting on the future is different then betting to change the future, or vehicles that are attempting to change the future. So investing in solar power is different then investing in beachfront property in the pacific. Which means this idea is supporting opportunists in both directions. Who will win? High risk high reward, vs low risk lower reward. Always a battle. I like the heartlessness of it. I give it [+]. |
|
| |
(the subtitle to this idea is: we aren't all going to die, and i will die filthy rich) |
|
| |
[Spoiler warning] everyone dies in the end |
|
| |
Self-negating prophecy this. Too much money goes to ocean front property and coal and we're all fucked. |
|
| |
Having fun with the existential threat of global warming is disrespectful of scientific authority, our globalist protectors and our elites investing billions in beach front property that'll be under water in 6, 7 months tops. [+] |
|
| |
And while we're at it, let's thank the Hollywood scientist behind the anti nuclear movement of the 70s that got us back to using coal for a main power source. Coal is natural, and if it's natural, it's good. Yes, it puts more radiation into the atmosphere than Chernoble, but it's natural radiation. Good clean, natural radiation and good clean elements from mother Earth like mercury, lead, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides. |
|
| |
//investing billions in beach front property// |
|
| |
I think that, if you have a billion dollars, then spending, say, ten million of that on a beach-front house is consumption, not investment; if it becomes uninhabitable after ten years, then you've enjoyed ten years of living at the beach, and it only cost you 1% of your capital, so you don't care. |
|
| |
Therefore, it's not a good indicator of the buyer's real opinion about climate change. |
|
| |
Well, at least you agree with the pro-coal rant. |
|
| |
arguably, not knowing what we're doing, we've managed to get the world to warm. |
|
| |
but, the argument goes, knowing what we're doing, we are helpless 50 to 100 years out. |
|
| |
My opinion is we've brought this on ourselves by not using clean sources of power that we've had for decades. The anti-nuclear movement has done more to cause global warming that any other political group in history. |
|
| |
My tinfoil hat conspiracy theory is that it was funded by the coal and oil industries. Chance of that being true? Mmmm, 1, 2% maybe? |
|
| |
Remember, tinfoil hat conspiracy theories only have to do two things: 1- Be somewhat interesting and 2- Cause people to become outraged. |
|
| |
the argument about sea level rise cannot -- by definition -- take into account, say, sustainable fusion reactors going online in like 2060 -- as just one example of a complete bend in fossil fuel burn. Nor does it take into account ice mining -- my favorite solution :) |
|
| |
Love the idea of fusion of course, but I'm not seeing how it's sustained. We use mass for the sun and fission bombs for hydrogen bombs and lasers but I still don't understand what the plan is to squeeze those nasty little particles together on a net energy producing scale. Doesn't mean it can't be done, just means I don't understand it. |
|
| |
That being said, we figure that out, that's the biggest breakthrough in science since science. |
|
| |
well, then there' always ice mining. |
|
| |
Not familiar, what's that? |
|
| |
Good luck predicting specific consequences for either worldview. |
|
| |
I have Ideas about // conspiracy theories // which this margin is too narrow to contain. |
|
| |
That brings up a good point, is there utility in pondering this too much one way or another? |
|
| |
Nobody serious doubts that SOMEDAY we'll run out of fossil fuels. I've heard theories but let's assume it's a finite resource. I would propose we expand into OTHER finite resources like the uranium and plutonium used in fission reactors regardless of what I'll call "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" debates. |
|
| |
Let's say coal pollution is the greatest thing in the world, fine. We still need to expand our energy production resources into STABLE power producing elements like nuclear power plants. Is coal going to kill us all in 3 days? Fine, in that case, we need to expand our energy productions resources into STABLE power producing elements like nuclear power plants. |
|
| |
I see that the political element seems to be fading from this discussion, thank god. Supposedly Greta Thunberg, the teenage spiritual leader of the left has even come on board with supporting nuclear and I applaud her for that. |
|
| |
As far as the safety debate, how many decades did France get MOST of its power from nuclear with no incidents? When I'm hit with the Chernoble argument, an ancient crappy design run by an ancient crappy political system (Communism) I point out the linked picture and say "Why would anybody get on a airliner? Airplanes are clearly incredibly dangerous." Then I let them make the argument about old unsafe technology vs new safe technology. I make sure to look confused and stupid as they explain, (which is all many debaters are hoping to achieve anyway.) I just close with "Hmm, guess I've got a lot to think about." |
|
| |
Ice mining is probably another way of saying "let's open the refrigerator to cool down this room" |
|
| |
Now I really wanna know what ice mining is. |
|
| |
Is this a trick? If it is it worked. I must know about ice mining now. |
|
| |
ice mining is mining the ice. |
|
| |
Like the way we strip mine mountains to get minerals and metals? |
|
| |
I'm assuming at least the Greenland ice is amenable, granted the Antarctic ice might be harder, but perhaps just towing the icebergs. |
|
| |
In any case, I'm not seeing anything about the problem that's not fixable in some horrible steampunk fashion. |
|
| |
We don't have to let the ice melt into the ocean |
|
| |
I mean, we have horizontal drilling. We can't have a pipeline, say, between the Med and, say, the Dead Sea -- which incidentally, is drying -- and take those millimeters of rising sea levels back down to the lowest point on the planet? Generate some serious hydro along the way, and if the holy land floods, it's not as if they've not been asking for it since Noah's time. |
|
| |
These are all things within the realm of what was possible even in Victorian times, much less now, and obviously, much less than what will be possible by 2050, or one of their magic end dates. |
|
| |
You won't drown, and your kids and grandkids won't drown, I promise. |
|
| |
That's the kind of thinking we need more of. |
|
| |
If you dig too deep you go through the bottom and the oceans drain away. Might cause other problems. |
|
| |
//Doubtful// Dangerously over-confident. |
|
| |