4 ms·

The planet is heating and you’re asking how you can profit from this? Research companies and buy shares. Don’t limit your self to AC companies either, lots of

The planet is heating and you’re asking how you can profit from this? Research companies and buy shares. Don’t limit your self to AC companies either, lots of opportunities abound, look at renewable energy build out, mineral exploration. deep sea mining, and I feel like defense companies are going to see more growth too. Climate change will shrink the pie, but you can have a larger share of it.

Kye 3y ago
Considering how well someone survives the coming decades depends on how wealthy they are (more than in the past), it makes sense. It is a little callous of them, but sometimes survival and being nice are at odds.
- voisin 3y ago
  Merely surviving is different from being happy you survived. I am not sure it will feel like much of a victory when you survive to bake in intense heat every summer and breath smoke filled air, or lose your mansion to a hurricane or tornado. This whole mindset of “at least I profited” seems to rely on the notion that there is somewhere on the planet that will still be safe and enjoyable to live in as the climate apocalypse settles in. I don’t see where that is.
  - selestify 3y ago
    There may not be an enjoyable place to live on earth when the climate apocalypse hits, but at least having more money will mean less personal suffering for yourself. Given how unlikely that the world will actually get its act together to prevent such an apocalypse from happening, you might as well assume it’s going to happen anyways and prepare accordingly
  - paulcole 3y ago
    If the number of safe and enjoyable places to live approaches 0, it will be much much much better to have “at least profited” than to have not profited.
    - voisin 3y ago
      Well, I think this is the philosophy that is making the number of safe and enjoyable places to live approach zero!
- dv_dt 3y ago
  I would counter that by staying that Homo sapiens is at the top of the evolutionary success ladder because of collaboration with one another. Which means being nice to one another is the actual winning strategy.
  - Kye 3y ago
    We're in this situation because a handful of people have decided they have to own everything, and the necessary collective action to deal with it has been in short supply for all the decades we've known there was a problem. It's only now when it's almost too late that people are waking up from all the propaganda deployed to confuse the issue. I'm still doing my part by advocating for good policies and collective action, but like ActorNightly, I think it's prudent to build a boat just in case things continue to not change.
    - selestify 3y ago
      > just in case things continue to not change. Given the world’s track record in not changing for as long as the alarm has been raised, I think this is a pretty sensible approach to take. At this point, it may well be more prudent for the individual to assume that the climatepocalypse is going to happen anyways, and prepare accordingly rather than continuing to hope for futile efforts to stem the tide
    - dv_dt 3y ago
      It is certainly prudent to consider that an overall "win" over time may be decoupled from individual circumstances. If we are to overcome climate change as a earth-wide society, it will have to be through collective action of enough people forcing those in power to be "nice" - whether that will happen in a fast and large enough scale - I have my doubts about too. If we aren't systematically nice to a wider swath of people (even if in a self-interested Machevellian, The Prince kind of way), I share concerns about needing to plan for a general decline of civilization.
  - boondoggle16 3y ago
    No, no, no. Being nice to our family and kin is what made us strong. Being nice to the whole world? Not so much.
FredPret 3y ago
Profiting by fixing problems is how we fix problems. I will add that the pie has never grown faster, and shows every indication of speeding up. Major challenges like climate change (challenges to the economy, that is) look relatively minor when you compare it to past issues like WW1, WW2, possible nuclear destruction, widespread famines as recently as the 20th century; and when you also take into account that we have proven tech like nuclear and solar power and greenhouse and hydroponic farming that we can now use to tackle this issue. Climate change is an ecological catastrophe, but we'll find a way to grow wealthier with or without a thriving ecosystem.
- seizethegdgap 3y ago
  I wouldn't say that buying stock in companies that provide air conditioners to consumers fits any definition of fixing the problem of man-made climate change. In fact, wouldn't a warmer planet be better for AC businesses?
  - FredPret 3y ago
    Why not - a well-funded AC company will be more capable of meeting the challenge, and since people demand green solutions to things now, also be more able to develop more efficient climate control systems. This of course will not happen on autopilot, so investors must as always keep a close eye on the CEO and vote in shareholder meetings instead of just buying-and-forgetting. It doesn't solve climate change of course, but it does make a tiny improvement to one aspect of it. Multiply by every company touching the climate, and you can effect real change.
  - smileysteve 3y ago
    Sure it would; Air conditioner margins are based on efficiencies; and a heat pump reduces emissions from less clean heat sources. and from a more short term perspective; slowing the migration of people from warm places to another will reduce the spike of resources required to house those people.
- anigbrowl 3y ago
  Indeed. When there's only one person left alive they'll own all of humanity's wealth, making them the wealthiest person to have ever existed.
ActorNightly 3y ago
The only reason that nothing is being done is because its people are not that inconvenienced yet. Once climate changes starts affecting things, Im like 90% sure humans will figure out how to adapt.

Kye 3y ago

Considering how well someone survives the coming decades depends on how wealthy they are (more than in the past), it makes sense. It is a little callous of them, but sometimes survival and being nice are at odds.

voisin 3y ago
Merely surviving is different from being happy you survived. I am not sure it will feel like much of a victory when you survive to bake in intense heat every summer and breath smoke filled air, or lose your mansion to a hurricane or tornado. This whole mindset of “at least I profited” seems to rely on the notion that there is somewhere on the planet that will still be safe and enjoyable to live in as the climate apocalypse settles in. I don’t see where that is.
- selestify 3y ago
  There may not be an enjoyable place to live on earth when the climate apocalypse hits, but at least having more money will mean less personal suffering for yourself. Given how unlikely that the world will actually get its act together to prevent such an apocalypse from happening, you might as well assume it’s going to happen anyways and prepare accordingly
- paulcole 3y ago
  If the number of safe and enjoyable places to live approaches 0, it will be much much much better to have “at least profited” than to have not profited.
  - voisin 3y ago
    Well, I think this is the philosophy that is making the number of safe and enjoyable places to live approach zero!
dv_dt 3y ago
I would counter that by staying that Homo sapiens is at the top of the evolutionary success ladder because of collaboration with one another. Which means being nice to one another is the actual winning strategy.
- Kye 3y ago
  We're in this situation because a handful of people have decided they have to own everything, and the necessary collective action to deal with it has been in short supply for all the decades we've known there was a problem. It's only now when it's almost too late that people are waking up from all the propaganda deployed to confuse the issue. I'm still doing my part by advocating for good policies and collective action, but like ActorNightly, I think it's prudent to build a boat just in case things continue to not change.
  - selestify 3y ago
    > just in case things continue to not change. Given the world’s track record in not changing for as long as the alarm has been raised, I think this is a pretty sensible approach to take. At this point, it may well be more prudent for the individual to assume that the climatepocalypse is going to happen anyways, and prepare accordingly rather than continuing to hope for futile efforts to stem the tide
  - dv_dt 3y ago
    It is certainly prudent to consider that an overall "win" over time may be decoupled from individual circumstances. If we are to overcome climate change as a earth-wide society, it will have to be through collective action of enough people forcing those in power to be "nice" - whether that will happen in a fast and large enough scale - I have my doubts about too. If we aren't systematically nice to a wider swath of people (even if in a self-interested Machevellian, The Prince kind of way), I share concerns about needing to plan for a general decline of civilization.
- boondoggle16 3y ago
  No, no, no. Being nice to our family and kin is what made us strong. Being nice to the whole world? Not so much.

FredPret 3y ago

Profiting by fixing problems is how we fix problems. I will add that the pie has never grown faster, and shows every indication of speeding up. Major challenges like climate change (challenges to the economy, that is) look relatively minor when you compare it to past issues like WW1, WW2, possible nuclear destruction, widespread famines as recently as the 20th century; and when you also take into account that we have proven tech like nuclear and solar power and greenhouse and hydroponic farming that we can now use to tackle this issue. Climate change is an ecological catastrophe, but we'll find a way to grow wealthier with or without a thriving ecosystem.

seizethegdgap 3y ago
I wouldn't say that buying stock in companies that provide air conditioners to consumers fits any definition of fixing the problem of man-made climate change. In fact, wouldn't a warmer planet be better for AC businesses?
- FredPret 3y ago
  Why not - a well-funded AC company will be more capable of meeting the challenge, and since people demand green solutions to things now, also be more able to develop more efficient climate control systems. This of course will not happen on autopilot, so investors must as always keep a close eye on the CEO and vote in shareholder meetings instead of just buying-and-forgetting. It doesn't solve climate change of course, but it does make a tiny improvement to one aspect of it. Multiply by every company touching the climate, and you can effect real change.
- smileysteve 3y ago
  Sure it would; Air conditioner margins are based on efficiencies; and a heat pump reduces emissions from less clean heat sources. and from a more short term perspective; slowing the migration of people from warm places to another will reduce the spike of resources required to house those people.
anigbrowl 3y ago
Indeed. When there's only one person left alive they'll own all of humanity's wealth, making them the wealthiest person to have ever existed.

ActorNightly 3y ago

The only reason that nothing is being done is because its people are not that inconvenienced yet. Once climate changes starts affecting things, Im like 90% sure humans will figure out how to adapt.