The very notion that markets are pricing anything realistically is laughable. Look at Microsoft. Now look at $3.7 trillion dollars. Which would you rather have?
this post was submitted on 08 Sep 2026
68 points (100.0% liked)
Climate
8979 readers
175 users here now
Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.
As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades:
How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:
Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:
Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Fortune 500 companies ignore many of their negative externalities to avoid negative impacts to their stock prices.
Top capitalist group finds capitalism inadequate for long-term human survival.
Top capitalist group doubles down.
Here in Australia climate risks are absolutely priced in. You should see how much it costs to insure houses now. Something like 25% of home owners in some regions cant afford home insurance now.
I would say that the insurance industry is at the forefront of pricing this stuff in because they have been directly feeling the effects of it for a while now. Most other industries that are not directly affected right now are likely lagging way behind.
https://lemmy.world/c/uninsurable
Uninsurable will be the key phrase.
FYI, you can link communities so that they will point to the local copy on each person's native Lemmy instance like this:
“It’s not priced in by the markets,” BlackRock’s Louise Kooy-Henckel said at an event in Hong Kong on Monday. “But it is potentially also the chronic risks where institutional capital can come in because of the investment horizon.”
Does institutional capital price in the risk of scenarios in which the institutions cease to exist?