JP Morgan economists warn climate crisis is threat to human race

[kccqzy]

Not just JP Morgan, but plenty of economists and even fund managers and traders know of this threat. Here's another example: https://www.barrons.com/articles/jeremy-grantham-called-the-...

The problem has never been whether most people believe in climate change and its damaging effects. The problem has always been politics.

[chiefalchemist]

A few weeks ago I read Naomi Klein's "This Changes Everything." She specifically mentions how the bailout - after the 2008 crash - was a missed opportunity; that WS' behavior could been nudged or more. Given what was at risk, it's difficult to disagree.

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/sep/22/this-changes-e...

[Melting_Harps]

> I read Naomi Klein's "This Changes Everything.

The The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism is another insightful book of hers, I highly recommend it, it was written in 2008 as the financial crisis happened: https://www.amazon.com/Shock-Doctrine-Rise-Disaster-Capitali...

[nwsm]

Duplicate

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22386096

[narrator]

"FIRM ACTS AS A PLACEMENT AGENT IN THE IFC’S $152 MILLION BOND TO PROTECT FORESTS AND DEEPEN CARBON-CREDIT MARKETS"

https://www.jpmorgan.com/country/US/en/detail/1320553563765

[eganist]

Much as pointing out potential conflicts is always helpful, it's worth noting that most companies won't dive into a market unless upside exists.

In this case, looks like JPM is betting that the world will get a hold of itself, which would make this product a bit more... productive.

[_bxg1]

In all the distrust and misinformation out there around this subject, it's refreshing whenever I see finance people talk in these terms. They are pragmatic to a fault, and wouldn't make statements like these lightly.

[Melting_Harps]

> They are pragmatic to a fault, and wouldn't make statements like these lightly.

The situation is dire, but lets not discount these are the very same people responsible for the derivatives scandal that plunged the global economy into disrepute, and profited very handsomely from it with bail outs and bonuses for their utter failure to exercise sound financial behaviour. So lets not place the very same people capable of creating their own catastrophic global crisis on pedestals.

With that said, consider how big their carbon footprint is in just the creation, maintenance and upkeep of their legacy system, which really only 'works' 5 days out of the week.

If they want to be taken serious, knowing they will never correct the malfeasance they call a business model, they should give little to no interest loans on startups and small businesses that help offset global climate change.

They won't and instead you'll see Jamie Diamond on TV alongside Blankfiend et al at Davos making these empty latitudes without so much as hesitating when they board their private jets whilst eating exotic food and drinks procured from all over the World.

Pragmatists? Hardly, opportunistic parasites willing to cling onto whatever narrative suits them, of course.

[animalnewbie]

(Some, usually the loudest) are greedy to a fault and would bet their own mother (hyperbole, but you get the point) for six figures.

[jedmeyers]

Those things from big banks always remind me of the quote from Big Short: "Yeah, I think you mean that you've secured a net short position yourselves. So you're free to mark my swaps accurately for once because it's now in your interest to do so."

[eximius]

Oh, humans, as a species, will survive. I don't think the race is in danger of dying out.

Our way of life? Billions of lives? Yea, those are in danger.

[triceratops]

There were a lot fewer of them. Life expectancy and standards of living were way lower. Stone age tech meant they couldn't kill each other as efficiently in war over declining resources.