(no title)
yupitsme123 | 7 months ago
Wouldn't it be more profitable to exaggerate the issue so you can milk it?
Stonewalling against saving the planet seems like the least profitable course of action, especially since morals are irrelevant.
yupitsme123 | 7 months ago
Wouldn't it be more profitable to exaggerate the issue so you can milk it?
Stonewalling against saving the planet seems like the least profitable course of action, especially since morals are irrelevant.
AlecSchueler|7 months ago
Not in the short to medium timeframes we're talking about, no. Certainly it doesn't make sense in a long-term perspective to make investments that will immediately pay great and continue to do so for a century and then collapse society itself. But one's lifespan is shorter than a century, so it makes more sense to do that than to make investments which won't start paying out until you're retired or dying. Especially when it's not so much your personal choice as it is the choice of shareholders looking at year on year reports.
But if you believe otherwise then I certainly encourage you to start investing.
jhanschoo|7 months ago
Profitable for what entity? You need to find an entity that agrees with itself enough to have a notion of revenue that is hurt by deteriorating climate, and that has the means to "solve the issue" in an economical way.
The case against is obvious: the energy industry has a clear notion of revenue that is hurt by climate actions, and it has the means to combat it by political capture; whole countries are created and destroyed for oil.