I think I might have asked this before here: what are investments one can make to take advantage of climate change. So many people have their heads on the sand. That's usually a great opportunity to profit. Land and real estate in colder climates is a obvious one, but it's hard to spread your risk with that unless you have a ton of money and can buy in a variety of locals. What's the big short of climate change?

EDIT: Some more thoughts:

1. Shorting companies that primarily exist or do business in locations that will be super fucked by this. What's those? Saudi companies? Companies located in flat island states? Agriculture companies located in countries where agriculture will be impossible. Where would that be?

2. Buying stock of companies likely to profit. What would those be and how do I know they have a moat protecting them from companies that used to be in now uninhabitable areas from jumping into their market? E.g: If I invest in agricultural companies in Greenland, what protects them from being pushed out by Spanish agricultural companies that buy up land in Greenland? That would especially suck if I shorted the Spanish companies...

I'm pretty sure just surviving will be the "big short".

There's no point buying land or other investments in remote locations. When the shit hits the fan you won't have financial or physical access to them.

Better to focus on building a robust community around you which can weather strife, in a locale that is predicted to remain habitable.

Come on, Gordon Gecko.

What makes you think that making money off climate change is a thing?

Will the world monetary system even hold up if those of us that remain alive have moved into shelter bunkers, where we grow our food hydroponically, tend to our desalination plants and generally hunker down?

If everyone is carrying weapons to protect their stuff and take other people's stuff, will your well-stuffed bank account do you any good at all?

Regarding 2:

- Companies that work on climate cooling solutions, e.g. carbon capture from air, cow fart capture (cows are a big source of methane).

- Companies that produce devices that reduce/filter emissions.

- Companies that produce (components of) renewable energy devices, e.g. solar cells, wind turbines. Once the first climate catastrophies strike repeatedly and the severity of the situation sinks in, politicians (at least in Europe) will go full throttle on renewable energy and sack fossil fuels, lost jobs be damned.

- Companies that genetically engineer crops/animals/food because they are the ones most likely to create adapted organisms for harsh environments.

Regarding 1:

On YouTube some big oil company had an ad campaign that showed them as the renewable energy leader of tomorrow. All white, clean, green. The oil companies knew about climate change since at least the 1970s. They will turn their back on oil when there is no profit to be made anymore but they won’t die, they will adapt and are already beginning. Shorting them is not a good idea.

I would think any investment that is significantly impacted by the effects of climate change would be your first sign that the economic system upon which your investments rely is soon to collapse.

In short, I advise ammunition and canned goods.

Amusingly enough, renewable power operators would be a good bet. If Global trade collapsed then they'll have an enormous advantage over fossil fuels because they don't have to import coal/oil/gas from across the globe.

> If I invest in agricultural companies in Greenland, what protects them from being pushed out by Spanish agricultural companies that buy up land in Greenland? That would especially suck if I shorted the Spanish companies.

If the world get's messed up enough that Greenland becomes an important source of agriculture then you'll want all your investments to be local.

I'm not convinced that there will be political structures to enforce the ownership of your investments due to the aforementioned global collapse. But I guess investing is better than doing nothing.

I think OP is thinking more about personal survival rather than how to profit from an extinction level event....

Seems so, but if the lemons are getting crushed through small fault of your own, does it hurt to make lemonade? It's an interesting discussion regardless.

I don't know if we'll see an entire global collapse, but I think we'll see a lot of displacement that stresses communities already overly sensitive to migration. Not to mention the likely deadly impact on many people.

That, to me, should be reason enough to act rather than ignore as impacting only "those people over there".

>if the lemons are getting crushed through small fault of your own, does it hurt to make lemonade?

If the things being crushed are what you need for basic survival, yeah sitting there with a lemonade stand is pretty stupid.

I think you misunderstand my comment.

Let's say you're doing your part, to some reasonable extent. But you only have one vote and the broader population votes for people that steer the country or world in less effective ways. The planet is going to warm despite your best efforts. Does buying cold-climate land that will become more suitable for farming food in the future worsen the situation or indirectly make lemonade from the sour situation?

Years ago, when I moved to a location at 5000 ft above sea level, I had the idea to buy air conditioner company stock but it turned out they are made by diversified conglomerates for which that individual business wouldn't move the needle.

Coffins.

Check out the book: windfall by mckenzie funk

Complete global collapse 10-20 years from now, i.e. 2027-2037?

Do you have any articles or books about that? I've been fairly pessimistic, but I hadn't read anything predicting collapse that soon.

Predictions of imminent collapse are being made all the time. The reason you don't see them is you don't look in the places they are being made, and they don't receive media coverage. Because they are indistinguishable from eye-twitch crazy.

In the same way that warnings about bigger conspiracies look increasingly crazy, warnings about more imminent collapse get lost in the sea of other 'mental' predictions.

Even if you do go looking for such predictions, distinguishing them from the crazy stuff that surrounds them is not easy. They would look exactly like the noise that surrounds them. Plus, in such forums, a medium-term collapse production based around something so mundane as climate change is passé.

Specific timelines are both hard to predict and kookbait.

Dig at the limits and collapse lit and you'll find qite the range of plausible estimates, ranging from 20 years ago to millions of years from now.

Far more useful is understanding methodologies and rationales. Those, if sound, offer more useful guidance.

The collapse will be caused by the realization of what is coming rather than global warming itself. Everyone still has their heads in the sand but once people start waking up it will cause panic.

That's possible. I've suspected the death of cities such as Miami will come not from a storm, but rather from loss of insurance on buildings as people realize what the next big storm will do (in 20 years or so)

I'm not sure that's the scenario the OP had in mind though. A realization of crisis could also have the opposite effect. I think our main problem now is that we're not panicking enough. Humans tend to do decently well in crises, often the only time we solve certain problems.

Then how am I going to create the next greatest social media platform is everyone is dead in 10-20 years?

At least that’s the scaling problem solved.