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.
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?
- 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.
In short, I advise ammunition and canned goods.
> 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 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 things being crushed are what you need for basic survival, yeah sitting there with a lemonade stand is pretty stupid.
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?
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...