“If the future remembers any corporate villain from 2022, it will be Stuart Kirk. The satirically titled head of ‘responsible investment’ at HSBC

‘There’s always some nut job telling me about the end of the world,’ he told the Financial Times’s Moral Money conference – and I haven’t made that title up either. ‘Who cares if Miami is six metres underwater in 100 years? Amsterdam has been six metres underwater for ages and that’s a really nice place.’“

· · Web · 5 · 11 · 5

@aral Another article proving my point about the inevitable death of mankind.

@aral rising seas with no life in them.

Specious arguments that hone in on minutiae should demonstrate that this plonker isn’t an authority, but with platforms amplifying the message, it does measurable harm.

More regulation has to be the result. Platforms need to be held to account for amplifying such outrageous misinformation.

@jcf @aral Not so different from previous USA president declaring that global warming is good because they just happen to be in a rally where it's cold.

You can see the intellectual dishonesty embedded in rhetoric even without bringing in the fact that this human-caused environmental crisis is not just about rising temperatures and seas. If Miami is 6 meters under water, then Amsterdam must be roughly 12 meters under water right? Who's happy now?!

@jcf @aral

And, quoting Nick Cohen:

"Notice the neat two-step he performs. On the one hand, only “nut jobs” talk of a catastrophe, even if the ranks of the nutty include the UN and every serious climate scientist. But when the nut jobs turn out to be anything but nuts, Kirk shifts his position and assures you that we will enjoy climate change, as Amsterdammers enjoy their canalside cafes. And if we can’t? We’ll all be dead in a 100 years anyway so who the hell cares."

@aral climate change is a problem of the poor. The rich will always find a safe place to go.

The (not so) funny thing is that -- even ignoring the millions of deaths and refugees elsewhere and the resulting wars and geopolitical upheaval -- allowing Miami to be six meters below sea level in 100 years would require a gigantic investment, and might sink manay an insurance company if it's not done quickly/well enough.
That money, btw, would be way more effectively spent *preventing* that sea level rise, as he would know if he ever talked to his colleagues from insurance.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Aral’s Mastodon

This is my personal Mastodon.