{"id":337727,"date":"2024-07-27T17:31:36","date_gmt":"2024-07-27T15:31:36","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=337727"},"modified":"2024-07-27T17:31:39","modified_gmt":"2024-07-27T15:31:39","slug":"wrong-bloomberg-climate-change-is-not-the-next-black-swan-for-markets","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=337727","title":{"rendered":"Wrong, Bloomberg, Climate Change Is Not the Next \u2018Black Swan\u2019 for Markets"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

From ClimateRealism<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

By Anthony Watts<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

A recent article in Bloomberg titled The Market\u2019s Next Black Swan Is Climate Change<\/a>, <\/strong>by Mark Gongloff, says \u201cFailing to do more to slow the planetary heating caused by greenhouse-gas emissions will gouge 40% from global stock valuations.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The article rife with multiple false claims and unverifiable predictions. Here is what the article claims:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Climate change will be really, really bad for stock prices.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Failing to do more to slow the planetary heating caused by greenhouse-gas emissions will gouge 40% from global equity valuations<\/a>, estimates a new study by the EDHEC-Risk Climate Impact Institute. Accounting for climate-change-accelerating \u201ctipping points\u201d such as Amazon-rainforest dieback<\/a> or a Big Burp<\/a> of gas from melting permafrost, the market losses rise to 50%. On the other hand, if the world gets its act together and limits warming to 2 degrees Celsius above preindustrial averages, then the hit to stock prices will be just 5% to 10%.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

First, what is a \u201cblack swan\u201d event<\/a>?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A black swan event is an unexpected, rare, and consequential event that has a major impact and is difficult to prepare for. The term is based on a Latin expression that assumed black swans didn\u2019t exist. The term was popularized by Nassim Nicholas Taleb, an economist, professor, and writer.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The article assumes that climate change is such an event.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The \u201dreally, really bad\u201d portion of the article is more of an emotional reaction from a stock trader than a real quantification. Of course, it has been shown that stock trading is mostly emotional to begin with, according to Investopedia<\/a>:<\/p>\n\n\n\n