Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by cmn32480 on Tuesday October 13 2015, @04:56PM   Printer-friendly
from the dot-com-and-housing-and-... dept.

The transition from fossil fuels must be carefully managed to avoid an economically disastrous bursting of the "carbon bubble," the World Bank's top climate official said on Saturday.

Decades of reliance on oil, gas and coal have made them central to the global economy, and polluting industries risk a potentially catastrophic crash as the world shifts to alternative energies, said Rachel Kyte, the Bank's special envoy for climate change.

"If we accept that we need to have less carbon in our growth, then we might have a financial risk associated with the prominence in our economy of companies who are heavily invested in carbon. That's the whole question of the carbon bubble," Kyte told AFP on the sidelines of the World Bank's annual meeting in Lima, Peru.

"financial risk associated with the prominence in our economy of companies who are heavily invested in carbon." Break out the tissues, everyone.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 13 2015, @07:14PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 13 2015, @07:14PM (#249056)

    "We can't outlaw smoking, alcohol, and actually require that items claiming to be food or actually that....think of all of the cancer hospitals, drug companies, and DUI lawyers. They'll starve!"

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +1  
       Insightful=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   1  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 14 2015, @12:46PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 14 2015, @12:46PM (#249360)

    You seem to think that outlawing those substances would mean less of them would be consumed. Historical precedent indicates the opposite.