![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
Back to the future
World Not Actually Saved
Fate of Planet Back in the Balance as EU Leaders fail to deliver
The editors of yesterday’s special edition wish to correct stories appearing on pages 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 of yesterday’s 8 page special. It appears that European leaders failed to pledge funds to help the developing world address climate change at the heads of state meeting on June 18.
As a result, a climate saving deal was not agreed in Copenhagen as reported in this paper.
The IHT regrets the error.
We also regret any premature celebrations our publication may have triggered among lovers of polar bears, coral reefs, tropical forests, the billion people now once again likely to suffer water shortages in the next decades, and everyone else on the planet, who now face an impoverished and chaotic future as a result.
Due to a printing error, the quote from Greenpeace responding to the meeting conclusion was mistakenly edited out of the story. The statement should have read:
"Greenpeace calls upon the citizens of the world to hold the EU heads of State personally accountable for this failure, and to get out into the streets to demand with the loudest voice ever raised on Earth that our leaders lead, so that the fictitious vision of a world saved from global warming which the International Herald Tribune mistakenly described might in fact become a reality."
The IHT regrets the omission.
The IHT does not, however, regret the reporting that Silvio Berlusconi was suffering from hug related injuries. That part was right.
The idea I was working with was that the markets essentially reflect expected future revenues. If you're a market purist[1] you believe that they price in all available information and so the costs of climate change should be reflected in the market pricing.
Since climate change will be pretty disastrous for the economy removing the threat would lead to soaring stocks. In actuality the discount rate applied to revenues from (say) 2030 is so huge you'd barely notice a blip.
[1] I'm not, as far as I'm concerned ideas of 'strong form efficiency' in the markets are bollocks.
Ah, but "information" there must be read as "beliefs", which is why I was skeptical!