> The idea that most of our industry benefits from climate change being considered an "externality" is true. Anyone who benefits from this unpriced "externality" has full interest in keeping it that way. And that's probably 90% of economic activity.

I do think there are benefits to change that include many things that are already in development, or working now, such as better use of CO2, rather than merely emitting.

Given how much of green energy is completely dependent on fossil fuels for initial bootstrapping, I don't see the status quo changing for many years. However, once an alternative energy source whether biofuel algae, or others, or a combination start to grow their benefits over present day pricing, I am certain we will transition. Not from pricing in externalities, but because of obsoleting and profits. Who'd care to dig up oil for 30% profits when you can generate an efficient biofuel for 75% profits? Not saying it will be anything of the sort, just providing an example.

> Either way, there is 0 ways for the market to solve climate change when it is obvious that climate change is not priced into economic activity at all.

Given the rise of ESG investing, and how it is now dominating portfolios as many funds altogether refuse to touch dirty energy/ Big Energy, there is already pricing power built in. Because Wall Street values ESG, therefore there is a "valuation tax" being applied to Big Energy. This outside of pure ESG funds too.

Even Exxon just got a more activist board thanks to a tiny fund.

https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/little-engine-no.-1-beat-exx...