Climate Change - convince me that this is really a big Net negative

[wachtwoord]

Using images and simple language so even the lazy confirmist collectivists can follow:

 

https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/global-warming-fraud-exposed-pictures

 

Zerohedge and Mike Sherlock - you need better sources.

 

Their data is correct. Human caused climate change doesn't exist, it's all normal "natural" cycles mostly caused by the sun.

 

Mainstream "scientific" evidence is just a bunch of scammers/incompetents extrapolating a rising temperature from an extremely small sample (last century) while ignoring the context of the milenia before that. On top of that they blindly conclude humans are the cause, without presenting any evidence (not even faulty evidence).

 

All politically influenced "science" becomes unscientific. In the current age that's economics (Keynsianism), climate change and studies to do with minorities or women.

 

In the Middle Ages the church had political control of much "scientific" research as well. I would be called a "flat Earth denier" and "Earth is the center of the universe denier" back then I guess. In the future people will look back at the politically influenced science from today with the same shame as we do now for those examples.

[SharperDingaan]

Brief word on carbon-tax.

 

Carbon tax is just one of many possible pollution taxes. It could just as easily be a methane tax, a plastics tax, garbage tax, etc. The basic idea being that if you want to degrade the public 'common'; you pay for it, as per your choice. The tax is just a tool to encourage you to change your behaviour.

The bitching is ... I don't wanna change! I'm not able to change.

 

Lots of ways to locally charge, lots of ways to locally return the money ..... but so long as if largely stays in the same ecosystem, hard to rant against.

Terrible for the politician though. As while the 'end-user' (you and I)  pays, settlement occurs at the 'industry' level (trading carbon credits); and there are no more 'repatriation' cheques to voters (vote buying) with the politicians face on them. Boo!

 

Even worse, the politician gets the complaints!

I can't afford this!, what are you going to do for me?. This is killing my job!, don't you get it ?. Your job is to support your community - me! Do your job! .... So if you have to take the heat (complaints), and do not get any credit for it (vote buying); carbon trading is a useless system, 'cause there's nothing in it, for ME!

 

Climate change taxes are just another cost of living, no different to heat, light, and power.

Your cost of living goes up, you need to make choices; stay where you are and reduce your standard of living a bit, or keep your standard of living and move somewhere cheaper, your choice. But I don't wanna change, and don't think I should have to!

 

Point is, implementation has little to do with the 'science'.

And young people have had enough of it .... hence the Greta Thunberg's of the world.

 

SD

 

 

 

[Aberhound]

 

Also worthwhile mentioning is that in Canada, the Liberal's carbon tax is being returned to Canadians.  I think this is quite elegant, since it's increasing the price of CO2 to impact price signals without actually taking away much money from people (essentially only losing a bit to friction).

 

In BC I don't get back one nickel. What the governments do here is call the money rebates then take away money they already gave out. Then the government changed from Liberals to NDP and the NDP changed the rebates to target their supporters. What is really happening is that they take $100 dollars, take back half for their fat pensions and allowances which no one else gets, then gives out the other half mostly to their supporters. If they pay out more they just give the illusion by cutting rebates somewhere else. The previous government used the alleged problem to to take $50B from BC hydro. Think of it, a company with lots of dams giving cheap power which dams are fully depreciated. How do they lose money? Simple sign secret contracts to buy power at 15 to 25 cents and sell it for about 8. The law in BC is that only fools make contracts with princes which means governments cannot bind future governments. Why didn't the new government cancel these stupid contracts? Because they want in on the game themselves.This results in building a new dam for $10B when they could generate the same power for less than $1B by installing more and better turbines on existing dams. One bridge that was going to cost $10B was cancelled and now they will likely build a tunnell. All they are doing is changing who gets paid off.

[cameronfen]

Libertarian Science

 

The belief that any scientific finding that suggests the need for government regulation cannot be true.

 

Let me correct that for you.

 

Libertarian Science

 

The belief that government intervention can put science in a box and limit progress.

 

Nice one. :) Not only that, remember it's the government that mainly funds science so they can certainly bias its direction as well.

So, if the issue is for the government to control, direct and introduce bias as a primary driving force, how do you reconcile with the following: 1-federal funding of R/D per GDP has been decreasing, 2-federal funding versus corporate funding ratio has been going down and 3-federal funding to environmental science has not increased despite the dogmatic and alarmist take described above?

https://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/2019-06/RDGDP.png

https://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/2019-06/USFund1.jpg

https://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/2019-06/Disc-1.jpg

 

Disclosure: I think a balance between corporate and public funding allows to find a compromise between basic research which is necessary for long-term outcomes and also produces constructive surprises, and more applied research with potential short-term applications and profitability. A constructive discussion may help to help define that balance, governance and incentives but I don't understand how undermining a model that has worked so well can not result in less progress or even regression.

 

I’m not saying govt shouldn’t be involved in research. It certainly has benefited the average citizen in the past. But too much govt dictates the direction of research. Especially when you take the government as a consumer and add in the political agenda. Wind and solar are a good example of this nonsense. The govt is not pursuing the path of the best tech (nuclear) and instead letting politics lead the way. I mean look at the Wright Brothers. The govt basically laughed them out of the building and said flight wasn’t possible. Then two guys in a bike shop proved them wrong with 2k.

 

But we also have good examples of a meshing between govt funded and public sector funding (eg. spacex)

 

The issue is trust. Can we trust the govt to choose the best path forward for R&D? Could we trust the top scientists to choose the best path forward using tax payer dollars? Not sure, because anytime humans are involved we have poor decisions being made. But, personally I would rather let a guy like Musk off the chain than allow Nancy Pelosi or Mitch determine what tech is the best moving forward.

 

So it turns out government return on R&D funding (mainly giving money to universities has high rates of return):

https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/economy/reports/2012/12/10/47481/the-high-return-on-investment-for-publicly-funded-research/

 

Why?  Govt is likely bad at picking winners and losers, but most research has little payoff to the discoverer.  For example, the invention of the internet, GPS, Satellites/rockers, many times doesn't inventors rich, it later made the companies that commercialize the idea, rich.  This is why things like basic science research, defense research etc, have such high ROI.  Researches benefit very little, but the externality benefit to others is massive.  Thus there is an underinvestment into basic research (ie research not designed at improving an existing product or service). 

[cameronfen]

Using images and simple language so even the lazy confirmist collectivists can follow:

 

https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/global-warming-fraud-exposed-pictures

 

Zerohedge and Mike Sherlock - you need better sources.

 

Their data is correct. Human caused climate change doesn't exist, it's all normal "natural" cycles mostly caused by the sun.

 

Mainstream "scientific" evidence is just a bunch of scammers/incompetents extrapolating a rising temperature from an extremely small sample (last century) while ignoring the context of the milenia before that. On top of that they blindly conclude humans are the cause, without presenting any evidence (not even faulty evidence).

 

All politically influenced "science" becomes unscientific. In the current age that's economics (Keynsianism), climate change and studies to do with minorities or women.

 

In the Middle Ages the church had political control of much "scientific" research as well. I would be called a "flat Earth denier" and "Earth is the center of the universe denier" back then I guess. In the future people will look back at the politically influenced science from today with the same shame as we do now for those examples.

 

So there is no doubt that current climate changed is influenced by the liberal agenda, however as mentioned earlier, if one had a discovery that suggested with a good deal of certainty that climate change was caused by factors other than humans, the researcher would immediately become famous, potentially win a Nobel Prize, and journals would be stepping over themselves to get it published. 

[wachtwoord]

Using images and simple language so even the lazy confirmist collectivists can follow:

 

https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/global-warming-fraud-exposed-pictures

 

Zerohedge and Mike Sherlock - you need better sources.

 

Their data is correct. Human caused climate change doesn't exist, it's all normal "natural" cycles mostly caused by the sun.

 

Mainstream "scientific" evidence is just a bunch of scammers/incompetents extrapolating a rising temperature from an extremely small sample (last century) while ignoring the context of the milenia before that. On top of that they blindly conclude humans are the cause, without presenting any evidence (not even faulty evidence).

 

All politically influenced "science" becomes unscientific. In the current age that's economics (Keynsianism), climate change and studies to do with minorities or women.

 

In the Middle Ages the church had political control of much "scientific" research as well. I would be called a "flat Earth denier" and "Earth is the center of the universe denier" back then I guess. In the future people will look back at the politically influenced science from today with the same shame as we do now for those examples.

 

So there is no doubt that current climate changed is influenced by the liberal agenda, however as mentioned earlier, if one had a discovery that suggested with a good deal of certainty that climate change was caused by factors other than humans, the researcher would immediately become famous, potentially win a Nobel Prize, and journals would be stepping over themselves to get it published.

 

No they wouldn't. There's lots of (published AND statistically significant) research the sun cycles have high correlation with the historic temperature fluctuations on Earth. This not ground braking or new.

 

It's just impopular right now because it doesn't help the socialistic large government political agenda.

[cameronfen]

Using images and simple language so even the lazy confirmist collectivists can follow:

 

https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/global-warming-fraud-exposed-pictures

 

Zerohedge and Mike Sherlock - you need better sources.

 

Their data is correct. Human caused climate change doesn't exist, it's all normal "natural" cycles mostly caused by the sun.

 

Mainstream "scientific" evidence is just a bunch of scammers/incompetents extrapolating a rising temperature from an extremely small sample (last century) while ignoring the context of the milenia before that. On top of that they blindly conclude humans are the cause, without presenting any evidence (not even faulty evidence).

 

All politically influenced "science" becomes unscientific. In the current age that's economics (Keynsianism), climate change and studies to do with minorities or women.

 

In the Middle Ages the church had political control of much "scientific" research as well. I would be called a "flat Earth denier" and "Earth is the center of the universe denier" back then I guess. In the future people will look back at the politically influenced science from today with the same shame as we do now for those examples.

 

So there is no doubt that current climate changed is influenced by the liberal agenda, however as mentioned earlier, if one had a discovery that suggested with a good deal of certainty that climate change was caused by factors other than humans, the researcher would immediately become famous, potentially win a Nobel Prize, and journals would be stepping over themselves to get it published.

 

No they wouldn't. There's lots of (published AND statistically significant) research the sun cycles have high correlation with the historic temperature fluctuations on Earth. This not ground braking or new.

 

It's just impopular right now because it doesn't help the socialistic large government political agenda.

 

Are you saying climate scientists are ignoring sunspots and aren't taking into account this fact? 

[RichardGibbons]

In BC I don't get back one nickel. What the governments do here is call the money rebates then take away money they already gave out. Then the government changed from Liberals to NDP and the NDP changed the rebates to target their supporters.

 

Yep. This is why one shouldn't vote for the current BC NDP--they're not driven by reason, but rather ideology and party loyalty.

[Castanza]

Libertarian Science

 

The belief that any scientific finding that suggests the need for government regulation cannot be true.

 

Let me correct that for you.

 

Libertarian Science

 

The belief that government intervention can put science in a box and limit progress.

 

Nice one. :) Not only that, remember it's the government that mainly funds science so they can certainly bias its direction as well.

So, if the issue is for the government to control, direct and introduce bias as a primary driving force, how do you reconcile with the following: 1-federal funding of R/D per GDP has been decreasing, 2-federal funding versus corporate funding ratio has been going down and 3-federal funding to environmental science has not increased despite the dogmatic and alarmist take described above?

https://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/2019-06/RDGDP.png

https://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/2019-06/USFund1.jpg

https://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/2019-06/Disc-1.jpg

 

Disclosure: I think a balance between corporate and public funding allows to find a compromise between basic research which is necessary for long-term outcomes and also produces constructive surprises, and more applied research with potential short-term applications and profitability. A constructive discussion may help to help define that balance, governance and incentives but I don't understand how undermining a model that has worked so well can not result in less progress or even regression.

 

I’m not saying govt shouldn’t be involved in research. It certainly has benefited the average citizen in the past. But too much govt dictates the direction of research. Especially when you take the government as a consumer and add in the political agenda. Wind and solar are a good example of this nonsense. The govt is not pursuing the path of the best tech (nuclear) and instead letting politics lead the way. I mean look at the Wright Brothers. The govt basically laughed them out of the building and said flight wasn’t possible. Then two guys in a bike shop proved them wrong with 2k.

 

But we also have good examples of a meshing between govt funded and public sector funding (eg. spacex)

 

The issue is trust. Can we trust the govt to choose the best path forward for R&D? Could we trust the top scientists to choose the best path forward using tax payer dollars? Not sure, because anytime humans are involved we have poor decisions being made. But, personally I would rather let a guy like Musk off the chain than allow Nancy Pelosi or Mitch determine what tech is the best moving forward.

 

So it turns out government return on R&D funding (mainly giving money to universities has high rates of return):

https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/economy/reports/2012/12/10/47481/the-high-return-on-investment-for-publicly-funded-research/

 

Why?  Govt is likely bad at picking winners and losers, but most research has little payoff to the discoverer.  For example, the invention of the internet, GPS, Satellites/rockers, many times doesn't inventors rich, it later made the companies that commercialize the idea, rich.  This is why things like basic science research, defense research etc, have such high ROI.  Researches benefit very little, but the externality benefit to others is massive.  Thus there is an underinvestment into basic research (ie research not designed at improving an existing product or service).

 

Wartime spending is often extreme and reckless. We also hired plenty of Nazis after WWII (operation paperclip). Again, I’m not saying govt shouldn’t be involved in any capacity. There have been benefits (internet etc). But even that is difficult to quantify because you can’t really say the private sector wouldn’t have been able to accomplish it. Your bias seems extreme in favor of govt. Govt funding has also given us ridiculous research spending on trivial things such as treadmills for shrimp....it’s easier to waste money of tax payers. Imagine the outrage of shareholders if companies wasted millions on stuff like in the below link.

 

https://www.rd.com/funny-stuff/wasteful-government-spending/

[Cigarbutt]

From Rod:

The belief that any scientific finding that suggests the need for government regulation cannot be true.

From you:

The belief that government intervention can put science in a box and limit progress.

And then:

The issue is trust. Can we trust the govt to choose the best path forward for R&D? Could we trust the top scientists to choose the best path forward using tax payer dollars? Not sure, because anytime humans are involved we have poor decisions being made. But, personally I would rather let a guy like Musk off the chain than allow Nancy Pelosi or Mitch determine what tech is the best moving forward.

The issue is trust and is based on some kind of 'social' contract. I see your point in the above bolded part but, without taking the statement completely out of context, I submit that it may reveal an interesting aspect of your thought process. When I was in a learning phase which involved some kind of apprenticeship, one of my mentors used to say: "There is my way (the right way) of doing things and there are other ways. Do you think there are two kinds of humans?

On a related note and going back to the climate change thing (also useful in investing, I would say), you may want to read an interesting book:

https://www.amazon.com/Wisdom-Crowds-James-Surowiecki/dp/0385721706

The main idea is that crowds can be right and there may be ways to maximize that outcome for the public 'good'.

Here's a relevant summary of the thought process:

https://thinkbynumbers.org/books/wisdom-of-crowds/

You may find interesting that both 'sides' of the climate change equation (does it exist? is it significant? is it caused by humans? what can we do about it if?) suffer from criteria that can lead to failure of crowd intelligence. The best decisions seem to come when a diverse range of opinions, including experts and non-experts can be efficiently aggregated ("some mechanism...for turning private judgments into a collective decision"), without a hysteric component.

Basically, this involves a tension between independence and cooperation.

Let's keep the contest alive.

 

[wachtwoord]

Govt funding has also given us ridiculous research spending on trivial things such as treadmills for shrimp....it’s easier to waste money of tax payers. Imagine the outrage of shareholders if companies wasted millions on stuff like in the below link.

 

https://www.rd.com/funny-stuff/wasteful-government-spending/

 

It's easy to waste money if it's not your own money you're wasting but money you took from others.

 

It's also easy to be popular by handing out money you took from others.

 

Politicians are the parasite class of society.

[cameronfen]

Libertarian Science

 

The belief that any scientific finding that suggests the need for government regulation cannot be true.

 

Let me correct that for you.

 

Libertarian Science

 

The belief that government intervention can put science in a box and limit progress.

 

Nice one. :) Not only that, remember it's the government that mainly funds science so they can certainly bias its direction as well.

So, if the issue is for the government to control, direct and introduce bias as a primary driving force, how do you reconcile with the following: 1-federal funding of R/D per GDP has been decreasing, 2-federal funding versus corporate funding ratio has been going down and 3-federal funding to environmental science has not increased despite the dogmatic and alarmist take described above?

https://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/2019-06/RDGDP.png

https://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/2019-06/USFund1.jpg

https://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/2019-06/Disc-1.jpg

 

Disclosure: I think a balance between corporate and public funding allows to find a compromise between basic research which is necessary for long-term outcomes and also produces constructive surprises, and more applied research with potential short-term applications and profitability. A constructive discussion may help to help define that balance, governance and incentives but I don't understand how undermining a model that has worked so well can not result in less progress or even regression.

 

I’m not saying govt shouldn’t be involved in research. It certainly has benefited the average citizen in the past. But too much govt dictates the direction of research. Especially when you take the government as a consumer and add in the political agenda. Wind and solar are a good example of this nonsense. The govt is not pursuing the path of the best tech (nuclear) and instead letting politics lead the way. I mean look at the Wright Brothers. The govt basically laughed them out of the building and said flight wasn’t possible. Then two guys in a bike shop proved them wrong with 2k.

 

But we also have good examples of a meshing between govt funded and public sector funding (eg. spacex)

 

The issue is trust. Can we trust the govt to choose the best path forward for R&D? Could we trust the top scientists to choose the best path forward using tax payer dollars? Not sure, because anytime humans are involved we have poor decisions being made. But, personally I would rather let a guy like Musk off the chain than allow Nancy Pelosi or Mitch determine what tech is the best moving forward.

 

So it turns out government return on R&D funding (mainly giving money to universities has high rates of return):

https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/economy/reports/2012/12/10/47481/the-high-return-on-investment-for-publicly-funded-research/

 

Why?  Govt is likely bad at picking winners and losers, but most research has little payoff to the discoverer.  For example, the invention of the internet, GPS, Satellites/rockers, many times doesn't inventors rich, it later made the companies that commercialize the idea, rich.  This is why things like basic science research, defense research etc, have such high ROI.  Researches benefit very little, but the externality benefit to others is massive.  Thus there is an underinvestment into basic research (ie research not designed at improving an existing product or service).

 

Wartime spending is often extreme and reckless. We also hired plenty of Nazis after WWII (operation paperclip). Again, I’m not saying govt shouldn’t be involved in any capacity. There have been benefits (internet etc). But even that is difficult to quantify because you can’t really say the private sector wouldn’t have been able to accomplish it. Your bias seems extreme in favor of govt. Govt funding has also given us ridiculous research spending on trivial things such as treadmills for shrimp....it’s easier to waste money of tax payers. Imagine the outrage of shareholders if companies wasted millions on stuff like in the below link.

 

https://www.rd.com/funny-stuff/wasteful-government-spending/

 

I don't have an extreme favor of government spending, but my point is sometimes government spending is net positive with high returns on investment because for whatever reason industry won't do it.  For example, no private industry would build the interstate system in the US (or pay for infustructure spending), because even if we let them charge money for it they is a.) no good business model for how to do that and b.) because there are no good compitors with good business models you can run the risk of monopolies and anti competitive practices (like for example when Canada offered to entirely fund and build another bridge to Detroit, there was a push against it funded by the people that owned the main current bridge) and c. it costs 128 billion dollars and no company has the money to do some high npv yielding project that is entirely orthogonal to the companies mission. 

 

A counter example seems to be charter schools. Government seems to be less effective in especially in cash constrained urban area in providing good education.  Thus we should open up and allow more charter schools as there are improvements in education.  The point is to not be dogmatic and say all govt spending is bad or good for this reason or that and look at the evidence. 

 

(edits : took out not that useful additional example)

[Spekulatius]

Here is an excerpt from an interesting article from Taleb:

https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/1193545813785530370?s=21

I like the way he thinks about risk generally.

[SharperDingaan]

In Taleb speak - Climate Change is the same as playing Russian Roulette.

Sure, we can spin the chambers and maybe nothing happens, but if we're wrong ......

Collectively, the smart thing - is not to play.

 

But individually - it's an asymmetric pay-off.

We put up our ante, bet on the players demise, and collect at 'X':1 if it's our lucky day.

The book-maker hopes for large crowds, a 'rake' on every bet, a string of 'lucky' players, and a large supply.

The player hopes for an empty chamber, and a large enough pay-out to grub stake a better life elsewhere.

The better hopes that payoffs just exceed the nights cumulative ante.

The undertaker hopes for a good supply.

 

In the climate change world ....

The antes are those individual investments in various 'clean' technologies.

The book-makers are the various global markets for carbon/pollution trading.

The players are the globes polluters (big oil, big mining, big agriculture, big drug, etc).

The betters are you and I, moving to higher ground and cleaner water/air as opportunity permits.

The undertaker is your local government/regulator, seeking votes for re-election.

 

SD

 

 

 

 

 

[John Hjorth]

When I was a kid, I remember reading Donald Duck cartoons. Back then, "FBI" in those cartoons were a [half-/semi hearted] Danish abbreviation for "[Forbrydelse Betaler sig Ikke". [Which translates from Danish to English "Crime doesn't pay off".]

 

- - - o 0 o - - -

 

Today, I've stolen your last post here, SharperDingaan!

[LongHaul]

Here is an excerpt from an interesting article from Taleb:

https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/1193545813785530370?s=21

I like the way he thinks about risk generally.

 

If it could be Russian Roulette - where is the bullet?

A few degrees warmer is going to kill us all?

[Spekulatius]

Here is an excerpt from an interesting article from Taleb:

https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/1193545813785530370?s=21

I like the way he thinks about risk generally.

 

If it could be Russian Roulette - where is the bullet?

A few degrees warmer is going to kill us all?

 

It’s not going to kill us all, but it can kill a lot of people directly and indirectly. Not to worry, most of us will be long dead before the consequences set in.

[Cigarbutt]

Here is an excerpt from an interesting article from Taleb:

https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/1193545813785530370?s=21

I like the way he thinks about risk generally.

If it could be Russian Roulette - where is the bullet?

A few degrees warmer is going to kill us all?

It’s not going to kill us all, but it can kill a lot of people directly and indirectly. Not to worry, most of us will be long dead before the consequences set in.

Isn't it hard to plan for the long term? especially the generational things?

In 1986, a sensible fellow wondered about the odds and felt that we should look into it.

This was at a hearing concerning climate change and ozone depletion due to CFCs.

http://archive.macleans.ca/article/1986/6/30/a-threat-to-human-life

"Man is irreversibly altering the ability of our atmosphere to perform life-support functions. It strikes me as a form of planetary Russian roulette.”

An argument could be made that in 33 years, another pundit may ask the same question but I wonder if it comes down to the notion of margin of safety. Have you ever done cost flow and breakeven analysis for specific products or subs, or financial distress analysis for specific names entering distress due to leverage. The textbooks typically use linear equations and show straight lines on a graph with illusion of precision to the tenth of a %. However, in these not so complex situations, non-linear changes can occur especially at the margin and a way to obtain some confort with the outcome is to use a larger margin of safety.  i wonder too and i wonder about your level of trust in institutions or scientific "authorities"?

 

 

[Castanza]

 

Starts at 6:00

 

 

[LongHaul]

 

Starts at 6:00

 

Super interesting.  thx for posting. 

I realized I know almost nothing about this topic and it is super complex!

[mccole72]

Warren and Charlie weigh in at the 2007 annual meeting

 

[zurgenfeldt]

All of the "solutions" I've seen so far spend a ton of money and only claim to reduce the rise in temperature by a fraction of a degree.

 

The UN report on climate change, which commissioned the leading scientists to research this, concluded that the damage cost of climate change will be perhaps 2% of world GDP -- 100 years from now, whereas climate policies can end up costing something more than 11% of GDP.

 

2% is the size of a minor recession...and that is worst case...100 years from now.

 

We live in a world where one in six deaths are caused by easily curable infectious diseases and billions of people live in abject poverty, with no electricity and little food.

 

We ought never to have entertained the notion that the world’s greatest challenge could be to reduce temperature rises in our generation by a fraction of a degree.

 

#flamewar

[tede02]

 

 

We live in a world where one in six deaths are caused by easily curable infectious diseases and billions of people live in abject poverty, with no electricity and little food.

 

 

 

I worry that a warming planet may very well exacerbate these very problems. The challenge, admittedly, is we just don't know. My personal view is, why would we risk finding out by doing absolutely nothing.

[SharperDingaan]

The reality is that the climate is slowly warming. Why, really doesn't matter; it is the consequences that do, and who it occurs to.

Damage in rich areas gets the grease ... damage in poor areas, is just nature doing her thing.

 

Is climate change enough of a disrupter, and now far enough along (tipping point) - that it has become investable?

Most would say yes - look at each industry, determine the winning/losing directions, and invest accordingly.

Arguably, it is the opportunity of the century - IF you can accommodate CHANGE.

And there's the rub.

 

Work in the Tar Sands, and you have to explain to your young kids every day - 'why you are killing the environment'.

A difficult, and very resented conversation; that most often cannot be answered satisfactorily.

 

The solution of course - is to COLLECTIVELY change the framing.

And that is why your mom/dad are working very hard everyday, to change that - and make Tar Sands one of the cleanest energy sources in the world, that children everywhere can enjoy. That means we don't create garbage, we recycle and reuse, etc, etc.

It is the things done to CHANGE THE COLLECTIVE FRAMING that are 'investable'.

 

Nothing 'profound' here .. but it means that going forward, we're not doing things the same old way anymore.

And isn't 'resistance to change' what the climate change debate is really about?

 

SD

 

 

 

 

 

 

[zurgenfeldt]

I worry that a warming planet may very well exacerbate these very problems. The challenge, admittedly, is we just don't know. My personal view is, why would we risk finding out by doing absolutely nothing.

 

Welk....take, for instance, the kyoto protocol. This was the major solution proposed to address climate change a while ago. I believe the UN estimated it would take 150B/yr to implement, and it would delay the damage we would experience in 2100 by 6 years. Not a lot of benefit for the $150B/yr. Compare that to their estimation (the UN's estimation) that we could completely address sanitation, clean drinking water, basic healthcare, and basic education to every human on the planet for $75B.

 

From the UN data -- 2 billion people are infected by malaria every year. We could spend $13B/yr (again, UN estimate) to bring that down by 50%. This would save 500M lives every year. Right now, not 100 years from now.

 

We could apparently avoid 28 million new cases of HIV/AIDS for $27B/yr. Mostly in 3rd world countries. Now.

 

Global warming is a problem, but it's way down the list. I mean, there is probably a non-trival chance an asteroid could hit earth and wipe us out. We ought to do something about that --  Given the magnitude of that problem, I'd say we should devote a little to it. I think there's a good argument to be made that asteroid extinction should rank higher than climate change.