200 clueless and very biased economists demand more of the policies that had led to a collapse in the support of Greens all across the EU.
How to Make Models Worse
Eurointelligence explains How to Make Models Worse
A group of economists has written a letter to the European Commission that it should change its economic models to take climate policies into account. If climate were an important factor in macroeconomic performance over the forecasting horizon, usually a year or two, then so it should. But it isn’t.
We are no slouches ourselves when it comes to criticising general equilibrium based economic models, the kind of which the Commission uses. Our argument is that these models are worse than useless. Not only do they get it wrong all the time. The massive forecasting errors guide policymakers into making wrong decisions. A specimen of one such Commission forecast came out yesterday. We recall an analyst – obviously not in the employ of the Commission – who once took it upon himself to check the forecast against the actual data. He came up with a correlation coefficient of zero. This is quite hard to achieve even if you tried to.
The argument by the 200 economists goes in a complete different direction. They don’t care about accuracy. They want to introduce even more bias.
Their main argument is that current models favour market-based over regulation-based solutions. If that were the reason for the models’ poor performance, we would accept this argument. But again, this is not the case. The purpose of a change in model is to introduce a positive bias in favour of climate change investment, presumably because electorates are pushing in the other direction.
The letter is testimony to ongoing delusions amongst economists that they are in charge of economic policy and that their models really matter to the world. We are seeing central banks, like the ECB, are starting to distance themselves from those models because of chronically poor performance.
It’s notable that the economists are not at all interested in the Truth. They want biased models to produce a certain outcome.
Unaccountable Regimes
Guy Maurice Marie Louise Verhofstadt is a former prime minister of Belgium, the European Parliament Brexit Coordinator, Chair of the Brexit Steering Group, and current member of the European Parliament.
The image he posted was from 2014.
Inadvertently, Verhofstadt explains the farmer protests in the EU.
Frustration Grows
AP News reports An EU farmer’s frustration grows with every click of the mouse
On a farm in northern Belgium, not far from the hundreds of tractors blocking Europe’s second-biggest port to demand more respect for farmers, Bart Dochy was switching on his computer, waiting for a government program to load with maps of his land next to empty digital boxes demanding to be filled with statistics on fertilizer, pesticides, production and harvesting.
Over morning coffee, his father, Frans Dochy, 82, remembers how, in his youth, he would harvest beets out of the cold, thick earth by hand for hours. Yet, he says, 2024 bookkeeping “would have driven me off the farm long ago.”
He sees how his son has to register the arrival of any artificial manure within seven days. “And it has to be done even at the busiest times on the field, of course,” said Bart Dochy. “Then it has to be registered exactly how it is spread on every single little plot of land — how many kilos and how it is distributed,” he explained, going through some of the thick folders in his office. “And with the smallest error, there are fines.”
What really gets Dochy is when bureaucratic deadlines are imposed on him, for example if certain crops or green fertilizers need to be sown by Sep. 1. “If the last week of August is unbelievably rainy, you will not be able to sow this properly. But you are nevertheless obliged to sow. Otherwise, you may be faced with a fine,” he said.
Cultural Enrichment
Apologies offered, but we feel obliged to interrupt this post on climate with a brief message on cultural enrichment.
Eritrean African immigrants burn down The Hague, Netherlands.
Now that you are aware of the urgent need for more cultural enrichment, we now return to our scheduled program.
Welcome to Greenlash
The Guardian comments Farmers are in revolt and Europe’s climate policies are crumbling. Welcome to the Age of ‘Greenlash’
Ursula von der Leyen surrendered to angry farmers last week faster than you could shake a pitchfork or dump a tractor-load of manure outside the European parliament. The European Commission president, expected to announce her candidacy for a second term heading the EU executive next week, told lawmakers that the commission was withdrawing a bill to halve the use of chemical pesticides by 2030 and would hold more consultations instead.
The proposed measure was a key plank in the commission’s European Green Deal and its Farm to Fork strategy, intended to make the EU carbon-neutral by 2050, make agriculture more environmentally friendly and preserve biodiversity.
Von der Leyen’s sudden U-turn on one of her signature policies was not just an attempt to defuse a spreading continent-wide rural revolt over rising fuel costs, burdensome environmental regulations, retailers’ price squeezes and cheap imports. It was also a sign of growing panic among the EU’s mainstream parties over the seemingly inexorable rise of far-right nationalists ahead of the June elections.
I have seen unpublished opinion polling conducted for the European parliament in January that showed Eurosceptic, sovereigntist or populist parties have taken the lead in eight of the 27 EU members, and are in second place in four more. Moreover, the countries where the far right is polling most strongly include those with the most seats in the legislature – Germany, France, Italy, Poland, Romania and the Netherlands.
In the Netherlands, farmer discontent over curbs on nitrogen emissions led to the sudden rise of the Farmer-Citizen Movement, a party that came from nowhere to win the most votes in regional elections last March. Many of those protest voters have since switched to Wilders’ Freedom party, which topped the poll in a general election in November and has gained more ground since then.
Recent polling suggests that the ecologists are set to lose up to one-third of their 72 seats in the 720-member legislature due to the “greenlash”.
Yes, Guy Verhofstadt, unaccountable regimes always end up like this:
Germany industrial production via St. Louis Fed, chart by Mish.
Please note Germany’s Industrial Superpower Days are Over, a Green Victory?
And in the US, The True Costs of Net Zero Are Becoming Impossible to Hide
Biden’s Wind Tax
In the US, manufacturers have yet to stand up to idiotic Biden regulations, mostly because they have received tax incentives that hide the true costs.
But the actual costs are difficult to hide now that subsidies won’t hide the true cost. So Biden’s schemes are unraveling.
It’s increasingly difficult for Biden and the EU to hide the true costs of net zero mandates.
EU painted itself into a corner with all their greenwash and if they go broke and freeze to death in the dark while starving, serves em right for destroying their own economy. There comes a point when you have to abandon bad ideas.
funny!
200 economists having a hissy….
It’s almost like they want to accelerate the decline of the west.
“Our argument is that these models are worse than useless. Not only do they get it wrong all the time. The massive forecasting errors guide policymakers into making wrong decisions.”
If policymakers are making decisions using models that don’t work, in principle the first thing they should do is stop using models that don’t work.
But if they want a forecast to justify their decisions, maybe what they really need is being taught about the usefulness of paying attention not to base case scenarios, but to what lies beyond the error bars. In other words, learn more about things that are very unlikely to happen. During the pandemic we saw this mistake: decision-makers wanted a prediction of how many people were going to get sick, which is very hard to do, but they had very useful predictions about things that were unlikely to happen, such as, waiting for a lockdown was always going to be a bad idea. And most of them didn’t understand how useful it is to know about what is not at all likely to happen.
The correct way to incorporate climate change in models for decision-makers is to say: what is not at all likely to happen is that crop yields on average improve from current levels, because weather is just going to get worse. Another thing that is not at all likely to happen is that home insurance in areas prone to weather disasters is going any lower.
A boomer moved back to Virginia after living in Florida for a decade. She says she’ll ‘never own another home’ in the Sunshine State and loves the slower pace of life.Leaving Florida: Boomer Couple Moved Back to Virginia, Citing Rising Insurance, Home Costs (businessinsider.com)
It isn’t just on the home level but on the business level to take into account climate change in econmics
Another front in the war of the Intel State on the US and its liberties
I watched Tucker’s interview with Mike Benz yesterday. The most important interview OF any body, BY anybody in American history.
We are living under a military coup.
The Atlantic Council inter alia got Europe to wage a war for them on Censorship. This Climate shit is just another front byt he SAME PEOPLE
What is a person’s economic purpose? And summing over the population, what makes good economic policy?
First, with reference to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, people need food and protection against the hazards that occur during a year. What those protections are can vary quite a bit by where you are.
Then classical economics believes that people want to be gluttons, consuming more. Modern day economic planners appear to want to encourage gluttony, since the more that is sold and consumed the more wages go into the pockets at the bottom.
— It takes later 19th century thought to remember that people seek greater marginal utility, which is not the same as more goods or services. It can include more ESG.
The 200 Economic experts have the presumption to substitute their judgement for that of the people themselves; = they think the people want to protect against climate change (at what cost/tradeoff), and protect against pesticide pollution and several more things. Many of them also seek to nail 96 Socialist theses to the door of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, that providing food and necessary protections to everyone, and no more, is best for the world’s ecology and economy. Listing ecology first. They are not going to ask the people what THEY want.
It has been estimated for the past 450 million years, the earth has experienced three major cooling and heating cycles when no humans existed. Estimated average temp range from ~10C to ~23C. Earth is heating from one of those very cold periods. Waiting for a hypothesis to explain why the earth warmed when no humans existed. Humans induced warming is a scam like the Covid vaccine will kill the virus(not possible since the fake vaccine is non-sterilizing), stop transmission(not tested before the fake vaccine was released) , and reduce death(quite a bit of data showing excess mortality since the fake vaccine was injected).
Yes. Scientists have explained the last 4.5 billion years of earth’s climate history. They can tell you what all the natural cycles are and their effects. And they can also tell you that the last 200 years of climate change are not natural at all, and have been caused by humans using fossil fuels.
You should make an effort to actually learn some of this climate science and stop getting sucked into the cult scams that you seem desperate to want to believe. But that would require some effort on your part.
Which I’m guessing you won’t do. Why bother learning anything. Better to know nothing and just believe the cult morons.
The hockey stick theory is fraudulent as it transformed data to support the theory.
Believe whatever cult propaganda you want. You can also worship the flat earth cult if you want. It changes nothing.
Which cult are you in?
There are now many more studies confirming Dr. Mann’s hockey stick. Late to the game pal.
The last 200 years are a blip. Moreover, you completely overstate the case. Have there been anthropomorphic impacts on the environment in the last 200 years? Yes. As well as the last 15,000 give or take. However, climate changes cannot simply be chalked up to human activity at the expense of natural changes. You imply that without human activity climate change would not have occurred. That is simply false and a misreading of the climate science literature.
I implied no such thing. I have repeatedly stated that the climate has been naturally cooling for the last 6000 years (Milankovitch cycles). And it would have continued to cool for another 80000 or so years until there is another mile of ice over New York. However, these natural cycles have been interrupted by mankind. In just 200 years we have reversed 6000 years of natural cooling and we are moving rapidly in the warming direction.
Sounds like a victory to me.
the data is flawed.
we have been working with data for several decades now. All digital thermometra have a marginal error (bias to heating) by two degeees. never cooler.
amazing yow funding can create biases in the data.
Human vs natural has been worked out. Below is an excellent collection of science literature discussing whether its human or natural. It’s in reality nearly 100% human influence the reason the earth has warmed.
link to skepticalscience.com
i am reviewing the latest heat unit data. and would you guess it… last year was peak year for solar radiation go figure!
heat from the sun can make the earth warmer or cooler….
I Call B.S. >> “the last 200 years of climate change are not natural at all, and have been caused by humans using fossil fuels.”
Hey, do those 200 clueless and very biased economists, play cards with 51 very biased and clueless Scientists, by chance, on Friday Nights? Asking for a Friend.
Can someone please do some memes..
…that’s the most succint way to respond to the hysteria and breathless panting that characterises things like: Pandemic; Ukraine; NetZero; BLM; border crisis, Hamas…
Climate Doomsday Cultists are in a special NetZero Noah’s Ark, warning us in Sodom & Gomorrah to repent our sin, whilst they follow their Climate Cult deities plan. Climate Cultism is a latter day Flood Myth, an ancient Sun God story… see it for what is is: Chicken-Little-ism.
It seems obvious to me that climate change is directly correlated to the increase in the number of politicians in each country and the size of their respective offices/number of support staff. Therefore if we start eliminating politicians and their respective departments we have a very good chance of eliminating climate change. If we are wrong of course we will at least save an awful lot of money so it has to be worth a try..
Since temps really haven’t changed much in 100 years of burning fossil fuels (some of the heat records are still from back then), seems like we’ll run out before it will matter.
Sorry radar. Temperatures “have” increased over the last 100 years because of fossil fuel use. That’s what global warming is. And we won’t run out of fossil fuels anytime soon, unless we completely stop exploring for them. Which some people are advocating for. What those folks don’t seem to understand is that we currently get over 80% of all our energy from fossil fuels.
A lot of the increase is due to averages, with warmer nights. We are replacing grass and trees which absorb heat, with concrete and steel which stores and reradiates. One reason we are running out of sand globally is increased use in concrete
Good try, but our cities of steel and concrete cover less than 1% of the earth’s surface. That’s an insignificant amount when referring to land based heat absorption. Try looking at some maps.
Second; the heat absorption of all land (including cities) on earth is just 10% of the total. The other 90% of heat absorption is in the oceans. Which cover 70% of the planet.
Finally: The planet is warming the greatest at the poles. Not much steel and concrete there either.
papa dave, the data is flawed.
collecting and manupulation of digital data ckming from flawed instruments. all thermo dat recorders nees to be reclaibrated twice a year, minimum. the so called 40 000 data recorders floating around in the oceans ajnce 2016 have not be calibrated once.
note to all, after working with digital thermometers for several decades now. the old fashioned mercury thermomter remains the more reliable data recorder.
the data xollected over thevlast two decades has a 2 defree lean ‘upward’ as the same all digital thermoters all have a two degree positive bias.
100 years of fossil fuel use? Since 83% of CO2 in our atmosphere is converted back into O2 underwater I think you are looking at the wrong place in the process. Most of this photosynthesis takes place in the Artic and Antarctic oceans. Where overfishing and chemical pollution started over 100 years ago. You can’t hit a target that’s out of sight unless you open your eyes and look harder.
German Industrial production has another -60% to fall then, and despite the best will in the world, the EU will take as long as it can to collapse, pulling every trick it can to lie, cheat, steal, and manipulate to keep the gravy train on the rails, just like anti-Brexit.
I wonder how many on this site voted for Joe and the lunatic left agenda.
Anything but Trump, I suppose.
Hopefully Trump will get more accomplished in his next term.
Trump will be judged by his first 100 days. All eyes on him. Much hope in him.
The first hundred days of a Trump administration would be spent on exacting revenge on his real or imagined enemies. He’ll start with the election official in Georgia that couldn’t find 11000 votes for him. Lol
I look for the 25-30% of the sane republican voting constiuency to simply not vote for the presidential candidates on their ballot. If this happens in the swing states Trump will lose titanically and we’ll finally be rid of the idiocracy that makes normally ethically weak republican pols to pander to it.
Sure thing. Vote for Nikki and
more of the same lunacy.
Are you missing something.? According to a lot of economic studies, cost of change to carbonless energy is far less than the cost of the damage to our economy.
The EU farmers are indicating there is damage to the economy due to the EU restrictions. Economic studies paid for by whom? Economists are not climate scientists. When Katrina happened in New Orleans, a record 12 year period without a major hurricane hitting the U.S. followed. How would an economist have accounted for that period, not knowing in advance that a lack of extreme weather would occur for 12 years?
Its not only hurricanes, but droughts that are causing some pretty large damage to our properties and living conditions. By hurricane projections in high co2 scenarios, there are predicted to be fewer hurricanes, but there will be more stronger ones. Which means even more damage than in the past.
link to en.wikipedia.org
“economic studies”
You keep using that word. I do not think you know what it means.
(c.f. “Inconceivable” – Princess Bride)
You could lay all the economists in the world out end-to-end, and they still wouldn’t reach an intelligent conclusion. – George Bernard Shaw
When was the last time “Jeff” showed anyone here an “economic study”, and futher, mad some specific reference to some item of content within it to support a specific point or argument he wants to make? How about never.
I don’t think you really have a cogent argument to make. Climate damage can be estimated by the different pathways of the carbon pollution. It’s easily obvious, the more co2 pollution, the more damage to our living space. That costs us money and sets us back on our economy. Not that hard to see for me, but maybe for you it is.
The assumption that the Earth’s atmosphere is a closed system, and that CO2 is a hazard is absolutely absurd.
““It also comprises just 0.04% of the atmosphere.
“Quit giving credence to these liars and elitists.”
Without CO2, there would be no life on Earth.
And no mention of the Tonga volcano. It’s hard to give this drivel credence when the greatest influence on global temperature for 2023 and the next couple years is ignored or concealed. Water vapor is a drastically greater influence on global temperatures and the Tonga volcano pumped millions of tons of water into the atmosphere along with other chemicals, e.g. sulfur. Scientists admit it will affect global temperatures for a few years, but not mentioned in this propaganda.
Go back and read up some more on co2. THe earth’s average temperature tracks co2 very well in the ice core. There is a phrase that rings quite true, co2 is the thermostat of the earth.
So how much of the atmosphere is CO2? Has it ever been higher? Lower?
What is the correct climate that we shooting for? The earth has been colder and warmer in the past was this due to changes in CO2 and how was this done?
…and just like Brexit, there’s different types of CO2, isn’t there Jeff?
What about it?
For starters, CO2 levels varied from 170 ppm to 300 ppm for the last million years. At 170 ppm the earth is in an ice age, with a mile of ice over present day New York. This happens naturally about every 100,000 years. At 300 ppm, the ice has mostly melted or retreated to the polar regions and mountain tops, and we have conditions ideal for human existence.
In the last 10,000 years of recorded human development and history, CO2 levels ranged from 280 ppm to 300 ppm.
However, in just the last 200 years man has caused CO2 levels to increase from 280 ppm to 420 ppm.
Most scientists think a reasonable target level would be 280 to 320 ppm.
In 1850, the co2 concentration was 280 ppm. That is about the amount that has kept humanity centered in our agriculteral flourishing. The climate of 280 ppm is about the right climate for us to be in. We could easily hit 500 ppm co2 by the end of this century which is warmer than then giving us less room for agriculture to support us on earth.
You can’t have “carbonless energy”, if you knew anything about school-level chemistry, biology, and physics, never mind real economics, you wouldn’t say such incipient things; but then, you are indoctrinated into a cult, so you are disregarded anyway.
Wind and solar that will eventually be made by renewable energy will be carbonless. Sweden is already making green steel. Transition takes time.
Jeffrey, I actually feel quite sorry for you. Humans are incapable of solving the n body problem and if that eludes us it is rather obvious that climate modelling must also be the same. Humans don’t as yet have the computing power to even remotely approach the sort of understanding of fluid dynamics required in order to model climate on a planetary scale. You can quote all the studies you wish. We simply are not there yet. Science is full of at the moment “established” fact that later turns out to be incorrect. Next just because some people agree with a concept doesn’t make it correct or even reasonable. Sadly most humans can’t accept uncertainty and find themselves grasping at anything to bring them to ground. Pray hard for wisdom and understanding. It is a long hard road but with a little humility you might get there.
I also feel sorry for Jeff. He is correct on so many things. But he fails to understand that the world is simply not going to do enough to stop global warming and climate change because countries and the individuals in them are addicted to economic growth and better standards of living. And over 80% of the energy necessary to that addiction comes from fossil fuels.
Which is why I remain heavily invested in oil and gas stocks.
Strangely enough, climate is easier to project out into the future than weather. Its really about just the GHGs in the atmosphere. Weather is just the variation within the climate. The warming climate is the balance between sun and the GHGs. That’s it.
climate models vs measurements
STILL Epic Fail: 73 Climate Models vs. Measurements, Running 5-Year Means – Roy Spencer, PhD. (drroyspencer.com)
Remember, glacier national park will be without glaciers by .. 2018.. wait 2020.. wait 2025..wait
Roy Spencer no longer has credibility in his blog postings. 50 years of climate modeling has actually done well.
link to science.org
CO2 warming of the earth is real along with other GHGs.
Reducing our GHG emissions yields far bigger benefits than the cost of GHG reductions.
GHG emission damage brings far greater harm to some than others, more than likely those that can afford it the least.
Human global warming cannot be handled by the private sector alone. This is the equivalent of WW3 in scope.
link to brookings.edu
Fact 10: Proposed U.S. carbon taxes would yield significant reductions in CO2 and environmental benefits in excess of the costs.To assess proposals for a national U.S. carbon price, it is important to understand the size of the likely emissions reduction. Figure 10 shows projections of emissions reductions from Barron et al. (2018) under different assumptions about the level and subsequent growth rate of a U.S. carbon price. Over the 2020-30 period a carbon tax starting at $25 per ton in 2020 and increasing at 1 percent annually above the rate of inflation achieves a reduction in CO2 of 10.5 gigatons, or an 18 percent reduction from the baseline (emissions level in 2005). A more-ambitious $50 per ton price, rising at 5 percent subsequently, would reduce near-term emissions by an estimated 30 percent.16
For a start “Greenhouse Gases” (GHG) is not the same thing as “CO2 warming”.
Here’s one for you, from a few days ago:
“Rising greenhouse gases have cooling effect on Antarctica’s atmosphereA “negative greenhouse effect” means rising concentrations of CO2 and methane have slightly cooled parts of Antarctica’s upper atmosphere, but that could change as the air becomes more humid”
link to newscientist.com
Or are you going to call “new scientist” a “far right blog” because it undermines your argument?
The truth is that CO2 is not a warming lever, what actually happens is more complex, and climate systems adjust a bit, and adapt.
Here’s what Wikipedia (citing your favourite scientific publishers) says:
“The most abundant greenhouse gases in Earth’s atmosphere, listed in decreasing order of average global mole fraction, are:[5][6]
Water vapor (H2O),
Carbon dioxide (CO2),
Methane (CH4),
Nitrous oxide (N2O),
Ozone (O3),
Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs; and HCFCs),
Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs),
Perfluorocarbons (CF4, C
2F6, etc.), SF6, and NF3.
Yet, while water vapor is a potent greenhouse gas, humans are not directly adding to its concentrations,[7]. so it is not one of the primary drivers of climate change, but rather one of the feedbacks.[8] On the other hand, carbon dioxide is causing about three quarters of global warming and can take thousands of years to be fully absorbed by the carbon cycle.[9][10] Methane causes most of the remaining warming and lasts in the atmosphere for an average of 12 years.[11]”
So GHGs mainly means: water, CO2, and methane.
Of those, it’s not CO2 that’s the main culprit, it’s water, which is not from anthropogenic industrial activity, it’s natural… water vapour contributes about 67% of warming. The more clouds there are, the less effect CO2 has. Methane is about 4 times more potent than CO2, but its volumes are much lower.
Bear in mind also that, we NEED “greenhouse gases”, as Wikipedia also reminds us:
“Without greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the average temperature of Earth’s surface would be about −18 °C (0 °F),[2] rather than the present average of 15 °C (59 °F).[3][4]”
What you omit from your content is the actual numbers concerned in terms of CO2 increase, and they are incredibly tiny in real terms – they also overwhelmingly come from the developing world, including China, and India, etc…
Reducing the creation of CO2 is not very effective; increasing the biomass of CO2 absorbing organisms in the sea, is the most effective.
“The first 30 ppm increase in CO2 concentrations took place in about 200 years, from the start of the Industrial Revolution to 1958; however the next 90 ppm increase took place within 56 years, from 1958 to 2014.[13][42][43] Similarly, the average annual increase in the 1960s was only 37% of what it was in 2000 through 2007.[44]”
So in fact, the West has reduced its CO2 emissions enough; it’s the developing world that has to contribute now, and reduce that remaining 37%, which means China, and a growing India and SEAsia… why not spread your message over there?
A very good presentation of information. So refreshing to see, as opposed to most of the anti-science cult morons here. Thanks.
Now: to discuss some of it.
The article you referenced clearly says that the cooling in the atmosphere over Antarctica is a rare phenomenon. Not the norm. So don’t try to portray it as any kind of proof that GHGs do not cause warming of the atmosphere in general.
Your statement that CO2 is not a warming lever is garbage; because you yourself prove it is a lever later in your post.
Thanks for providing that great list of GHGs. And thanks for pointing out that without GHGs, the planet’s average temperature would be -18C and a ball of ice. Something I also frequently point out. Most of the morons here think that CO2 and other GHGs have no effect on climate at all.
Yes, water vapor is the largest GHG, but without the other GHGs, water vapor does nothing at all. Because without those other GHGs, all the water is part of the frozen ice covering the entire planet, with almost none of it left in the atmosphere.
Yes, CO2 levels are increasing by just 2.5 ppm per year or 10 ppm every 4 years. We are at currently at 420ppm. We should hit 450 ppm in 12 years.
The problem is that as these levels keep increasing, global warming and climate change will keep getting worse. And since CO2 says in the atmosphere for such a long time, the warming is locked in for a very long time.
Yes, China and India are big contributors to GHGs because of their large populations.
But so is the US.
Total annual CO2 emissions in tons
China: 10.4 billion
US: 5 billion
India: 2.5 billion
Per Capita CO2 in tons
US: 15.32
China: 7.44
India: 1.89
Asking China and India to cut back while we still emit so much more per capita is not going over well in those countries.
In addition, most of the increase in CO2 over the last hundred years was from the US and Europe. China and India say that we caused the problem (and they are right) and now we are asking them to solve it (also correct).
That’s a tough sell.
So your statement that the west has reduced its CO2 emissions enough is also garbage.
As I frequently say:
Anthropogenic global warming is real and it’s a problem that is going to keep getting worse. Because we are not going to do anything significant to stop it. Because we are addicted to fossil fuels that provide the majority of the energy that helps grow our economies and improve our standards of living.
Got oil?
There are common sense ways to go about reducing carbon in our energy use. Listed in the figure at the link are the low and high cost ways. The idea is to pick the low hanging fruit first and as the social cost of carbon goes up, the more expensive carbon abatement may have cheaper solutions or not.
link to brookings.edu
But when the goal is to reduce emissions at the lowest cost, economic theory and common sense suggest that the cheapest strategies for abating emissions should be implemented first. State and federal policy choices can play an important role in determining which of the options shown in figure 7 are implemented and in what order.
A common approach is to impose certain emissions standards—for example, a low-carbon fuel standard. The difficulty with this approach is that, in some cases, standards require abatement methods involving relatively high costs per ton while some low-cost methods are not implemented. This can reflect government regulators’ limited information about abatement costs or political pressures that favor some standards over others. By contrast, a carbon price—discussed in facts 8 through 10—helps to achieve a given emissions reduction target at the minimum cost by encouraging abatement actions that cost less than the carbon price and discouraging actions that cost more than that price.
The “common sense method” is to get China, India, SEAsia, West Asia, Central Asia, Africa, Central America, and South America, to reduce their global emissions, because that’s where most of the CO2 emissions come from, not from the West.
link to worldpopulationreview.com
United States is number 2. Surprised you made this statement. We are part of the west.
Economy of scale. Electrification of all that we can. Heating homes with heat pumps, driving EVs, battery lawnmowers, other yard tools, electric semis, possible electric trains, buses, etc. 2040 to 2050 will be a much different time than today. IF you look at the graph of levelized cost of energy for solar and wind, the cost is clearly coming down and is not done on its further downwards trajectory.
link to brookings.edu
Fact 6: The price of renewable energy is falling.The declining cost of producing renewable energy has played a key role in the trends described in fact 5. Figure 6 shows the declining prices of solar and wind energy—not including public subsidies—over the 2010–17 period. Because these price decreases have followed largely from technology induced supply increases, solar and wind energy now play a more-important role in the U.S. energy mix (CEA 2017). In many settings, however, clean energy remains more expensive on average than fossil fuels (The Hamilton Project [THP] and the Energy Policy Institute at the University of Chicago [EPIC] 2017), highlighting the need for continued technological advances.
The increasing share of renewables in energy supply is due in part to cost-reducing advances in technology and increased exploitation of economies of scale. Government subsidies—justified by the social costs of carbon emissions—for renewable energy have also played a role. When the negative spillovers from CO2 emissions are incorporated into the price of fossil fuels, many forms of clean energy are far cheaper than many fossil fuels (THP and EPIC 2017). However, making a much broader use of clean energy faces technological hurdles that have not yet been fully addressed. Renewable energy sources are in many cases intermittent—they make power only when the wind blows or the sun shines—and shifting towards more renewable energy production may require substantial improvements in battery technology and changes to how the electricity market prices variability (CEA 2016). The technological developments that drive falling clean energy prices are the product of public and private investments. In a Hamilton Project policy proposal, David Popp (2019) examines ways to encourage faster development and deployment of clean energy technologies.
You can’t electrify everything, because that requires a massive installation of copper around every country in the world. The pollution created by mining, processing, and installing that copper is incompatible with your climate goals, and the electricity that flows through that copper infrastructure is supplied either directly by energy sources that are not compatible with your climate goals, or transported and maintained using energy that is incompatible with your climate goals.
Furthermore, the moment you start increasing the demand for copper (much of which comes from countries who do not comply with your climate goals), the price of copper naturally rises, and the cost of the upgrade of infrastructure rises.
On top of that, you need to increase the numbers of vehicles, equipment and machinery, and train people (through 3-5-year vocational and academic courses) to have the capacity to upgrade the infrastructure as you state, whilst still maintaining the infrastructure that you have, that is needed to upgrade to the infrastructure that you want.
How about those for facts?
If the world is to go clean, then electrifiy all that we can. Pump the rest of pollutants underground if we must. I have read of mining equipment developed to be electrified. One mine set up like the trolley cars. Saved money on fuel, and the operation was more efficient saving money there. Some things may not be able to electrify. We will see.
Basically carbon intensity has fallen since we are shutting down coal and mostly replacing coal with natural gas. If green hydrogen can step up, then natural gas could be replaced also. We are in transition to get rid of our co2 emissions.
link to brookings.edu
Fact 5: Energy intensity and carbon intensity have been falling in the U.S. economy.The high-damage climate outcomes described in previous facts are not inevitable: There are good reasons to believe that substantial emissions reductions are attainable. For example, not only has the emissions-to-GDP ratio of the U.S. economy declined over the past two decades, but during the last decade the absolute level of emissions has declined as well, despite the growth of the economy. From a peak in 2007 through 2017, U.S. carbon emissions have fallen 14 percent while output grew 16 percent (Bureau of Economic Analysis 2007–17; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] 2007–17; authors’ calculations). This reversal was produced by a combination of declining energy intensity of the U.S. economy (figure 5a) and declining carbon intensity of U.S. energy use (figure 5b). However, emissions increased in 2018, which suggests that sound policy will be needed to continue making progress (Rhodium Group 2019).
U.S. energy intensity (defined as energy consumed per dollar of GDP) has been falling both in times of economic expansion and contraction, allowing the economy to grow even as energy use falls. This has been crucial for mitigating climate change damages (CEA 2017; Obama 2017). Some estimates suggest that declining energy intensity has been the biggest contributor to U.S. reductions in carbon emissions (EIA 2018). Technological advancements and energy efficiency improvements have in turn driven the reduction in energy intensity (Metcalf 2008; Sue Wing 2008).
LOL “Green Hydrogen”.
Do you have even the slightest clue how hydrogen is produced in the real world?
Yes.
Yup.
So take your message to China, India, SEAsia, West Asia, Central Asia, Africa, Central America, Latin America, and of course Russia… because the work is done in the West, there’s nothing left in the toothpaste tube to squeeze out without economic collapse.
Not so bucko. Most transportation can electrify. Shipping can switch to a different fuel. Some shipping is now do carbon capture on board for ocean going vessels. We are really just scratching the surface of getting started.
United States that contributed to climate GHGs the most will basically suffer the least. Should you look at fact 3 in the link, you will see the countries in red which are projected to take very large economic hits in the high emissions scenario. Its only common sense to get out of polluting GHGs. But that common sense on this site amongst most doesn’t exist. Those that understand the science and economics of AGW are waiting for common sense consensus on this issue.
link to brookings.edu
Fact 3: Globally, low-income countries will lose larger shares of their economic output.Unlike other pollutants that have localized or regional effects, GHGs produce global effects. These emissions constitute a negative spillover at the widest scale possible: For example, emissions from the United States contribute to warming in China, and vice versa. Moreover, some places are much more exposed to economic damages from climate change than are other places; the same increase in atmospheric carbon concentration will cause larger per capita damages in India than in Iceland.
This means that carbon emissions and the damages from those emissions can be (and, in fact, are) distributed in very different ways. Figure 3 shows impacts on per capita GDP based on a study of the GDP growth effects of warming, highlighting the relatively high per capita income reductions in Latin America, Africa, and South Asia (though higher-income countries would lose more absolute aggregate wealth and output because of their higher levels of economic activity). The figure also uses a higher estimate of potential economic damages that takes into account impacts on productivity and growth that accumulate over time as opposed to looking at snapshots of lost activity in a given year. Thus, the estimates are higher than those presented in facts 1 and 2, highlighting both the uncertainty and the potentially disastrous outcomes that are possible.
So take your message to China, India, SEAsia, West Asia, Central Asia, Africa, Central America, Latin America, and of course Russia… because the work is done in the West, there’s nothing left in the toothpaste tube to squeeze out without economic collapse.
You will survive the change.
Insurance companies already know this stuff. They understand risk far better than anyone discussing it on this forum. The states are listed in here that will be hit the hardest. With conservative thinking, you don’t deserve help if climate has all but wiped out your home. Tough luck man.. That’s life. Climate will open the cracks of conservatism wide open. The private sector cannot handle this on their own. This takes something much larger and that is government.
link to brookings.edu
Fact 2: Struggling U.S. counties will be hit hardest by climate change.The effects of climate change will not be shared evenly across the United States; places that are already struggling will tend to be hit the hardest. To explore the local impacts of climate change, we use a summary measure of county economic vitality that incorporates labor market, income, and other data (Nunn, Parsons, and Shambaugh 2018), paired with county level costs as a share of GDP projected by Hsiang et al. (2017).4
Figure 2 shows that the bottom fifth of counties ranked by economic vitality will experience the largest damages, with the bottom quintile of counties facing losses equal in value to nearly 7 percent of GDP in 2080–99 under the RCP 8.5 scenario (a projection that assumes little to no additional climate policy action and warming of roughly 4.3°C above preindustrial levels).5 Counties that will be hit hardest by climate change tend to be located in the South and Southwest regions of the United States (Muro, Victor, and Whiton 2019). Rao (2017) finds that nearly two million homes are at risk of being underwater by 2100, with over half of those being located in Florida, Louisiana, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Texas. More-prosperous counties in the United States are often in the Northeast, upper Midwest, and Pacific regions, where temperatures are lower and communities are less exposed to climate damage.
ALL I agree on with you is that the world will indeed be different in 2040-2050….it will be much more of a MESS than it is today, in ALL aspects; Climate change whether anthropogenic or not can NOT be stopped ! The more climate profiteers try to do about it , the worse it will get ….
So you say. We are living in climate change now. In the science of this, the sun didn’t do it. The heat is not sourced from the earth for the warming. It is all green house gases from us. We don’t stop using FFs, we make living on earth way far more difficult. It is us and only us.
Us and only us, that’s right .Why do politicians and their ” know it all” scientists never ever mention the biggest problem on earth, being dramatic human overpopulation ?
China is addressing it.
They do, they are Malthusians just like you, and want to destroy Human life for the sake of their jihadi climate cult ideology.
I sense incoherence on your part.
Seperate issue. What do you propose? China now wants women to have more babies.
You don’t understand science at all… almost all the energy in the universe that we experience comes from stars; from the Sun in Earth’s case.
There is no “we” here… take your message to China, India, SEAsia, West Asia, Central Asia, Africa, Central America, Latin America, and of course Russia… because the work is done in the West, there’s nothing left in the toothpaste tube to squeeze out without economic collapse.
The cost of energy will go down with RE. The cheaper energy is actually an economic stimulus.
Close Brussels. Anthropogenic Climate change can be stopped, but it won’t, because it is too costly to do so.
We are addicted to fossil fuels in order to grow our economies and improve our living standards. And we are not willing to give that up.
The economics shows the benefits of leaving the fossil fuel system. The longer we stay in FFs, the more it sucks the money out of the economy.
No argument with that in the long term. But the process will be agonizingly slow. Three decades and $5 trillion spent so far and all we have managed to do is reduce fossil fuel use from 82% to 81% of total energy used.
And the amount of fossil fuels used each year continues to increase! Because we still cannot meet our ever increasing demand for more energy each year with renewables alone. Which means we are still going in the wrong direction.
81% of new energy this year will be solar and storage.
link to environmentenergyleader.com
So take your message to China, India, SEAsia, West Asia, Central Asia, Africa, Central America, Latin America, and of course Russia… because the work is done in the West, there’s nothing left in the toothpaste tube to squeeze out without economic collapse.
I can hear that sucking sound of FFs now. Our economy will benefit from cheaper energy, higher energy efficiency, lower health costs, lower premature death rate.
The functinality of property (i.e. home) insurance doesn’t make sense in the U.S. and is a system bound for collapse. Homeowners ‘winning’ a new roof when an old, weathered one is slightly damaged (replacement cost not pro-rated), builders switching to plastic shells for exterior siding that are easily damaged, using matchstick-framing to erect cavernous structures that are prone to having roofs peeled off, increasing building density in vulnerable areas, inflated valuation of structures in said vulnerable areas, et cetera.
A typical individual can’t afford to pay an unexpected $1k expense, let alone pay for a house (30-year mortgage) or vehicle (5-7 year loan), therefore losses are increasingly socialized and, as you observe, will lead to governmental involvement. The population changes across the U.S. over the past 100 years imply the risk assumed by the insurers has substantially changed because there has been rapid population growth in vulerable areas and population decline in much of the ‘more prosperous’, benign areas you refer to.
Why that 200 super smart economist haven’t made a model themselves?
They could proof us how much intelligents they are.
thank you Mish for showing my fellow country man, Guy Verhofstadt, the rabbit some called him because of his ugly teeth. As a member of the political party (PVV) he presided at the time(eighties) I met him personally on several occasions, a very sympathetic and no doubt intelligent , shrewd rather, sycophant… He became prime minister of Belgium in the nineties and sold out our country for cheap in order to cook the books; among other scams our national energy company was bought by France, he also sold state property at far too low prices in shady sell and lease back operations. After messing up as prime minister he did what most failed national politicians do (cf Charles Michel) he looked for asylum within the corrupt, parasitic EU where he continued being corrupt like never before, difference being that corruption within the circus is legal. No need to tell you he became filthy rich , ‘legally’ so… yet ever so shadily….
For a balanced picture, you could have mentioned some of his bad deeds.
He is a hideous (inside and outside) brainless toxic cretin, and epitomises the enemy of Humanity, the demonic cult that is pervasive across media, public sector, and western governments.
Brought to you by NewsMax
“It’s notable that the economists are not at all interested in the Truth. They want biased models to produce a certain outcome,
Isn’t that called rigging the result to fit the agenda? We are seeing that in science, too. Just follow the money.
Yep! And the same thing goes for the psuedo climate scientists.
“Isn’t that called rigging the result to fit the agenda?”
Aside from some; occasionally admittedly clever; exercises in pure math and statistics which aren’t even intended to relate to reality in any way; that sort of “rigging”; of arbitrary “models”; is what all so called “economics” have been about, ever since Keynes first pulled it off.
For nearly a century; the game has been nothing more than shilling for; and making excuses for; whatever nonsensical agenda Dear Leader wants his gullible captive indoctrinati to fall for. Then, Dear Leader will anoint you, and recommend you for a columnist spot at some has-been Paper of Nonsense.
Scientists aren’t supported by Fossil Fuels. I wonder if Mish is getting support from the Fossil Fuels boys.
Like you, you mean? Did they complete the investigation into you yet?
If I’m getting money from somewhere, I would like to know. That would be cool.
“Eritrean African immigrants burn down The Hague, Netherlands.”
Doesn’t that produce carbon dioxide?
All the The Hague?? You mean all 500,000 people there have had their houses and apartments burned to the ground by a group of Eritrean immigrants?
They should at least have burnt down that mfr called the ICC, international symbol of arbitrary US/NATO imposed (in)justice….the height of hypocrisy being that the US did not even sign up to it….go figure with all those warcrimes committed in recent decades…
Burning someplace in the Netherlands is OK as long as they don’t touch Belgium which is French by history, language, geography and Sacred Right. Don’t you agree?
Half of it, the Flanders bit, and Luxembourg bit, not so much.
We were spanish too and dutch, Flanders that is, not Belgium, Belgium is a artificial chimera !
Remember, diversity is our strength!
Doesn’t count of there were offsets purchased ahead of time.
Human caused climate change is real, full stop. Even more intimidating is our primary energy resource oil is the biggest factor in climate change…and its obviously a finite resource that very likely has peaked. No amount of right wing nit picking and poor liberal policy making will solve the enrgy problem.
We need a paradigm change from geo-production and resource discovery to cosmic-production and resource discovery and the only way to accomplish that is to turn chronic erosive inflation into beneficial price and asset deflation using the accounting operation of equal debits and credits that sum to zero at retail sale, point of loan signing and throughout the entire economic process.
Banishing inflation will enable the kind of focused rational investment and fiscal deficits needed to fund the research and development mega-projects necessary to confront the two problems in the first paragraph.
Try thinking about the fact that Austrian/Libertarian economic theory WANTS deflation its just that creating that with monetary austerity is the exact same universaly painful blunt instrument as FED monetary policy. However, if you simply utilize the accounting operation of equal debits and credits at retail sale and point of loan signing you mathematically implement beneficial deflation that doubles everyone’s purchasing power and potentially doubles the demand for every enterprise’s goods and services which is the very definition of good economic times.
It’s easier to fool a man than to convince him he’s been fooled. Normally I’d let you stew in your fantasy, but, the rubes are trying to kill the goose that laid the golden egg. I bet you’re not a scientist and I bet you can’t even add fractions. But you watch the boobtube, seewhich way the mob is headed, and scream “me too, me too!” You should stick to WI dow cleaning that’s where your IQ serves you best.
There is special place in hell for those who undermine the truth, publicly. (SHILL)
If you’re not a shill then you are a moron.
And as a moron – I will personally pay to have you and all of your descendants sterilized and any compatriots who harbor similar delusions.
If you are a shill, history has shown, the truth usually prevails in the end and you may face the consequences of your actions. There are currently a lot of angry people and and hell hath no fury like those who eventually find out they were deceived. Odds are not on your side here and you might want to find an honest job.
Explain this shill/moron Papa Dave clone?
Why do plants stop growing and some die at 250 PPM Co2?
Why do plants grown best at 1200 – 1600 PPM Co2?
And current 400PPM Co2 is a problem because?
You see Mish they can’t answer the question and never will.
This one point destroys the argument of “totalitarian necessity”.
What I advocate both exposes the worn out orthodoxies on the left and right, and resolves the economic, monetary and ecological problems neither is capable of doing. YOU are the one who needs to do the simple math of what my policies do until you actually see that TEMPORAL UNIVERSE REALITY and how beneficial it will be….not me.
Same goes for non-looking Alex.
Lol! Fast bear has to be the dumbest person here!
All the species of plants on earth grew fine for the last million years, when CO2 levels ranged from 170 ppm to 300 ppm.
Care to explain why they all didn’t die off when CO2 levels were as low as 170 ppm?
In the real world of high co2 concentrations, the ideal green house no longer exists and there are some pretty stark differences between the two. This takes some close reading of the different studies showing us their results.
link to skepticalscience.com
FACE studies are therefore superior to greenhouse studies in their ability to predict how natural plants should respond to enhanced CO2 in the real world; unfortunately, the results of these studies are not nearly as promising as those of greenhouse studies, with final yield values averaging around 50% less in the free-air studies compared to greenhouse studies (Leaky et al. 2009, Long et al. 2006, Ainsworth & Long 2005, Morgan et al. 2005). Reasons for this are numerous, but it is suspected that in a greenhouse, the isolation of individual plants, constrained root growth, restricted pest access, lack of buffer zones, and unrealistic atmospheric interactions all contribute to artificially boost growth and yield under enhanced CO2.
Ursula is backing down a very tiny bit of her goals only to appear electable again. Every politician that is up for reelection this year is doing something to appear to soften their ridiculous hard line climate/vaccine/censorship stance. The people will naturally fall for it thinking a tactical retreat is “a win” for them and that it signals an about face. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Once reelected the closet despots will come back with their dictates and they will be even more unforgiving and brutal than before.
She doesn’t need to appear electable, she never bothers with elections herself…
Is it the same 200 economists who accurately predicted the GFC, and hailed ZIRP and QE as the greatest invention since sliced bread – or is it a different set of “economists”. /sarc
What’s next, big legal firms incorporating climate change surcharge into their fees?
It’s a touch competition out there.
I have been awaiting the time when the governance of the global insane asylum moves from plutocracy to oligarchy. Apparently we are now arriving.
Europe doesn’t matter. It didn’t matter in 1914, either.
Doesn’t matter to whom?
Future Europeans.
Much as Americans as of 2500 years ago, matters a lot less to current day Americans than contemporary Greeks do; current Europeans will matter a lot less to future Europeans, than current Chinese and Asians do. Perhaps even than current Eritreans do.
Ditto Americans.
Once you no longer contribute anything of lasting value; you’ll fairly quickly become irrelevant, even for your own direct descendants.
You took a paragraph to say that History moves on.
Everything we experience “now”, is already “history”, due to physics.
FYI Here is short video explaining some well established science on heat transfer that significantly discredits the “sky is falling” narrative. Note, this is a well respected Princeton physicist who invented using lasers to create a fake stars in the upper atmosphere (using lasers) for use in adaptive optics. I.e., He knows a thing or two about the atmosphere and its interaction with EM radiation (unlike Greta Thunberg)
link to youtu.be
The economics of global warming is consistent all throught the scientific literature. The larger the temperature increase from our pollution of GHGs, the worse the economic damage. I have only presented a small portion of the first fact. Should anyone like to discuss this with me, by all means, I have shown the link to my information source to help out.
link to brookings.edu
Fact 1: Damages to the U.S. economy grow with temperature change at an increasing rate.The physical changes described in the introduction will have substantial effects on the U.S. economy. Climate change will affect agricultural productivity, mortality, crime, energy use, storm activity, and coastal inundation (Hsiang et al. 2017).
At 2°C of warming by 2080–99, Hsiang et al. (2017) project that the United States would suffer annual losses equivalent to about 0.5 percent of GDP in the years 2080–99 (the solid line in figure 1). By contrast, if the global temperature increase were as large as 4°C, annual losses would be around 2.0 percent of GDP. Importantly, these effects become disproportionately larger as temperature rise increases: For the United States, rising mortality as well as changes in labor supply, energy demand, and agricultural production are all especially important factors in driving this nonlinearity.
Does Bill Gates have this hogwash in all four of his private jets…each flight of which puts more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than the average person does in a lifetime of driving an automobile? Yet guess who is supposed to give up which possession?
BIll Gates believes in climate change science and is doing more than I ever could alone to help mitigate it. CO2 is a molecular robot that acts the same all the time, everytime since the beginning of time. Humans have only figured this out in science starting in 1861.
No, you are a molecular robot…
So take your message to China, India, SEAsia, West Asia, Central Asia, Africa, Central America, Latin America, and of course Russia… because the work is done in the West, there’s nothing left in the toothpaste tube to squeeze out without economic collapse.
LOL
I doubt you are familiar with the scientific literature. But I suspect that is the case since politics has perverted climate sciencs. When you only fund proposal that conform with the climate change hypothesis, you get the result you fund. In short, this is bad science and most scientist will tell you so.
There are 14,000 papers on climate from all over the world leading to the conclusion of humans are warming the planet with our GHG emissions. So if I get your point of view, then all 14,000 science papers are tainted. I await your evidence in this matter.
Jeff, it’s fairly well documented that anyone whose climate-change-related research points in a different direction (a) cannot get it published and (b) cannot get further funding. Your “scientific consensus” is 100% GroupThink which has been <I>manufactured</I> by special interests.
In the rest of science, at least the parts not government funded, there is generally no consensus about any topic as complicated as global warming. And when there is such a consensus, it’s at best provisional and typically proven wrong once new information comes in.
– Professional Scientist
Really? Show me! Sounds like conspiracy theory to me.
Please present this documentation. Who published it? Is it peer reviewed? Is it from the Flat Earth Society?
Government puts some pretty tight boundaries on how the science is conducted.
Now denier fake science is just a story with very little foundation in fact. That is why when denier science hits the courts with conservative judges, the science wins and deniers loose to right leaning judges.
You have neither read nor understood the content of any of them.
I have read them, looked at the graphs which are mostly self explanatory. Being able to read and comprehend this material may be beyond your experience and comprehension. This is where the truth lies in this and you can’t understand it.
“The larger the temperature increase from our pollution of GHGs, the worse the economic damage.”
Which is why the Polar regions, and Northern Siberia and Canada; have always been the world’s undisputed centers of economic activity.
They are? Show me.
That’s a new one on me. Show me.
So take your message to China, India, SEAsia, West Asia, Central Asia, Africa, Central America, Latin America, and of course Russia… because the work is done in the West, there’s nothing left in the toothpaste tube to squeeze out without economic collapse.
Change must really upset you. Economics and climate are quite intertwined. I don’t think you could comprehend it though.
“Over morning coffee, his father, Frans Dochy, 82, remembers how, in his youth, he would harvest beets out of the cold, thick earth by hand for hours. Yet, he says, 2024 bookkeeping “would have driven me off the farm long ago.”
Myself I would prefer to be in a warm office doing bookkeeping than pulling beets out of the cold, wet earth by hand for hours but maybe I am an exception and most of you enjoy work like that.
I once helped clear portion of a trail in Luxembourg; which has Belgian like (meaning: Seattle is a desert…) weather. And while I’m as rain allergic as the next Southern Californian; I have to admit that being outside in the humid, cold, musky air in that part of the world (Northern France, Luxembourg, Belgium,parts of Holland, far NorthWest Germany) is remarkably invigorating. Emphasis on outside. All that musky humidity, makes it frightfully hard to keep mold under control indoors. Probably triply so, if CO2 concerns forces tight homes with closed windows and black mold friendly insulation and sealing.
Air to air to heat exchangers for fresh air and dehumidication.
do they work on the hot air that comes out of you?
I’m wondering if you are a mama’s boy living in the basement.
If done exactly right, that no doubt helps.
You need to build to very tight tolerances; and include very thorough ventilation coverage and circulation;as well as to make sure your construction stays tight and right for the entire, 30 to100+year, life of the building, though. Which is easier said than done in practice. Especially in this day and age of utterly dysfunctional building economics making anything beyond code-minimum shacks non-financeable.
The old school way; of stacking bare logs around a giant hearth; then burning enough wood to keep the whole thing cozy, despite daylight-width-gaps-between-each-log levels of air circulation; worked well, too. Doesn’t scale to current population sizes, though.
Heat conducts through wood. Any inside material is isolated from the outside material. Barriers are put in to stop all leaks. The house is blower tested to look for the missed areas. A smoke test is used to see the smoke leaking through to the outside. Assming the house is well insulated and leak tight, air to air heat exchangers are used to bring in fresh air along with dehumidifiers or even humidifiers for the winter.
It’s invigorating if you don’t have to do it for the rest of your life. As a job, farming is much easier than being a commercial fisherman. My wife is from the coast of Brittany and I got to know some of the fishermen there. That is a hard job and is the most dangerous one but they like to do it because the sea is a seductive mistress.
The Brittany coast is just a scary place to be in a boat. How anyone survived fishing there prior to reliable storm forecasts, is a mystery to me.
There needs to be a serious debate about climate change. The green religion masquerades as a science and needs serious scrutiny. The entire topic has been politicized with billions in grants only supporting one sided of the argument. Real science plus real cost benefit analysis is what’s needed: not a bunch of crooked politician, bought off mediocre metrologists, and hysterical greenies shouting “the sky is falling!” But don’t expect serious treatment and proposals from the clown shows in DC or Europe.
“There needs to be a serious debate about climate change.”
Why?
There was no such thing as “a serious debate about climate change” at the end of the last Ice Age. Thank goodness.
“Debating” is, in and of itself, the problem. Far more often than not.
People, and life, are flexible. We’ll/They’ll adapt. We/They wouldn’t still be here, if it was not so.
How about this study from the International Association of Actuaries.
link to actuaries.org
Economics is a most satisfying profession because you can find many exceptions to each rule so that you can explain away every bad prediction you have made in the past and no one can blame you.
It’s even worse than that:
Every so called “rule” is so completely arbitrary, unfounded and non-universal, that their all effectively just arbitrary, pulled out of someones rear, exceptions themselves.
It’s wonderful that modern life created a niche for this job. Modern ingenuity has created another weird profession and that is a TikTok influencer.
Thats why you need to use the best temporal universe reality anchoring tool humanity has ever conceived, that is, double entry bookkeeping and its basic operation of equal debits and credits that sum to zero and apply it to strategic points in the economic process. Unfortunately few here have the open mind to do the simple math and see the incredible benefits
that their own libertarian bias thinks it can accomplish.
Each one of these facts below goes into detail as you open up each one on the site further details are there of why these are facts. Knowing my long history of talking about climate, those in denial will not read the thinking behind all this. The bigger question is, why are people afraid of facts when it comes to climate change?
link to brookings.edu
Fact 1: Damages to the U.S. economy grow with temperature change at an increasing rate.
Fact 2: Struggling U.S. counties will be hit hardest by climate change.
Fact 3: Globally, low-income countries will lose larger shares of their economic output.
Fact 4: Increased mortality from climate change will be highest in Africa and the Middle East.
Fact 5: Energy intensity and carbon intensity have been falling in the U.S. economy.
Fact 6: The price of renewable energy is falling.
Fact 7: Some emissions abatement approaches are much more costly than others.
Fact 8: Numerous carbon pricing initiatives have been introduced worldwide, and the prices vary significantly.
Fact 9: Most global GHG emissions are still not covered by a carbon pricing initiative.
Fact 10: Proposed U.S. carbon taxes would yield significant reductions in CO2 and environmental benefits in excess of the costs.
I want you to pay my share for me, please.
Save money, better health, better energy security, through renewable energy. At some point you won’t have any choice. Fossil fuels will collapse from their own economic wieght.
Then let fossil fuels collapse of their own weight. No need to bribe people to buy EV’s or ban gas stoves.
Helping FFs collapse faster is ok by me.
Fossil fuel collapse needs all the help it can get.
so what? when it’s gone, we can all go back to being cavemen… that’s what you want anyway, isn’t it?
There will be challenges ahead, no doubt. But it will be a better society coming down the pipe than we have today.
I love how people have taken to presenting opinions as “facts”…
Of the above, only 7 and 8 are demonstrably true… Captain Obvious style.
“Fact” 3 is demonstrably false “to date” (ask India and China).
“Fact” 5 might be true but isn’t relevant since US outsourced manufacturing to places like India and China… aiding their economic output while greenwashing US “carbon intensity” numbers.
The rest are at best hyped-up predictions from inherently biased and incomplete models, with countless explicit and implicit assumptions that will prove false as reality uncoils in years ahead. But as they say, “It’s difficult to make predictions, especially about the future.”
China is going faster than your closed mind can see.
Fact 3: Globally, low-income countries will lose larger shares of their economic output.
This has been in the science all along. LOL. Go back and look at the map of the countries suffering the highest projected loss. The ones in red. Which includes India.
These are peer reviewed science. Interesting part is China is the largest investor of renewable energy in the world. Last year China invested more in one year than we have all together in the United States.
All areas of the earth will get warmer with addition of GHGs to the atmosphere. Some areas will increase more rapidly than others. India is already having a tough time with droughts. With additional pollution the droughts will get stronger and last longer. A very simple pattern that already is true. Apply to areas of the world and things just get worse.
A “projected” loss is an opinion, not a fact. Models are built on assumptions not reality. Actual science is built on reality not projections.
Look at actual growth rates in China and India for the last 20 years as global warming has affected us all (or has it?) and tell me where these countries are “losing larger shares of their economic output”?
As for investment: (a) China is also building more fossil fuel power plants than the rest of the world, (b) Chinese public accounting is poor and not trusted by anyone.
There are areas of the world that will get stronger consequences of global warming than other areas of the world. That is actually a very simple concept to understand. Present deserts will grow hotter, droughts will get hotter and longer. The unlivability of some areas of the earth will expand larger. How much? That depends on us and our use of fossil fuels.
“Will suffer” is a prediction, which is an opinion. “Didn’t suffer so far” is a historical fact.
“It’s all about the bucks kid, the rest is just conversation .” Gekko
The four scenarios above illustrate different pathways we as humanity can take in reaching a more sustainable existence on earth. The economics of these different pathways has been studied a great deal. RCP 8.5 will be devastating economically vs RCP 2.6 will have much milder effects on the economy. RCP 8.5 is the path that will hurt our future generations the most.
We will all be dead by 2080. Mankind is SUPPOSED to die off. It is a natural cycle. Stop this inane BS, please.
Aren’t you just the morbid one.
No, you are, banging your pessimistic drum about Humanity’s innate and proven ability to solve any problem, even imaginary ones, like yours.
So take your message to China, India, SEAsia, West Asia, Central Asia, Africa, Central America, Latin America, and of course Russia… because the work is done in the West, there’s nothing left in the toothpaste tube to squeeze out without economic collapse.
That’s a pretty simple message you have.
The four horsemen of the apocalypse?
Insanity at it’s finest
Part othe reason insurance rates are rising is climate. It depresses the value of most Americans largest asset, our homes.
Home prices have been going up, climate crisis or not.
Try Florida and California. Or TExas when the hurricane wiiped out hundreds if not thousands of homes.
So if climate depresses the value of my house wouldn’t that make my insurance rates go DOWN?
If you are at higher risk of climate damage, then your price goes down on the house and the insurance companies just may drop you like what is happening in Florida. It may be only the gov will come in at some point to bail you out with my tax money.
If the insurance payout is less, then insurance companies are more likely to pay out, not less. You don’t have any tax money anyway, it’s the government debt that pays, that pushes up risk and interest rates… QED
Insurance rates in the high disaster prone areas are going through the roof. Or the insurance companies just leave. If they stay in these areas, they may delay or find reasons to not pay you. Paying a lot and not getting benefits when needed is not a pretty place to be in.
Just think how bad housing inflation would be in it wasn’t for the deflationary effects of climate change. Thank you climate change.
It is a natural cycle. Imagine worrying about climate change in 2080? INANE.
What deniers don’t understand is that the climate models are very good at predicting conditions of future climate. Its not cyclic like weather is. High co2 content in the atmosphere takes a long time to come back out into the oceans and land. Crops have to move north to stay in the growing zone or we have to change food habits. Ready to eat cactus?
The two biggest countries on Earth are Russia and Canada. Sparsely populated. Plenty of room for crops. Stop freaking out.
Who said I was freaking out. Canada is not the fertile land like the United States is. That is also the huge damage that can be avoided by farmers spending billions, if not trillions because we let this slide too much.
Farther north just may not be better crop land. This is also the huge economic cost of adaptation that doesn’t have to be with strong mitigation measures.
“the climate models are very good at predicting conditions of future climate”
Do you have any idea how many different physical & chemical processes have to be accurately modeled in order to get a correct climate prediction?
I’ve been reviewing climate model predictions made over the past 60 years and not one of them has been correct yet. Try again!
P.S. You might ask yourself why so many people want you to believe this stuff. It’s not for your benefit, but for theirs…
Care to make a list from all your efforts. I would like to see it.
You’ve misplaced your burden of proof, son.
I would also like to see your work. Because the majority of climate models have been very accurate.
I’m thinking you are full of sh*t.
Go ahead. Show your work.
image-46.png
Not my work, but you can see the “accuracy” of the models is somewhat … lacking.
I will agree that we shouldn’t be playing games with the CO2 and Methane concentrations on the atmosphere – Precautionary Principle applies – but in terms of actual warming and sea-level rise consequences, Nature is giving us a lot more time than our models predicted.
Do I benfit from global warming. I might be able to with a little skill and savvy. Will others be able to, most won’t be able to adapt easily. It will be difficult for many people who lack sufficient income to do so.
YOU ARE THE DENIER!
I’m devastated.
I’m in an area of low climate risk, possibly your home isn’t. Might want to sell now before it gets really bad and you can’t even sell your house.
But but but you said the whole planet is at risk? Or are you in a Noah’s Ark, warning us in Sodom & Gomorrah, whilst you follow your clmate cult deities plan? Climae Cultism is a latter day Flood Myth, an ancient story.
One of the facts put up talked about uneven consequences of climate change. California, Texas, ALaska, having some of the stronger consequences. I live in an area that will have less consequences.
You look like a disaster waiting to happen with that kind of thinking.
No it isn’t, it’s debt, and debt is fueled by radical left-wing ideologues in government pushing bizarre, unscientific, and inane cult-like policies such as “net zero”, and all the other things you appear to believe in.
Trump had enormous debt increase. Its actually been GOP administrations with the larger debt increases.
Climate change is a religion. Facts don’t matter. It gives people a reason for living and to set themselves above other. “they care more”. It’s the same for all of the woke stuff. It fills the emptiness that our modern society has created.
One is elevated to a greater cause by the embrace of this religion. Perhaps there soon will be Greenshirts in the streets enforcing their dogma.
True, and Climate Doomsday Cultists are in a special NetZero Noah’s Ark, warning us in Sodom & Gomorrah to repent our sin, whilst they follow their clmate cult deities plan? Climae Cultism is a latter day Flood Myth, the most ancient story…
The inaccuracies of forecasting weather is tolerable in the short term, but are insufficient to incorporate into long term investment strategies.
I first learned of communism from a German teacher pushed out of Poland/Germany in WW2. She mentioned that Central Planners would have them scheduled to harvest hay on Sunday and, if weather prevented it, well, come Monday they were required to do what was on Monday’s schedule, leaving the Sunday field untouched and ultimately going bad. That’s exactly what this Belgian farmer discusses–Central Planners dictating what MUST be done as if they are farmers. Well, I say let the Central Planners be converted into fertilizer and sown into the field. And if things persist, that’s how it will end yet again.
They all need to read F Hayek’s little book on managing serfs again.
If they never read it they should read it twice.
Yale has instituted a new major in serf management.
Had the economists studied enough physics they would understand the impossibility of atmospheric carbon dioxide influencing climate. Climate change is a cyclic recurring celestial event. When the earth warms more water vapor moves from the ocean equator and precipitates near the cold poles. Last time we had global warming northern Europe, north Asia, and New York City were covered by one mile of ice. Those locations need more fossil fuels if they hope to preserve their civilization.
“ Had the economists studied enough physics they would understand the impossibility of atmospheric carbon dioxide influencing climate.”
Lol! No effect on climate from CO2?
What an odd thing to claim. Without CO2 in the atmosphere, the earth would be a ball of ice, with an average temperature of -18C. Something scientists have known since the 1800s.