Despite endless fearmongering in numerous places, a study by the White House Council of Economic Advisors shows climate change will have little impact on GDP.
Transition Risks of Climate Change on Macroeconomic Forecasting
We are told by the Biden Administration, the UN, AOC, and all the Grettas of the world that a rise in global temperatures in excess of 1.5 degrees would be catastrophic.
With that in mind, please consider a White Paper on the Transition Risks of Climate Change on Macroeconomic Forecasting by Biden’s Council of Economic Advisors and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
Climate-related financial risks relevant to the macroeconomic projections in the President’s Budget are composed of two types (Carney 2015): physical risks associated with the effects of climate change on economic outcomes (for instance, capital destruction in extreme events or reduced labor, capital, or land productivity in hotter temperatures) and transition risks associated with the transition to a zero-carbon economy (for example, the costs of mitigation policy or sudden changes in the valuation of assets, such as energy infrastructure with accelerated depreciation). Both have economic implications for important macroeconomic variables related to labor, trade, capital services, and productivity.
This White Paper outlines methodologies and considerations for integrating climate risks into the U.S. Government’s forecasts of macroeconomic conditions. Currently, the Long-Term Budget Outlook captures the fiscal effects of climate change by accounting for estimates of how climate damages affect longer-run GDP growth and how these changes in GDP growth, in turn, affect estimates of Federal revenues and spending.
The long-term budget outlook (LTBO) provides projections of fiscal indicators such as the deficit and debt-to-GDP ratio over the next 25 years. These projections depend on long-run economic projections that are likely to be affected by climate change. In FY 2023, the President’s Budget included a single estimate of the effects of physical climate risks: changes to the debt-to-GDP ratio implied by impacts to GDP under a high-emissions, high-warming scenario.
Change in US Debt-to-GDP vs Global Temperature Rise
Moving Too Fast (Emphasis Mine)
Meeting the Administration’s commitment to net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 will require one of the largest and fastest transformations of the U.S. energy system in history. Ultimately a carbon-free energy system could yield large benefits in the form of lower energy costs, reductions in air and water pollution, and improvements in health in addition to a stable climate. However, as we transition to this new equilibrium, many forces will have important implications for macroeconomic dynamics over the next few decades (Roy et al. 2022). The current energy infrastructure constitutes a large stock of capital. Unplanned or premature retirement of existing infrastructure (i.e., asset stranding) can create unexpected costs for asset owners (Fofrich et al. 2020). In addition, to the extent the path of the energy transition or future climate policy is uncertain, investors may under-invest in energy infrastructure generally, potentially leading to shortages and higher prices. Labor markets can exhibit frictions if the locations or skill-sets required in new jobs do not match those in declining industries, producing temporary increases in unemployment as workers take time to search for or retrain for other jobs (Hafstead et al. 2022; Greenspon and Raimi 2022; Hanson 2023). Such labor-market frictions could also delay the deployment of new energy infrastructure, which would impede the energy transition. Given the anticipated speed of the energy transition and the importance of understanding capital and labor dynamics for macroeconomic forecasting, the ability to model these dynamic frictions is highly desirable.
Risk of Moving Too Fast Highlights
- The current energy infrastructure constitutes a large stock of capital. Unplanned or premature retirement of existing infrastructure (i.e., asset stranding) can create unexpected costs for asset owners
- Investors may under-invest in energy infrastructure generally, potentially leading to shortages and higher prices.
- Labor markets can exhibit frictions if the locations or skill-sets required in new jobs do not match those in declining industries, producing temporary increases in unemployment as workers take time to search for or retrain for other jobs
- Labor-market frictions could also delay the deployment of new energy infrastructure, which would impede the energy transition.
Mish Simulation of Climate Change Impact 20 Years From Now
Assume the worst, and temperatures rise two or three degrees in an amazingly fast 20 years. The White House projects the impact on GDP would be about 1 percent, if that.
That means a GDP that would otherwise be $27.00 trillion would instead be $26.73 trillion. This we are told is catastrophic.
Hoot of the Day Q&A
Q: How come this report has not received more media attention or coverage by the White House?
A: It does not fit the required fearmongering agenda, silly.
Behold, the Rise of the Anti-Greens
The anti-immigration, anti-Green AfD got 12.6 percent in the 2021 German federal election. It’s now polling 22 percent.
Given the enormous costs (think tax hikes or inflation) of Biden’s and the EU’s goals, is it any wonder we Behold the Rise of the Anti-Greens
Electric Vehicles for Everyone?
On July 19, I asked Electric Vehicles for Everyone? If the Dream Was Met, Would it Help the Environment?
My follow-up post was What Do MishTalk Readers Think About “Electric Vehicles for Everyone?”
No, the math does not add up in the EU or here. A revolt is underway in the EU. In the US, we pretend deficits do not matter.
Human climate change will bring things we didn’t expect to see.
link to bloomberg.com
Scientists Are Worried About Antarctica’s Unprecedented Lack of Sea Ice Growth
The region’s ice has failed to replenish in the midst of winter at the bottom of the world, creating a shocking “six sigma” event.
Amid a summer of record heat, the most dramatic impact may be taking place under the cover of Antarctic night.
The continent at the bottom of the world normally sees a halo of sea ice grow around it each summer — or winter, if you’re in the southern hemisphere — but this year has been anything but normal. Scientists have been watching with shock as sea-ice growth stalls out in ways unseen in modern history. Sea ice, unlike ice on land, has a negligible effect on rising ocean levels. But the lack of rebound has entered territory known as “six sigma,” an obscure scientific term that denotes the extraordinary situation unfolding.
Antarctic sea ice usually reaches its nadir between February and March before regrowing over the next six or so months. This year, it hit an all-time low in February and has struggled to grow back. As of mid-July, there was an Argentina-sized chunk of ice missing, according to an analysis by the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC).
That’s a record low for this time of year in the satellite record of Antarctic sea ice, which goes back nearly 45 years. But “record low” doesn’t encapsulate it. Enter the term “six sigma.” Scientists refer to deviations from the norm in terms of sigmas, as a way to standardize data and make it easier to compare and test hypotheses.
An event that falls within the one sigma range is something pretty close to average. Reach two sigma and you’re starting to get into slightly odd territory, while three sigma events are outside the expected range of normal. The sea ice was around that level in June, according to Lettie Roach, an associate research scientist at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Columbia University.
But something that’s a five or six sigma event is extraordinary. Researchers have pegged the odds of an austral winter like this as somewhere in the range of once in about every 7.5 million years. Some days have yielded even more eye-watering odds, though focusing on a single day alone doesn’t quite capture the big picture.
“It’s now a larger departure from average conditions than we’ve seen in the Arctic,” said Julienne Stroeve, a senior scientist at NSIDC. (Research published last year shows the Arctic is infamously heating up roughly four times faster than the rest of the planet.)
For some people climate change isn’t real, its not bad etc. The reason for massive investment into RE is that it is real, all our instruments of which we gather evidence confirms it. It is overwhelmingly real. And now we are making great progress compared to the past. This is an important hurdle below in which a huge amount of solar and wind are waiting to get onto the grid. This will also speed up construction of new projects.
link to eenews.net
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission approved a major new rule Thursday to accelerate the connection of energy projects to the power grid, a move that could ease widespread delays stifling renewable energy.
The final rule aims to make the grid connection process more efficient at a time of unprecedented growth in clean energy development nationwide.
Calling the decision “historic,” FERC acting Chair Willie Phillips said changes in the rule will make the electric system more reliable by helping new energy projects come online faster. All four FERC commissioners voted for the plan.
“This is a landmark regulation and an exciting day for all Americans,” Phillips said on a call with reporters. “We’ve seen long wait times [for energy projects], which is hurting our reliability, hurting our resilience and raising costs for all customers.”
Well. Lots of comments on this topic. Good idea Mish.
Congratulations to Jeff Green for calmly making the case that anthropogenic global warming is indeed a problem. No matter how moronic the responses were to him, he never lost his cool. Lol!
Still, there is no way I would personally waste that much time trying to explain reality to those who simply refuse to understand. Its like trying to talk to a flat earther. No point. Particularly, one at a time.
My own argument goes something like this. It doesn’t matter what most individuals choose to “believe”. Whether you accept that anthropogenic global warming is a scientific fact or not; is not important. What IS important, is what the BIG decision makers believe. Those that are in charge of making the BIG decisions for Governments, large and small businesses, and various organizations all over the world. And the vast majority of those decision makers, accept the science of anthropogenic global warming. Which is why the world has been attempting an energy transition for decades now.
Though, the transition is not going as well as they would hope. In spite of the push to build out more renewable energy, more EVs, more efficient electrical items, and a thousand other initiatives, we are still using MORE fossil fuels each year, and we are still pumping out way too much green house gas. So the problem is only going to get worse for quite some time.
The reason we are using more fossil fuels in spite of all the “green” initiatives is because of something else that all those decision makers want; economic growth, and increased living standards.
As Alan Dias wrote “ I’m in India. Most of the people here, and most countries around, are more concerned about feeding their families tomorrow over a potential problem 50 years from hence”
He is correct. There are billions in the world who would love to have adequate food, clean water, reliable electricity, and other “luxuries” that we have in the west. And their governments want them to have that too. And if there isn’t enough renewable energy to help them yet, and coal is available, then they will burn coal.
Even in the west, when there isn’t enough renewable energy to satisfy our insatiable needs, we will burn more fossil fuels as well.
So, we have the unusual situation where the worldwide mantra is to “use less fossil fuel” and “put the fossil fuel industry out of business”. The fossil fuel industry hears this loud and clear. They have been reducing capex spending for the last decade in response. No point in looking for more reserves when they may not be needed in the future. Which is leading us to a situation of tight future supplies, in the face of still rising demand.
And when shortages of oil do appear, and prices spike, the companies get vilified for “not providing” enough oil and “ profiteering”. Gotta love it.
Amazingly, this was all foretold by a couple of previous commenters on this blog many years ago. I was fortunate enough to pay attention to them and I have profited from their wisdom.
And this situation isn’t going to change very quickly. We still want more energy every year. And we are not building enough renewables to satisfy that need. In spite of all the renewables we have already built, fossil fuels still contribute 80% of all our energy needs, the same as 20 years ago. Oil consumption continues to grow by an average of 1 million barrels per day, per year, world wide. (From 80 mbpd to 100 mbpd over the last 20 years). And its going to keep growing to 108 mbpd by the end of this decade.
So I will remain invested in many of these companies as they continue to generate copious amounts of cash flow.
And a tip for all the uninformed here, who make statements like: CO2 is essential for life, its the sun, its natural, its a conspiracy, its too many people, its been warmer before, an ice age has started etc. You might think you know something, but you DO NOT know more science than the scientists. However, your comments are pretty funny. So keep em coming. They are good for a laugh. And maybe Jeff Green will respond to them, to try to explain to you why you are wrong.
That’s enough for now. Got more important things to do.
Even Staunch left Rachel Madow said the recyling industry is trash and does more harm than good but here we are. It takes MORE energy and resources to recycle NOT LESS but my sister and mother swere on it like the cross. NO. It does nothing but harm the environment but they refuse to accept this fact.
I love them but I can’t help the ignorant. They will have to be told by the powers at be to do stuff or not to do stuff. Same with every single issue. If the “gubment” says to do stuff you do it. I can’t help this level of feeble mindedness. Nobody can. If you believe stupid stuff then you believe it. Nothing can be done.
I’d suggest that’s incorrect. Netzero would cost 100s of billions if not more to effect.
From James Lunford
No reply button on your previous moronic post spouting off how it’s science’s job to unveil the truth as a response to my statement claiming that science will get you whatever response you pay them to get. You’re right about it being their job, but maybe they shouldn’t hire hookers to do the job. You climate change trolls suck.
From Jeff Green
You are welcome to get as mad as want. What you don’t believe really could be true. But you will never find out with your anger bias to climate science.
I’m not angry. I really enjoy mocking you.
Show me an EV truck that can haul 10 round bales of hay, or 12 cows, 50 miles in the Texas heat, that doesn’t cost an absolute fortune.
Cyber truck has similar prices to the high priced gas trucks. The tesla has a really great truck
What in the world does fraud have to do with climate cycles? BTW, deaths from natural disasters is significantly lower now than in the past, despite more people living along the coast.
It’s called technology, which comes with prosperity, which is enabled by cheap energy.
I’m not going to argue more or less people dying. But I am going to argue higher temperatures setting human existence temperature records.
Insurance companies pulling out of Florida and California, and their now uninsured clients, would beg to differ.
Auto insurers are also pulling out. Might have something to do with a lot of uninsured inhabitants.
What in the world does fraud have to do with climate cycles? BTW, deaths from natural disasters is significantly lower now than in the past, despite more people living along the coast.
It’s called technology, which comes with prosperity, which is enabled by cheap energy.
“Despite endless fearmongering in numerous places, a study by the White House Council of Economic Advisors shows climate change will have little impact on GDP.”
Thanks for providing proof that the vast majority of economists don’t know their own subject. Not that any more proof was necessary. Let’s not forget that in the middle of a pandemic, they mostly failed to notice that strict lockdowns would be a net positive for the economy, as the Chinese proved. And that they failed to notice that sanctions to Russia would have little effect. And that they continue to fail to notice that Saudi Arabia is importing some refined oil products, which is at the very least eyebrow-raising, especially considering that Saudi Arabia is an absolute monarchy allied with a theocracy, in other words, the royal family in Saudi Arabia can do whatever the hell they want.
I’d say that the evidence that the vast majority of Western economists don’t even know what money is seems to be mounting.
“Despite endless fearmongering…”
Just like was done with Covid. A propaganda campaign. The Milgram experiment. The Ashe experiment. Bernays, Goebbles. But i don’t see the scaremongering elitists panicking into changing their personal behavior. Their behavior belies their propaganda.
This can change faster with your cooperation.
You have permanent Covid trauma.
I’m all in favor of switching to green energy. But not because it’s going to save the planet. I don’t think it’s going to have a big impact one way or the other. I’m in favor for economic reasons. They’re free sources of energy. I get that it takes energy to make solar panels and wind turbines, bla bla bla, but it also takes energy to build offshore oil platforms, oil tankers, refineries, etc… . So that argument is nonsensical.
Pretty much everywhere in the world, either the sun shines, or the wind blows. And the very few places where this doesn’t occur can almost certainly have energy transported there. So, once the panels and turbines are in place, there’s an abundance of free energy. And you won’t be at the mercy of OPEC or Gasprom. I know the energy can be intermittent. That’s why you have batteries and a grid to move energy in abundance to energy in need. Pretty soon all EVs will double as grid energy storage.
if green energy dominates, which I think is inevitable, it will be because of cost savings. Not because of climate change. And the costs will snowball down. Cheaper energy over time will reduce manufacturing costs of green energy. I think the costs of what it will take to switch over are absurdly high and never look at reduced future costs.
Having said that, I think the earth is slowly warming, mainly because of human produced CO2. I don’t think there’s any doubt at this point. What is in doubt is how worried we should be. I don’t think it’s a scientific fact that we’re headed for doom. Warmer temperatures have undeniable benefits. Cold kills way more people than heat and a warmer climate produces more food. Could be be headed for too much heat? Maybe. Maybe not.
Very few scientists actually understand how global warming works. Most of them are just chasing the money. They claim to be climate scientists so they can get grants and then spit out what the government wants to hear. Their models have been mostly wrong. I would like to examine their finite element analysis algorithm to find their errors, but they don’t publish them. And no matter how good your algorithm is, you have to make boundary layer assumptions that have a huge impact on the results. Small changes can have big impacts.
Right now that Atlantic is hotter than normal. By a decent amount. So they do what they always do and say this is the beginning of a long term trend. It’s not. What they don’t understand is temperature is not a measure of energy. It’s measure of energy transfer potential. It’s like voltage in electronics. So what’s actually happening in the Atlantic is a rapid rate of cooling. Similar to how cranking up voltage increases amperage. I suspect next year, the Atlantic will mysteriously be cooler. It won’t be a mystery to those who understand it.
You correctly acknowledge that the so-called experts have been wrong and/or captured by their funding source (this was also true during the Covid fraud). So, what is your opinion based on?
I sincerely wish you would read a source that is not captured by the WEF and the climate zealots, as your beliefs are dead wrong, from your understanding of cost per BTU to the FACT the earth has already entered ANOTHER cooling cycle that could rival, or even surpass the last one (mini ice age).
You are correct that more people die and society contracts during cooling cycles, as their are more crop failures, which leads to malnutrition and plagues. This is why we should be preparing for this coming cooling cycle, but instead we are doing the opposite, which will make the situation worse, including artificially spraying harmful chemicals in the air to block sunlight (more insanity funded by one of the chief Nutjobs and eugenicists, Bill Gates).
Jojo wrote ” Then they should learn to practice birth control.”. Actually, they do; the current fertility rate in India is 2.139 per woman – and all our women are real.
As to BBC programs stating Indian women have 7-9 children..heard of cherry picking? Canadian Rob Cosman has 10 children – we don’t have a patent on large families.
The point is, we’re coming out of a Little Ice Age, and more pertinently, the world has cycled through much hotter and colder periods before humans existed, so the climate obviously changes without our puny efforts.
If you think the wealthy can push off and live in space stations…you have a lot to learn!
There are a lot of cherries to pick then. Or are you contending that all these ‘oh so poor’ people have on average only 2-3 kids? [lol]
These countries, including India are overcrowded for a reason – they keep popping out kids w/o thought as to how they will feed, house or raise them.
I think a historical problem with high population areas is that the generational length is shorter. If women start having kids at 16, and are grandmothers by 32, and are great grandmothers by 48, and are great great grandmothers by 64 you are going to have high population growth even at 2.139 kids per woman. I think this situation is improving but it does have an impact on population growth.
Typically, populations tending to produce excess children do so because their society has a (relatively) short life expectancy for both children and adults.
Once local medicine improves and woman begin to live longer, they tend to have less children.
If the planet gets too hot to live on or grow food, the wealthy will probably move to space stations circling the planet and/or we will move our civilization underground.
Much SF has been written over the years that reference these possible solutions.
When has this planet ever been too hot to grow plants? NEVER.
The records show that CO2 levels have been 1600ppm higher than now, that temperatures have been far higher than now and that plant life flourished and spread as far as the poles. Sure some plant and animal species will die out but new ones will arise to fill every new niche.
We can adapt to the changes, no different than our ancestors could when they went from cold Europe to warmer and drier locations; and they did it without most of the technology we have now.
But some just want to shriek the sky is falling and wood fired pizza ovens get banned by their shrieking.
I’m in India. Most of the people here, and most countries around, are more concerned about feeding their families tomorrow over a potential problem 50 years hence. On the other hand, poor as they are, they also save a fair amount for the future, percentage wise, a lot more than the western world.
This is the crux of the problem.
The only people who can realistically make long term plans are those who currently have excess food/shelter/clothing etc so that they can afford to spend time and effort on future things.
Only a small fraction of the world’s population is in that position (basically North America and Europe). Pretty much everyone else is in hand-to-mouth existence and will continue to be so for the foreseeable future.
Allan Dias wrote “I’m in India. Most of the people here, and most countries around, are more concerned about feeding their families tomorrow over a potential problem 50 years hence.”
——
Then they should learn to practice birth control.
I watch BBC news regularly and they are quick to cover disasters like floods in places like Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, etc. I have no sympathy for the woman, who seem to be under 30 years old, but who all seem to have 7, 8, 9, 10 children and are distraught that they lost a couple in the floods and don’t know how they will feed the others. So please send more handouts. Sheese.
Less mouths are easier to feed.
“Ultimately a carbon-free energy system could yield large benefits in the form of lower energy costs, ” higher energy costs since you need X MW in wind, and duplicate MW in solar, and another duplicate for at least “rig for reduced electrical” load when the dreaded dunkelflaute hits.
“reductions in air and water pollution, ” Air probably, water no, the mining, mineral, and materials processing make more water pollution than fossil fuels. ”
“and improvements in health in addition to a stable climate.”
Stable climate? That hasn’t happened in two million years,
link to en.wikipedia.org
It was really warm 400,000 years ago.
link to arstechnica.com
“About 400,000 years ago, large parts of Greenland were ice-free. Scrubby tundra basked in the Sun’s rays on the island’s northwest highlands. Evidence suggests that a forest of spruce trees, buzzing with insects, covered the southern part of Greenland. Global sea level was much higher then, between 20 and 40 feet above today’s levels.”
I support the fossil fuel industry. I own shares in many oil and gas firms. Those shares have increased in value dramatically over the last 3 years. And I am earning over 7%/a in dividends based on current stock values. So yes, I am benefiting from their success.
They still provide 80% of the energy we use worldwide, and it will be a long time before they are no longer needed. To think otherwise is foolish.
I support all forms of energy; fossil fuels, renewables, nuclear; because the world needs them all. We cannot grow the economy or improve living standards without more energy.
I am aware that anthropogenic global warming is a huge problem. I am also aware the problem is going to get a lot worse, and cost us a lot more, before we can make serious progress in solving it. But I am also aware that it just isn’t about eliminating fossil fuels or replacing ICE vehicles with EVs.
I do not put my head in the sand, like so many here, who completely deny anthropogenic global warming, or try to fudge their way around it by saying things like “we don’t know for sure”. Those folks are only fooling themselves.
If you want to make money from your investments, it’s essential to understand what is actually happening in the world. Sticking your head in the sand and believing in fairytales doesn’t cut it when investing.
Well it seems that the Environmental Terrorist has successfully “BRAINWASHED” many who visits Mish site..
And the Environmental Terrorist have used their communications networks to push them to Mish site, to comment!!!
I’m drawn to confused people about climate change. Nobody pushed me here. I think Mish likes the attention he is getting.
Was today’s GDP report seasonally adjusted for climate change or non seasonally adjusted for climate change?
If climate change is the existential crises they tell us it is we would be taking about no cars instead of talking about electric cars.
Turn off your AC if you are so concerned about climate change. White House? Congress? Show us the way.
This is the new economy. LIke it or not, the world is moving in the direction of clean energy to avoid damaging human caused climate change.
link to benzinga.com
The Energy Storage Market Set To Increase 15-Fold By 2030, And Dragonfly Energy (NASDAQ: DFLI) Is Positioning Itself To Be A U.S. Industry Leader
There were a lot of reports and people saying the internet would have little impact on the economy too.
On the one hand, the economy did not grow much faster or slower..
On the other hand, it changed everything
There are plenty of these studies. I’m guessing that they all underestimate the impact of climate change on economic growth.
This one by Swiss Re estimates 18% reduction in GDP by 2050.
link to swissre.com
For someone who criticizes everything that comes out of government Mish, suddenly you want to believe this study. Odd. Your desire to deny anthropogenic global warming clouds your judgment.
I think Mish’s point is that the U.S. government, which is claiming climate change is an existential disaster, has itself published a report showing that it is not.
His point is to be a cardboard GOP cutout, but he did happen upon a very simple con that required the Holy Scientists to get involved. About a decade ago, the oceans released more CO2 than we have ever produced. The devastation was nonexistent. What are the odds of finding data supporting climate change is man made, and look at all the parameters, when the government gives out more money to scientists researching monkey testicles when they relate their findings to climate change? Critical thinking is needed. I’m not even that good at it, though I think I have more knowledge of it than the commenters here. But you don’t need to master this skill to know a cheap street hustle when it’s blasted at you 24/7. This isn’t a prison planet though, CO2 fears, and wimpy viruses prove we are the special ed planet. How can anyone take this crap seriously? For starters, the majority believe in them. That alone should make you want to view it with some skepticism.
Lets clarify this issue, we are talking about man made climate change here, not natural climate change. Now, there is nothing we can do about natural climate change, it has been going on since the dawn of time on Earth, except adapt to it. As far as man made climate change, an interesting fact comes forward immediately, nobody has provided ANY evidence or proof that it is even happening…………Before we go spending hundreds of trillions of dollars, shouldn’t we actually see some real scientific evidence that it is even happening?…….Yes, yes we should.
because you don’t want to read about human caused co2 emissions causing the rise in climate change to be true doesn’t make it false. I just means you don’t want to read about it. And, you’re not a scientist.
One does not need to be a “scientist” if they can read and differentiate between propaganda and logic. You are reading propaganda that supports your beliefs. Are you even aware of the Great Reset agenda, which is using the gloBull warming hoax, just like they used coronadoom, and the war in Ukraine?
Nobel Prize-Winning Scientist: ‘Climate Crisis’ Narrative Is a Hoax –
link to slaynews.com.
link to zerohedge.com
link to armstrongeconomics.com
link to zerohedge.com
Your comment indicates that you don’t know anything about human-caused climate change. I suggest you investigate the voluminous research studies published during the past 20 years. That’s where you’ll find the evidence which you claim doesn’t exist.
Unfortunately, there is also voluminous “research” that “established that cholesterol and saturated fat was bad for you and statins were saviours.
The real evidence is found by looking at the parameters of the study. Just like the covid stats, any 6 year old could figure out it’s a scam with about 30 seconds of critical thinking. Something only. 0002% of the global population can do. But it is hilarious watching the slaves squabble over it. Slaves are gonna slave. And I’m only here to mock them.
Dismissing anything that difintively shows that CO2 is our main GHG causing our earth to warm, shows you may never accept the truth of the matter. Our satellites detect less energy leaving the atmosphere in the co2 spectrum range and our ground instruments detect more co2 energy returning to earth. There are other GHGs that have less effect due to much less quantity in the atmosphere. Together these gases we put into the atmosphere are warming the surface of the earth with their mechanism.
link to skepticalscience.com
An enhanced greenhouse effect from CO2 has been confirmed by multiple lines of empirical evidence.
The Empirical Evidence
As temperatures started to rise, scientists became more and more interested in the cause. Many theories were proposed. All save one have fallen by the wayside, discarded for lack of evidence. One theory alone has stood the test of time, strengthened by experiments.
We have known CO2 absorbs and re-emits longwave radiation, since the days of Foote, Tyndall and Arrhenius in the 19th Century. The theory of greenhouse gases predicts that if we increase the proportion of greenhouse gases, more warming will occur.
Scientists have measured the influence of CO2 on both incoming solar energy and outgoing long-wave radiation. Less longwave radiation is escaping to space at the specific wavelengths of greenhouse gases. Increased longwave radiation is measured at the surface of the Earth at the same wavelengths.
Please learn to read. I said look at the parameters. You must vote. At least I know you took the vaxx. Don’t worry, I’m sure it’s safe. Jamie Foxx recommends it highly. And yes, I’m well aware that it is perfectly natural for the fittest people on the planet to just drop dead for no apparent reason.
Like all of the so-called experts, you cannot fathom the possibility you may be wrong. It doesn’t bother you that all of the people you listen to have been wrong about everything? It’s called Ideological subversion, and I highly recommend you watch G Edward Griffin’s interview with Yuri Bezmenov. I promise it will open your eyes.
Excellent interview! I was just thinking about it the other day. I started my mind down a different path on it. I was thinking they didn’t count on the Chinese. It does seem like both parties really like the Chinese government model as well. Oh well, you play with statism and you will get burned.
It isn’t just one scientist declaring all this. It’s the 98% that concur about the evidence.
Tell your source to write a peer reviewed science paper or hundreds of papers to show otherwise. This source must do so based in evidence. No conspiracy theories allowed.
Sorry, but those peer reviewed studies are just another commodity to be bought and sold. And as for conspiracy theories, we are looking at mountains of evidence for criminal conspiracy charges. It really doesn’t matter how many logical fallacies you use as a professional troll. It’s not like you matter.
That’s a conspiracy theory.
Criminal conspiracy is a hangable offense. And you being a troll engaged in obstruction of justice in this criminal conspiracy hardly makes you a source I care about. I just like mocking losers like you.
The cause biosphere destruction is errantly depicted as Climate change. The real focus should be on Natural habitat change. Forests and Farmlands are currently mismanaged for the detriment of the future health of the Earth. Now they want to bury the desert in solar panels and destroy that part of creation too; as if it were just pesky and unimportant.
The cause of biosphere destruction is errantly depicted as Climate change. The real focus should be on Natural Habitat change. Forests and Farmlands are currently mismanaged for the detriment of the future health of the Earth. Now they want to bury the desert in solar panels and destroy that part of creation too; as if it were just pesky and unimportant. I miss the edit button.
GHG warming of the earth is the only evidence there is of warming. It forces us to deal with it.
That is a more pressing issue for the longevity of the flora and fauna of Earth. Unfortunately there is much money to be made in carbon (credits/sequestration/greenwashed marketing).
Human-driven change in land use is a root cause, not a symptom, but restoration and conservation aren’t as profitable.
The earth is warming at a rate of 1 degree C per century. The Modern Warm Period is expected to last for 200 more years so the temperature should rise an additional 2 degrees C. If it does, then the average global temperature will be equal to that of the Medieval Warm Period.
Actually we are looking at the rate of 2*C per century. And we have warmed 1.2*C since 1850 now. This warmiing doesn’t have to be linear. If continue business as usual this rate could increase further.
link to skepticalscience.com
gistempv3
1990 to 2023
Trend: 1.96 ±0.58 °C/century (2σ)
Of course we warmed coming out of the mini ice age.
We have already entered the next cooling cycle that is projected to be as cold or worse.
The linear thinkers that believe temps will keep rising have been hoodwinked, just like those who fell for coronadoom, Russia collusion, Jan 6th, and the Ukraine war bs.
LOL. The mini age meme. We are setting heat records in the last few months as the warmest months in human history. The temperature trend of the earth over the last 150 years is warming and will continue to do so until we change our ways of not putting GHGs in the atmosphere.
Or until the natural cyclic nature of Earth’s climate cools things down.
We are in a natural cooling period in terms of the orbital cycles. Human GHGs are overwhelming that. We are not cooling, we are warming.
MIshes talent to minimize debt combined with global warming is pretty good. But wrong. Climate and debt is what crushes the smaller economies.
Debt-to-GDP projections from White House Council of Economic Advisors and OMB, annotations by Mish.
Somini Sengupta
By Somini Sengupta
Published April 7, 2021
Updated Oct. 8, 2021
How does a country deal with climate disasters when it’s drowning in debt? Not very well, it turns out. Especially not when a pandemic clobbers its economy.
Take Belize, Fiji and Mozambique. Vastly different countries, they are among dozens of nations at the crossroads of two mounting global crises that are drawing the attention of international financial institutions: climate change and debt.
They owe staggering amounts of money to various foreign lenders. They face staggering climate risks, too. And now, with the coronavirus pandemic pummeling their economies, there is a growing recognition that their debt obligations stand in the way of meeting the immediate needs of their people — not to mention the investments required to protect them from climate disasters.
These country’s leaders have staggering foreign bank accounts.
I won’t disagree with that. How does a nation prosper that is already in crushing debt, can’t adapt to global warming, sea level rise, hurricanes, ocean warming, etc. The corruption only makes things worse for their people. This is what they call multiple vectors hitting places all at once.
Economists are not climate scientists, so their projections are meaningless in our current era of rapid climate change. In fact, any forecast about the remainder of this century is worthless unless it first considers what the latest scientific research is telling us. This economy simply will not work on the too-hot planet we’re creating.
I didn’t read the articles that came up in google, but there are climate and economic models being developed. In their papers they write they do discuss the weakness of their models and the assumptions in the models. As the scholars in this area work with and talk to each other, the models improve over time.
Man, you trolls work hard!
Futile comparison of two meaningless things.
Nobody can possibly believe either of these lines will be realized.
Moreover, climate change does not pose a bounded incremental risk, but is a risk of unknown consequences difficult to express as odds (what is the data set for catastrophic climate change impinging on technological civilization?). It’s like a function comparing the risk of damage to your house burning down to traffic density.
Changing global temperature is a pretty serious thing to do. There are extinctions in the past related to climate temperature change.
number 2 talks of gains if you comply with 2*C standards vs high emissions scenario. To the tune of 17 trillion a year until the year 2100. Sounds like a really geat return on our money from the economic point of view,
Number 3 source RE insurance talks about large losses of 23 trillion per year annually by 2050. Not included in my post is the developing nations losing 20 to 40 % of their economic output.
Its good to change out of FF infrastructure to RE infrastructure. I disagree with Mich on this. The faster the better. It is foolish to waste time on this for the benefit of the fossil fuel wealth.
link to en.wikipedia.org
The economic impacts of climate change vary geographically and are difficult to forecast exactly. Researchers have warned that current economic forecasts may seriously underestimate the effects of climate change, and point to the need for new models that give a more accurate picture of potential damages.
[[[[[[[ Nevertheless, one 2018 study found that potential global economic gains if countries implement mitigation strategies to comply with the 2 °C target set at the Paris Agreement are in the vicinity of US$17 trillion per year up to 2100 compared to a very high emission scenario.[2]]]]]]]]
(2) Kompas, Tom; Pham, Van Ha; Che, Tuong Nhu (2018). “The Effects of Climate Change on GDP by Country and the Global Economic Gains From Complying With the Paris Climate Accord”. Earth’s Future. 6 (8): 1153–1173
[[[[[[[[A study by the reinsurance company Swiss Reinsurance Company Ltd (Swiss Re) in 2021 estimated that global climate change is likely to reduce global economic output by 11-14%, or as much as $23 trillion annually by 2050, compared with global economic output without climate change. According to this study, the economies of wealthy countries like the United States would likely shrink by approximately 7% while some developing nations would be devastated, losing around 20% or in some cases 40% of the their economic output.[3]]]]]]]]]
(3) The New York Times, 4 Nov. 2021 “Climate Change Could Cut World Economy by $23 Trillion in 2050, Insurance Giant Warns: Poor Nations Would Be Particularly Hard Hit, But Few Would Escape, Swiss Re Said”
I guess if all you care about is GDP then everything is fine. However, dumping pollution on someone else’s property seems like a violation of property rights to me. Most economists favor a carbon tax so the polluter pays for the cost of violating someone else’s property rights. Politically it can’t get done so we wind up with tax credits and other regulations that are not as efficient as a free market.
Anything that impings on Fossil Fuels is a breach of their freedom as they love to put it. Somehow they miss the accountability of the damage their product is doing the same as big tobacco did.
The creation and discarding of plastic materials far and away exceeds any environmental impact from increased CO2. The lack of accountability for that damage is far, far, far, far greater and more injurious to the planet’s inhabitants.
I am not going to dismiss the damage from plastic on our biosphere. Its real.
I disagree with you on dismissing the severity of climate change. It is forcing us to spend trillions of dollars down the line for the sake of having a livable cimate.
What do plastics have to do with climate cycles, which have existed and been more severe prior to any plastics, oil, or the internal combustion engine?
You can’t prove we need to spend anything for a future,livable climate. Estimates over the past 450 million years shows temperature minima occur approximately every 150 million years. Estimated average earth temps ranged from approximately 10C to 25C, when no humans existed. Please explain why that happened.
Science has worked out the difference between human climate time and earth’s natural climate change.
link to skepticalscience.com
Previous climates can be explained by natural causes, while current climate change can only be explained by an excess of CO2 released by human fossil fuel burning. Records of past climates indicate that change happened on time scales of thousands to millions of years. The global rise in temperature that has occurred over the past 150 years is unprecedented and has our fingerprints all over it.
Yes its not Climate Changes as it Policies.
We have a serious economic problems but of course no one wants to address. Job Report – DailyJobCuts
.
Climate change is such a huge issue, all governments need to pull together to create a clean energy system. How we live effects our living system.
I’m dismissive of the theory that atmospheric CO2 concentration is the underlying driver for anthropogenic climatic perturbations.
Land use change (turning grasslands into monoculture fields that are bare soil for some or most of a calendar year) is an overlooked due to the difference in albedo. Throw in the added carbon sequestration of hundreds of millions of acres of grasslands and there is enough to make any enviro-minded person pleased.
Several factors lead to warmer nighttime lows (not limited to lowered albedo, urban heat island effect, increased mid-level cloud cover due to air traffic/pollution/dust, waste heat from human actions), all due to human actions.
There are 4x more people on this planet compared to a century ago, thinking that the increase of atmospheric CO2 concentration by 0.002% is *THE* key to all perceived climate changes tied to human life is misguided and foolish. Actually decreasing the amount of plastic waste that is put into the environment would be much more useful from an environmental perspective. Of course there isn’t a way to financialize it via credits or “offsets” yet, so the world is stuck with the CO2 song and dance.
I’m not writing a science paper. Keeping it simple for the internet comment section.. CO2 is the main driver. Work is also needed in other areas.
No, it isn’t the main driver of climate – that is the point you are missing.
Latching on to a presumed quick fix or easy answer is not productive, yet from weight loss to ‘climate activism’ it is a hallmark of the general population.
Environmentalism has been co-opted by a number of groups and interests and as a result of good intentions and greenwashing there is too much money to be made focusing on atmospheric CO2.
GHG warming, mainly co2 is the issue. Is there disinformstion out there? Yes! More infrared is being returned to our earths surface raising the temperature.
GHG warming, mainly co2 is the issue. Is there disinformstion out there? Yes! More infrared is being returned to our earths surface raising the temperature. This why we move towards RE.
Jeff, I understand your concern and it is worth addressing. I take a different approach and my big issue is that all of this money is being spent on technological solutions rather than natural solutions.
The technological solutions are questionable and only benefit a few. The natural solutions of encouraging and restoring the natural biosphere to be able to sequester CO2 and turn it into breathable oxygen benefits all. It is the only long term solution.
The technological solutions even if they accomplish reducing CO2 concentrations in the long term will do so by raising CO2 concentrations in the short term through their implementation. Has anyone ever done an environmental impact report on the implementation of Green Energy infrastructure???
A solar panel has a good return on carbon pollution. They can last up to 50 years returning clean energy the whole way. The real place to get to is to use clean energy to make more solar and wind energy.
Restricting immigration will do more for the environment than all the solar panels in the world. Open Borders are an ecological disaster. America has to build the equivalent at least one, maybe two, Reno sized cities a year to accommodate housing, feeding, and clothing immigrants. It is estimated that over 200,000 people a year are displaced from housing because of immigration, and become homeless as a result.
There are so many better solutions to environmental degradation than highly depreciating solar panels and electrified cars.
200,000 is a lot of people. Agreed. There is still the GHG issue. Believe the science or not, not believing GHG warming, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. It truly exists.
The best natural solution to global warming is to severely reduce the world’s population, say to below 1 billion and using that number as a hard limit going forward.
This could be implemented by requiring implantable birth control at age 10 and require it to be maintained.
With a world population less than 1 billion, significantly less resources would be used and less human responsible heat would be generated, thus resolving the global warming problem NATURALLY.
Of course, this would be difficult to implement worldwide with close to 200 independent countries. So the first step needed would be to begin the work to forming one world government and abolishing national/country borders and governments.
We’ll probably need AI or alien help to make this possible.
So, we need to address climate change or else people will die. And the best way to address it is for people to die. Makes total sense.
Or say a Pandemic 🙂
Or vaccines.
Jeff, you likely wouldn’t be alive, without fossil fuels being used today. Which is why fossil fuel use hasn’t been simply shut down, already.
I agree we are dependent on fossil fuels. Doesn’t mean we can’t change to RE. Its like dropping an addiction to a strong destructive drug. We can do it.
Fossil fuels constructed most of what exists now.
Most anything that is constructive, is also destructive. The same applies to renewables.
There is a world wide effort to replace FF
Mish is looking at it too simplistically, which doesn’t surprise me. I grow a little weary of the denialism, frankly.
A 1% decline in GDP is about $200 billion dollars annually. What’s $200 billion carried into perpetuity? Depends on the rate you use, but somewhere around $5 trillion. That’s just the US, which is relatively better off than most in our ability to deal with it. Countries with more significant coastal urban centers or semi-arid food production zones would fare worse. And as you say, there are other things outside of GDP that matter – lives lost due to crop failures, natural disasters, etc would be a few major ones he ignores.
Looking at things as a single point in time as with annual GDP isn’t a good way to think about the cost. It’s a lot like buying a car on a lease because you can afford the payment without thinking about how much the car actually costs.
Also, Mish confuses GDP with well-being. Sure, if a hurricane wipes out my house, and I rebuild it, the spending goes into GDP, but I’m no better off. In fact, I’m probably worse off with all the other things I lost. But the GDP metrics show a net benefit. That’s one of the major fallacies at work here. GDP can be unimpacted, but that doesn’t mean I’m no worse off.
Yes but another fallacy is assuming that you will be worse off because of climate change. There is no guarantee that will happen.
It’s also equally possible that spending trillions trying to fight climate change could make you worse off because it doesn’t help that much (ie doesn’t stop it or only partially slows it down) AND all that spending trying to fight it could have been better off spent elsewhere.
Basically there are no guarantees either way.
Chances of being worse off with how much money you make. The less you make, the greater possibility you end up in a bad situation. This applys to low income countries heavily in debt. Where are you going to get the money to help you adapt to worsening conditions.
I would not expect an economics site to be particularly informed of science themes. Tragedy of the Commens is not covered in B schools.
Pollution has nothing to do with climate cycles, which are mostly impacted by the sun and energies from space.
Polution is best addressed through technology / prosperity. There are plenty of laws against pollution that don’t get enforced because of incompetence and govt corruption.
Science has shown us that we are warming from GHGs. There has been an upward trend for the last 150 years which is not natural, its human.
Yeah, there are studies claiming polar bears are disappearing as well. Did you know that Wall Street started up its own labs due to the biotech companies research not being able to be duplicated. Or that the former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine said you can’t believe a word that comes from them. Or big tobacco, roundup, etc. Scientists found what they wanted to reach their end goals. Learn to read. It takes more than just mouthing the words and swallowing them without thinking.
Exactly. Unfortunately that is the reality we are now living in, can’t really trust any source of information so most people remain under or misinformed.
So you are confused to find truth in the world? The job of the scientist is to distill the truth out of what is going on.
Everything you own is made from oil. I know you are not dummy so what are you willing to give up? Before you answer that though wait one…
What are you doing right now to change this circumstance. Better yet, what are the billionaires doing to change it on a personal level. You know, the ones running their wide open gator mouths about it?
I will tell you; nothing. Bill gates owes one house damn near the size of a Walmart. Obama lives on the coast in a massive house with the largest natural gas tank in the area. Bezos has a big ol ship for the ocean with a mast of his wife. He also has a spaceship for fun .
Now back to what you are doing. Do you have a compost bin? Do you do any gardening? How about using carboard for weed control in your garden?
No offense but everyon advocating for this and doing nothing needs to STFU. I actually do have a compost bin, garden. I don’t even have to do this stuff but I do it….meh.
We all have a responsibility to change. Thank you for your part.
No reply button on your previous moronic post spouting off how it’s science’s job to unveil the truth as a response to my statement claiming that science will get you whatever response you pay them to get. You’re right about it being their job, but maybe they shouldn’t hire hookers to do the job. You climate change trolls suck.
Now back to what you are doing. Do you have a compost bin? Yes.
Do you do any gardening? Yes.
How about using cardboard for weed control in your garden? No, the squash bugs and pill bugs would hide under it during the day, then come out and destroy the plants all night.
On the plus side, I haven’t flown anywhere since 2014, and that was for business.
3M and DuPont laughing all the way to the bank past 50 years on PFAS.
Carbon isn’t a pollutant, it is the basis for life and in the form of CO2 it is necessary for plants.
And all the scaremongering over rising CO2 levels and any projected costs always leave out the other side of the ledger. Crops will thrive on the extra CO2, the crop seasons will be longer in many locations with the possibility of 2 crops a year and there will be less frost damage. The planet has been far warmer in the past and with much higher CO2 levels and life goes on.
Now if you are concerned about the planet like I am then there are plenty of things to agitate against like forever chemicals. the throwaway society, the low levels of recycling, manufactures making products hard to disassemble for recycling etc etc.
Water is necessary for life. You can drink too much of it and die. You can drown in it. Your home can be washed away by it.
Increased co2 in the atmosphere makes things hotter.
Water is essential for our lives or we die. In the desert, “Water is life”.
co2 is essential in our atmosphere to maintain the last 10,000 years of the holocene.
More co2 in the atmosphere warms our planet in which some of the plants don’t do as well. One being corn.
CO2 is not pollution. It is crucial for life on earth
Too much water can be problem also.