Climate Change Is the New Fed Mandate

By climate change do we mean a warmer planet? Me and the plants would love that. I am a bicycle and motorcycle rider but the streets are covered in snow right now.

Very reasonable of them I think. For example if the printing press stops due to overheating because of climatic conditions they will be in
a lot of trouble. Same goes for electronic trading, what happens if a bank tries to connect to its reserves at the fed and is unable to because the servers had to be switched off due to their temperature ? Potential customers will doubt those reserves actually exists is what. So greening the fed is a good idea. They could line the hallways and offices with more plants for example, print more dollars also because they’re green even if they only line pockets, so maybe a new colour scheme for the fed buildings to go with that to exteriorise the intent as a form of public compensation ?

Climate change , Covid and Equality are issues that we face . Make no mistake, the wealthy and influential will Magnify the emergency of each , see to it the the public becomes very aware and holds desired opinions , and all will be leveraged as emergencies for the profit of the most influential. The marketing emotional messages to the public have been fine tuned by think tanks , (Many folks won’t want to seem “selfish” to Disagree and not sacrifice as they are herded into the profitable sacrifices) critical thought that questions the solutions will be deemed (some negative knee jerk connotation) and this will help steer the public into A new economic paradigm. Unelected officials will have more say- we will all be in “this show” together globally .

Think about it .

In other words, off to destroy the climate?

Our existence has for too long been analogous to a cafeteria lineup consisting of diversely societally represented people, all adamantly arguing over which identifiable traditionally marginalized person should be at the front and, conversely, at the back of the line.

Many of them further fight over to whom amongst them should go the last piece of quality pie and how much should they have to pay for it—all the while the interstellar spaceship on which they’re all permanently confined, owned and operated by (besides the most wealthy) the fossil fuel industry, is burning and toxifying at locations not normally investigated.

And the latter is allowed to occur, because blue-shirted liberals and red-hatted conservatives are preoccupied loudly blasting each other for their politics and beliefs thus distracting attention from big business’s moral and ethical corruption, where it should be focused.

Meanwhile, mindless arguments are made, like the stupid-sounding catchphrase, “It’s the economy, stupid!”

In short, we’re distracting ourselves from our own burning and heavily polluting spaceship, Earth

There’s discouragingly insufficient political gonad to sufficiently address the cause-and-effect of manmade global warming and climate change.

What is sufficiently universal, however, is that the laborers are simply too exhausted and preoccupied with just barely feeding and housing their families on a substandard, if not below the poverty line, income to criticize the former for the great damage it’s doing to our planet’s natural environment and therefore our health, particularly when that damage may not be immediately observable.

so here is why the Fed might want to be concerned about climate change.
it needs to be modelled. but like the article states i don’t think monetary policy should be used to as a tool to mitigate climate change or change how we consume energy if that can even be done. also sone of this research is better done by other govt agencies but the Fed does have resources

In addition to the financial risks associated with damage caused by climate change — including “potential loan losses at banks resulting from the business interruptions and bankruptcies caused by storms, droughts, wildfires, and other extreme events” —transition risks, including “unexpected losses in the value of assets or companies that depend on fossil fuels,” need to be factored in.

Long-term risks still create short-term consequences, he writes. Also, financial firms that make loans to businesses or individuals impacted by climate change “face substantial climate-based credit risk exposure,” Rudebusch notes.

“If such exposures were broadly correlated across regions or industries, the resulting climate-based risk could threaten the stability of the financial system as a whole and be of macroprudential concern,” he said. “In response, the financial supervisory authorities in a number of countries have encouraged financial institutions to disclose any climate-related financial risks and to conduct ‘climate stress tests.’”

Other reasons central banks need to be concerned about climate change: “climate-related financial risks could affect the economy through elevated credit spreads, greater precautionary saving, and, in the extreme, a financial crisis.”

In addition, climate changed could lead to “larger and more frequent macroeconomic shocks” and result in “infrastructure damage, agricultural losses, and commodity price spikes.” Even if drought, flood or hurricanes worsened by climate change strike outside the U.S., they can “disrupt exports, imports, and supply chains.”

Higher temperatures, according to researchers, have “slowed growth in a variety of sectors, and could cut output “by more than 1⁄2 percentage point later in this century.”

Spending on methods to soften the effects of climate change — seawalls, etc. — “is expected to increasingly divert resources from productive capital accumulation,” according to Rudebusch. “In short, climate change is becoming relevant for a range of macroeconomic issues, including potential output growth, capital formation, productivity, and the long-run level of the real interest rate.”

While monetary policy decisions generally exclude “temporary disturbances from weather events like hurricanes or blizzards,” he notes, these shocks may “grow in size and frequency and their disruptive effects could become more persistent and harder to ignore.”

And those who dismiss the costs of climate change because they “will occur well past the usual policy forecast horizon,” Rudebusch points out that “central banks routinely consider the policy implications of demographic trends, such as declining labor force participation, which have long-run effects much like climate change.”

Equity and long-term financial asset prices measure “expected future conditions, so even climate risks decades ahead can have near-term financial consequences. Climate change could also be a factor in achieving and maintaining low inflation. It took a decade or two — a relevant time scale for climate change — for the Fed to achieve its inflation objective after the Great Inflation of the 1970s and the Great Recession. Finally, the economic research that quantifies optimal monetary policy routinely uses a very long-run perspective that takes into account inflation and output quite far out in the future.”

Despite the importance for the Fed to consider climate change, Rudebusch concludes, it “is not in a position to use monetary policy actively to foster a transition to a low-carbon economy.”