Don’t Worry, It Will Only Cost $131 Trillion to Address Climate Change

Image clip from WSJ video, arrow and question added by Mish 

Time is Running Out

The UN is out with another fearmongering report on climate change. It’s labeled the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report (AR6).

Observed Warming and its Causes

Human activities, principally through emissions of greenhouse gases, have unequivocally caused global warming, with global surface temperature reaching 1.1°C above 1850–1900 in 2011–2020. Global greenhouse gas emissions have continued to increase, with unequal historical and ongoing contributions arising from unsustainable energy use, land use and land-use change, lifestyles and patterns of consumption and production across regions, between and within countries, and among individuals (high confidence). 

Observed Changes 

Widespread and rapid changes in the atmosphere, ocean, cryosphere and biosphere have occurred. Human-caused climate change is already affecting many weather and climate extremes in every region across the globe. This has led to widespread adverse impacts and related losses and damages to nature and people (high confidence). Vulnerable communities who have historically contributed the least to current climate change are disproportionately affected (high confidence). 

Current Mitigation Progress, Gaps and Challenges

Policies and laws addressing mitigation have consistently expanded since AR5. Global GHG emissions in 2030 implied by nationally determined contributions (NDCs) announced by October 2021 make it likely that warming will exceed 1.5°C during the 21st century and make it harder to limit warming below 2°C. There are gaps between projected emissions from implemented policies and those from NDCs and finance flows fall short of the levels needed to meet climate goals across all sectors and regions. (high confidence) 

Continued greenhouse gas emissions will lead to increasing global warming, with the best estimate of reaching 1.5°C in the near term in considered scenarios and modelled pathways. Every increment of global warming will intensify multiple and concurrent hazards (high confidence). 

Likelihood and Risks of Unavoidable, Irreversible or Abrupt Changes

Some future changes are unavoidable and/or irreversible but can be limited by deep, rapid and sustained global greenhouse gas emissions reduction. The likelihood of abrupt and/or irreversible changes increases with higher global warming levels. Similarly, the probability of low-likelihood outcomes associated with potentially very large adverse impacts increases with higher global warming levels. (high confidence) 

Adaptation Limits

Adaptation options that are feasible and effective today will become constrained and less effective with increasing global warming. With increasing global warming, losses and damages will increase and additional human and natural systems will reach adaptation limits

[Mish Comment: At that point there is high confidence that we all die.] 

Overshoot: Exceeding a Warming Level and Returning

If warming exceeds a specified level such as 1.5°C, it could gradually be reduced again by achieving and sustaining net negative global CO2 emissions. This would require additional deployment of carbon dioxide removal, compared to pathways without overshoot, leading to greater feasibility and sustainability concerns. Overshoot entails adverse impacts, some irreversible, and additional risks for human and natural systems, all growing with the magnitude and duration of overshoot. (high confidence) 

[Mish Comment: Damn. I was hoping that once we concluded that everyone would die we would throw up our hands and accept fate, but no such luck. To keep the fearmongering perpetually alive, it seems we can come back from the brink of extinction via additional measures.]

Urgency of Near-Term Integrated Climate Action

Climate change is a threat to human well-being and planetary health (very high confidence). There is a rapidly closing window of opportunity to secure a liveable and sustainable future for all (very high confidence). Climate resilient development integrates adaptation and mitigation to advance sustainable development for all, and is enabled by increased international cooperation including improved access to adequate financial resources, particularly for vulnerable regions, sectors and groups, and inclusive governance and coordinated policies (high confidence). The choices and actions implemented in this decade will have impacts now and for thousands of years (high confidence). 

[Mish Comment: Wait a second. Can we come back from this or not?  I note “very high confidence” that the window of a livable future is rapidly closing.]

Expect More Extremes 

Rapidly Narrowing Window

How Much Will It Cost?

A few years ago, the estimate was $98 trillion. Now it’s $131 Trillion. In a few years it will be $200 trillion. 

Of course, all government estimates overstate the benefits and understate the costs, typically by a factor of 5 to 10. 

So figure the cost would be $1,000 trillion to $2,000 trillion or so. 

Annual CO2 Emissions

Absolutely Brilliant Speech by British Satirist, Konstantine Kisin

Is Kisin’s Video For You?

  • If you think that you, president Biden, Gretta, Al Gore, or anyone in government will do anything that matters about climate change, the video is for you.
  • If you think that you, president Biden, Gretta, Al Gore, or anyone in government will not do anything that matters about climate change, the video is also for you.

It’s less than seven minutes long. Play it.

Play the video then think about the path of China and India while noting the whole continent of Africa is not even on the scale.

Note that the population of India will soon to surpass China. What happens when India tries to improve the standard of living for all its citizens?

Climate Deniers

I have been accused of being a climate denier. Mercy. Actually, I am a climate realist.

Climate change is real and constant and has been ever since the earth formed.

The debate is over how much is manmade and even more importantly, what to do about it, whether it’s manmade or not.

Regarding what percentage is manmade, I don’t know, nor does anyone else. But let’s say you disagree.

Then OK, I agree with you. Let’s assume recent climate change is 100% manmade. So what do we do about it?

That has been my line of questioning for a long time. I just have never been able to express my line of thinking as clearly as Kisin in the above video.

A Big Green Mess in Germany With Coal a Stunning 31 Percent of Electricity

Assume there is a problem, then if there is a solution, it will not be the like of Gretta, AOC, Al Gore, president Biden, or the Green Party hypocrites who will fix it.

Look no further than the Big Green Mess in Germany for what happens when politicians are faced with the decision to heat homes cheaply or cut back on CO2

The EU plans to tax other nations for not addressing climate change, while Germany bulldozes a town to increase the size of a coal mine. It’s also lignite coal, the dirtiest kind.

Vice Chancellor Robert Habeck, a Green who is Germany’s economy and climate minister, defended the agreement as “a good decision for climate protection” that fulfills many of the environmentalists’ demands and saves five other villages from demolition.

World’s Largest Tax Scheme

For discussion of the EU’s hypocritical carbon tax scheme, please see EU Imposes the World’s Largest Carbon Tax Scheme.

Meanwhile, the US is marching down an idiotic path towards electric vehicle mandates with no plan on where to get the minerals for the batteries. Nor does president Biden have an reasonable plan for the infrastructure needed.

Fed Chair Warns President Biden “We will not be a climate policymaker”

Preposterous ideas have gotten so out of hand that Fed Chair Warns President Biden “We will not be a climate policymaker”

Without explicit congressional legislation, it would be inappropriate for us to use our monetary policy or supervisory tools to promote a greener economy or to achieve other climate-based goals. We are not, and will not be, a climate policymaker,” said Jerome Powell.

I am not one who often praises the Fed, but that paragraph deserves a standing ovation. 

Constant Hype

The hype is constant and has been consistently wrong. In 2019 I noted Ocasio-Cortez Says World Will End in 12 Years: Here’s What to Do About It

The world will still be here in 2050.

On October 29, 2022, I noted UN Seeks $4 to 6 Trillion Per Year to Address Climate

Yeah right. Politicians are going to give Africa, India, and third world countries trillions of dollars and tax the hell out of them if they don’t comply.

The Hope of Fusion vs the Pomp of Politicians and Climate Activists

If there is a climate problem, science will find the answer, not politicians or activists.

For discussion, please see The Hope of Fusion vs the Pomp of Politicians and Climate Activists

What Are You Doing?

On a personal level, the single best thing you can do for the environment is to not have kids.

I did my part. What is India doing? Africa? You? 

WWIII is perhaps another solution, but one I do not advocate. For discussion, please see Deficit Hawk Hypocrites and Warmongers Unite, Apparently Hoping to Start WWIII

This post originated at MishTalk.Com

Please Subscribe!

Like these reports? I hope so, and if you do, please Subscribe to MishTalk Email Alerts.

Subscribers get an email alert of each post as they happen. Read the ones you like and you can unsubscribe at any time.

If you have subscribed and do not get email alerts, please check your spam folder.

Mish 

Subscribe to MishTalk Email Alerts.

Subscribers get an email alert of each post as they happen. Read the ones you like and you can unsubscribe at any time.

This post originated on MishTalk.Com

Thanks for Tuning In!

Mish

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

119 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
DolyG
DolyG
1 year ago
>I did my part. What is India doing? Africa? You?
You didn’t do your part. Not having kids doesn’t achieve all that much, if you then proceed to hallucinate vast amounts of non-existent money to justify the sort of belief system that is going to doom your own country to collapse. Which wouldn’t in itself be an issue, don’t get me wrong. If you want to solve climate change by turning the USA into a country that’s poorer than India in real terms, not hallucinatory money terms, you are a real radical, but as far as I’m concerned, it wouldn’t worry me too much, because I don’t live there. The real issue is that in the process of destroying your own country, an unknown number of weapons of your country are likely to get used, not in a civil war, but in a NATO war. Which could be a far more radical solution to climate change than I’m willing to put up with, depending on how big the war becomes.
As for what India and Africa are doing, it’s called living within their means. An old-fashioned concept, I know.
As for myself, let’s list it: I don’t have kids. I don’t fly. I don’t have a car. And I am where I’m at. The last doesn’t achieve much, except getting ChatGTP to spit out variables for a social cosmology. Which is my hobby, by the way. I don’t expect it to achieve anything, either.
environMENTAL
environMENTAL
1 year ago
How on God’s GREEN Earth have your readers not found us yet???
This is ALL WE DO. And, we’re free. (See our “About” page for background. 200+ yrs aggregate experience, applied environmental industry professionals).
Our latest post, from Saturday: birth rates, the “overpopulation” myth, and how the original UN IPCC “climate change” scenarios that terrified the world into playing stupid games and winning stupid prizes were connected.
Yesterday morning, two days after that post, the UN IPCC’s “Synthesis Report” included a graph that proves our point and torches the original 1991 existential climate crisis scenario.
The Green Goliath is made of paper mache. We’re going to knock it down one rock to the head at a time. With reason, logic, fact, data.
We’ll keep making the rocks. Send more David’s. Our arms are getting sore. And Green Goliath is wobbly.
KidHorn
KidHorn
1 year ago
The solution is to just print the money. Of course doing so would cause hyperinflation, which in of itself would greatly increase the cost. Which would require more printing and so on. Everyone would spend every penny fighting climate change and we would all die. So going extinct from climate change would no longer be an issue.
KidHorn
KidHorn
1 year ago
Some things never mentioned…
As CO2 levels go up and things get warmer, plant growth increases. Plants consume a lot of C02.
As the earth warms, it increases the amount of radiative heat transfer from the surface. IOW, as the planet warms, it becomes increasingly resistant to further warming. And at a rapid rate. Radiative heat transfer is a function of the absolute temperature to the 4th power. I.e. if temperatures double, the earth cools off at a 16x higher rate.
FromBrussels2
FromBrussels2
1 year ago
Reply to  KidHorn
DEFORESTATION is the main culprit of the recent(100 years) rapid exponential climate change ! keeping alive billions of ‘useless eaters’ not living in harmony with natural cycles, has undeniably taken its toll on the planet, no doubt about it ! Ever walked through a forest on a hot summer day ? The temperature difference is remarkable, go figure what rampant deforestation does to the planet as a whole !
Call_Me
Call_Me
1 year ago
Reply to  FromBrussels2
Don’t limit it just to forests. Land use change, most prominently from grassland/prairie conversion to single-crop agriculture use, has a significant and underappreciated impact too. Root structures are deeper and more dense than those of trees (significantly more and longer-duration carbon storage, if one is into that sort of thing) and the albedo of millions of hectares of plowed fields/cityscapes is vastly different from dormant or snow-covered grasses.
Call_Me_Al
JackWebb
JackWebb
1 year ago
Reply to  FromBrussels2
I am intensely skeptical of your thesis. I can be convinced with facts, but unfortunately the vast majority of “climate change” information is driven by secular religious sentiment. I would add that the huge northern forests (Canada, Siberia, etc.) are to my knowledge intact (again, I can be swayed by facts as opposed to sentiment and/or faith.) Also, in the United States, which is tied with China for the third largest country on the planet, has increased its forest cover since 1900. That much I know to be factual.
Similarly, any comparison between trees and crops, CO2-wise, has to be rigorously proven until I will accept the sentimental notion that forests are somehow better (i.e., absorb more CO2 than trees) until I believe it. I see that “Call_Me” waxes nostalgic about the replacement of prairie grass by wheat, soybeans, potatoes, and corn, (in this country’s Great Plains, anyway) makes any difference on this score. Assertions aren’t evidence, and I don’t for 10 seconds trust any group dedicated to proving its hypothesis as opposed to testing it.
I’d add, and I am shaky on this one, that from what I have read over time, logged forests are better carbon sinks than worshipped “old growth” forests. I can be swayed by facts, but I think the most effective CO2 sinks are relatively young trees, and that old growth actually winds up releasing a lot of CO2, or at least not absorbing nearly as much as young forests. If you want to dispute any of it, again, give me facts and not sentiment driven by a combination of secular religion, romance, and confirmation bias.
Your serve, but remember: If all you provide is sentiment, forget it. I will laugh as hard as I laughed at the anti-wind turbine people trying to tell us that windmills cause white-nose syndrome in bats, or kill massive amounts of birds. I live in the Columbia River Gorge, one of the consistently windiest regions of America. Those who tout the bird kill junk actually try to claim — without a shred of evidence — that coyotes scavenge the dead birds and destroy the evidence. I’ve been inside those wind turbine farms. If they were dead bird feeding grounds on account of the hundreds of turbines around here, there’d be a coyote population explosion. Guess what? It just ain’t so.
Bottom line: Prove it. I have a very well developed B.S. detector, so do not for a millisecond even think of lying to me. Thanks.
JackWebb
JackWebb
1 year ago
Reply to  JackWebb
^^ What ever made me bother to write that?
FromBrussels2
FromBrussels2
1 year ago
Reply to  JackWebb
thank you Jack, it s only 10am and I ve already learned a thing or 2, thanks to u …deforestation is no problem, 17 footballfields per minute worldwide is neglectible, soya beans are a good alternative and windmills don t kill birds …..that makes actually 3 things, thank you even more Jack ….
SyTuck
SyTuck
1 year ago
I would not rely on childless couples to save the day mish. Only you can say were you stand in this but I’ve found childless couples and people who advocate for childlessness are selfish and have little sense of the future other than what is in it for them.
Those will not be the people that will make any sacrifices for a world they will not be living on in a few short years.
(Not to mention who’s going to wipe their butts when they’re 80?)
Lisa_Hooker
Lisa_Hooker
1 year ago
Reply to  SyTuck
You truly believe affluent children will be wiping butts in the assisted-care housing of the West?
Arcboss
Arcboss
1 year ago
Great article until the comment about not having kids. Unless you plan to die young, who are you expecting to care for you in your old age. Years ago, a person’s own children fulfilled that role personally. Now, the children pay taxes for that purpose. You will need children born now,to provide a support system in the future. Doesn’t matter how much you save for retirement if there are no workers to hire. Of course, i am speaking on a macro level.
JackWebb
JackWebb
1 year ago
Reply to  Arcboss
I think pensions are the biggest cause of declining numbers of children. It’s a paradox, because of the tradeoffs involved. End Social Security systems (whatever they’re called), and I’d expect birth rates to rise.
Lisa_Hooker
Lisa_Hooker
1 year ago
Reply to  Arcboss
There’s always auto-euthanasia.
Gremlin
Gremlin
1 year ago
This problem is as old as humanity. There were always people who tried to convince everyone that the Moon is falling and only they knew how to stop it. For right compensation, of course.
Notice that CO2, which is absolutely essential for life as we know it, declared the only villain. Not the Sun, which influences 99% of all processes on our planet, not volcanic activities that are belching gigatons of CO2 in atmosphere every year, not rainforests or any other forest that are releasing megatons of that stuff as a result of decaying biomass, not anything else, but us – humanity. Why? Because it’s so easy to manipulate or simply force us to pay to our saviors for keeping Moon where it is.
Climate will always change with or without our help. And there always will be people who will try to get something out of real or made up calamities. Global Climate Change is just latest of those made up calamities.
JackWebb
JackWebb
1 year ago
Reply to  Gremlin
Anyone who doubts that the sun is THE major factor needs to find the next total eclipse and go there.
Mjs357
Mjs357
1 year ago

Climate change, climate science, climate laws will all go down as the biggest lie and most diabolical scam ever inflicted on mankind. The entire movement, the people, the science are illogical, fictitious, and all is fugazy science.

Webej
Webej
1 year ago
Regardless the actual risks that climate change pose, perhaps we can agree on the following propositions:
1. Sooner or later we will need an energy transition (fossil fuels are finite)
2. Few people are comfortable with bequeathing any risk of the worst runaway positive feedback loops to our progeny
3. We can either work/invest on new forms of energy exploitation OR wait for crisis to develop and implore the magic market gods [who cannot be dethroned either way] for succor
GeorgeWP
GeorgeWP
1 year ago
The problem is broader than the climate change. There is the impact of population and consumption on soil, vegetation, diversity, water and mineral resources. We have had a golden age of plentiful resources and the emergence of technology to exploit them. But we have been so successful that these resources are now degraded, polluted and harder to find.
Quite simply the whole world cannot live at the same standard as the West and not even a walled off West will be able to maintain its living standards for much longer. We need to move away from wasteful consumer capitalism. The simplest method would be to pass the ‘all in’ cost to the consumer of goods. Currently much of what we produce is only affordable because it is doesn’t include replacement or remediation costs. So the consumer doesn’t pay for the actual cost of the good. Someone else does through having to filter their water or by damage to their health or it is the future generation that will pay because resources no longer exist.
In reality it is likely everyone will hold onto what they have until scarcity and prices crush our standards of living..
Though as long as we still get internet to our hovels maybe things won’t be that bad.
Lisa_Hooker
Lisa_Hooker
1 year ago
Reply to  GeorgeWP
We finally really did it. YOU MANIACS! YOU BLEW IT UP! AH, DAMN YOU! GOD! DAMN YOU ALL TO HELL!
Jack
Jack
1 year ago
Globalization is the cause of climate change.
If the west would have kept all technology advancements to themselves and not gotten greedy by quick profits and cheap labour, the world would be in much better shape.
Gremlin
Gremlin
1 year ago
Reply to  Jack
I wander – what was the reason for global climate change before humans walked this Earth? Globalism? Capitalism?
prumbly
prumbly
1 year ago
“Let’s assume recent climate change is 100% manmade.”
No, let’s not. That would require evidence.
Jack
Jack
1 year ago

A few years ago, the estimate was $98 trillion. Now it’s $131 Trillion. In a few years it will be $200 trillion.

This is about right. Inflation is at 7-9% per annum.
ga7pilot
ga7pilot
1 year ago
“Famine seems to be the last, the most dreadful resource of nature. The
power of population is so superior to the power of the earth to produce
subsistence for man, that premature death must in some shape or other
visit the human race.”
— Thomas Malthus, 1798
FromBrussels2
FromBrussels2
1 year ago
Reply to  ga7pilot
Smart fella for those still ‘analog’ times…..
Maximus_Minimus
Maximus_Minimus
1 year ago
Reply to  ga7pilot
Charles Darwin was familiar and Malthus’s ideas were a major revelation for his Origin of Species. His theory is the amalgamation of Malthus, among other sources. Of course, the main source was his sea voyage documented in precise detail in The Voyage of the Beagle, which is my current reading.
Maximus_Minimus
Maximus_Minimus
1 year ago
Addendum: The book would be an eye opener for the woke crowd.
GruesomeHarvest
GruesomeHarvest
1 year ago
The greatest threat to life on this planet are the politicians in DC always starting wars. And the limp wristed Lyndsey Graham wants to start WW3. It seems his own life has become meaningless with the passing of his lover, John McCain.
GruesomeHarvest
GruesomeHarvest
1 year ago
Fusion is the energy source of the future, and always will be!
How about the neocons in the US stop starting wars. That would save alot on green house emissions.
FromBrussels2
FromBrussels2
1 year ago
….and blowing up gas pipelines , undoubtedly a major environmental disaster hardly mentioned because exceptional terrorist state US of A did it !
KidHorn
KidHorn
1 year ago
Reply to  FromBrussels2
Releasing gas into the atmosphere only adds to global warming when oil companies do it. Not when the US military does it.
JackWebb
JackWebb
1 year ago
Reply to  KidHorn
I release gas into the atmosphere several times a day. Especially if I have eaten sauerkraut.
Jack
Jack
1 year ago

You are right. Might not be fusion, but the $130 Trillion cost is probably based on today’s tech.

Technology advancements will make the end cost a step change cheaper.

Just like third world countries avoided the cost to install telephone landline cables to improve communications – they just jumped to mobile technology.
Lisa_Hooker
Lisa_Hooker
1 year ago
Reply to  Jack
And mobile technology jumped from $100 cellphones to $1000 cellphones.
Whoda thunk.
Then there’s the $65,000 $15,000 automobile.
I could go on.
MarkraD
MarkraD
1 year ago
“Meanwhile, the US is marching down an idiotic path towards electric vehicle mandates with no plan on where to get the minerals for the batteries. Nor does president Biden have an reasonable plan for the infrastructure needed.”
Three weeks ago, Tesla announced plans to produce a motor that uses no rare earth elements/minerals.
.
Jack
Jack
1 year ago
Reply to  MarkraD
This will be released right after Tesla’s autonomous vehicle tech.
I do not believe any of Elon’s BS hype.
Gremlin
Gremlin
1 year ago
Reply to  MarkraD
Still, how do you produce enough electricity to power all those electric cars, trucks, tractors? Covering entire surface of planet with solar panels won’t be enough.
Global climate change isn’t a problem. People who make money by scarring us all with global climate change are.
Casual_Observer2020
Casual_Observer2020
1 year ago
On a personal level, the single best thing you can do for the environment is to not have kids.
So you have no skin in the proverbial game.
GruesomeHarvest
GruesomeHarvest
1 year ago
The West doesn’t have a population growth problem. In fact, the population in most Western countries is decreasing. Africa is where the population growth is off the charts. But if you want to forego one of the greatest Joy’s in your life, so be it.
Lisa_Hooker
Lisa_Hooker
1 year ago
You forgot to mention India.
China appears to have it under control.
Four to five children are better than one.
KidHorn
KidHorn
1 year ago
Reply to  Lisa_Hooker
India growth has slowed a lot. The problem is mainly in sub Saharan Africa. Black Africans have too many kids.
JackWebb
JackWebb
1 year ago
Reply to  Lisa_Hooker
Having seen the average Indian, I have never quite understood why there are so many of them. Kill me now!
Portlander2
Portlander2
1 year ago
I agree with Konstantin Kisin. Does Mish? I’m not sure.
Konstantin says climate change will be dictated by the willingness of the poor of Asia to cut back on CO2 emissions, and for this we need new technologies (not taxing us and making us even poorer). That will require investment. Now, the IPPC says we need investment to the tune of 3X or 4X global GDP by 2050. Konstantin did not put a maximum price he’d be willing to pay to decarbonize the global economy.
So, Mish, if it takes investment representing 3X global GDP over the next 30 years to fix this problem with high probability, would you say that’s too much? If so (and it sounds like it is), this tells me you are not worried about the worst-case scenario, which is pretty scary. It sounds like you are willing to “bet the planet” that most global warming is NOT significantly due to human emissions.
You have a higher risk tolerance than I. I don’t want to make that bet for future generations, and I don’t think they’d want us to.
Casual_Observer2020
Casual_Observer2020
1 year ago
Reply to  Portlander2
You’d have to believe the worst case scenario as an actual possibility. Mish doesn’t. Besides he has no skin in the game so what does he have to really worry about ? Nothing.
GruesomeHarvest
GruesomeHarvest
1 year ago
Reply to  Portlander2
The “climate change” hysteria is BS. Go watch a few videos of Robert Lindzen. He’s a professor of meteorology at MIT. Here’s one,
MarkraD
MarkraD
1 year ago
In the video, he automatically assumes the bridge from poverty to success is fossil fueled, then cites China, India, Africa as yet to fully emerge. (China is the #1 EV buyer globally, to their credit)
In these countries, where there is yet no energy infrastructure, there’s no reason they can’t start with electric/EV infrastructure.
Ten years ago the Climate denial debate was “There is no climate change”, now it’s “It’s not man-made”, I suspect the next phase will be “This is Democrats fault for not speaking more loudly” when we ultimately learn we’re too late.
.
Jack
Jack
1 year ago
Reply to  MarkraD
China is no.1 in EV, however they are not helping the cause.
They are pushing EV tech because they have coal reserves and no oil.
China electricity is coal driven.
China also want to be first to market to own the global market.
Portlander2
Portlander2
1 year ago
The “standing ovation” Powell quote, in its entirety, is inconsistent. The first part of the quote is clearly correct:
Without explicit congressional legislation, it would be inappropriate for us to use our monetary policy or supervisory tools to promote a greener economy or to achieve other climate-based goals.
No argument there. Then he says:
We are not, and will not be, a climate policymaker,” said Jerome Powell.
Well, Jerome, if explicit congressional legislation says you will be a climate policymaker, then clearly “you will not be one.” By saying outright you won’t be, you are actually setting a climate policy without the authority to do so.
Jerome: you are an idiot. Please resign.
StukiMoi
StukiMoi
1 year ago
What happens when India tries to improve the standard of living for all its citizens?”
Same as when China started doing so: Americans get less. As in, get poorer.
The most hysterical “Peak Oil” predictions of a few decades ago may have been a bit overblown. But it’s getting harder to get at what’s left. Hence more expensive.
Should India have the sense to splinter into more sustainable hence prosperous states, rather than just continuing down their current trajectory of ever escalating Modi Madness; they will no doubt also join the lineup of more dynamic countries currently busy dividing up ever larger chunks of what used to be America’s and Europe’s share of a rather limited resource. Ensuring The West will get less. Hence will continue to get poorer and less relevant. While getting into more and more wars in a desperate, ;ast ditch effort to make up their ever increasing irrelevance.
Doug78
Doug78
1 year ago
I had kids and my kids have kids so I must be an environmental criminal.
Freedom discussion:
Jack
Jack
1 year ago
Reply to  Doug78
Without power to force citizens to obey there would be anarchy.
Lisa_Hooker
Lisa_Hooker
1 year ago
Reply to  Jack
Jack, you don’t approve of anarchy?
I’ve always felt that anarchy was a stable form of Government.
KidHorn
KidHorn
1 year ago
Reply to  Doug78
I would say the elite flying on private jets and owning multiple mansions are a much more practical target.
StukiMoi
StukiMoi
1 year ago
Anyone who babbles about “world economic output” is obviously just a retard incapable of putting together anything resembling a useful thought.
Ditto anyone babbling about how much “investment” is needed….
These morons hit both…. ’nuff said.
Business Man
Business Man
1 year ago
I notice PapaDave is not around these days. What happened to our Retail Investor of yore?
MarkraD
MarkraD
1 year ago
Reply to  Business Man
He was on a few days ago, swapping potato puns with Brussels, of course.
Casual_Observer2020
Casual_Observer2020
1 year ago
Reply to  Business Man
His posts were literally the same thing everytime..blah blah blah…I am profiting off this or that.
Lisa_Hooker
Lisa_Hooker
1 year ago
Reply to  Business Man
WTI fell through $70.
It’s hard to blow your own horn under water.
The trick with investment schemes is to get in early.
And get out early.
TheCaptain
TheCaptain
1 year ago
For my part I am treating the entire topic as foolishness, worthly only of laughter, mocking and derision.
Not having children is a personal choice but be careful because the child you might not have could have been the one to figure out the tech needed to sustain humanity for the next 200 years.
Maximus_Minimus
Maximus_Minimus
1 year ago
So is the financial panic over and we can relax, and engage in gentlemanly chit-chat?
HippyDippy
HippyDippy
1 year ago
The panic is never over in klown world.
MarkraD
MarkraD
1 year ago
“That could happen.” – Judy Tenuda
granite
granite
1 year ago
Notice that these climate fanatics never provide data, only predictions. They make it look like data, but in fact the real data doesn’t support their predictions.
MarkraD
MarkraD
1 year ago
Reply to  granite
Well, except for all the data they provide.
Siliconguy
Siliconguy
1 year ago
Reply to  granite
You can’t provide real data about the future until the future arrives.
What they can do is take the models from 10 years ago and see if any of the match the last 10 years of real data. If any of the did, then you can extend that one another ten years and see if it fits. Obviously this makes short term responses pretty difficult.
Lisa_Hooker
Lisa_Hooker
1 year ago
Reply to  Siliconguy
And long term is even more difficult.
The further out, the more implausible.
prumbly
prumbly
1 year ago
Reply to  granite
There is no “real data” any more. All over the world “experts” have been revising historical data to fit their agenda. Original, as-recorded data showed that the world wasn’t warming… so “experts” revised the historical data cooler. Now you can only access the revised data. This has happened in country after country.
For example, in Australia the Bureau of Meteorology has revised historical measurements at least THREE TIMES, each time making the past cooler and hence making it look like Australia has been warming:
Gremlin
Gremlin
1 year ago
Reply to  granite
There are about a hundred computer models, based upon which, climate predictions are made. Not a single one of those models was capable to predict present climate conditions based on past climate data. Another words – none of those computer models are any good for predicting anything. And still here we are – discussing future climate based on those computer models.
How smart is it?
Truthorcon-sequences
Truthorcon-sequences
1 year ago
What’s scary is that if the elites truly believe this they can, in their mind, justify killing about 90% of us.
HippyDippy
HippyDippy
1 year ago
And since the 90% can’t be bothered to figure it out, I say they deserve it.
SAKMAN
SAKMAN
1 year ago
That’s why they want the guns. . .
Dr Funkenstein
Dr Funkenstein
1 year ago
All the damage done by 800 jets flying to the Middle East two months ago to tell regular folks they need to give up their automobiles and ride bicycles.
Does this mean Bill Gates and Barack Obama are going to move from their oceanfront mansions?
prumbly
prumbly
1 year ago
Reply to  Dr Funkenstein
People who live by the ocean know that sea levels haven’t changed in any discernible way over their lifetime. One wonders how they reconcile the evidence of their own eyes with their Climate Change beliefs.
Lisa_Hooker
Lisa_Hooker
1 year ago
Reply to  Dr Funkenstein
Their Pacific coast mansions or their Atlantic coast mansions?
fibsurfer
fibsurfer
1 year ago
The fact that people believe EV are green and windmills don’t kill whales tells you everything.
MPO45v2
MPO45v2
1 year ago
There are far more immediate problems that will wipe out large chunks of humanity before climate change does:
1. Clean water shortage – the Guardian had a good article about clean water being totally depleted by 2040.
2. Food – with water shortages come food shortages of all kind. Enjoy beef while it’s available.
3. Severe weather – Stronger hurricanes, tornadoes, flooding, coastline erosion, landslides, etc.
4. War – When resources become depleted there will be war for what’s left and whoever gets in the way will get slaughtered.
5. Demographics – the world is getting older, not enough young people to maintain all the roads, bridges, buildings, waterlines, electric lines, trains, airports, etc. We reached peak civilization and it’s all bumpy downhill from here.
If you’re a boomer, you’ll likely be long gone when all SHTF so don’t worry, be happy and drain the last ounce of happiness from the world before you go.
As for kids, there won’t be any in nearby Idaho. Idaho is losing doctors like it’s the end of the world. No babies for you Idaho! Expect the same in red states moving forward.
MPO45v2
MPO45v2
1 year ago
Reply to  MPO45v2
Jack
Jack
1 year ago
Reply to  MPO45v2
I love those micro plastics in my water.
A study near me showed the presence of micro-plastics in a remote mountain streams.
Oh, and do not forget to add the end of antibiotics to your list.
Millions will start to die from simple infections in about 10 years.
Lisa_Hooker
Lisa_Hooker
1 year ago
Reply to  Jack
We must recycle microplastics at any cost!
Matt3
Matt3
1 year ago
Reply to  MPO45v2
I’m not sure how that works with Doctors and kids. Are you saying that without a Doctor that is interested in killing babies (abortion) people will be unable to have kids?
MPO45v2
MPO45v2
1 year ago
Reply to  Matt3
i am saying without doctors, kids will have a higher probability of dying or being born with illness of some kind. If your wife is carrying and her life is in danger, doctor is not allowed to do anything because he will be tried for murder if fetus dies. There’s a good chance that both mother and unborn die. If I were a doctor, I’d flee Idaho too, why bother to put myself in that kind of risk.
I’m sure republicans in the state will allow leeching and ‘thoughts and prayers’ though as a treatment.
Gremlin
Gremlin
1 year ago
Reply to  MPO45v2

At least with republicans in charge some kids will have a chance to be born and live to adulthood. With democrats all children will be aborted before or after birth. How is that for a bright future?

Dr Funkenstein
Dr Funkenstein
1 year ago
Reply to  MPO45v2
These scare tactics are always predicting disasters 15-20 years ahead. In 1970 zero population growth zealots were predicting 400 million in India would starve to death in the 1980s. Mid 1970s Club of Rome was predicting massive commodity shortages in 2000. When they fail to appear, these Chicken Littles never admit they were wrong, never apologize but come up with a new scare.
MPO45v2
MPO45v2
1 year ago
Reply to  Dr Funkenstein
You don’t think people are starving in India or around the world right now? You are a privileged and delusional individual completely out of touch with the world.
There are plenty of people in the US that go hungry in the US everyday and many comment here about the tent cities popping up everywhere. Get a clue.
Siliconguy
Siliconguy
1 year ago
Reply to  MPO45v2
The key point is the mass famines predicted did not happen. The model failed.
Gremlin
Gremlin
1 year ago
Reply to  MPO45v2
Show me a person who is starving in US (not by choice) and I will show you a few government programs that will feed them.
MPO45v2
MPO45v2
1 year ago
Reply to  Dr Funkenstein
prumbly
prumbly
1 year ago
Reply to  Dr Funkenstein
People have been predicting the imminent end of the world ever since there were people. And usually the cause of this upcoming catastrophe is humanity itself, through not being pious enough, or not sacrificing enough virgins, or from driving SUVs… It’s funny how these things repeat throughout history.
Lisa_Hooker
Lisa_Hooker
1 year ago
Reply to  prumbly
Sackcloth and ashes for everyone!
Virtue signaling must begin immediately to have any chance of saving us.
TexasTim65
TexasTim65
1 year ago
Reply to  MPO45v2
2040 is only 17 years away. The youngest boomer will only be 75 in 2040 so there will be plenty of them still alive to see what happens if indeed we run out in 2040.
Draining every last ounce of happiness from the world almost certainly will make things worse because it means they use up a ton more resources to get that happiness. So I’m hoping that was a sarcastic comment.
MPO45v2
MPO45v2
1 year ago
Reply to  TexasTim65
So I’m hoping that was a sarcastic comment.
Only Eddie_T ever understood my humor here. I miss that guy.
TexasTim65
TexasTim65
1 year ago
Reply to  MPO45v2
I miss him too and hope he’s OK.
And yet I know you hate boomers and Eddie_T is a classic boomer.
FromBrussels2
FromBrussels2
1 year ago
Reply to  TexasTim65
….a vaxxine victim most likely…
FromBrussels2
FromBrussels2
1 year ago
Reply to  MPO45v2
I love avocados ….1 kilo of them needs a 1000 liters of water ! ….and then exported from south America to Europe …..CRAZY ecological footprint that is ….Can t go on like this , can it ? Not with 8bln destructive human predators , anyway …
Lisa_Hooker
Lisa_Hooker
1 year ago
Reply to  FromBrussels2
Ever see the film that had a bit about how much water is transported around the world in tomatoes?
Maximus_Minimus
Maximus_Minimus
1 year ago
Reply to  Lisa_Hooker
Or imported wine and beer.
JackWebb
JackWebb
1 year ago
Reply to  MPO45v2
The Guardian? What, are you training to be a stand-up comedian?
Matt3
Matt3
1 year ago
“On a personal level, the single best thing you can do for the environment is to not have kids”. Mish -That is truly sad.
How about just going out and enjoying nature and the world we have been given? I know from your posts that you do this. It’s a remarkable, beautiful and amazing world – enjoy it and relax. Our time passes quickly.
Naphtali
Naphtali
1 year ago
When the “correct” viral key is sucessfully constructed, the solution to the global warming (population) problem will be deployed.
Dave
Dave
1 year ago
The phrase Climate Change is redundant. If we were around during the time of the mammoth and it went extinct, it would definitely have fallen victim to the climate change boogeyman.
Avery
Avery
1 year ago
Simply a financial grifting and social control mechanism by financial fraudsters and politicians.
However, if things get rough, then I’ll move to Martha’s Vineyard.
Columbo
Columbo
1 year ago
Reply to  Avery

No, I thought your suppose to go to New Zealand.

TexasTim65
TexasTim65
1 year ago
131 trillion is only 16K per person based on 8 billion people on earth. Surely they can (and will) raise that number by a lot once they realize they can extract even more money. LOL.
I am going to make this assessment report:
1) Making the earth more liveable will cause the population to increase even further beyond the forecast of 9.7 in 2050 (high confidence)
2) Increasing the population will cause even greater stress on the earths climate, land use and resource depletion (high confidence)
It’s a circular problem. The better we make everyone’s life the more population will increase. The more the population increases the more stress is placed on everything that makes things better (or at worst the same). Eventually something has to give (population or making the world more liveable). The only question is when and how.
prumbly
prumbly
1 year ago
Reply to  TexasTim65
Disagree. The wealthier countries become (and presumably, the more “livable”, in your terminology), the lower their birth rates tend to go. Japan is an extremely livable place (for example), and their population is falling.
Lisa_Hooker
Lisa_Hooker
1 year ago
Reply to  prumbly
Yes, places with more economic insecurity tend to have more children.
TexasTim65
TexasTim65
1 year ago
Reply to  prumbly
Ah, but single countries are not the entire planet.
People migrate to the most liveable places. That’s why there is a never ending stream of immigrants moving into Europe and North America.
TexasTim65
TexasTim65
1 year ago
Reply to  prumbly
For example during my parents lifetime (1930s to now) world population has tripled (2.5 to 7.5+ billion)
It took from 1760 to 1930 for it to triple prior to that (almost 200 years).
Population increase is dramatically speeding up as the world has become more liveable (more food and better healthcare) in even the worst countries.
pimaC
pimaC
1 year ago
just another power grab. According to weather forecaster and climatologist Cliff Mass, we have at least 100 years to figure out solutions. We do NOT have a “climate emergency” and we are NOT at a “climate tipping point”! We are, however, in the midst of a global fear mongering campaign that is mostly working. However, quite a few have woken up to what’s really going on, especially after all the covid lies, so there’s hope that we can all tell the UN and the WHO where to go. They need to be completely disbanded. Meanwhile on the energy front, hydrogen looks pretty good. If we could figure out a way to create it from water using very little energy, what a boon that would be. We could convert internal combustion engines to run on hydrogen.
HippyDippy
HippyDippy
1 year ago
Reply to  pimaC
Covid drew a line. It’s the only good that came from it.
Lisa_Hooker
Lisa_Hooker
1 year ago
Reply to  pimaC
Sorry, there’s only one specific amount of energy needed to dissociate water into gases.
Maximus_Minimus
Maximus_Minimus
1 year ago
My guess is that the climate change won’t be on the agenda for a while. The financial panic should take care of it, and the fallout will be more effective addressing climate change than all the international feel-good getherings.
Toutatis
Toutatis
1 year ago
Virtue signaling ?
Bam_Man
Bam_Man
1 year ago
Apparently the solution they have decided upon is to do away with around half of the “Golden Billion”.
shamrock
shamrock
1 year ago
Time has already run out. The only way to stop it now is through some kind of engineering, block the sun, capture and remove CO2, etc.
Matt3
Matt3
1 year ago
Reply to  shamrock
I hope you are joking. That just made me laugh!
The arrogance of man certainly knows no bounds.
Gremlin
Gremlin
1 year ago
Reply to  Matt3
Add stupidity to it.
Max
Max
1 year ago
The west has been telling asia how to educate their kids, how to run their economies, about gender roles and on and on…now it is also exporting its wokeness to asia. The arrogance and bullying of the west will in the end destroy the whole world including asia.
Not to blame the west. Just that the asians have been stupid and cowardly.
StukiMoi
StukiMoi
1 year ago
Reply to  Max
“…destroy the whole world..”
It will take a lot more than a bunch of barren wokes of various skin tones and eye slants, to “destroy” the Mujahideen dudes in Afghanistan and surroundings. A proper interpretation of The 2nd. And hence a properly limited government. Rewarded with the world’s far and away most effective defensive fighting force: Properly armed citizen militias. Who could have guessed that…….?
As well as 8+ kids per woman….. Now who could possibly have guessed (duh!) that: Just like every other specie; humans don’t turn out to breed particularly well in captivity, either…….

Stay Informed

Subscribe to MishTalk

You will receive all messages from this feed and they will be delivered by email.