3 ms·

The market won't be able to adapt fast enough, I think. I don't think all prevailing narratives in the media are false. The idea that most of our industry bene

by sprafa 5y ago

The market won't be able to adapt fast enough, I think. I don't think all prevailing narratives in the media are false. The idea that most of our industry benefits from climate change being considered an "externality" is true. Anyone who benefits from this unpriced "externality" has full interest in keeping it that way. And that's probably 90% of economic activity. I have little doubt that the innovation will come from industry, but the issue is that as long as we consider all of this an externality the market has no forcing function to change. On the Davos crowd who goes around talking about climate change while jetting around, that is a PR effort that's to be expected. In the end it doesn't matter. Since it's an economic externality to heat up the planet, we all benefit and get destroyed by it at the same time. A billionaire can be making great talks about climate change but it is impossible for him to achieve net-zero when so much of our economic activity relies on pricing climate change at 0$. The exception to this is literally 1 billionaire, who's invested humongous amounts of net worth into Tesla. Either way, there is 0 ways for the market to solve climate change when it is obvious that climate change is not priced into economic activity at all.

OrvalWintermute 5y ago
> The idea that most of our industry benefits from climate change being considered an "externality" is true. Anyone who benefits from this unpriced "externality" has full interest in keeping it that way. And that's probably 90% of economic activity. I do think there are benefits to change that include many things that are already in development, or working now, such as better use of CO2, rather than merely emitting. Given how much of green energy is completely dependent on fossil fuels for initial bootstrapping, I don't see the status quo changing for many years. However, once an alternative energy source whether biofuel algae, or others, or a combination start to grow their benefits over present day pricing, I am certain we will transition. Not from pricing in externalities, but because of obsoleting and profits. Who'd care to dig up oil for 30% profits when you can generate an efficient biofuel for 75% profits? Not saying it will be anything of the sort, just providing an example. > Either way, there is 0 ways for the market to solve climate change when it is obvious that climate change is not priced into economic activity at all. Given the rise of ESG investing, and how it is now dominating portfolios as many funds altogether refuse to touch dirty energy/ Big Energy, there is already pricing power built in. Because Wall Street values ESG, therefore there is a "valuation tax" being applied to Big Energy. This outside of pure ESG funds too. Even Exxon just got a more activist board thanks to a tiny fund. https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/little-engine-no.-1-beat-exxon-with-just-%2412.5-mln-sources-2021-06-29 https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/little-engine-no.-1-beat-exx...
- sprafa 5y ago
  This is tiny steps. I agree there is some evidence of movement in the right direction, but I can't agree that ESG puts a price on carbon - I don't know how much of an impact it has, but it's doubtful that it has the impact a carbon tax would. Everything that you're saying is true but they are incremental changes. I would put a bet that within 10-20 years massive market regulation + carbon tax will be forced onto industries across the world - that will be because climate change will be such a huge multiplier of horrific things we'll be forced to. But by then it's likely too late for 1/2 of the world's population to escape unharmed. In fact I increasingly suspect that climate change is already causing horrific events around the world that we are ignoring because we are in the first world. It would be interesting to go around agricultural areas in the hottest areas of the world and see if food insecurity is increasing. I would bet that we're already seeing huge changes, but because we're insulated from it, we're ignoring it. Basically we're looking at the same facts, but I think you are a huge optimist.

by sprafa 5y ago

OrvalWintermute 5y ago

> The idea that most of our industry benefits from climate change being considered an "externality" is true. Anyone who benefits from this unpriced "externality" has full interest in keeping it that way. And that's probably 90% of economic activity. I do think there are benefits to change that include many things that are already in development, or working now, such as better use of CO2, rather than merely emitting. Given how much of green energy is completely dependent on fossil fuels for initial bootstrapping, I don't see the status quo changing for many years. However, once an alternative energy source whether biofuel algae, or others, or a combination start to grow their benefits over present day pricing, I am certain we will transition. Not from pricing in externalities, but because of obsoleting and profits. Who'd care to dig up oil for 30% profits when you can generate an efficient biofuel for 75% profits? Not saying it will be anything of the sort, just providing an example. > Either way, there is 0 ways for the market to solve climate change when it is obvious that climate change is not priced into economic activity at all. Given the rise of ESG investing, and how it is now dominating portfolios as many funds altogether refuse to touch dirty energy/ Big Energy, there is already pricing power built in. Because Wall Street values ESG, therefore there is a "valuation tax" being applied to Big Energy. This outside of pure ESG funds too. Even Exxon just got a more activist board thanks to a tiny fund. https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/little-engine-no.-1-beat-exxon-with-just-%2412.5-mln-sources-2021-06-29 https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/little-engine-no.-1-beat-exx...

sprafa 5y ago
This is tiny steps. I agree there is some evidence of movement in the right direction, but I can't agree that ESG puts a price on carbon - I don't know how much of an impact it has, but it's doubtful that it has the impact a carbon tax would. Everything that you're saying is true but they are incremental changes. I would put a bet that within 10-20 years massive market regulation + carbon tax will be forced onto industries across the world - that will be because climate change will be such a huge multiplier of horrific things we'll be forced to. But by then it's likely too late for 1/2 of the world's population to escape unharmed. In fact I increasingly suspect that climate change is already causing horrific events around the world that we are ignoring because we are in the first world. It would be interesting to go around agricultural areas in the hottest areas of the world and see if food insecurity is increasing. I would bet that we're already seeing huge changes, but because we're insulated from it, we're ignoring it. Basically we're looking at the same facts, but I think you are a huge optimist.