5 ms·

I feel like they deliberately cut off the headline. He said: "Who cares if Miami is six metres underwater in 100 years? Amsterdam has been six metres underwate

I feel like they deliberately cut off the headline. He said: "Who cares if Miami is six metres underwater in 100 years? Amsterdam has been six metres underwater for ages, and that’s a really nice place. We will cope with it." And that sounds a lot more reasonable to me. He's not dismissing Miami as unimportant, but instead he is expressing his optimism in technical solutions for an environmental issue. Edit: It's in the video at 6:54 https://youtu.be/bfNamRmje-s?t=414 https://youtu.be/bfNamRmje-s?t=414 "Human beings have been fantastic at adapting to change, adapting to climate emergencies, and we will continue to do so. Who cares if Miami is six metres underwater in 100 years? Amsterdam has been six metres underwater for ages, and that’s a really nice place. We will cope with it."

gregjw 4y ago
Wow, yeah, that totally flips around the context, shame on the clickbait.
bowsamic 4y ago
That is somehow even worse
belter 4y ago
Are you really, really sure?: https://youtu.be/bfNamRmje-s?t=100 https://youtu.be/bfNamRmje-s?t=100
- native_samples 4y ago
  I watched that section for a few minutes and saw nothing remarkable in anything he said. Are you really sure you aren't the kind of person he's criticizing? A summary of his comments would be: 1. Claims are over the top. There have been so many wrong claims of apocalypse that it's now really hard to get people's attention. "Most of you barely looked up from your phones at the prospect of non-survival - it's become so hyperbolic that nobody really knows how to get anyone's attention at all". He compares to the claims of gold bugs and about Y2K. 2. Climate activists generate far too much banking work given the time frames and nearer term problems. "We've got the China problem, a housing crisis looming, interest rates climbing, an inflation crisis, and I'm being told time and time again to spend time looking at something that's going to happen twenty or thirty years hence. The proportionality is out of whack". 3. At the moment, markets agree with him more or less. The more often the phrase "climate catastrophe" is mentioned in the press, the more valuable risk-associated assets become. In other words he feels like bankers have nearer term job related problems to be thinking about like the cost of living crisis, the lockdown induced recessions, and not claims the world is ending which, historically, have proven to be inaccurate as a general class. If you feel like these views justify firing or suspending people then you're the sort of person he's criticizing. Edit: Here's a summary of the rest of his arguments. 1. People claiming the world is going to end need to either present arguments for why the market is mispricing everything despite millions of participants, or, why there's going to be a massive boom if climate risk is 'solved'. But currently they don't do that, they're implicitly arguing that the market is seriously mispriced, without actually stating so directly. 2. IPCC figures for actual impact of climate change are surprisingly low, on the order of 5% by 2100. However even if you accept those figures, by 2100 the economy may easily be 1000% larger, so a 5% difference would not be noticeable. Also GDP growth is perhaps over-rated in terms of importance: growth has completely stopped in the recent past and it was OK. 3. People often make misleading claims about extreme weather increasing, without noting that weather related deaths and costs have all been trending downwards significantly. Thus not only dry financial/economic metrics seem impacted in only low ways, but also 'lifestyle' metrics. Humans have been pretty fantastic at adaptation and there's no reason to assume this will change. 4. "I don't doubt the science at all". California's fire budget is only 1% of their state budget, or .1% of their GDP. If economic growth continues as expected, even with more fires, that is solvable through adaption. 5. We spend way too much on mitigation financing and not enough on adaptation financing. 6. There's a difference between volumes and prices (this seems like a technical financial argument), e.g. revenues can fall without profits/prices changing because there's an indirect relationship. There will be winners and losers whose share prices go up and down, during green transitions there's going to be both and it's possible to build portfolios around both. E.g. at the moment coal indexes are outperforming renewables, but it's been different in the past and things will swing back and forth. 7. "Even if climate risk isn't negligible it's too far in the future to matter for most companies". This is again a technical point related to the priorities of bankers. He says company valuations don't really go beyond 20 years. Avg loan length is 6 years. Even if you assume the "Sharons and the Mark Carneys" of the world are totally right about everything and the world ends in fire and destruction in 30 years (not sure who Sharon is but seems to be a prior presenter), then from the perspective of a banker it doesn't matter because it's still too far in the future to actually be important for day to day financial activities. 8. He criticizes central banks for spending far too much time on climate risk instead of things they're meant to be thinking about like inflation and asset prices. 9. One climate risk that markets may not be pricing is the possibility of a giant unexpected carbon tax. Many claims by central banks about climate risk being high, are in reality when you check the fine print of the models, actually modelling implausible economic growth dynamics and massive interest rate shocks, which they then present as "climate risk" to make headlines. This isn't reported and he feels central banks are manipulating models in order to make headlines. 10. If we'd tried to model climate risk in the 1920s with today's knowledge of climate science, they'd have got it totally wrong as they'd never have predicted deindustrialization, the impact of greener technology etc. 11. Conclusion, summary of argument: humans are extremely good at managing change. We need to be less doom-mongering and re-focus / re-gain perspective on what investment bankers should be focused on. We need to not be caught out by opportunities like Tesla, and there's lots of investment opportunities in the green transition. Overall his talk is not even debating or doubting climatological sciences or predictions at any point. It is mostly about what bankers should be doing with their time.
  - armada651 4y ago
    I don't think he would've been suspended if he would've just critized climate change alarmism. But when he dismisses the risk altogether by saying that Miami will cope with it? That's simply a deliberate misrepresentation of the facts and you're not allowed to do that when talking to investors.
    - blitzar 4y ago
      > by saying that Miami will cope with it? That's simply a deliberate misrepresentation of the facts Are you suggesting that Miami can not cope with the pending climate crisis that will see it cease to exist and be underwater by 2025 [1] I am willing to wager that Miami will continue to exist on 1st January 2026. [1] https://miami.cbslocal.com/2015/10/14/predictions-put-south-florida-under-water-by-2025/ https://miami.cbslocal.com/2015/10/14/predictions-put-south-...
      - armada651 4y ago
        I am not suggesting that, 2025 was never mentioned. The question posed by the HSBC exec is about whether Miami will still exist 100 years into the future. In the case of unmitigated climate change that seems unlikely.
  - belter 4y ago
    You and lots of commentators seem to miss the important point that when Miami is 6 meters under water half of the 7.7 billion persons in the planet have to move from where they live. New York and San Francisco will be mostly gone. But hey, who cares right? We always will have Paris and the The Hamptons...
    - refurb 4y ago
      Who is predicting 6 meters of sea level rise? And a lot of San Francisco is elevated above 30 ft above sea level. You seem to be one of those people he’s talking about.
- fxtentacle 4y ago
  Yup, edited my replay with the link to him saying it in the video.
andy_ppp 4y ago
Apart from being quite callous, the further problem with his thinking is raising sea levels when the soil is clay is very problematic but possible to build walls to keep the water out. However when the soil is a porous swamp like in Miami there is literally no way to build dykes if the water flows upwards through the earth.
- mytailorisrich 4y ago
  It was not callous. It was an humorous way to illustrate his point (which was neither about Miami nor Amsterdam specifically) by using a claim that has been widely circulated (i.e. that Miami will be lost to rising sea levels).
  - andy_ppp 4y ago
    One person's joke is another persons insult I guess. I am certainly not agreeing with the idea of someone being sacked for this, that's clearly insane.
    - mytailorisrich 4y ago
      Nobody cares that Miami was mentioned. The quote is taken out of context for sensationalist purposes and while people argue on that they don't discuss the real points and content of his speech in typical bikeshedding fashion. For instance, one key claim he made is that models by central banks on negative impacts of climate change on economy are using unrealistically negative hypotheses. That's what people should be discussing but of course most people, me included, lack the expertise to meaningfully do it.
- yread 4y ago
  Amsterdam also sits on porous (in theory) sand. Compacted sand lets only little water through though and that is pumped out. Bigger problem with his argument is that Amsterdam is lot more like London or Philadelphia than Miami - it's not really at the sea. There was an inlet Zuiderzee that was dammed, just like river Thames or Delaware river could be (expensive but probably doable). Miami is surrounded by sea
bloak 4y ago
Wikipedia gives the altitude of Amsterdam as "−2 m". I'm not sure what that means, exactly. Is it a typical road surface that's at two metres below mean sea level? Can anyone explain where mean sea level is in a typical Amsterdam street scene like this one (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Red-light_district_of_Amsterdam_by_day._2012.JPG https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Red-light_district_o...)?
- blitzar 4y ago
  See the Casino City on the Right? The sea level is lapping at that sign.
armada651 4y ago
Well then clearly Amsterdam is unimportant to him, because by the time Miami is six metres under water not even the Dutch can save Amsterdam anymore. Besides, rising sea levels is just one of effects of climate change. Saying it's okay to do nothing because Miami may be able to cope with the rising sea levels is completely unreasonable. Either this person is deliberately misrepresenting the consequences of climate change to investors or he's incompetent. Either way that's rightful grounds to suspend him.
- refurb 4y ago
  Isn’t New Orleans 3-4 m below sea level in some parts? Do we expect sea levels to rise 1-2m?
- ekianjo 4y ago
  > because by the time Miami is six metres under water It won't happen suddenly in one day.
thewarrior 4y ago
Yeah we are “just” going to build flood defenses for every single major city in the world just like Amsterdam. Easy peasy.
- ekianjo 4y ago
  > flood defenses for every single major city in the world just like Amsterdam. For your information sea levels won't go up everywhere around the world in the same way.
JKCalhoun 4y ago
Was the issue his dismissiveness of Miami specifically, or his broader fatalist approach to environmental catastrophe — his ignore-Cassandra-like attitude?
DitheringIdiot 4y ago
That’s equally unreasonable. Is HSBC investing in climate resilience? Obviously not. He’s just making a nonsense excuse. He doesn’t care about Miami or technical solutions, he’s just a selfish man
usednet 4y ago
I can’t wait to hear what he thinks of the 90% of people who will be affected by climate change not living in developed first world countries. Probably still “Who cares?”

gregjw 4y ago

Wow, yeah, that totally flips around the context, shame on the clickbait.

bowsamic 4y ago

That is somehow even worse

belter 4y ago

Are you really, really sure?: https://youtu.be/bfNamRmje-s?t=100 https://youtu.be/bfNamRmje-s?t=100

native_samples 4y ago
I watched that section for a few minutes and saw nothing remarkable in anything he said. Are you really sure you aren't the kind of person he's criticizing? A summary of his comments would be: 1. Claims are over the top. There have been so many wrong claims of apocalypse that it's now really hard to get people's attention. "Most of you barely looked up from your phones at the prospect of non-survival - it's become so hyperbolic that nobody really knows how to get anyone's attention at all". He compares to the claims of gold bugs and about Y2K. 2. Climate activists generate far too much banking work given the time frames and nearer term problems. "We've got the China problem, a housing crisis looming, interest rates climbing, an inflation crisis, and I'm being told time and time again to spend time looking at something that's going to happen twenty or thirty years hence. The proportionality is out of whack". 3. At the moment, markets agree with him more or less. The more often the phrase "climate catastrophe" is mentioned in the press, the more valuable risk-associated assets become. In other words he feels like bankers have nearer term job related problems to be thinking about like the cost of living crisis, the lockdown induced recessions, and not claims the world is ending which, historically, have proven to be inaccurate as a general class. If you feel like these views justify firing or suspending people then you're the sort of person he's criticizing. Edit: Here's a summary of the rest of his arguments. 1. People claiming the world is going to end need to either present arguments for why the market is mispricing everything despite millions of participants, or, why there's going to be a massive boom if climate risk is 'solved'. But currently they don't do that, they're implicitly arguing that the market is seriously mispriced, without actually stating so directly. 2. IPCC figures for actual impact of climate change are surprisingly low, on the order of 5% by 2100. However even if you accept those figures, by 2100 the economy may easily be 1000% larger, so a 5% difference would not be noticeable. Also GDP growth is perhaps over-rated in terms of importance: growth has completely stopped in the recent past and it was OK. 3. People often make misleading claims about extreme weather increasing, without noting that weather related deaths and costs have all been trending downwards significantly. Thus not only dry financial/economic metrics seem impacted in only low ways, but also 'lifestyle' metrics. Humans have been pretty fantastic at adaptation and there's no reason to assume this will change. 4. "I don't doubt the science at all". California's fire budget is only 1% of their state budget, or .1% of their GDP. If economic growth continues as expected, even with more fires, that is solvable through adaption. 5. We spend way too much on mitigation financing and not enough on adaptation financing. 6. There's a difference between volumes and prices (this seems like a technical financial argument), e.g. revenues can fall without profits/prices changing because there's an indirect relationship. There will be winners and losers whose share prices go up and down, during green transitions there's going to be both and it's possible to build portfolios around both. E.g. at the moment coal indexes are outperforming renewables, but it's been different in the past and things will swing back and forth. 7. "Even if climate risk isn't negligible it's too far in the future to matter for most companies". This is again a technical point related to the priorities of bankers. He says company valuations don't really go beyond 20 years. Avg loan length is 6 years. Even if you assume the "Sharons and the Mark Carneys" of the world are totally right about everything and the world ends in fire and destruction in 30 years (not sure who Sharon is but seems to be a prior presenter), then from the perspective of a banker it doesn't matter because it's still too far in the future to actually be important for day to day financial activities. 8. He criticizes central banks for spending far too much time on climate risk instead of things they're meant to be thinking about like inflation and asset prices. 9. One climate risk that markets may not be pricing is the possibility of a giant unexpected carbon tax. Many claims by central banks about climate risk being high, are in reality when you check the fine print of the models, actually modelling implausible economic growth dynamics and massive interest rate shocks, which they then present as "climate risk" to make headlines. This isn't reported and he feels central banks are manipulating models in order to make headlines. 10. If we'd tried to model climate risk in the 1920s with today's knowledge of climate science, they'd have got it totally wrong as they'd never have predicted deindustrialization, the impact of greener technology etc. 11. Conclusion, summary of argument: humans are extremely good at managing change. We need to be less doom-mongering and re-focus / re-gain perspective on what investment bankers should be focused on. We need to not be caught out by opportunities like Tesla, and there's lots of investment opportunities in the green transition. Overall his talk is not even debating or doubting climatological sciences or predictions at any point. It is mostly about what bankers should be doing with their time.
- armada651 4y ago
  I don't think he would've been suspended if he would've just critized climate change alarmism. But when he dismisses the risk altogether by saying that Miami will cope with it? That's simply a deliberate misrepresentation of the facts and you're not allowed to do that when talking to investors.
  - blitzar 4y ago
    > by saying that Miami will cope with it? That's simply a deliberate misrepresentation of the facts Are you suggesting that Miami can not cope with the pending climate crisis that will see it cease to exist and be underwater by 2025 [1] I am willing to wager that Miami will continue to exist on 1st January 2026. [1] https://miami.cbslocal.com/2015/10/14/predictions-put-south-florida-under-water-by-2025/ https://miami.cbslocal.com/2015/10/14/predictions-put-south-...
    - armada651 4y ago
      I am not suggesting that, 2025 was never mentioned. The question posed by the HSBC exec is about whether Miami will still exist 100 years into the future. In the case of unmitigated climate change that seems unlikely.
- belter 4y ago
  You and lots of commentators seem to miss the important point that when Miami is 6 meters under water half of the 7.7 billion persons in the planet have to move from where they live. New York and San Francisco will be mostly gone. But hey, who cares right? We always will have Paris and the The Hamptons...
  - refurb 4y ago
    Who is predicting 6 meters of sea level rise? And a lot of San Francisco is elevated above 30 ft above sea level. You seem to be one of those people he’s talking about.
fxtentacle 4y ago
Yup, edited my replay with the link to him saying it in the video.

andy_ppp 4y ago

Apart from being quite callous, the further problem with his thinking is raising sea levels when the soil is clay is very problematic but possible to build walls to keep the water out. However when the soil is a porous swamp like in Miami there is literally no way to build dykes if the water flows upwards through the earth.

mytailorisrich 4y ago
It was not callous. It was an humorous way to illustrate his point (which was neither about Miami nor Amsterdam specifically) by using a claim that has been widely circulated (i.e. that Miami will be lost to rising sea levels).
- andy_ppp 4y ago
  One person's joke is another persons insult I guess. I am certainly not agreeing with the idea of someone being sacked for this, that's clearly insane.
  - mytailorisrich 4y ago
    Nobody cares that Miami was mentioned. The quote is taken out of context for sensationalist purposes and while people argue on that they don't discuss the real points and content of his speech in typical bikeshedding fashion. For instance, one key claim he made is that models by central banks on negative impacts of climate change on economy are using unrealistically negative hypotheses. That's what people should be discussing but of course most people, me included, lack the expertise to meaningfully do it.
yread 4y ago
Amsterdam also sits on porous (in theory) sand. Compacted sand lets only little water through though and that is pumped out. Bigger problem with his argument is that Amsterdam is lot more like London or Philadelphia than Miami - it's not really at the sea. There was an inlet Zuiderzee that was dammed, just like river Thames or Delaware river could be (expensive but probably doable). Miami is surrounded by sea

bloak 4y ago

Wikipedia gives the altitude of Amsterdam as "−2 m". I'm not sure what that means, exactly. Is it a typical road surface that's at two metres below mean sea level? Can anyone explain where mean sea level is in a typical Amsterdam street scene like this one (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Red-light_district_of_Amsterdam_by_day._2012.JPG https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Red-light_district_o...)?

blitzar 4y ago
See the Casino City on the Right? The sea level is lapping at that sign.

armada651 4y ago

Well then clearly Amsterdam is unimportant to him, because by the time Miami is six metres under water not even the Dutch can save Amsterdam anymore. Besides, rising sea levels is just one of effects of climate change. Saying it's okay to do nothing because Miami may be able to cope with the rising sea levels is completely unreasonable. Either this person is deliberately misrepresenting the consequences of climate change to investors or he's incompetent. Either way that's rightful grounds to suspend him.

refurb 4y ago
Isn’t New Orleans 3-4 m below sea level in some parts? Do we expect sea levels to rise 1-2m?
ekianjo 4y ago
> because by the time Miami is six metres under water It won't happen suddenly in one day.

thewarrior 4y ago

Yeah we are “just” going to build flood defenses for every single major city in the world just like Amsterdam. Easy peasy.

ekianjo 4y ago
> flood defenses for every single major city in the world just like Amsterdam. For your information sea levels won't go up everywhere around the world in the same way.

JKCalhoun 4y ago

Was the issue his dismissiveness of Miami specifically, or his broader fatalist approach to environmental catastrophe — his ignore-Cassandra-like attitude?

DitheringIdiot 4y ago

That’s equally unreasonable. Is HSBC investing in climate resilience? Obviously not. He’s just making a nonsense excuse. He doesn’t care about Miami or technical solutions, he’s just a selfish man

usednet 4y ago

I can’t wait to hear what he thinks of the 90% of people who will be affected by climate change not living in developed first world countries. Probably still “Who cares?”