4 ms·

On a related subject, I can understand why reserve banks and governments think that they can use money printing as an incentive mechanism to fight against clima

On a related subject, I can understand why reserve banks and governments think that they can use money printing as an incentive mechanism to fight against climate change, but so far, it does not seem to be effective because government bureaucrats are terrible stakeholders when it comes to the climate; they do not have the ability to differentiate between the kinds of ventures which will genuinely help to fight climate change and those which are merely engaging in green-washing... And it's too easy for government officials to claim plausible deniability when their true intentions have been to help their corporate friends get their hands on big stacks of public 'ESG' money. I think the problem both has to do with incentives (since government bureaucrats do not 'own' the climate; it's not really their problem) and also with capabilities (they generally do not have the scientific knowledge/qualifications or the critical thinking skills required to be able to effectively make such decisions). Climate change is a very complex topic, it's probable that nobody in the world fully understands all the dynamics which drive it because every single thing (living and non-living) which exists on this planet is a factor contributing either towards or against global warming and everything is interconnected with complex feedback loops... So it's difficult to see how politicians who do not have any scientific background would be able to know how to allocate funding to fight climate change. There are also many scientists who reject the notion of man-made climate change altogether; in this case, the whole global warming narrative could be seen as nothing but a giant financial scheme to launder freshly printed money from governments to large corporate entities under the ESG label.

mellavora 4y ago
Your first paragraph makes sense, but your reasoning on climate change is lacking. > Climate change is a very complex topic everything ..interconnected with complex feedback loops. Main driver of global warming is CO2/methane levels. Main drivers of CO2/methane levels since the industrial revolution are human. That's not complex. > There are also many scientists who reject the notion of man-made climate change altogether This is only true if you are loose with your definition of "many" and/or "scientists". The reason for the apparent confusion over climate change is a well-funded long-term initiative by the oil industry to create confusion by creating fake complexity and doubt.
- jongjong 4y ago
  >> That's not complex. Humans only contribute around 3% of total CO2 emissions... That's almost certainly less than normal year-on-year variability of CO2 emissions from purely natural sources. The level of volcanic activity (which, on its own contributes more CO2 than humans) is not the same every year. It's difficult to see how human impact on climate change could be significant. Another thing is that CO2 is good for plants and trees; so increased CO2 should contribute to global greening; and there is evidence of this occurring. Since plants consume carbon dioxide, one would think that more plants and trees on earth would mean that more carbon dioxide would be taken out of the atmosphere. It seems like mother nature has already figured out how to achieve CO2 equilibrium. Do the climate change models account for things like global greening? Do they account for the fact that plants can evolve to adapt to a changing environment (with more CO2) through the process of natural selection? A good environmental model would have to account for all the different plant populations around the world and their DNA changes over time... We would have to understand how plant genes affect CO2 consumption; and the simulation would involve trillions of variables and probably require millions or billions of times all the world's current computational capacity to compute accurately. That's barely scratching the surface of the complexity. It's arrogant and disingenuous to suggest that it's simple. All scientists have been able to establish to far is correlation. There is no evidence of causation. Establishing causation is likely impossible due to the huge number of variables involved. Not only do we not fully understand how all the variables interact, we don't even know what all the variables are because the earth is so complex and massive.
  - lakhim 4y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere#/media/File:Carbon_Dioxide_800kyr.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_at... If you look at a chart like this, and think: hmm, this is probably fine, you've completely lost the plot. Something is going to happen from this, and its probably not going to be fun.
    - jongjong 4y ago
      That does look impressive and scary but I wouldn't rule out: - Increased volcanic activity or other natural events (e.g. solar activity) causing this spike in CO2. - Flaws in instruments used to accurately measure CO2 levels in the past due to some variables which have not been accounted for. - That it could just be a temporary spike which will be offset by global greening, increases in ocean phytoplankton or some other natural events over the next few centuries.
simiones 4y ago
It's very interesting that you seem to think climate science is shaky, but economics, that's the real hard science. Of course, the exact opposite is true. There is now absolutely no doubt whatsoever that global warming is happening and that is is caused by the vast amounts of CO2 and other GHGs that our industrial activity is releasing into the atmosphere. There is a long history of fundamental science (chemical+physical quantifiable measurement of the warming effects of GHGs), historical data from geological records, statistical climate modeling and so on that is as established as any other of the earth sciences. On the other hand, Economy can only vaguely be described as a science, with extremely over-simplified models that fail consistently, with very little theoretical or empirical evidence to back up the vast majority of its proponents claims - and with nowhere near the standards for what is considered "evidence" that physics or the earth sciences ask for (in terms of statistical measures).
- zosima 4y ago
  I think you are mixing solid and much less solid science here. GHG:s and their warming effects are solid science. This can be tested out in any lab. Statistical climate modelling, and the historical climate reconstructions are much more shaky and are probably not much more reliable than economics is. And probably for the same reason too: Experiments in those area are very difficult to perform.

mellavora 4y ago

Your first paragraph makes sense, but your reasoning on climate change is lacking. > Climate change is a very complex topic everything ..interconnected with complex feedback loops. Main driver of global warming is CO2/methane levels. Main drivers of CO2/methane levels since the industrial revolution are human. That's not complex. > There are also many scientists who reject the notion of man-made climate change altogether This is only true if you are loose with your definition of "many" and/or "scientists". The reason for the apparent confusion over climate change is a well-funded long-term initiative by the oil industry to create confusion by creating fake complexity and doubt.

jongjong 4y ago
>> That's not complex. Humans only contribute around 3% of total CO2 emissions... That's almost certainly less than normal year-on-year variability of CO2 emissions from purely natural sources. The level of volcanic activity (which, on its own contributes more CO2 than humans) is not the same every year. It's difficult to see how human impact on climate change could be significant. Another thing is that CO2 is good for plants and trees; so increased CO2 should contribute to global greening; and there is evidence of this occurring. Since plants consume carbon dioxide, one would think that more plants and trees on earth would mean that more carbon dioxide would be taken out of the atmosphere. It seems like mother nature has already figured out how to achieve CO2 equilibrium. Do the climate change models account for things like global greening? Do they account for the fact that plants can evolve to adapt to a changing environment (with more CO2) through the process of natural selection? A good environmental model would have to account for all the different plant populations around the world and their DNA changes over time... We would have to understand how plant genes affect CO2 consumption; and the simulation would involve trillions of variables and probably require millions or billions of times all the world's current computational capacity to compute accurately. That's barely scratching the surface of the complexity. It's arrogant and disingenuous to suggest that it's simple. All scientists have been able to establish to far is correlation. There is no evidence of causation. Establishing causation is likely impossible due to the huge number of variables involved. Not only do we not fully understand how all the variables interact, we don't even know what all the variables are because the earth is so complex and massive.
- lakhim 4y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere#/media/File:Carbon_Dioxide_800kyr.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_at... If you look at a chart like this, and think: hmm, this is probably fine, you've completely lost the plot. Something is going to happen from this, and its probably not going to be fun.
  - jongjong 4y ago
    That does look impressive and scary but I wouldn't rule out: - Increased volcanic activity or other natural events (e.g. solar activity) causing this spike in CO2. - Flaws in instruments used to accurately measure CO2 levels in the past due to some variables which have not been accounted for. - That it could just be a temporary spike which will be offset by global greening, increases in ocean phytoplankton or some other natural events over the next few centuries.

simiones 4y ago

It's very interesting that you seem to think climate science is shaky, but economics, that's the real hard science. Of course, the exact opposite is true. There is now absolutely no doubt whatsoever that global warming is happening and that is is caused by the vast amounts of CO2 and other GHGs that our industrial activity is releasing into the atmosphere. There is a long history of fundamental science (chemical+physical quantifiable measurement of the warming effects of GHGs), historical data from geological records, statistical climate modeling and so on that is as established as any other of the earth sciences. On the other hand, Economy can only vaguely be described as a science, with extremely over-simplified models that fail consistently, with very little theoretical or empirical evidence to back up the vast majority of its proponents claims - and with nowhere near the standards for what is considered "evidence" that physics or the earth sciences ask for (in terms of statistical measures).

zosima 4y ago
I think you are mixing solid and much less solid science here. GHG:s and their warming effects are solid science. This can be tested out in any lab. Statistical climate modelling, and the historical climate reconstructions are much more shaky and are probably not much more reliable than economics is. And probably for the same reason too: Experiments in those area are very difficult to perform.