The financial world may just be catching on that climate collapse is back for business.
Shame they worked this out at such a late stage. Can’t see them outspending any governments as CNBC speculates though. Ain’t gonna happen.
It’s not as much spending as restricting and redirecting investments in search of profits. Banks could stop giving capital loans to FF-related industries and utilities. I see the energy transition much like the market-driven tech boom of the 1990s: Lots of innovation, lots of failed ideas, lots of failed companies, and a few superhumongous winners. I picture the market watching giant automakers to see which one wins in EV space as gawking bettors at the racetrack.
Also, government programs probably couldn’t do as much to keep people from [re-]building in wildfire/coastal areas as the increase in insurance premiums and the end of 30-year mortgages from banks.
Government can change market behavior with subsidies and tax-deductions toward the transition while removing subsidies and raising taxes for FF industries. Even a small percentage-point move in the investment area can result in a huge shift in where the money goes.
The 2 goals at the start are mutually exclusive. Net zero by 2050 is garbage, and we are not staying under 2°, let alone 1.5°. If we stick with N0x2050, we’ll be lucky to stay under 6°.
It’s waaaay too late to still be talking about thinking about maybe starting investments. “Market solutions” like that have gotten us here and are only going to dig us a deeper hole. Democratically elected governments have to mandate changes in energy, ag, industry, forestry, and lives if we want to come out of this at the other end with any kind of cohesive global society. http://www.climatecodered.org/2021/10/net-zero-2050-is-dealy-scam-justifying.html
October 30, 2021 at 1:16 pm
The financial world may just be catching on that climate collapse is back for business.
Shame they worked this out at such a late stage. Can’t see them outspending any governments as CNBC speculates though. Ain’t gonna happen.
October 30, 2021 at 1:31 pm
It’s not as much spending as restricting and redirecting investments in search of profits. Banks could stop giving capital loans to FF-related industries and utilities. I see the energy transition much like the market-driven tech boom of the 1990s: Lots of innovation, lots of failed ideas, lots of failed companies, and a few superhumongous winners. I picture the market watching giant automakers to see which one wins in EV space as gawking bettors at the racetrack.
Also, government programs probably couldn’t do as much to keep people from [re-]building in wildfire/coastal areas as the increase in insurance premiums and the end of 30-year mortgages from banks.
Government can change market behavior with subsidies and tax-deductions toward the transition while removing subsidies and raising taxes for FF industries. Even a small percentage-point move in the investment area can result in a huge shift in where the money goes.
November 1, 2021 at 4:47 pm
The 2 goals at the start are mutually exclusive. Net zero by 2050 is garbage, and we are not staying under 2°, let alone 1.5°. If we stick with N0x2050, we’ll be lucky to stay under 6°.
It’s waaaay too late to still be talking about thinking about maybe starting investments. “Market solutions” like that have gotten us here and are only going to dig us a deeper hole. Democratically elected governments have to mandate changes in energy, ag, industry, forestry, and lives if we want to come out of this at the other end with any kind of cohesive global society.
http://www.climatecodered.org/2021/10/net-zero-2050-is-dealy-scam-justifying.html