Those things from big banks always remind me of the quote from Big Short: "Yeah, I think you mean that you've secured a net short position yourselves. So you're free to mark my swaps accurately for once because it's now in your interest to do so."
There were a lot fewer of them. Life expectancy and standards of living were way lower. Stone age tech meant they couldn't kill each other as efficiently in war over declining resources.
Stone age tech meant they didn't have time to worry about fake crises, life was hard enough, eh? They just took the warm weather that followed the ice age and invented farming. Not bad. Resources aren't declining. Energy is more abundant than ever. Crop yields are way up. The Earth is greener and has more trees than it did just a few decades ago. Basic necessities are covered. There's no basis for alarmism.
So you see no problem with economic externalities and the drive to shorten the lifetime of all goods we produce in order to sell another one as quickly as possible? Pollution and limited resources are not a problem?
But yeah the developing countries do deserve it. However, it remains a complex political issue. How do you declare or enforce regulations in countries outside of our jurisdiction? You can try to convince those countries it's worth it but you can't force them to.
Tariffs and sanctions. "Tax carbon or you can't trade with us. We'll freeze your assets in our banks. We'll get our allies to do the same thing. Any company that trades with you can't do business here." It works to force compliance on many other issues.
But it only works if we've made efforts to fix our own carbon emitting economies. Before anyone makes the currently popular "why aren't you telling China and India to stop emitting" argument
Fresh water will never run out. Specific regions on the planet will experience drought or floods from time to time but that's the way it's always been. Meanwhile look to Israel and how they've managed to build desalinization plants efficiently and now they have an abundance of fresh water where they used to have very little. Crop yields are up (more than 100% in past few decades), so arable land doesn't appear to be a problem.
I can't reply to below response but no, desalination has gotten much cheaper:
> Specific regions on the planet will experience drought or floods
And you don't think it's a problem that entirely preventable human activities are causing this? How would you feel if you lived in a drought-stricken region? The Indian subcontinent is one such region. Historically, and cumulatively, the people living there haven't contributed very much to climate change. But they're the ones that will pay a price for it.
> Meanwhile look to Israel and how they've managed to build desalinization plants efficiently
Desalinization requires a lot of energy and is capital-intensive. Even if it's cheaper than it used to be, it's not cheaper than taking fresh water out of a lake or reservoir, treating it, and piping it. Why should poor countries pay a "desal tax" for a problem they didn't cause?
Are you proposing for developed countries to fund desal plants for developing countries as compensation for causing climate change?
What you're saying is "It's not a problem for me. Tough luck if it is for you".
Why do you think it's a "fake" crisis? All of the world's climate scientists (spanning multiple disciplines) are lying or exaggerating...for what exactly? More research grants? They could probably get more money by writing papers denying there's a problem.
"Things are better than ever" is a meaningless statement. The Titanic was going great until it hit that iceberg. Our lookouts have been loudly warning us of this iceberg for decades - and their predictions have been largely correct.
Thanks for the pedantic hair-splitting. I'll update my comment to say "all of the world's climate scientists". But it's not a stretch to say "most scientists in general". I'd wager > 50% of academics, of any discipline, agree it's happening and we need to act.
But the reason we have our way of lives and all these billions of lives is because of our highly effective utilisation of fossil fuels. And with those fuels humans manage to live civilised and comfortable lives in conditions ranging from temperate to tropical.
In all seriousness, if you assume the next 200 years looks anything like the last 200 years there is no forecast of the future that doesn't include billions of lives being lost and changes to people's way of life. But climate change doesn't need to be invoked; just the ongoing rise in population and the depletion of fossil fuels.
COVID-19 is the current reminder that that there are much bigger risks out there than climate.
I don't disagree that climate change is not the only threat to our way of life.
I am highly skeptical of disease being a cause. COVID-19 has killed 2,000+ people so far. It is dangerous and we have to handle it appropriately, but its simply not on the same order of magnitude.
In all the distrust and misinformation out there around this subject, it's refreshing whenever I see finance people talk in these terms. They are pragmatic to a fault, and wouldn't make statements like these lightly.
> They are pragmatic to a fault, and wouldn't make statements like these lightly.
The situation is dire, but lets not discount these are the very same people responsible for the derivatives scandal that plunged the global economy into disrepute, and profited very handsomely from it with bail outs and bonuses for their utter failure to exercise sound financial behaviour. So lets not place the very same people capable of creating their own catastrophic global crisis on pedestals.
With that said, consider how big their carbon footprint is in just the creation, maintenance and upkeep of their legacy system, which really only 'works' 5 days out of the week.
If they want to be taken serious, knowing they will never correct the malfeasance they call a business model, they should give little to no interest loans on startups and small businesses that help offset global climate change.
They won't and instead you'll see Jamie Diamond on TV alongside Blankfiend et al at Davos making these empty latitudes without so much as hesitating when they board their private jets whilst eating exotic food and drinks procured from all over the World.
Pragmatists? Hardly, opportunistic parasites willing to cling onto whatever narrative suits them, of course.
I didn't mean to put them on pedestals; I really did mean "to a fault". Usually it's a fault. What I'm saying is that they don't mess around when it comes to their own self-interest. So if even they are worried about this, we all should be.
It’s a threat to civilization and the current world order... which would lose JP Morgan a lot of money.
I’m not saying we shouldn’t care (and do something), but if you’re routinely accused of making the whole thing up... it helps not to make up scary claims.
A few weeks ago I read Naomi Klein's "This Changes Everything." She specifically mentions how the bailout - after the 2008 crash - was a missed opportunity; that WS' behavior could been nudged or more. Given what was at risk, it's difficult to disagree.
33 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 90.5 ms ] threadhttps://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22386096
Which resources are you worried about running out?
Developed countries hide their pollution slightly better (no belching smokestacks or filthy rivers) but it's still there.[1]
Most people don't live in developed countries. Don't they deserve to have pollution-free living conditions too?
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Pit#Environmental_eff...
But yeah the developing countries do deserve it. However, it remains a complex political issue. How do you declare or enforce regulations in countries outside of our jurisdiction? You can try to convince those countries it's worth it but you can't force them to.
Climate denialism in developed countries has many forms. Some of them include:
1. It's not happening
2. It's happening but it's natural
3. It's happening and it's because of human activity but it'll cost too much to fix it.
4. We could fix it but we'd be outcompeted by everyone else who doesn't. So let's not.
Tariffs and sanctions are to address #4. Rich countries absolutely must fix their economies, no question about it.
I can't reply to below response but no, desalination has gotten much cheaper:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/israel-proves-the...
They use lava rocks and some membranes to filter the salt out.
And no, we don't control the rain.
And you don't think it's a problem that entirely preventable human activities are causing this? How would you feel if you lived in a drought-stricken region? The Indian subcontinent is one such region. Historically, and cumulatively, the people living there haven't contributed very much to climate change. But they're the ones that will pay a price for it.
> Meanwhile look to Israel and how they've managed to build desalinization plants efficiently
Desalinization requires a lot of energy and is capital-intensive. Even if it's cheaper than it used to be, it's not cheaper than taking fresh water out of a lake or reservoir, treating it, and piping it. Why should poor countries pay a "desal tax" for a problem they didn't cause?
Are you proposing for developed countries to fund desal plants for developing countries as compensation for causing climate change?
What you're saying is "It's not a problem for me. Tough luck if it is for you".
"Things are better than ever" is a meaningless statement. The Titanic was going great until it hit that iceberg. Our lookouts have been loudly warning us of this iceberg for decades - and their predictions have been largely correct.
That itself is an exaggeration. Most of the world's scientists have nothing to do with climate science.
Our way of life? Billions of lives? Yea, those are in danger.
In all seriousness, if you assume the next 200 years looks anything like the last 200 years there is no forecast of the future that doesn't include billions of lives being lost and changes to people's way of life. But climate change doesn't need to be invoked; just the ongoing rise in population and the depletion of fossil fuels.
COVID-19 is the current reminder that that there are much bigger risks out there than climate.
I am highly skeptical of disease being a cause. COVID-19 has killed 2,000+ people so far. It is dangerous and we have to handle it appropriately, but its simply not on the same order of magnitude.
The situation is dire, but lets not discount these are the very same people responsible for the derivatives scandal that plunged the global economy into disrepute, and profited very handsomely from it with bail outs and bonuses for their utter failure to exercise sound financial behaviour. So lets not place the very same people capable of creating their own catastrophic global crisis on pedestals.
With that said, consider how big their carbon footprint is in just the creation, maintenance and upkeep of their legacy system, which really only 'works' 5 days out of the week.
If they want to be taken serious, knowing they will never correct the malfeasance they call a business model, they should give little to no interest loans on startups and small businesses that help offset global climate change.
They won't and instead you'll see Jamie Diamond on TV alongside Blankfiend et al at Davos making these empty latitudes without so much as hesitating when they board their private jets whilst eating exotic food and drinks procured from all over the World.
Pragmatists? Hardly, opportunistic parasites willing to cling onto whatever narrative suits them, of course.
It’s a threat to civilization and the current world order... which would lose JP Morgan a lot of money.
I’m not saying we shouldn’t care (and do something), but if you’re routinely accused of making the whole thing up... it helps not to make up scary claims.
The government is a threat.
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/sep/22/this-changes-e...
The The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism is another insightful book of hers, I highly recommend it, it was written in 2008 as the financial crisis happened: https://www.amazon.com/Shock-Doctrine-Rise-Disaster-Capitali...
https://www.jpmorgan.com/country/US/en/detail/1320553563765
In this case, looks like JPM is betting that the world will get a hold of itself, which would make this product a bit more... productive.
The problem has never been whether most people believe in climate change and its damaging effects. The problem has always been politics.