
Climate Change Could Trigger the Next Global Financial Crisis - dankohn1
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2019/08/how-fed-could-fight-climate-change-adam-tooze/595084/
======
nateburke
Title is obviously built to trigger for many, but the interview itself is a
fascinating analysis of the relative plasticity of the Fed's mandate.

Many forget that the Fed is just a few generations old. Its operating
principles can and will change over time. Fascinating read!

------
sambull
Climate destruction is consolidating and destroying the industry our product
is aimed towards. Good for us now, eventually it'll catch up. The bans of
single use and obvious longterm downsides of plastics seem to be throwing the
whole industry into abrupt disarray. Stuff like our 100k+ month aws bill is
going to shrink fast.

------
Zenst
Kinda depressing but there are people out there who would sit up and take note
about climate change, once it affects the financial market. But the way we
measure countries via GDP, import and exports and rate those countries based
upon financial makeup alone. That's kinda the crux. Sure there are other
metrics out there, but none that feedback into how the World operates -
financially.

~~~
erikpukinskis
There is plenty of money to be made placing bets on climate change. Those
people are already locking in as we speak.

Climate change denial is part of a financial scheme. A lot f money is being
made, and will be made at every stage. It’s only the riff-raff that actually
believe it. The people who own the big accounts know it’s happening and are
making money off it.

Not to mention certain nation states with large arctic holdings.

------
howard941
Why is this flagged?

EDIT - OK I get it. It would be helpful to have levels of flagging. This was
flagged because violated the clickbaitish title rule, but that rule is always
in tension with the mandate to use the headline from the article. Next spin of
HN would be enhanced IMO with a class of flags that offer the opportunity to
propose a superior, alternate headline.

Of course I don't have to code the next spin so it's easy for lazy bums like
me to heckle from the sidelines or flag trigger headlines instead of fixing
things.

------
hi5eyes
insert topic Could Trigger the Next Global Financial Crisis (

waste of space

~~~
mkagenius
or Climate change will <insert topic>

------
graycat
> Could Trigger the Next Global Financial Crisis

So could a new eruption of Yellowstone, e.g., put a layer of ash 1000' thick
1000 miles downwind, another flu like in 1918, a nuclear war, a supernova
explosion only a few light years away, same for a gamma ray burst (blow the
atmosphere off the earth, since it comes at the speed of light, can't see it
coming until it is already here), a marauding black hole (tough to see coming
until too late), some bump in the asteroid belt that knocks a rock to the
earth like 65 million years ago, etc.

More generally for lots of cases of event A, as above and many more, we have
the true statement

Event A Could Trigger the Next Global Financial Crisis

Yup. But there is a nice result in stochastic processes, the renewal theorem,
in

William Feller, _An Introduction to Probability Theory and Its Applications,
Second Edition, Volume II_ , ISBN 0-471-25709-5, John Wiley & Sons, New York,
1971.

that shows that the events that

"Could Trigger the Next Global Financial Crisis"

arrive as a Poisson arrival process (e.g., like Geiger counter clicks).
Moreover, without looking up the details, we have an estimator for the arrival
rate, and it is low except for the stock market doing again what it did in
1929 and 2008, and by now with those two examples we're supposed to know
better. So, we can worry instead about Yellowstone, asteroids, black holes,
etc.

For a simpler explanation of the original post, poor _Atlantic_ magazine needs
"click bait".

Or the consequences of human caused climate change are totally irrelevant if
human caused climate change doesn't happen, and the evidence now is that such
climate change is no threat at all.

What about the chances of "climate change"? The review I trust is

 _The Great Global Warming Swindle_

at

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52Mx0_8YEtg\](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52Mx0_8YEtg\\)

In particular pay close attention to MIT prof Lindzen.

That is, the whole concern about humans having any significant effect on the
climate, past, present, or foreseeable future, is just a flim-flam, fraud scam
driven heavily by people after a hidden agenda on other issues for which big
responses, e.g., the $1 T for AOC or Gillibrand, to human caused climate
change is a means to power and/or money.

Net, there is no good evidence at all that humans have had anything at all
significant to do with the climate, in the past or recent present. Indeed, as
in the video documentary, all the good scientific evidence is that there has
been no significant climate change due to humans nor will there be for the
foreseeable future. In a word the whole concern about the climate is just a
scam.

Don't put up with the scam. JUNK IT. CALL IT OUT.

------
grandridge
This is the most ridiculous headline I've ever seen.

~~~
benj111
Why?

Can you not see any mechanism whereby climate change leads to a financial
crisis?

------
SubiculumCode
Give people resources so they can move to higher ground. Not just from rising
sea levels, but more immediately from the increasing floods and storms that
threaten the flood plains where our most vulnerable reside.

edit: Fighting climate change and providing resources are not mutually
exclusive policies, clearly. Both should be pursued, in my opinion.

~~~
jxf
Doesn't that seem like an extremely temporary solution, at best? You can't
outrun Nature — our best shot is to slow down fossil fuel emissions, contain
the damage we've already done, and reverse what we can.

~~~
SubiculumCode
Obviously. We must do everything we can to combat climate change. This is
absolutely critical.

However, I do not see how providing resources to protect vulnerable
populations means we do not fight climate change? They are not mutually
exclusive policies. This reminds me of the misunderstanding of Andrew Yang's
comments during the recent debate, who is a proponent of massively funding
programs to fight climate change, but also believes that we need to help those
that will most be affected by it.

