sign up log in
Want to go ad-free? Find out how, here.

Bernard's Top 10: How climate change could reduce NZ GDP by 9% and Australian GDP by 53%; The problem with polls, politics and democracy; Mexico's sugar tax lobbying miracle; China's swiping consumers; Clarke and Dawe

Bernard's Top 10: How climate change could reduce NZ GDP by 9% and Australian GDP by 53%; The problem with polls, politics and democracy; Mexico's sugar tax lobbying miracle; China's swiping consumers; Clarke and Dawe

Here's my Top 10 items from around the Internet over the last week or so. As always, we welcome your additions in the comments below or via email to bernard.hickey@interest.co.nz

See all previous Top 10s here.

My must read is #1. It helps explain why all sorts of unusual people, including the US military, are worried about the effects of climate change. #5 on Mexico's sugar tax is almost as good.

1, Climate change and the global economy - The narrative in recent years around measures to address climate change has been the economy can't afford the sorts of carbon taxes needed to reduce emissions.

So it's been fascinating to see the change in thinking over the last year or so towards looking at climate change as an economic risk. Insurers have been thinking like this for years, but many fund managers and companies are beginning to think the same. The politicians and voters have yet to catch up.

This paper just published in Nature estimates that global warming will reduce average economic output by 2100, vs the output if the climate did not change.

If future adaptation mimics past adaptation, unmitigated warming is expected to reshape the global economy by reducing average global incomes roughly 23% by 2100 and widening global income inequality, relative to scenarios without climate change

2, 'We get some big numbers' - The paper above was written by Stanford and Berkeley economists Marshall Burke, Solomon Hsiang and Edward Miguel.

Burke has written this handy blog post to explain how they came up with the result. They looked at the relationship between temperatures and economic output in various countries. It seems cool countries grow faster than hot countries until they get to around 13 degrees celcius. So already cool countries do better as climates change, but already hot countries do much, much worse. So when everyone gets hotter...

Here's Burke explaining the research:

We then combine historical results with global climate model estimates of future warming to come up with some projections of the potential future impacts of warming.

We get some big numbers.  Looking historically, we see that output in both rich and poor countries alike has been shaped by changes in temperature, and that temperature appears to affect growth rate of per capita GDP and not just the level of GDP (which matters a whole lot when you do the projections).  Importantly, we don't see big differences between rich and poor countries in how they respond to changes in temperature historically.  Differences we do see across countries appear driven more by countries' average temperatures than by their average incomes, with cooler countries growing faster on average during years that are warmer-than average for them, and hotter countries growing slower.

3. New Zealand does much better than Australia - The researchers then produced an interactive map showing how individual countries do in their forecasts. New Zealand does better than most because it's cooler than most to start with. NZ GDP is 9% under what it would have been by 2100 with no change, while Australia is down 53%.

Click on the map. It's the most fun you'll have in a long time. (Note to self: get out a lot more)

4. A black swan event - This Berkeley write-up of the paper also provides some useful context.

“These results provide the first evidence that economic activity in all regions is coupled to the global climate,” the analysis reports. The team applied the results to standard scenarios of the 21st century to understand how the global economy might be affected by climate change.

They find climate change is likely to have global costs generally 2.5-100 times larger than predicted by current leading models. The team’s best estimate is that climate change will reduce global economic production by 23 percent in 2100.

“Historically, people have considered a 20 percent decline in global Gross Domestic Product to be a black swan: a low-probability catastrophe,” Hsiang warned. “We’re finding it’s more like the middle-of-the-road forecast.”

5. Mexico's sugar tax - This piece from Tina Rosenberg on how Mexico managed to pass legislation to impose a sugar tax, overcoming the powerful lobbying of Coca Cola, is a fascinating long read.

It turns out we all have Michael Bloomberg to thank for it.

Vicente Fox, who in 2000 became the country’s first democratically elected president, had earlier been president of Coca-Cola Mexico and then head of the company’s Latin American operations. The symbolism was noteworthy: soda companies – particularly Coke, which controls 73% of the Mexican market (compared with only 42% in the US) – have amassed extraordinary influence over health policy in Mexico.

In 2011, Bloomberg’s charitable foundation, already a major funder of tobacco control programmes in low- and middle-income countries, decided to take on soda. Mexico was alluring, especially since a new president was about to take over. The foundation, called Bloomberg Philanthropies, looks for strong local organisations to partner with, and Calvillo’s group was an obvious choice. “Experts around the world talked about Alejandro and how strong El Poder was,” said Kelly Henning, who runs the foundation’s public health programmes. “He really looks to the evidence, and is a very good collaborator with others.”

In 2012, Bloomberg Philanthropies began a $10m, three-year programme in Mexico to reduce soda consumption. For the first time, the financial power of Mexico’s soda industry faced a serious challenge.

6. The anti-Libertarian - The Telegraph reports the outgoing boss of British upmarket supermarket chain Waitrose, which is also employee owned, has taken a few parting shots at the rawest forms of capitalism.

The Waitrose boss said engaged employees would result in a 20pc improvement in productivity, around 150pc improvement in company earnings per share and a 28pc reduction in wastage, quoting statistics from research firm Gallup.

"Smart societies cannot be created without fairness, equality and enfranchisement and business has a crucial role to play here," said Mr Price. " Society, quite rightly, expects a lot in return from business for the privileges it is afforded. It's time we all delivered the goods and, in return, we will all benefit from significantly improved performance."

The retail veteran said that according to JLP's own research, over half of Waitrose's customers believe that business only cares about money and nothing else; 56pc think that business culture is dominated by greed and selfishness and 61pc agree that staff are seen just as "resources" rather than human beings.

 7. Politics and the new machine - This piece from Jill Lepore in The New Yorker on the science of polling in modern politics is fascinating.

It finds that response rates to polls have slumped and their usefulness is dropping, yet polls are more important to politicians than ever.

Still, data science can’t solve the biggest problem with polling, because that problem is neither methodological nor technological. It’s political. Pollsters rose to prominence by claiming that measuring public opinion is good for democracy. But what if it’s bad?

The best and most responsible pollsters, whether Democratic, Republican, or nonpartisan, want nothing so much as reliable results. Today, with a response rate in the single digits, they defend their work by pointing out that the people who do answer the phone are the people who are most likely to vote. Bill McInturff, of Public Opinion Strategies, told me, “The people we have trouble getting are less likely to vote.” But the difficulty remains. Surveying only likely voters might make for a better election prediction, but it means that the reason for measuring public opinion, the entire justification for the endeavor, has been abandoned. Public-opinion polling isn’t enhancing political participation. Instead, it’s a form of disenfranchisement.

8. Chinese consumers going online - This FT piece from Patti Waldmeir on how Chinese consumers are using their phones to buy everything and get it delivered, including fresh food, provides a real insight into how the world is changing. Are New Zealand exporters ready and planning for this?

Chinese consumers can (and do) swipe smartphones for almost everything. Breakfast, lunch and dinner? With a wave of the iPhone wand, it arrives on a motorbike, delivered often for free and usually at a discounted price, from food delivery apps such as Ele.me (meaning “are you hungry?”). Wave it again, and a taxi appears, ready to offer a discounted ride. Wave it once more, and there’s a doctor ready to diagnose any ailment by phone for only Rmb9.9 ($1.5) per call.

It’s called O2O, or “online to offline” , and is forecast to grow at a compound annual rate of 63 per cent between now and 2017, to Rmb42bn, according to Credit Suisse. The marriage of online and offline will soon come even to that most traditional of venues, the neighbourhood wet market, where Shanghainese will be able to swipe a phone to buy anything from a haircut to a tooth extraction to a fish head for supper.

9. Time to make them less independent? - The FT takes a good look at the growing questions about the power and independence of central banks. This resonates here too.

In this febrile atmosphere, some experts say central banks’ cherished independence is at risk. “Central bankers are punching well above their weight,” says Willem Buiter, chief economist at Citi and a former member of the BoE’s Monetary Policy Committee. “This could lead to a backlash and to central banks losing their operational independence, even where this independence makes sense — in the design and conduct of monetary policy, narrowly defined.”

Ricardo’s ideal of central bank independence — the ability for a central bank to set monetary policy without interference — has taken hold only in recent decades. The attractions are clear. Keeping interest rate-setting at arm’s length from politics, rates are set in the name of low and stable inflation, not short-term political convenience.

Until the crisis, it looked like they had hit on a magic formula. For much of the 1990s and 2000s leading economies enjoyed low and stable inflation, along with relatively steady growth in an era known as the Great Moderation.

Those conditions turned out to be a chimera. In the 2000s, most central bankers failed to highlight — or even acknowledge — the risks building up in the banking system, an omission that had disastrous consequences when a financial collapse triggered the world’s worst post 1945 recession. Yet ironically, central banks emerged from the crisis more powerful than ever.

The question being asked on both the left and right is whether central banks’ policy fiefdoms have become too expansive. Many say the monetary authorities should concentrate on their core task — keeping inflation on target — an objective they are struggling to meet.

10. Totally Clarke and Dawe with Billy the naughty schoolboy.

We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.

Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.

47 Comments

Great stuff Bernard, particularly 1-4. The usual suspects will be along in due course to deny and blather but I sense that the economic case for doing nothing is now getting such a hammering (even from select members of the blue ribbon capitalist brigade) that the merchants of disinformation are in retreat. But will the necessary action be in time?

Up
0

This reminds me that in the twilight zone of ICCP RCP 2.6 reducing emissions boosts economic growth!
http://www.declineoftheempire.com/2014/06/your-next-stop-the-twilight-z…

Up
0

I think the capitalist brigade dont think a Marie Antoinette can happen to them. Well some of them, others must do if they are prepared to spend serious money to buy themselves 10 years extra.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jimdobson/2015/11/05/billionaire-bunker-ins…

Lots of assumptions, like no one will gett thier hands on a few stray tanks for instance.

Up
0

1 time for some countries to step up and sort it out. what are waiting for

http://media.smh.com.au/video-news/video-world-news/chinas-worst-smog-y…

Up
0

Excellent 1-4, Bernard. For a New Zealand perspective, I support the recommendation of another contributor, Kate - watch the documentary Hot Air, http://www.hotairfilm.co.nz/

Up
0

Great doco

Up
0

#1 the problem with Carbon tax is that it only puts money into pollies pockets, without, as we have seen, doing much to change behaviour. the only real answer is regulation. Put laws into place and enforce them - the VW debacle demonstrates this principle, in tht if found cheating then you can be held to account. A tax doesn't define cheating, only makes you pay more and the worst polluters are the big money and they will just make the masses bleed more in the name of $.
#6 Business's and Corporates have long held the view that they are somehow separate or above society and strucutured their affairs to avoid paying taxes and contribute to the communities where they operate. They often do this with the willing collusion of the pollies. With this veiw they are little more than leeches, profiting from the infrastructure within those societies (roads, utilities, transport systems) while not contributing to the cost of creating or maintaining them, the education of the people they employ to produce their wealth while ever more seeking to reduce the amount they pay them. It is time the people demanded that tehy pay their way, making sure that their profits are not at the expense of societies, and that their existence should be seen as symbiotic rather than parasitic.

Up
0

IF the carbon tax was done and as some countries propose give that tax income to the bottom tax bracket it might work. However I suspect it wont and you are right.

Up
0

If we had government "By the people, For the people" we would have.

A clean environment

Healthy food

An excellent health system

A first rate education system

And more

But we have Corporate greed government

So we have

Destroyed environment

Chemicals in our food (colouring, flavours, chemical sprays and more)

A run down health system

A failing education system

All for greed

Up
0

It's all just so terrible I can barely get out of bed each day to face such a shattered nation

Up
0

The tragedy of the commons means we get what the majority of individuals want on any one issue, unless politicians show leadership.
Here is a rewrite of your list:
Double petrol taxes. Double taxes on larger cars. Double air travel taxes. Dairy industry neutered.
Increased taxes or user pays on health.
Increased taxes or user pays on education.

I don't disagree with the tenor of your message, but it will need some brave leadership.

.

Up
0

The problem is pollies just keep saying health and education can be made more efficient, instead of saying pay by tax or user, your choice. ie no honesty IMHO.

Up
0

Stress building in US debt markets:
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-11-11/scary-signal-is-flashi…

''There’s a compelling argument that the growing distress among the weakest companies is an alarming development for the broader economy and signals that the borrowing binge encouraged by Federal Reserve policies wasn’t all that effective at bolstering long-term growth. The biggest losers among the lot aren’t just oil, gas and coal companies. The lowest-rated bonds of entertainment company iHeartMedia has lost 21 percent since the end of August, while those of satellite services company Intelsat have plunged a similar amount.''

Up
0

We have many and varied governments across the world.

We have had many and varied types of rulers for thousands of years.

War Lords, Monarchy, Capitalism, Communism, Islamism, Christianity and more.

They have ALL failed.

What do they ALL have in common that makes them a failure?

They ALL want monopoly power over their subjects.

Until we break up their monopoly there will be no peace and no prosperity.

A the very least we should have a separate Judicial system that can prosecute them for corruption and other crimes and put them in their place. This is the MINIMUM that we should tolerate.

Up
0

In an ideal democracy where "one person, one vote" actually holds, people's inability to judge ideas and issues would be a big problem. But we live in the Real World, not an ideal world. And the further away you move from an ideal democracy, the less rational the voting process becomes. Here in the United States, party allegiance and voting have become primarily emotional processes. And of course for candidates or those working directly for the political parties or those buying their allegiance, there's a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.
http://www.declineoftheempire.com/2012/03/democracies-always-fail.html

Up
0

happens in every democracy, blind ideological following of a party line irrespective of how ludicrous their policies are, or the damage they are doing to the country, or how embarassing their leaders and MPs or candidates are. Helen Clarke and John Key both have their ardent followers irrespective of how obvious their lies were/are and the damage they did/are doing.

Democracies are for the intelligent not the blind followers of ideology. Every individual should have to explain why they want to vote a particular way, not just fill a square to appease someone else.

Up
0

Worse than the "blind followers" are the wallet warriors, they vote for the biggest handout offered.

Up
0

If not for these blind followers the Labour Party likely wouldn't have survived the last election, without an opposition party that has at least a double digit share of the votes, do we truly have democracy?

Up
0

#1
While we should take action against Global Climate Change i disagree with #1
There will be winners and loosers
As areas experience drought others will be free of snow and ice and can be farmed etc.
I am not saying it is good, i am just pointing this out.

Just editing this to say
#2 seems to prove me wrong but you will notice that the figures are on a PER CAPITA basis.

It does not allow for climate migration - Dont you believe it will happen? Just look at the Middle East and Europe.

Up
0

Agreed happens now, just as migration occurs for political and religious reasons. Or for that matter for any other. But a united world would surely be more accomodating to people moving to where they can survive more adequately while making the reasons for that migration less likely to be religio/political. 'Scuse me for the rose tinted glasses.

Up
0

several 100million rushing to one corner would not survive, in an already overloaded world..

Up
0

The more i read on #s 1-4 the more i think its a load of crap.
Once again, not hitting at climate change just these academics.

It seems, to me at least, you do this.

America is more prosperous than an African country. As America has a much cooler climate than Africa then as the Earth warms up America (and others) will become less prosperous.

Where is the evidence relating to temperature and output

Up
0

You've just said it yourself:

"America is more prosperous than an African country"
.
More than one study has shown that productivity is less in countries with higher temperatures. I'm sure if you try and search for some of these online, you will find some.

Up
0

Oh come on DFTBA, it has very little or nothing to do with temperatures.
It's politics and greedy multi-national corporations.

Do read the book by John Perkins: Confessions of an Economic Hit Man.
It's shocking what happened and is still happening.

Read the editorial review here and you will get the picture.

http://www.amazon.com/Confessions-Economic-Hit-John-Perkins/dp/04522870…

Up
0

I agree, it sounds like some mish mashed correlations of short term episodes, trying to pretend they are long term trends. However.... the impacts of climate change will be costly, no doubt about that, and probably the most costly will be sea level rise, which is appearing on insurance documents. I assume they will be accounted using broken window accounting where the free lunch comes from the insurance, just like the Chch 'quakes. Coastal cities go under water, no worries, think of the boost to GDP that will come from relocating all the worlds major cities :/

Up
0

Do you not think that insurance will be un-obtainable long before cities are actually inundated? ie there will be no payout, no one insures against a dead certainty. As for "sealevel rise" its probably actually the least costly in terms of survivability. Long before we see much sea level rise (ie about 2m) the agri-cultural systems we need will have failed so we will have starved to death.

Up
0

My thinking about this is that a great deal of innovation and planning is required for a colder or more variable climate so the temperate regions shot ahead in terms of civilisation. I'm not sure that correlation continues to hold in an age of rapid technology transfer though.
One point that Tim Flannery makes is that subtropical apes (humans) in temperate countries are far less concerned with the idea of warming than cooling. People in Africa, south-east Asia and Australia might disagree though. The risks are far more highly weighted against poorer countries which is the main point.

Up
0

It seems to me that the theory of global warming is becoming a dogma.
Politics declares one has to accept the theory or else.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/21853-mathematic-co…

As UN’s Paris summit approaches, one of France’s top mathematics consultancies, a legendary physicist, and a former IPCC author have joined France’s best-known TV weatherman, Philippe Verdier, in delivering black eyes and severe body blows to the increasingly discredited global-warming alarm lobby. As host of the United Nations climate summit this December, the French government is pulling out all stops to make it a “success,” striving mightily to create the impression of unquestionable “consensus” on global warming — even if it means resorting to suppression of scientific dissent and freedom of expression."

and

President Hollande, however, is not waiting for the miraculous to happen; he prefers the iron fist and the guillotine of the Revolution. That is apparent in the case of meteorologist Philippe Verdier, to whom millions of French viewers have turned to for years for their daily weather news. Verdier was sacked from his celebrity weatherman position on France Television (the government-owned station) earlier this month for the heresy of publishing a book challenging the apocalyptic “consensus” that claims that anthropogenic (man-made) global warming, or AGW, is a “crisis” demanding global draconian action.

The article is worth a read for those who are getting anxious for the future, the science is nowhere near settled.

Here a youtube doco by Ivar Giaever, Norwegian Physicist, Nobel Laureate Physics and Guggenheim Fellowship for Natural Sciences

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WM038vstio

Giaever has said man-made global warming is a "new religion." In the minority report released by the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee in March 2009, Giaever said, "I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion."

In a featured story in Norway's largest newspaper, Aftenposten, 26 June 2011, Giaever stated, "It is amazing how stable temperature has been over the last 150 years."

On 13 September 2011, Giaever resigned from the American Physical Society over its official position. The APS Fellow noted: "In the APS it is ok to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?"

As part of the 62nd Lindau Nobel Laureate Meeting, Giaever referred to agreement with the evidence of climate change as a "religion" and commented on the significance of the apparent rise in temperature when he stated, "What does it mean that the temperature has gone up 0.8 degrees? Probably nothing."

Referring to the selection of evidence in his presentation, Giaever stated "I pick and choose when I give this talk just the way the previous speaker (Mario Molina) picked and chose when he gave his talk."

Giaever concluded his presentation with a pronouncement: "Is climate change pseudoscience? If I’m going to answer the question, the answer is: absolutely."[

Up
0

Ivar Giaever is not a climate scientist, his nobel prize is in a completely unrelated field. Why is his opinion relevant when it's not an area of expertise.

He's also worked for 'The Heartland Institute', says it all really.

The Heartland Institute:

"The Institute promotes climate change denial, advocates for smoker's rights, for the privatization of public resources including school privatization. In the 1990s, the Heartland Institute worked with the tobacco company Philip Morris to question or deny the health risks of secondhand smoke and to lobby against smoking bans. More recently, the Heartland Institute is the primary American supporter of climate change denial"

Up
0

Lomborg has used an IPCC model standard model to calculate the effect on "global temperature" if everyone in Paris agrees to what they have already tabled:

" All climate policies by the US, China, the EU and the rest of the world, implemented from the early 2000s to 2030 and sustained through the century will likely reduce global temperature rise about 0.17°C in 2100."

That's right folks 40,000 people in Paris and the $1.5 trillion/annum climate change industry will deliver and "temperature reduction" of 0.17 in 2100. That is the a lot of education, research, sanitation and health foregone to not even make it our of the error bars.

Good one big green.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1758-5899.12295/full

"Interest in climate change is becoming an increasingly powerful economic driver, so much so that some see it as an industry in itself whose growth is driven in large part by policy making.

The $1.5 trillion global “climate change industry” grew at between 17 and 24 percent annually from 2005-2008, slowing to between 4 and 6 percent following the recession with the exception of 2011’s inexplicable 15 percent growth, according to Climate Change Business Journal."

http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2015/07/30/377086.htm

Up
0

Indeed the projected agreements are in-adequate, they will have to get tougher.

Up
0

So what to reckon - $3 trillion a year do it? I see the UK is having power black outs already due to their daft green energy policies. How much cancer research, basic sanitation and education to you give up to "change" the temperature in 2100?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/energy/11358062/Electricity-deman…

" Cold weather saw UK demand hit 52.54 gigawatts (GW) between 5pm and 5.30pm, according to National Grid.

At the same time, low wind speeds meant the UK’s wind turbines were producing just 573 megawatts of power, enough to meet only one per cent of demand - the lowest of any peak period this winter, Telegraph analysis of official data shows.

Earlier on Monday wind output had dropped even lower, generating just 354 megawatts at 2pm, or 0.75 per cent of Britain’s needs – the lowest seen during any period this winter.

The analysis will fuel concerns that despite receiving billions of pounds in subsidies, Britain’s wind farms cannot be relied upon to keep the lights on when they are needed the most."

Up
0

The thing is there is no choice, lets ignore CC for a second,

In terms of energy,

The UK already produces little coal, it simply became un-economic to do deep mining some years back. UK coal I think peaked in 1913 and then it ran down today where there are the odd few open cast mines left I believe. So the UK doesnt have coal to burn, it would have to import it from say poland.

Then there is North sea gas, effectively all but gone and now the UK has to try and import it from Russia at the end of a very long pipe with europe sucking on it first, especially if there is a siberian winter blast.

Then there is the North sea oil, it peaked in 1997 or 99? and has been downhill since.

British nuclear? no one wants nuclear and their plant is all at or approaching the end of its economic life.

So then where does the energy come from?

So even without CC the UK has to find a way to produce electricity at a cost its economy can afford, wind does that it seems.

Up
0

UK has around 3 trillion tonnes of coal. And that's not counting the vast 20 trillion odd tonnes North Sea coal deposits. Bowland shale alone is 1300 tcf in place. The UK is not short of energy resources.

"wind does that it seems". How? The billions of subsidies plowed into annually it and last week could only produce 0.75% of the UK demand. 12 GW of installed capacity for a measly 0.75%...

Up
0

Most of that is offshore, the Q is is it economic to extract, the answer seems to be no. ie there seems to be little or no private / commercial interest in doing so. The estimate btw is by a coal interest academic and climate denier and the estimate is between 3 and 20trillion tonnes so its actually the same deposit you seem to be quoting twice. In terms of deep onshore mining its all closed I think as it was to expensive to get out. EROEI, is the key ie you have to profit by getting more energy out than you put in, shale? brown coal? all very poor quality energy sources even before you have to build lignite capable power stations to consume it.

Wind is indeed small, so what that signals is a change in life style as we are forced to live inside the energy envelope we can afford.

Up
0

#1 " Insurers have been thinking like this for years" Really Bernard? Maybe you've just been suckered by the doom industry. Warren Bufffet thanks you all the way to the bank.

"The effects of climate change, "if any," have not affected the insurance market, billionaire Warren Buffett told CNBC on Monday—adding he's not calculating the probabilities of catastrophes any differently.

The public has the impression that because there's been so much talk about climate that events of the last 10 years from an insured standpoint and climate have been unusual," he continued. "The answer is they haven't.

I love apocalyptic predictions" on climate change, Buffett told CNBC on Monday, because they probably do affect rates.

But right now, he said, "The rates have come down very significantly, so we're not writing much, if anything, in the U.S."

http://www.cnbc.com/2014/03/03/no-climate-change-impact-on-insurance-bi…

Up
0

Just because Buffet thinks that does not mean it has not occured, indeed many insurance companies will disagree with him.

The rates may well have come down, the reason is probably too many investors gambling they can make money, just like say shale where they have lost quite a few of $s.

Up
0

Steven, Buffet is into making money, nothing else.
If he can make money out of this semi-religious dogma of global warming, he will do it and laughs all the way to the bank.

Read my comment above and make sure you watch that youtube clip.
It's worth your time.

Up
0

I have already seen it, but the weight of papers/evidence and other insurers say yes climate change is an issue.

Up
0

He doesn't think it - he profits from it. I see Berkshire Hathaway posted a record profit last week.

And this from the FT earlier in the year just in case it's just poor Warren.

"Blue Skies Create a Reinsurance Tragedy."

http://m.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/66808b76-a315-11e4-9c06-00144feab7de.html

Up
0

BH also has a multitude of incomes so you need to breakout the insurance gains and losses.

Sure, FT a well known for denial.

The insurance industry on the other hand,

http://www.rmmagazine.com/2015/02/03/climate-change-and-its-impact-on-t…

munich

http://evanmills.lbl.gov/pubs/pdf/climate-action-insurance.pdf

profound impact,

"The chairman of Lloyd’s of London has said that climate change is the number-
one issue for that massive insurance group. And Europe’s
largest insurer, Allianz, stated that climate change
stands to increase insured losses from extreme events
in an average year by 37 per cent within just a decade

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/how-the-insurance-industry…

".........in recent years, the industry researchers who attempt to determine the annual odds of catastrophic weather-related disasters—including floods and wind storms—say they’re seeing something new.
8>

Up
0

Yep Lloyds sure is suffering. All that "relatively benign" weather. Can you not see the conflict of interest that insurance companies have pushing the doom scenario?

"Insurance market Lloyd's of London has reported reports profits of £3.2bn for 2014, unchanged on the previous year.

Lloyd's chief executive Inga Beale described the results as "strong", given the "challenging market conditions" that it faced.

Profits were helped by a "relatively benign" year for major natural catastrophes, Lloyd's said, as well as better returns on investment.

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-32063243

Up
0

And the Red Cross probably know something about natural disasters. What do they say? This is not even taking GDP growth into account:

"Global natural disasters in 2014 combined to cause economic losses of USD132 billion, 37 percent below the ten-year average of USD211 billion. The losses were attributed to 258 separate events, compared to the ten-year average of 260. The disasters caused insured losses of USD39 billion, 38 percent below the ten-year average of USD63 billion and was the lowest insured loss total since 2009. This was the second consecutive year with below normal catastrophe losses.

Globally, the number of deaths due to natural disasters is down as well. Down 90% below the 10-year average.

TORNADOES: Highly inactive for the third year in a row.

HURRICANES: 9th year where U.S. did not sustain major Category 3 plus landfalling hurricane.

WILDFIRES: Number of wildfires in 2014 significantly lower than 1983-2013 average."

http://www2.10news.com/web/newsnet5/weather/weather-news/red-cross-weat…

Up
0

Oh dear cherry picking yet again. Sure you have noise, one or 2 quiet years. You know when they say "average" that means there will be some numbers lower and some higher that's what average means.

Hurricanes, sure so they dont make landfalls, the US was sort of lucky on the last one where it only got rained on, heavily. Oh and other countries?

Up
0

Thanks steve for injecting some extra evidence into the debate.

cheers

Bernard

Up
0

The climate change ritual again - isnt it getting a bit repetitive? Economic output in ... 2100??? We have no idea what this world will look like in 2020. Predictions for 2100 cannot possibly be taken seriously.

There are a lot, plenty of problems which are a lot more tangible, serious and acute than so-called climate change. But I guess it is a lot easier to blabber on about climate change and stuff everything else in tho too hard basket. What about global overpopulation? What about the global threat through militant Islam and unchecked Muslim migration? What about a financial system constantly teetering on the brink of collapse and only held afloat by money printing? What about an economy like NZ's which is truly running on hot air, as people have become complacent selling each other houses and land and citizenships to foreigners rather than engaging in productive work? All too hard, all too inconvenient because they are utterly solvable once you pull the finger out.

So lets continue the placebo discussion on "climate change", so that we can feel morally superior and slap others with taxes and levies so that the government can squander just more of our assets.

Sick!

Up
0

.....climate change, coupled with resource depletion (the use of which contributes to CC) is sitting behind most of these events. They are all interlinked.

Up
0