Indoctrination of children

[notimp]

PS: and sure everybody can reduce the amount of emissions and pollution in a very simple way, stop using you car to go to the supermarket three blocks a way you lazy ass, and also use public transportation instead of travelling alone in a 5 passengers car to your workplace. A social behavior change to avoid consuming resources like idiots as a whole sounds more effective to me TBH.

Thats actually an interesting part that I believe I havent gone into my thoughts about yet.

So - in all projections I have read "reducing consumption" is always part of the occation (because solving it with technology alone isnt fast enough) - but moreso as a "buffer".

So - to convince people to change behavior - you need, marketing. And marketing/pr alone. You dont need tech - you dont need politics. (Apart from taxes, which people still dont want (opinion polls).)

But in the current configuration, you now have children screaming at politicians, to do something they cant do, faster, which they cant do - because science (who look at this without economic numbers) - using tropes, that are very dear to my heart ('evil' corporations), but then what they are asking doesnt add up to an economic model.

So something has gone wrong here.

Or right. Because you'd have never convinced that many folks with "dont fly, dont eat meat" slogans (which is the outcome needed), so with "its politics fault" you got masses.

Amping up children is still a problem ethics wise, and Greta is interesting from many perspectives (I like her very much - ) - but in the end, that form of marketing is needed for people to change their own behavior - and not so much politics. At least not in germany.

In the US - different story. But then I cant imaging a Greta working there.. But then, I wouldnt have imagined her working in europe either.

TLDR; Its complicated, and the 'just go with the flow' slogan is so much more enticing.

 

[notimp]

In a reaction to the reaction pdf of the conservative party, one of the "Scientists for future" (please dont read literally ) - has positioned his frame.

In response to 'Germany only produces 2.3% of CO2 emissions'.

Factcheck: Luxemburg only produces 0.03 percent of CO2 emissions. [IEA18]. That doesnt prevent the country from having to stick up tho its climatechange goals. The parisienne climate agreement is based on everyone fulfilling their part. You even state yourselves, that China und the USA together are responsible for 43% of CO2 emissions. This means that 57% are caused by other countries. Even if it would be possible that China and the US drop their emissions linearly to zero in eight years time - the remaining rest of the world would stick to "business as usual", the 1.5°C Target would be missed. Everyone has to contribute. In Germany the per capita CO2 emissions are more than double than the global average. [IEA18]. Thats why we have an especially high responsibility to act against climate change.

src: https://www.volker-quaschning.de/artikel/2019-05_Stellungnahme-CDU/index.php

Thats the core of the argument here. And it kind of shows that the scientist is ideologically motivated. Which isnt necessarily bad.

- "The rest of the world" isnt staying at business as usual. This isnt how economics work. This isnt how technology development works. This is guaranteed by increasing penalty pays (how politics work in that field) - this is also what all states agreed on at the IPCC meetings. Germany f.e. has steadily cut emissions so far.

It has taken Germany 28 years to reduce emissions by 30.8 percent. Since the government target for 2030 stands at minus 55 percent, there are 12 years left for a further cut of around 24 percentage points.

src: https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/germanys-greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-climate-targets

So if this trend would continue, they would end up at 43% (from the 1990 reference point), instead of 55% - so thats the disparity for business as usual. Now - you have to add single time effects like "getting out of atom energy", or having a trend towards "heavier and more inefficient vehicles", the likes of which arent likely to be repeated in the following years - so the trajectory is likely to increase, just from the point of view of existing planning. Motivation from childres eyes in everyones minds helps as well

- Parisien IPCC target isnt 1.5°C but less than 2°C - which is a white lie that hasnt picked up by anyone - because hey, its good to do better, right.

- Per capita CO2 emissions are what they are - but the comparison argument is a little strange. Because he uses the global average to compare. Now germany is an industrialized state. Our GDP is heavily linked to CO2 emissions - so reducing to average world levels does what to GDP? Now the idea is to unlink GDP from CO2 levels, but that doesnt automatically produce more or equal GDP growth, so its actually an effort - its not a simple replace and be happy. (Not politicians fault.)

The argument, that we are especially responsible to act as promised, because we are an industrialised state, kind of ranks lower than, we are because historically we caused a lot of emissions, and get almost none of the detriments (geography). And that in societal debates within the country, counts for almost nothing.
(Everyone in Germany has in their minds that they are doing it for _their_ grandchildren. And thats important as well. The way the unfair world works, is that their grandchildren will have a little less panoramic winters. And more migration pressure. Thats it. We wont be suffering from famins - because we'll buy away our food needs 'from others'. People in coastal regions will have to move - sometimes. Thats it - for their grandchildrens lifetimes. Biodiversity doesnt count for much.)

So if thats all the guy is thinking about - hes actually also not presenting the entire picture. (Not at all thinking about economics.) But he can be a good activist. The other points in his rebuttal are better, but less relevant.

edit: Average reduction of CO2 output in percentage points per year towards the 1990 marker between 2000 and 2017 was actually 0.8% per year. That he mentions as well. And thats actually a little low. So more credence to his point.

edit2: This is the other side of the story (also from his rebuttal):

The current EEG-law caps the subsidies for photovoltaic energy, maybe even as soon as next year. The combination of chinese competition and the decline of the domestic photovoltaic market by about 80% as well as political uncertainty (meaning, not having protected that market, not having increases subsidies) have cost 80.000 jobs in photovoltaics so far. About 40.000 jobs are currently endangered in the windenergy industry.

Now add to that, that china owns the value chain on source minerals for photovoltaics, and that exporting wind power hasnt taken off yet (cost still too high), and you've got almost the entire picture. Also add that the coal industry maybe only account for 60.000 jobs, but that they are in east germany, where its harder to replace them structurally - and suddenly you aren crying "corruption" so much any longer. Also add to that, that for photovoltaics and wind, we need viable storage solutions, because you cant as easily turn them on and off - and there (batteries) is where the actual value produced in our country is supposed to come from (apart from large cutting edge-industial technology, that countries like the US and China arent requesting right now), and that those industries havent been bootstraped so far (but we are on the way) - and you kind of understand Germanys reluctance to get out of coal and buy chinese solar cells at lower prices, than it would cost to sustain a photovoltaics industry in country.
(Instead of batteries, you could also ruin mountainous regions and build water based pump storage plants, but there the green lobbies also tell you that they are heavily against that. Other technologies currently in development.)

Now why are subsidies for coal "ok" and for photovoltaics they are not? Because those are resources we have in our possession, in country. Why are they ok for oil? Because everyone (apart from the oil countries and the US) kind of pays those. Still no corruption. (Well, oil... )

 

[notimp]

Transition losses, vs. longterm losses of delayed inactivity - according to a strategy paper (conjuring up different model scenarios) by the United Nations Environment Program Finance Initiative. (20 large long term investors.)

Scenarios:
https://www.unepfi.org/publications...mate-risk-assessment-in-response-to-the-tcfd/

https://www.unepfi.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/TCFD-Changing-Course.pdf

Comparing 4 portfolios

• a Market Portfolio of 30,000 companies
• a Top 1,200 Companies Portfolio that closely mimics the MSCI World Index
• a Coal Portfolio, and
• a Renewable Energies Portfolio

across 1.5°C, 2°C and 3°C worlds.

The four portfolios could be seen as "general public", "big companies", "fossil fuel industry", and "renewable energy industry".

What "green positive" investors are caring about is not "saving the world" but rather transitioning to a low carbon economy (think 'because some day oil is going to run out' and other reasons).

In the following I'm only interested in the "general public" portfolio (30.000 companies).

Analysis of a ‘Market Portfolio’ which consists of approximately 30,000 publicly listed companies and represents the investable market at large highlights climate-related investment risk. The 1.5°C scenario, in line with the latest IPCC special report, exposes a significant amount of transition risk, affecting as much as 13.16% of overall portfolio value (Table 2: Policy Risk, 1.5°C). Considering that total assets under management for the largest 500 investment managers in the world total USD 81.2 trillion, this would represent a value loss of USD 10.68 trillion.

Transitioning towards a 1.5°C future in those models (looking at a 15 years timespan from today onwards) would cost 13.1% of portfolio value in policy risk. Representing 10.68 trillion lost across the worlds 500 largest investment managers. (That arent on board (thinking all along the same lines), btw - this is a paper basically trying to convince them to get on board. As I understand it.)

Now contrast this - with everybody being very hyped about 1.5°C and Greta.

Because companies are already transitioning, negative impact of 'physical risk' isnt as hight and gets reduced to -2.14% in the models.

The good news is that companies have already actively started working on the transition to a low carbon economy. The resulting creation of low carbon technology opportunities therefore offsets this high policy risk noticeably (Table 2: Technology Opportunity, 1.5°C). The physical risk impact is negative at -2.14% and would increase further, if the world is not successful in curbing GHG emissions significantly over the next two decades.

Now what is 'physical risk' in the models?

It is beyond those 15 years that the physical impacts of climate change are forecasted to drastically intensify, especially under higher GHG emissions pathways of 3°C and beyond.

"Bad stuff" from climate change.

Now - this entire decline of portfolio value gets offset by 'technological opportunity' although not as much, that in the next 15 years - we'd see structural growth arising out of it.

Overall, considering that low carbon technology opportunities will help offset the policy risk, and physical risk is minimal for the reasons mentioned above, the total, aggregated value loss under the 1.5°C scenario is substantial at -4.56% or USD 3.7 trillion off the assets of the world’s 500 largest investment managers.

Now that you understand the metrics - lets look at the outcome:

Total outcome (see VaR) for "general public" (30.000 companies) over the next 15 years, transitioning towards a carbon neutral economy. In accordance with climate summit goals. Fucked (-4.56%), fucked (-3.36%), and fucked (-1.84%).

How fucked? Depends on the sector those companies are working in.

Policy risk across sectors:

Aggriculture, Transportation and Utility Services very fucked, the rest fucked. This still gets offset by "technological opportunities" - which look like this:

Doesnt offset risk by much, Transportation still very (as in second most) fucked.

(Other tables for physical risks available as well - but then, thats less risk overall.)

But now we have Greta, and we can do "more faster now". So whats the difference?

Under the GCAM4 scenario the policy risk increases from -8.16% to -9.13%, potentially costing investors a difference of close to 1% if governments were to delay policy action. For this analysis, the sum of the overall discounted costs from policy risk for each company in this Market Portfolio, covering 30,000 companies, was compared the resulting cost impact for the two models. The costs are enormous; USD 4.3 trillion and USD 5.4 trillion, respectively. Delaying policy action under GCAM4 results in a cost increase of USD 1.2 trillion. Even worse, delaying action would not just increase policy risk, but also result in much greater physical impacts from extreme weather hazards (not included here). Table 5 presents the overall results.

Great. 1% less policy risk (already factored into the first table). Thanks Greta.

Please notice, that the authors only plotted the 2°C scenario, because guess what... Could be a coincidence, but its already what we basically are aiming for.

So that is what Greta is for ("Politics got to act NOW.").

Important numbers are in the first table. How people deal with the next 15 years of economical decline is still up to them and marketing.

In 15 years time I'm 50 btw. Thanks for having been born into the decline generation, that still was presented with their babyboomer family with a "why isnt he wealthy, did he drink away all that he's got, now lets go onto a world cruise by cruiseliner" mindset.

The problem with declining growth - as always is wealth distribution. Over that we can fight once baby boomers have died out. So when I'm 45 to 50.

 

[notimp]

Here is a plot of who is most affected by physical risks ("bad stuff from climate change") only looking at the next 15 years:

Now the metric is slanted towards "most affected" - but still europe is hardly affected by 'bad stuff from climate change' (direct effects, migration pressures - different story). Thats only 15 years into the future - but I can assure you, from other sources, that the children now on the streets in europe, will hardly be affected by increased physical risks ('bad stuff from climate change' - direct effects) - in their lifetimes. Because that stuff isn't 'fair'.

Hm.

Also note, that the costs here are in 'million USD' as in "not significant at all". (Again - only over the next 15 years, so until I'm 50 years old.)

 

[notimp]

I still have to give you the papers explanation for why 'Greta - more faster now' results in 1 percentage point of reduced losses over the next 15 years, and thats simply because policy risks for companies, when transitioning in a shorter period of time (think 2040 goals) get larger. "It will not be as easy" argument. Thats all.

At the same time 'Greta - 1.5°C goal is what we should aim for' in comparison to the (lower than) 2°C goal thats actually in the climate accords causes 1.2 percentage points of value losses.

Over the next 15 years.

Technological advancements already included. Over a cross section of all sectors. Looking at the entire world.

edit: Greta, is a climate activist (entire movement rather - same one this thread initially was about) popular in europe - btw. If you are not familiar.