Thank you asking this question! It made us thinking and pondering about the future of the planet. Well, on the one hand, I am not now really worried about the planet as there is no extraterrestrial foe that could annihilate the planet with some king of projectile as in the movies. The planet was here doing well before humans, and it will be here doing well after we annihilate ourselves. And that, is what I am worried about. It is humanity that is in danger!
It is hard not to read Bill's thoughtful essay without concluding that financial institutions and polluters employ some rather untalented economists. How hard is it to look at climate disaster after climate disaster and see the impact of property losses in the billions with each storm; not to mention the impact on insurance companies and business productivity? Maybe some of these myopic analysts will get woke once their own homes float down a swollen river, blow to smithereens in a hurricane, or burn to ash in a wildfire. It might also occur to then that they cannot rebuild their homes and make a living at the same time - especially if their place of work is likewise a climate victim.
Can we create a possibility space into which we can enter with "a willing suspension of disbelief" to imagine how the story might play out if we organized civl disobedience in city capitals around the country, "centered on" their public pension funds, demanding that pension fiduciaries:
- restate their Fiduciary PURPOSE to keep their trust ongoing into the future, forever, by deploying society's shared savings aggregated into the trusts they control to supply money to enterprise for its use, for a purpose, for a time, at a cost and on terms, to generate cash flows sufficient, according to actuarial design, to replenish their depletions for periodically making contractually calculated payments to contractually qualified recipients, plus ordinary and necessary administrative expenses
- restate their Fiduciary POWER of size, purpose and time to use the technologies of spreadsheet math, desktop publishing and digital communication to negotiate equity paybacks to an actuarial/fiduciary cost of money, plus opportunistic upside, from enterprise cash flows prioritized by contract for suitability, longevity and fairness across all six vectors of enterprise cash flow: fairness to suppliers (Fair Trade); fairness to communities (Fair Engagement); fairness to Nature and Society (Fair Reckoning); fairness to workers (Fair Working); fairness to customers and competitors (Fair Dealing); and fairness to the savers whose savings are the ultimate and original source of the money supplied to enterprise by its financiers, fiduciary and otherwise (Fair Dealing);
- update their Fiduciary POSSIBILITIES for negotiating with the right enterprises for shaping the right technologies for shaping the right choices for shaping the right economy for shaping a cohesive society and keeping it ongoing in hope for a dignified quality of life for the workers whose pensions are entrusted to the care and caring, directly, that will also be, of necessity, hope for a dignified quality of life for us all, consequently; and
- upgrade their Fiduciary ACCOUNTABILITIES to our common sense, as reasonable people who care enough to take the time to make the effort to acquire knowledge and experience relents to the possibilities and their consequences, for WHO pension fiduciaries can and should be negotiating with, and WHAT they can and should be negotiating for
We need to mobilize the Law to mandate that Pension move the tens of trillions they control out of Private Equity Ownership in the Capital Markets, which is to available to finance "transitioning away from fossil fuels in a just, orderly and equitable manner" per COP28, and into Social Stewardship Equity in the real economy, that will be available to finance the transition.
That will be real, positive climate solving action.
In this pivotal and fragile moment in human history, I sometimes wonder if our destructive species is worthy of this beautiful planet. The boundless greed of the fossil fuel and banking industries is incomprehensible in its lust. The NYT reporting on the potential collapse of the insurance industry is a good canary in the mine scenario. The insurance industry strictly relies on data analysis. Based on accident data, they found young adults are a greater car rental risk until they turn 25-years old. It took longer for neuroscientists to analyze brains to discover the young adult's executive function isn't fully developed until age 25. So the insurance industry sees the impact of the climate crisis in more severe storms, wildfires, hurricanes, floods, and other types of extreme weather shocks and knows it can't be profitable covering all the damage. For the rest of us, it's an early awakening that buying and selling homes without insurance is a reckoning in the housing industry, too. One fix: take the $20-billion Americans subsidize the fossil fuel industry with their taxes (while the industry incinerates the planet with record profits), and instead put those subsidies into a high risk pool for homeowners. We're all toast unless we organize massive protests and demand a livable world for our children and theirs...with urgency.
So much information; thank you as always. I maintain my focus on the curtailing of fracking, gas, and methane most of all. Keeping on top of all aspects brings brain fatigue. All the elements of fashion sustainability need to be addressed and believe they are in several stacks but watching the wasteful art of the Met Gala was heart wrenching and breath taking at the same time. We all value our image in the eyes of the world and focus too much on the “body coverings” if you can call many of them such in recent years. Can’t help thinking of Cher as the original “wild” cut outs queen, and perhaps others in the older generations. But really, wearing some strings over a nude sheer body suit? Is that what we really covet? Must learn to accept people based on values, integrity, contributions to society, not the outer coverings they show the world. Clothing is sustainably “out of control.” But convince any teenager who recently searched for a prom dress or graduation ceremonial outfit that fashion needs to revert to years past when it kept you warm or cool using natural fibers that lasted for years to then be recycled into pieced quilts to keep you warm at night. Sadly, looks overrule function and the climate at present. Off on my favorite tangent, hope to write more on my stack.
Wow, this piece serves as a real call to action! We need to confront the economic, political, and cultural barriers, which are hindering our progress towards a more sustainable future. Our economic systems should be more aligned with the well-being of both people and the planet.
I keep writing on my substack about the need to move beyond a patriarchal world culture. Why is this relevant to climate change? Because patriarchy is about a one-up, one-down worldview - an ego v eco consciousness. It’s been around for thousands of years but it has reached its endgame - but it’s not going quietly. There’s a race to the top - who can grab the most as the planet goes down. True gender equality is the bedrock of a more sustainable AND peaceful world.
Hi Bill, very inciteful piece -- and fixable. The POD MOD Project's application for funding through the Horizon Europe Program -- EC / EIC Accelerator Open Proposal for Break-Through / Disruptive Technology is in progress.
The real fight against Global Warming / Climate Change - instead of all of the "which US / Government Funded / "Renewable" is going to be sold for a profit today - before being connected to the power grid / shell game -- will get set-up / manufactured / and installed all over Europe and elsewhere -- first.
That's because the US Government has US/DOE - IPO Title 17 - which states that only "commercialized" and "accepted" electric power sources will be considered for US Government funding.
The Banking on Climate Chaos report is mind-blowing!
It's incredible how the decisions of a small group of people in suits and ties put life on the planet at risk. I'm bursting with curiosity—what drives them? Why do they need even more money? Can they be considered mentally healthy if they make such decisions?
Bill. As best as I can tell, the following essential message is essentially missing from.your messaging.
Make varied expansions of the following topic a recurring focus of your messaging. Doing so would be a major contribution to combating global warming.
Consumers (individuals, organizations, businesses, governments) must promptly minimize their greenhouse gas emissions to bridge the gap while we work on long-term green technology and infrastructure. Less heating and less cooling (none between 13C-30C/55F-85F, https://greenbetween.home.blog). Less driving. Less flying. Less meat-eating. Less population growth (2 children max). Do it yourself. Tenaciously encourage others to do it. Tenaciously encourage others to tenaciously encourage others.
Embrace the message and tenaciously introduce the message "business card" to all you encounter. (You can print the business card 12 per 8.5x11 using a file from the Promote page of the website.)
Be a climate superhero - take it to the next level. Promote the message at local events. Files for posters are available on the Promote page of the website
Don Parda, you advocate for degrowth. I agree energy-intensive consumption levels must be reduced eventually. The question is how to do that. Handing out the message on a "business card" to anyone one meets does not appear to me an attractive option -- more likely one will soon be branded as an oddity. A more "structural" approach -- getting at the roots of some of these behaviours and making alternatives practical -- may be more effective.
This is actually a comment on your New Yorker piece "It's a Climate Election Now," but I couldn't find a way to comment there so I'm doing it here. I'm a huge fan of yours and rarely find anything to disagree with in your writings, but I was seriously offended by your reference near the end of that piece to voters "saddened by [Biden's] inability to end the war in Gaza." Surely you know that the problem isn't an inability, but a refusal. If he were serious about ending the war, he'd cut off all weapons shipments and other aid to Israel and support UN Security Council resolutions demanding a ceasefire and holding Israel to account. If he did all that and the Israelis managed to continue the genocide, then OK, you could call it his "inability." But the reality is as he himself says, he's supported the Israeli onslaught from Day One, and despite the theatrics, he continues to. So I for one am not "saddened," but "angered," and I'm sure as hell not voting for him. [I live in California, so it's easy for me to say that; if I lived in a swing state, I suppose I'd hold my nose and give him my vote.]
Can someone clarify this? I don't have time to read the report any time soon.
"Our results also indicate that world GDP per capita would be 37% higher today had no warming occurred between 1960 and 2019 instead of the 0.75°C observed increase in global mean temperature."
Is that versus a case where we still burned all the fossil fuels, but they magically didn't produce warming, or versus how our economy might have developed without burning all those fossil fuels?
The study quantifies that warming is a drag on the economy. Had there been no warming (i.e. in essence no fossil fuel burning) then GDP would have been 37% higher in 2019. This is a side-result to their analysis which examines 2024-2100. To quote:
"… our main counterfactual is a gradual increase in global mean temperature that starts in 2024 and reaches 3°C above pre-industrial levels by 2100—so 2°C above 2024 temperatures—with a 2% discount rate. Climate change implies precipitous declines in output, capital and consumption that exceed 50% by 2100. || These changes imply a 31% welfare loss in permanent consumption equivalent in 2024, that grows to nearly 52% by 2100."
Thank you asking this question! It made us thinking and pondering about the future of the planet. Well, on the one hand, I am not now really worried about the planet as there is no extraterrestrial foe that could annihilate the planet with some king of projectile as in the movies. The planet was here doing well before humans, and it will be here doing well after we annihilate ourselves. And that, is what I am worried about. It is humanity that is in danger!
It is hard not to read Bill's thoughtful essay without concluding that financial institutions and polluters employ some rather untalented economists. How hard is it to look at climate disaster after climate disaster and see the impact of property losses in the billions with each storm; not to mention the impact on insurance companies and business productivity? Maybe some of these myopic analysts will get woke once their own homes float down a swollen river, blow to smithereens in a hurricane, or burn to ash in a wildfire. It might also occur to then that they cannot rebuild their homes and make a living at the same time - especially if their place of work is likewise a climate victim.
"civil disobedience centered on Citibank"
Can we create a possibility space into which we can enter with "a willing suspension of disbelief" to imagine how the story might play out if we organized civl disobedience in city capitals around the country, "centered on" their public pension funds, demanding that pension fiduciaries:
- restate their Fiduciary PURPOSE to keep their trust ongoing into the future, forever, by deploying society's shared savings aggregated into the trusts they control to supply money to enterprise for its use, for a purpose, for a time, at a cost and on terms, to generate cash flows sufficient, according to actuarial design, to replenish their depletions for periodically making contractually calculated payments to contractually qualified recipients, plus ordinary and necessary administrative expenses
- restate their Fiduciary POWER of size, purpose and time to use the technologies of spreadsheet math, desktop publishing and digital communication to negotiate equity paybacks to an actuarial/fiduciary cost of money, plus opportunistic upside, from enterprise cash flows prioritized by contract for suitability, longevity and fairness across all six vectors of enterprise cash flow: fairness to suppliers (Fair Trade); fairness to communities (Fair Engagement); fairness to Nature and Society (Fair Reckoning); fairness to workers (Fair Working); fairness to customers and competitors (Fair Dealing); and fairness to the savers whose savings are the ultimate and original source of the money supplied to enterprise by its financiers, fiduciary and otherwise (Fair Dealing);
- update their Fiduciary POSSIBILITIES for negotiating with the right enterprises for shaping the right technologies for shaping the right choices for shaping the right economy for shaping a cohesive society and keeping it ongoing in hope for a dignified quality of life for the workers whose pensions are entrusted to the care and caring, directly, that will also be, of necessity, hope for a dignified quality of life for us all, consequently; and
- upgrade their Fiduciary ACCOUNTABILITIES to our common sense, as reasonable people who care enough to take the time to make the effort to acquire knowledge and experience relents to the possibilities and their consequences, for WHO pension fiduciaries can and should be negotiating with, and WHAT they can and should be negotiating for
We need to mobilize the Law to mandate that Pension move the tens of trillions they control out of Private Equity Ownership in the Capital Markets, which is to available to finance "transitioning away from fossil fuels in a just, orderly and equitable manner" per COP28, and into Social Stewardship Equity in the real economy, that will be available to finance the transition.
That will be real, positive climate solving action.
Can we imagine that?
.
In this pivotal and fragile moment in human history, I sometimes wonder if our destructive species is worthy of this beautiful planet. The boundless greed of the fossil fuel and banking industries is incomprehensible in its lust. The NYT reporting on the potential collapse of the insurance industry is a good canary in the mine scenario. The insurance industry strictly relies on data analysis. Based on accident data, they found young adults are a greater car rental risk until they turn 25-years old. It took longer for neuroscientists to analyze brains to discover the young adult's executive function isn't fully developed until age 25. So the insurance industry sees the impact of the climate crisis in more severe storms, wildfires, hurricanes, floods, and other types of extreme weather shocks and knows it can't be profitable covering all the damage. For the rest of us, it's an early awakening that buying and selling homes without insurance is a reckoning in the housing industry, too. One fix: take the $20-billion Americans subsidize the fossil fuel industry with their taxes (while the industry incinerates the planet with record profits), and instead put those subsidies into a high risk pool for homeowners. We're all toast unless we organize massive protests and demand a livable world for our children and theirs...with urgency.
If I ran the world, you would be declared a Global Treasure. Huge gratitude for all your work, over all the years!
So much information; thank you as always. I maintain my focus on the curtailing of fracking, gas, and methane most of all. Keeping on top of all aspects brings brain fatigue. All the elements of fashion sustainability need to be addressed and believe they are in several stacks but watching the wasteful art of the Met Gala was heart wrenching and breath taking at the same time. We all value our image in the eyes of the world and focus too much on the “body coverings” if you can call many of them such in recent years. Can’t help thinking of Cher as the original “wild” cut outs queen, and perhaps others in the older generations. But really, wearing some strings over a nude sheer body suit? Is that what we really covet? Must learn to accept people based on values, integrity, contributions to society, not the outer coverings they show the world. Clothing is sustainably “out of control.” But convince any teenager who recently searched for a prom dress or graduation ceremonial outfit that fashion needs to revert to years past when it kept you warm or cool using natural fibers that lasted for years to then be recycled into pieced quilts to keep you warm at night. Sadly, looks overrule function and the climate at present. Off on my favorite tangent, hope to write more on my stack.
Heavy! Your blogs are powerful. Thank you.
Wow, this piece serves as a real call to action! We need to confront the economic, political, and cultural barriers, which are hindering our progress towards a more sustainable future. Our economic systems should be more aligned with the well-being of both people and the planet.
Great piece!
Thank you for these resonant truths. Keep sharing. speaking truth to power.
I keep writing on my substack about the need to move beyond a patriarchal world culture. Why is this relevant to climate change? Because patriarchy is about a one-up, one-down worldview - an ego v eco consciousness. It’s been around for thousands of years but it has reached its endgame - but it’s not going quietly. There’s a race to the top - who can grab the most as the planet goes down. True gender equality is the bedrock of a more sustainable AND peaceful world.
Hi Bill, very inciteful piece -- and fixable. The POD MOD Project's application for funding through the Horizon Europe Program -- EC / EIC Accelerator Open Proposal for Break-Through / Disruptive Technology is in progress.
The real fight against Global Warming / Climate Change - instead of all of the "which US / Government Funded / "Renewable" is going to be sold for a profit today - before being connected to the power grid / shell game -- will get set-up / manufactured / and installed all over Europe and elsewhere -- first.
That's because the US Government has US/DOE - IPO Title 17 - which states that only "commercialized" and "accepted" electric power sources will be considered for US Government funding.
Too bad -- but it is what it is.
The Banking on Climate Chaos report is mind-blowing!
It's incredible how the decisions of a small group of people in suits and ties put life on the planet at risk. I'm bursting with curiosity—what drives them? Why do they need even more money? Can they be considered mentally healthy if they make such decisions?
Bill. As best as I can tell, the following essential message is essentially missing from.your messaging.
Make varied expansions of the following topic a recurring focus of your messaging. Doing so would be a major contribution to combating global warming.
Consumers (individuals, organizations, businesses, governments) must promptly minimize their greenhouse gas emissions to bridge the gap while we work on long-term green technology and infrastructure. Less heating and less cooling (none between 13C-30C/55F-85F, https://greenbetween.home.blog). Less driving. Less flying. Less meat-eating. Less population growth (2 children max). Do it yourself. Tenaciously encourage others to do it. Tenaciously encourage others to tenaciously encourage others.
Embrace the message and tenaciously introduce the message "business card" to all you encounter. (You can print the business card 12 per 8.5x11 using a file from the Promote page of the website.)
Be a climate superhero - take it to the next level. Promote the message at local events. Files for posters are available on the Promote page of the website
Don Parda, you advocate for degrowth. I agree energy-intensive consumption levels must be reduced eventually. The question is how to do that. Handing out the message on a "business card" to anyone one meets does not appear to me an attractive option -- more likely one will soon be branded as an oddity. A more "structural" approach -- getting at the roots of some of these behaviours and making alternatives practical -- may be more effective.
This is actually a comment on your New Yorker piece "It's a Climate Election Now," but I couldn't find a way to comment there so I'm doing it here. I'm a huge fan of yours and rarely find anything to disagree with in your writings, but I was seriously offended by your reference near the end of that piece to voters "saddened by [Biden's] inability to end the war in Gaza." Surely you know that the problem isn't an inability, but a refusal. If he were serious about ending the war, he'd cut off all weapons shipments and other aid to Israel and support UN Security Council resolutions demanding a ceasefire and holding Israel to account. If he did all that and the Israelis managed to continue the genocide, then OK, you could call it his "inability." But the reality is as he himself says, he's supported the Israeli onslaught from Day One, and despite the theatrics, he continues to. So I for one am not "saddened," but "angered," and I'm sure as hell not voting for him. [I live in California, so it's easy for me to say that; if I lived in a swing state, I suppose I'd hold my nose and give him my vote.]
Can someone clarify this? I don't have time to read the report any time soon.
"Our results also indicate that world GDP per capita would be 37% higher today had no warming occurred between 1960 and 2019 instead of the 0.75°C observed increase in global mean temperature."
Is that versus a case where we still burned all the fossil fuels, but they magically didn't produce warming, or versus how our economy might have developed without burning all those fossil fuels?
The study quantifies that warming is a drag on the economy. Had there been no warming (i.e. in essence no fossil fuel burning) then GDP would have been 37% higher in 2019. This is a side-result to their analysis which examines 2024-2100. To quote:
"… our main counterfactual is a gradual increase in global mean temperature that starts in 2024 and reaches 3°C above pre-industrial levels by 2100—so 2°C above 2024 temperatures—with a 2% discount rate. Climate change implies precipitous declines in output, capital and consumption that exceed 50% by 2100. || These changes imply a 31% welfare loss in permanent consumption equivalent in 2024, that grows to nearly 52% by 2100."
I is not a very giggly moment to realize that few environmentalists think the planet is worth a measly little tax on net emissions of CO2. :)