Author Topic: Climate Change - convince me that this is really a big Net negative  (Read 6945 times)

LongHaul

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 578
Re: Climate Change - convince me that this is really a big Net negative
« Reply #90 on: November 11, 2019, 02:38:09 PM »
Here is an excerpt from an interesting article from Taleb:
https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/1193545813785530370?s=21
I like the way he thinks about risk generally.

If it could be Russian Roulette - where is the bullet?
A few degrees warmer is going to kill us all?


Spekulatius

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3577
Re: Climate Change - convince me that this is really a big Net negative
« Reply #91 on: November 11, 2019, 04:48:23 PM »
Here is an excerpt from an interesting article from Taleb:
https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/1193545813785530370?s=21
I like the way he thinks about risk generally.

If it could be Russian Roulette - where is the bullet?
A few degrees warmer is going to kill us all?

It’s not going to kill us all, but it can kill a lot of people directly and indirectly. Not to worry, most of us will be long dead before the consequences set in.
Life is too short for cheap beer and wine.

Cigarbutt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1906
Re: Climate Change - convince me that this is really a big Net negative
« Reply #92 on: November 11, 2019, 05:47:03 PM »
Here is an excerpt from an interesting article from Taleb:
https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/1193545813785530370?s=21
I like the way he thinks about risk generally.
If it could be Russian Roulette - where is the bullet?
A few degrees warmer is going to kill us all?
It’s not going to kill us all, but it can kill a lot of people directly and indirectly. Not to worry, most of us will be long dead before the consequences set in.
Isn't it hard to plan for the long term? especially the generational things?
In 1986, a sensible fellow wondered about the odds and felt that we should look into it.
This was at a hearing concerning climate change and ozone depletion due to CFCs.
http://archive.macleans.ca/article/1986/6/30/a-threat-to-human-life
"Man is irreversibly altering the ability of our atmosphere to perform life-support functions. It strikes me as a form of planetary Russian roulette.”
An argument could be made that in 33 years, another pundit may ask the same question but I wonder if it comes down to the notion of margin of safety. Have you ever done cost flow and breakeven analysis for specific products or subs, or financial distress analysis for specific names entering distress due to leverage. The textbooks typically use linear equations and show straight lines on a graph with illusion of precision to the tenth of a %. However, in these not so complex situations, non-linear changes can occur especially at the margin and a way to obtain some confort with the outcome is to use a larger margin of safety.  i wonder too and i wonder about your level of trust in institutions or scientific "authorities"?


Castanza

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 629

LongHaul

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 578
Re: Climate Change - convince me that this is really a big Net negative
« Reply #94 on: November 19, 2019, 11:33:35 AM »
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=faQssBpFvmo

Starts at 6:00

Super interesting.  thx for posting. 
I realized I know almost nothing about this topic and it is super complex!

mccole72

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 6
Re: Climate Change - convince me that this is really a big Net negative
« Reply #95 on: December 11, 2019, 11:34:59 AM »
Warren and Charlie weigh in at the 2007 annual meeting

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ov3K9APMmkw

zurgenfeldt

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 3
Re: Climate Change - convince me that this is really a big Net negative
« Reply #96 on: December 12, 2019, 05:27:22 AM »
All of the "solutions" I've seen so far spend a ton of money and only claim to reduce the rise in temperature by a fraction of a degree.

The UN report on climate change, which commissioned the leading scientists to research this, concluded that the damage cost of climate change will be perhaps 2% of world GDP -- 100 years from now, whereas climate policies can end up costing something more than 11% of GDP.

2% is the size of a minor recession...and that is worst case...100 years from now.

We live in a world where one in six deaths are caused by easily curable infectious diseases and billions of people live in abject poverty, with no electricity and little food.

We ought never to have entertained the notion that the world’s greatest challenge could be to reduce temperature rises in our generation by a fraction of a degree.

#flamewar

tede02

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 389
Re: Climate Change - convince me that this is really a big Net negative
« Reply #97 on: December 12, 2019, 06:36:52 AM »


We live in a world where one in six deaths are caused by easily curable infectious diseases and billions of people live in abject poverty, with no electricity and little food.



I worry that a warming planet may very well exacerbate these very problems. The challenge, admittedly, is we just don't know. My personal view is, why would we risk finding out by doing absolutely nothing.
« Last Edit: December 12, 2019, 06:39:12 AM by tede02 »

SharperDingaan

  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3336
Re: Climate Change - convince me that this is really a big Net negative
« Reply #98 on: December 12, 2019, 07:57:52 AM »
The reality is that the climate is slowly warming. Why, really doesn't matter; it is the consequences that do, and who it occurs to.
Damage in rich areas gets the grease ... damage in poor areas, is just nature doing her thing.

Is climate change enough of a disrupter, and now far enough along (tipping point) - that it has become investable?
Most would say yes - look at each industry, determine the winning/losing directions, and invest accordingly.
Arguably, it is the opportunity of the century - IF you can accommodate CHANGE.
And there's the rub.

Work in the Tar Sands, and you have to explain to your young kids every day - 'why you are killing the environment'.
A difficult, and very resented conversation; that most often cannot be answered satisfactorily.

The solution of course - is to COLLECTIVELY change the framing.
And that is why your mom/dad are working very hard everyday, to change that - and make Tar Sands one of the cleanest energy sources in the world, that children everywhere can enjoy. That means we don't create garbage, we recycle and reuse, etc, etc.
It is the things done to CHANGE THE COLLECTIVE FRAMING that are 'investable'.
 
Nothing 'profound' here .. but it means that going forward, we're not doing things the same old way anymore.
And isn't 'resistance to change' what the climate change debate is really about?

SD





 

zurgenfeldt

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 3
Re: Climate Change - convince me that this is really a big Net negative
« Reply #99 on: December 12, 2019, 08:36:20 AM »
Quote
I worry that a warming planet may very well exacerbate these very problems. The challenge, admittedly, is we just don't know. My personal view is, why would we risk finding out by doing absolutely nothing.

Welk....take, for instance, the kyoto protocol. This was the major solution proposed to address climate change a while ago. I believe the UN estimated it would take 150B/yr to implement, and it would delay the damage we would experience in 2100 by 6 years. Not a lot of benefit for the $150B/yr. Compare that to their estimation (the UN's estimation) that we could completely address sanitation, clean drinking water, basic healthcare, and basic education to every human on the planet for $75B.

From the UN data -- 2 billion people are infected by malaria every year. We could spend $13B/yr (again, UN estimate) to bring that down by 50%. This would save 500M lives every year. Right now, not 100 years from now.

We could apparently avoid 28 million new cases of HIV/AIDS for $27B/yr. Mostly in 3rd world countries. Now.

Global warming is a problem, but it's way down the list. I mean, there is probably a non-trival chance an asteroid could hit earth and wipe us out. We ought to do something about that --  Given the magnitude of that problem, I'd say we should devote a little to it. I think there's a good argument to be made that asteroid extinction should rank higher than climate change.