Our Global Economy Won't Survive | Sandy Trust
Вставка
- Опубліковано 28 лис 2023
- What maniac would suggest a hothouse earth would be economically positive?
The financial services-and their incorrect models is costing us time to implement effective policies to mitigate climate change as much as possible. This is the warning from a report published by the Institute of Actuaries. The Emperor’s New Climate Scenario’s warns that the world of finance is massively underestimating the destruction climate change will cause on our economy after 1.5 degrees of warming.
Sandy Trust, actuary and lead author, joins me to explain how such thinking got baked into the financial services by way of one man’s dodgy calculations, how to better interpret climate modelling, and the difference between risk assessment and scientific assessment. This is a truly fascinating conversation with Sandy expertly guiding us through technical terms to reveal a stark image: The people in charge are totally unaware of what’s coming.
🔴 The Emperor's New Climate Scenarios: actuaries.org.uk/media/qeydew...
🌎 Support Planet: Critical: / planetcritical
🌎 Subscribe: www.planetcritical.com/
🌎 Twitter: / planetcritical
#politicalcrisis #ecocrisis #financialcrisis #WilliamNordhaus
I believe it’s a mistake to assume those in power are making the decisions they make because they’re unaware of the facts, or don’t comprehend the seriousness of our predicament. I was told by UCLA head of the climate dept that he was hired by a large insurance co around 8 yrs ago now, to do a climate risk analysis. The results opened his mind to the dire state of our planetary predicament. He suggested for anyone wanting to know how things are going with this crisis was to watch the insurance industry.
Reinsurance was freaking out about global warming 20 years ago already! So that makes sense that they would fund him.
The military strategists and the geologists inside the petroleum companies have known for decades. The CEOs of those companies knew, but their survival and profitability depended upon people not knowing or not acting like they know.
It was always better for us to conserve and be more efficient, but that interferes with profits, so of course the general push across many industries is in the other direction!
They were made aware of the seriousness since at least the 1970's. They decided to abandon the gold standard for growth.
@@life42theuniverse the gold standard was genocidal spread of Western "culture" - read Professor Alfred Crosby's book on Ecological Imperialism for details.
@@life42theuniverse I was quite depressed after reading Silent Spring and the Limits to Growth so many years ago. I had a very strong feeling then that nothing would really be done to avert disaster. Global warming was something that a few tried to warn us about over 100 years ago, so this is nothing that new.
1.5 is in the rear view mirror.
Yep
No kidding. If we acted immediately and decisively, it might be possible to overshoot 1.5 and then bring it back, but I think you'd have to be pretty naive to think that's anywhere remotely likely at this point.
So glad to hear somebody intelligent present the economic issues connected to the rapidly increasing climate chaos. Gracias a todos. Adios Ya'll desde Graneros Chile
The analogy about the tiger in the park may have been more apt than you realized. You said you might go to see the tiger, if you could somehow shelter yourself from the danger. I think a lot of people look at Climate Change that way. Like it will be very interesting to watch, especially if it gets dramatic. We tend to underestimate our own exposure, even if we imagine the world going off the cliff.
yes that's the usual "Liberal" distancing - I think Zizek talks about this even though he himself underestimates the ecological crisis.
Just click your heels together for luck. Gonna be much restlessness due to the discomfort. Action/reaction to real physical and psychological trauma, I am re reading Future Shock book from the 70s. explains the cultural tornado going on in the modern day.
We are all dying soon, very soon, climate change or not. Life is short, very, very short! If you’ve not noticed that yet you soon will, regardless of anything going on externally, life is a bl8nd of an eye, a bubble on a stream. Better to not be born.
What is so frustrating is firstly the inability to look reality in the face and Secondly the unbelievable lack of knowledge and awareness of how the ecosystems, upon which our existence, survival and wealth depend, , actually function. If there were real concern, respect and sense of responsibility towards our fellow human beings we would become conscious of how our life systems work. Knowledge of ecosystem function clearly shows us how to get the global climate back into a safe place. We need to understand soil science and the water cycle and the actions to take are relatively simple and low cost. All we need is for people to be open to learning and to make collective action at a global level. This is what is so exasperating.
Ingrid, "at a global level" is where the sentiment will always break. Nations inherently compete with each other, or blame the other as more at fault, or blame the richer, or cry poor, or say they will and break the promise, or be corrupt to the teeth anyway, or has a leader/party that just has to do this this way to get back in power one last time, or their political system is diametrically opposed to one's own, or they don't believe the science, or they don't think it will affect them, or they think you're imposing, or they believe they're God(s) will save them, or many other things I'm sure. Sorry to be a downer but unless we have a global government, and over-arching direction from the top, agreement IMO seems out of reach.
WE
WILL
NEVER
CO-
Critical to the foundation of the economy is a growing supply of energy. Half of all fossil fuels produced in the last 500 million years has been burned in the last 400 years.
The market is blind to the limits of energy. ua-cam.com/video/cTvN9iFJ0fY/v-deo.html
Don't worry! Now we are technically advanced.The remaining half we can do in less than 100 years.
I'm so proud to be a homo sapiens!
it is like the two buttons meme: burn through the remaining fossil fuels and excarbate flimate change even further but have cheap and sustainable energy OR transition to other methods and alternative forms of energy without a guarantee and a lot of adjustment we have to do.... socially, culturally, etc. pp and have maybe a better future but probably also less prosperity. Both ways can lead to less prosperity actually.... oil still flowing, growth mindset, but we fight wars over resources? probably gonna nab at the economy. completely rebuild societies and economies? probably also gonna result in a nab at the economy, least short term.
Sandy is utterly riveting.
The risk paradigm is not appropriate tool for harms or hazards to the foundational functioning of the biosphere. No matter the probability of financial loss, the right to economic freedom does not supersede the right to life. If financial institutions and central banks are doing climate change assessments, it should be on the harm they are causing, not on the risk they face! Carbon on its own isn’t necessarily the problem, it is the rate and intensity of carbon waste from economies that must grow to meet financial obligations (and ultimately, justify an absence of redistribution). The ability of even the most successful to rationalize away unwanted truths is astounding.
Insurance is simply figuring in potential losses based on past performance. For example the fires in CA have caused our fire insurance to triple since the 2015 Valley Fire in our area where many homes burned. Think of ins. like Vegas. They have to set the odds to make $. You can get that, right?
A friend of mine once told me about their drug addled neighbors who were cutting out and burning the posts from their own foundation. That’s pay much the way economists treat the biosphere.
Thanks for the EP! Can you try to get Roger Hallam from XR on your show? I think he's got the right attitude on how to tackle this crisis.
Insurance companies certainly in the US are already recalibrating their business away from property (due to disaster loss) to other more profitable plans. I believe the insurance industry is way ahead as far as factoring the impacts of climate disasters as they’re a profit driven industry. They’re existing the property insurance industry right now
Loved the analogy about average depth of the river. I suspect Nordhaus was just to calm down the public. If an economist wanted to predict the cost of climate change, one easy thing to do is look at the cost of disasters, the number of which the UN says have increased five times in the last 50 years, costing trillions, and then extrapolate that given predictions of disasters in the future based on the various RCPs. Or there's the predictions of the displacement of billions of people. Since that's already taking place, the costs could be estimated. How about the cost of COVID, estimated in trillions. Climate change makes a similar epidemic three times more likely. It's all a quick google. My hope is that financial companies figure this out and use their political "influence" to protect their business, including us, their customers.
Thank you for this. 👍
As a 'broadspectrum' Ecologist, this really gives me More to sink my teeth into.
It provides a multidimensional viewing stage for the relationships of these varied phenomena. Financialized Economy, Main St. Economy, Bio-sphere systems and the various goals, interdependances and inclusions/exclusions of Varying pursuits of Homo Sapiens Sapiens.
More to chew on for a deeper dive, understanding and potential responses to things which, consequently, Emerge.
Regards, Viet vet/Ecologist VFP
Yeah I've been yelling about this on my channel for years.
Love Planet Critical day!
I hope his voice doesn't hurt as much as it sounds like it does.
@@TennesseeJed sound like what RJK jr. has - "The exact cause of spasmodic dysphonia is not known. A central nervous system disorder is thought to cause most cases. It may happen along with other movement disorders. Researchers think it may be caused by a problem in the basal ganglia of the brain."
@@voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang885 I thought Robert Kennedy Jr. was simply insane.
@@TennesseeJed he's a lawyer so his logic is faulty sometimes. My dad was a lawyer. hahahaha
@@TennesseeJeddoes he have any insane positions?
Somebody get this guy a glass of water
A story for you Rachel.
Do you know when I was five, I was reminded just now by Sandy Trust 20:20 when he said that a scientist knows an iceberg when they can touch it and lick it, I climbed up the shelves of our big old fridge, the ones with the icebox inside the fridge (maybe I was younger), and as I loved to chew ice, and the icebox had all that lovely iced condensate, I reached my neck and head up and in further and licked the iced metal icebox ,,, and what do know my tongue stuck to the icebox.
I yelled, with my tongue stuck there, as best I could, and eventually my sisters and ma came, tugged, didn't work, till someone thought to pour water around my tongue.
But what do you think I became in life, yes, a scientist and science teacher who is inordinately interested in climate change. Funny that.
Couldn't listen, the audio is too bad. I might read the transcript later if it's up.
While this report is a very useful antidote to the nonsense produced by users of integrated assessment models like DICE, it talks about only a part of the story.
There are at least two other worldwide slow-motion catastrophes running in parallel with climate change: all the other damage we are doing to the biosphere (think: overfishing, over-fertilization, deforestation, soil salinization and erosion, aquifer depletion, pesticide overuse, et cetera et cetera); and the new demographic regime the world has entered.
Both of these have been assiduously hidden, minimised or avoided. Both of these will have major geopolitical effects this century, in parallel with those of climate change. To be clear, geopolitical effects will not be their only effects. Within-country effects will be pervasive as well.
The synergies between these slow-motion catastrophes will be impressive.
Biosphere and climate are divergent goals
Wow. This is so true. We will discover the black swans of global warming once we get there.
Need clear voice recordings, esp some of us are not used to Brit accent. The point on risk vs scientific conservativism is real.
Get over it.
Sub titles
And this year past, 2023, is the first that will be recorded as having a global average temperature above 1.5 degrees C. over the long-term average (c1850-1900 AD). Note: This baseline is between 0.2-0.3 deg. C above the pre-industrial (c1750-1800 AD) period.
10,000 years of plowying the earth, Mother Nature sayz, Nah, bad parasite gotta go. Intervention would be timely and politics as usual will not help. The truth is out there, but not in the MSM corporate world of everything strictly commercial. ShakeUp XR
Strictly Commercial
Where is the science and rationality, emotional words, and stories of tigers in the park is not taking this situation seriously. Explain why 1.5C is worse than 1.4C and why 1.6C is even worse.
maybe if you give me a cookie first. Or a hoop for me to jump through. What happens if I get the answer wrong? what's my punishment?
The screen didn’t get shared. Did you know?
True that.
You can find it on page 25 of "The Emperor's New Climate Scenarios" that Rachel's linked in the notes
you also die from ingesting too much salt, which at the same time ie necessary for your body to function as it needs ions. your point being now?
Financial reports also suffer from how you depreciate impacts. They reduce the “now” cost by a certain percent for costs that will occur in the future. If you think that a cost in 2050 is less important than a cost now, then you don’t invest.
It's called "discounting the future."
I"m sure this is great, but I'm bailing at 7 minutes given the poor audio from the guest.
Audio was fine for me; I think it's just that he has a very raspy voice. Yes, it's a bit of a challenge to listen to, but at least the audio level was good.
@@davidbarry6900 Standards have become so professional with the mics.
I'm sure he's doing his best.
He reminds me of RFK…who has a throat problem… I think he’s probably dealing with something similar
@@nsbd90now
It's not poor audio, Sandy obviously has a condition that requires you to try that little bit harder if you desire to hear this man's opinions, which in my mind are utter gems.
Welp, thats not great news. Massive GDP loss from 2 up to 3 degrees. Especially when you couple that with James Hansen's latest paper on warming in the pipeline.
Where he suggests that we massively under estimated the Albedo effect of our burning of fossil fuels.
He figures we have at least a degree of immediate temperature rise coming. When we actually take action to clean up our act.
Which puts us at 2.8 in the 2030s. As we reach for net zero by 2050.
Oh wow! 3°C is going to really be a problem in 2100.
To quote from the scientific paper, "Climate Endgame: Exploring catastrophic climate change scenarios", it states "For instance, recent simulations suggest that stratocumulus cloud decks might abruptly be lost at CO2 concentrations that could be approached by the end of the century, causing an additional ∼8C global warming." So, it could be double figures in 2100.
@@AdrianJamesEllis "Might, could, maybe, possibly, if". The incessant climate argument: "Just you wait, it's going to be bad, you'll see". Repeat decade after decade in perpetuity. Meet the new doomsday cultists who have taken over from the religious zealots. "Repent, repent or the last days will arrive".
@@anthonymorris5084 Nope, it's getting bad at exactly the rate predicted by science. It's not extreme religion, it's simply being rational. You just don't like the truth of the situation. It's called Cognitive Dissonance, when someone is faced with a reality that jars with what they're used to or how they want the world to be. Rather than accept the truth, they double-down on their beliefs, to the point of irrationality. It happens all the time.
@@AdrianJamesEllis My friend it is you who is suffering from blatant "cognitive dissonance" and here's how. You automatically conflate warming with catastrophe, therefore, since the planet is indeed warming, ergo everything is bad. Naturally as the planet warms further, ergo, everything is worse.
This actual, definitive cognitive dissonance causes willful blindness to the data that proves humanity has never been safer, healthier or more prosperous than at any time in history, by any measurement you care to examine. But it's warming, so cognitive dissonance says everything is worse.
What you're not getting, and I'm guessing it's willful, is that while the planet is indeed warming, there is nothing negative about this. Please enlighten me, what's actually getting worse?
Which brings us right back to your mantra: "Just you wait, it's going to be bad, you'll see", as your cognitive dissonance reinforces this bias.
@@anthonymorris5084 yeah ok. texas's worst wildfire ever this year. canadas worst ever last year. wildfires in italy during this winter just gone. spain under extreme drought with 30 consecutive days of heavy rain needed before theyd even consider lifting bans on outdoor swimming pools and suchlike. i mean these are just a few random things just from my recollection, if you look into the list of unusual things going on its everywhere and ever worsening. its all happening just like they said it would. anyway you're behind. most climate change deniers have moved on from its not happening to now oh its not mankind causing it . keep up bro
It's not gonna be that bad, that is delusional.
Hey there. I wish people would stop talking about how to avoid climate change. It's a waste of time. People should instead accept what's coming and ADAPT . I dropped out of that kind of discussion 40 years ago and it was the right thing to do. Instead we need an immediate discussion how to survive and immediate actions in that direction.
Many data show we are already in one of these events which are called Rapid climate change. It's based mainly on the rapid increase of Methane from natural recourses. All the energy for that is already in the system. It happened a few times during the last 1 million years. In such an event the temp is rising between 7 and 10 Degrees Celsius in two or three decades or faster. How do we survive that? All that talking about 1.5 or even 3 degrees is really sXXXd.
Steven Hawkins said: " Intelligence is the ability to adapt to change."
Right on. Read The Great Waves of Change free online - describes where we're at and why, what's coming, what we'll need to do, and how it goes if we don't. Dealing with it requires people knowing what's going on, what's coming and agreeing to work together. At this point it's not looking good.
1. Evaluate your situation and your location
2. Sit down and make a plan for yourself ( family , friends)
3. Move if you need to.
4. Buy a piece of land and become self sustainable.
My guess after 2030 worldwide much of the economy we have today will be gone. If you want to do something about your situation the time is now. @@wmanadeau7860
LOL Adaptation must be a really magic thing.
Adapt to +7.0K.... 100 IQ is not enough for that task - so to say.
Several times in 1my?
Aware of Eemian a degree warmer for 10ky
@@volkerengels5298+7 would be bracing and demanding but puts us under Eocene. Off top of head that starts at 10.
Bunch of guessing
Trust undermines his own credibility by talking about sea-level rise refugees from Bangladesh. We are on track for a projected 2-3' sea level rise by the end of the century (74 years from now), which is a problem. However, it is rather insulting (possibly even racist) to assume that Bangladesh and Vietnam won't simply do the same as the Netherlands in protecting their delta lands from the rising seas. Sea level rise is very low down on the list of risk factors in the near future, although it will require major changes in many regions by the next century.
Yes, we are going to have food insecurity, but far more so due to a breakdown in supply chains and shortages of (fossil fuel) fertilizers than due to climate change. Yes, we are going to have waves of refugees as a result of climate change (including due to food insecurity), but as in the past 50 years, even more people will be migrating for OTHER reasons. That is, most people flee or move a) due to war (including civil war), or b) to try get a better life, i.e. escaping poverty or simply because they think life will be easier and better somewhere else, or c) fleeing persecution, corruption, oppression, or civil breakdown (e.g. Venezuela). That is, bad or incompetent governance and mismanagement are much bigger risks for most people than climate change. (It's interesting to view the UK in the light of this idea. The UK Conservatives seem to be trying to discourage immigration by increasing oppression and impoverishing the UK economy, perhaps hoping that migrants will want to go somewhere else instead?)
Note that most migrants are relatively well off (in their region of origin), and you get MORE migrants leaving a region as standards of living rise, because more people are able to afford to travel somewhere better. An example from last year was of a Pakistani family who froze trying to cross into Canada (from the USA) in the middle of winter - they had paid US$10,000 each for the trip from their home town (and nice house) in Pakistan. The tide of migrants out of Africa into Europe is not going to end anytime soon. Somalia is not Switzerland; it turns out to be much more difficult to build a productive society and civil institutions than it is to improve healthcare and agricultural output. It's also much easier these days for the average African to learn (via mobile phones and internet) just how much better standards of living appear in Europe than at home - or at least get the glamorized Instagram view of a better life there.
Modelling risks and impacts is always going to be difficult to get right, because the world does not stay the same while your one (modeled) factor changes. Demographics are changing country populations dramatically (e.g. South Korea is on track to have 4% of it's current population by the end of the century); technologies and social trends will also change in ways that we can't even begin to imagine over that time period. The world is going to change even more from the impacts of running out of oil (probably in 20-ish years) than anything else, and very much for the poorer, so we definitely need alternatives to fossil fuels. The problem is that very few people seem to have thought out how to do so in a non-destructive way. Electric cars are NOT a solution (other than to rich people wanting toys or to signal status), and Solar and Wind are NICHE solutions in SOME locations, not a panacea. Yes, we need to understand potential risks - but we also need a better idea of the costs (and risks) of various proposed solutions/alternatives.
1914 technology is more than sufficient to deter overloaded river ferries trying to plod over the Med
Will is only critical lack
@@volkerengels52982050 says who? At +8.5 takes til Y4K for greenland to be ice free. The built up cold will amuse and occupy radiative forcing from equator for some time I suspect.
Hydrology oceanography is my weak spot tbf
Hopefully middle east and Africa accept Euro climate refugees with no time limit free hotels and job placement. Be only fair
Altering menus for our pork and pints, pf course and allowing us to dress women as we please.
Noting your point about electric cars, I hope I am allowed to quote from one of my own papers: 'Sustainable transport should ... be seen not as satisfying derived demand under one-way economic formulae, but as part of a ‘nexus’ with geography and settlement systems. This implies that crucial choices are needed about future lifestyles in the light of their impacts. If some of this seems utopian, arguably all futures - including business as usual - are now utopian.' That may apply to more than transportation.
Armchair quarterback? Have you traveled much lately? Are you aware how the environment has changed in the past 50 years? Yes, humans will adapt, but to what? Do you really think the human waste engine can run forever in our closed-loop bubble? So many questions. The answer is we cannot steer this ship, nor can we predict exactly where we will run ashore. What is certain is that our current direction guides us off of the map…into the abyss. Good luck.
You're right... our global economy relies in a very complex technology, and we're not getting the most talented on critical jobs but diversity hiring by race, sexual preferences and disabilities, because merit and intelligence are racist and sexist.
@@saskwatch123 Yeah, middle management, usually women, make sure no white man will shine, or some diverse people would get inferiority complex triggered.
Two headed babies from depleted uranium are the most qualified for very complex technology jobs.
@@voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang885And real zombies are perfect for horror movies.
@@nosotrosloslobosestamosreg4115 certain cities in Iraq have a 15% deformity rate in babies. Go film there for a great movie.
@@voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang885Chernobyl is a sanctuary of genetic health in comparison XD
Pakis make for 35% of babies with genetic disabilities while making around 10% of hominid population in UK.
OFFS. CO2 is not a pollutant, it is literally, plant food.
Makes you sleepy, and slows down mental acuity. And plants need it, but the more you give them in isolation from increasing other inputs, the less nutrition they provide. Which is a bit of an issue for everything that eats them. More CO2 = more biomass = less nutrition. This varies across plants of course, the planet is still a complex and diverse place, for the moment anyway.
CO2 is multi talented. It can feed plants and hold warm in the atmosphere at the same time.
But we aren't plants....Like water you can have too much of a good thing. This idea that we can keep increasing CO2 because its plant food without any consideration for its whole system effects is absurd.
Maybe you should contact some natural life scientists and tell them this just in case they don't know...
CO2 is plant food within a certain limit. O2 is essential for humans, right? But if you inhale 100% O2, it is actually toxic. DO try to think a bit beyond your simple minded approach. Plants store CO2, then rot and release it again, this is basically a closed circuit. The plants that rotted millions of years ago and trapped the CO2 back then are now being burnt and the CO2 released through that is what caused the problem, not the CO2 that is in this closed circuit of growing and rotting plants.
Besides, have you looked out of your window at some point during the past years? Did you notice any difference in the climate wherever you may live? Or are you too young to know a real winter or to know that a summer was not always as hot as it was the past several years?