If you want authoritarian/socialism, this is authoritarian/socialism, whereby the federal government uses some sort of Scary Thing manufactured by government to inject itself even more heavily into the economy and the lives of citizens. It’s really what’s called Progressivism, otherwise known as Fascism
A ‘green interest rate?’ Fed digs into climate change economics
In their deliberations on monetary policy, Federal Reserve policymakers need to consider many factors, but up to now, climate change has not been one of them.
But as worries about the warming planet increase, the U.S. central bank is taking a closer look at the economic impacts of higher temperatures, more frequent severe weather, and rising sea levels.
A “green interest rate†is one of the ideas on view Friday as the San Francisco Fed convenes the U.S. central bank’s first-ever conference on climate change and economics. The event is so oversubscribed a webcast has been created to meet demand.
While the Fed lags central banking peers such as the Bank of England in making climate change an explicit part of its financial stability remit, the conference is the latest sign the Fed has started to take the risks and costs of global warming seriously.
“It’s important for us from a monetary policy perspective to know what the potential growth rate of the economy is and if climate events or climate risk is going to shave that off, even if it’s over the long term,†San Francisco Fed chief Mary Daly said in New York earlier this week.
The weather, and, yes, the climate, has always had an effect on economic progress. And usually tends to do much better during Holocene warm periods than the cool ones.
Papers to be presented at this week’s conference provide that perspective in a range of ways. One estimates climate change could subtract 7% from real world per capita GDP by 2100; another finds that subsidies for green energy like wind and solar are not an effective tool against global warming, but carbon taxes, if implemented in many parts of the world, would be. Others papers map out how climate change affects asset prices and show trade policy subsidizes greenhouse gas emissions.
I’m glad these big wigs could take fossil fueled trips to San Francisco to discuss taxes. Perhaps they should remember than the vast majority refuse to spend even $10 a month to “solve” anthropogenic climate change. It’s nice to know that they think subsidies for “green” energy are worthless, though.
Scientists are in broad agreement that carbon dioxide from cars, power plants and other human sources are behind the climate change that’s already making powerful hurricanes, severe drought, and other weather extremes more frequent.
Duckspeak. Without scientific proof.
At the conference, Carnegie Mellon University professor Nicholas Muller will outline a “green interest rate.†Simply put, he suggests interest-rate setting should take into account the economic drag that greenhouse gas emissions are projected to cause.
“Rates should be lower when pollution damages are rising,†Muller said in an interview. His paper also shows how judicious use of rate policy can skew investment in ways that could aid environmental goals and save human lives.
Was the Great Galveston Hurricane of 1900 caused by “pollution”? Perhaps we should start by creating carbon taxes that specifically target those who push carbon taxes, like universities, the news media, and so on, see if they’re so gung ho at that point.
“Scientists are in broad agreement”
No! They are not. That 97% crap has been debunked over and over again but these idiots keep spouting it like it’s gospel. That 11,000 scientist crap released a few days ago is also BS. There were many fake names on the list and it wasn’t all scientists and of the few actual scientists that did sign even fewer were from any type of climate discipline.
“that carbon dioxide from cars, power plants and other human sources are behind the climate change”
More BS. There is NO proof of this.
“that’s already making powerful hurricanes, severe drought, and other weather extremes more frequent.”
This is just a lie. ALL of these severe WEATHER events have been declining in frequency and severity over the last 100+ years.
But sadly, this is a fight that rational voices are losing. These lies are being taught to our children in schools and colleges. The media is repeating them day in and day out. The gullible are eating it up. Eventually these job killing, economy destroying policies will be implemented and 30, 50, 100 years from now, when none of these doom and gloom predictions come true, it will be too late to reverse those policies.
Yes, scientists are in broad agreement on global warming.
No, they aren’t. The honest ones are calling out the scam all the time.
“In keyword searches across 324 pages of signing signatories, spanning 11,224 scientists, I found 240 (2%) individuals with professions that can be construed as bona fide meteorologists, climatologists, or atmospheric scientists. As a frame of reference, the Department of Labor reports that there are 10,000 atmospheric scientists in the U.S. Conversely, this list contains plenty of “experts” who have zero credibility on the topic of climate change, coming from fields such as infectious diseases, paleontology, ecology, zoology, epidemiology and nutrition, insect ecology, anthropology, computer science, OB-GYN, and linguistics. ”
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/11/who_are_these_11000_concerned_scientists.html
This from The American Thinker, penned by someone who thinks zoologists are zookeepers. Even meteorologists (weathermen and weatherwomen) are not climate scientists.
Professional scientists of all stripes are trained to evaluate data and evidence – Senators, Representatives, trumps, most bloggers are not.
These scientific organizations all claim that global warming is real and caused by the increase in CO2:
from the US: AAAS, ACS, AGU, AMA, AMS, APS, AAP, AAA, AASC, AAWV, AAS, ACPM, AFS, AIBS, AIP, AMS, APHA, AQA, ASM, ASA, ASCE, ASPB, ASA, GSA, NASA, NOAA, US NATIONAL ACADEMY SCIENCES. The NAS of every major nation, every major international scientific body, IPCC.
Its difficult to find scientists who DON’T agree with the central theory of global warming. Are they all part of the commie plot?
And the APA says homosexuality is not mental illness.
Plenty of “organizations” have succumbed to political or economic pressure or have been coerced in changing a stance because that’s the current government’s agenda or some domestic terrorist outfit has hounded them.
This from The American Thinker, penned by someone who thinks zoologists are zookeepers. Even meteorologists (weathermen and weatherwomen) are not climate scientists.
And copied by someone who says anyone who disagrees with him is a white supremacist.
They’re not, really. The guy in Sheboygan who reads the weather report is not a “climate scientist”, whatever the Hell that is.
And those “weatherwomen” are just babes in a tight blouse and a short skirt.
Are they all part of the commie plot?
To ask the question is to answer it.
Sorry, J, but institutional “positions†on a subject aren’t empirical evidence that the position is correct. In fact, it’s not evidence of anything. We’ve been over this before, but did the BOD vote on the subject or did the whole organization? Did, say, a 51% vote in favor constitute a “yes†vote? How was the question worded? Was the question simply “does man have some influence on warming? Or was it asked “does man contribute to all warming� Is it dangerous? Is it somewhat dangerous? You get the drift. But do you know the answers to those questions? If not, then you have nothing
Funny-there’s all kinds of scientists who don’t agree with the central theory. Which is irrelevant, anyway, because in the end it only takes one.
Commenter typed: * there’s all kinds of scientists who don’t agree with the central theory. Which is irrelevant, anyway, because in the end it only takes one.*
A single scientist disagreeing with a scientific theory invalidates the theory? That’s a novel idea.
Even meteorologists (weathermen and weatherwomen) are not climate scientists.
That’s fine with me if you want to say that.
That means that the number of scientists who support “climate change” is even fewer.
Nice job of blowing your own hypothesis out of the water.
And btw – of course you had to attack the writer as you really cannot attack his data and conclusions. He gave the most expansive definition of “climate experts and scientists” and you attacked him, but not the data. You have reached the point where you even hate data.
Then again, all the left has is hate.
TEACH suggests “we should start by creating carbon taxes that specifically target those who push carbon taxes, like universities, the news media”
So he wants to use the power of government to specifically punish those who advocate policies he opposes. Cons have long opposed higher education and the free press, as a free thinking, educated populace and a free press opens oppressive Conservative ideology to examination.
So he wants to use the power of government to specifically punish those who advocate policies he opposes.
Why Loose Shoes did that throughout his administration (IRS, illegal wiretaps on journos,… to name a few).
Lolgf little sissybitch
“So he (Teach) wants to use the power of government to specifically punish those who advocate policies he opposes.”
No he doesn’t. He wants to use the power of government to force the people who endorse the plan to PAY for the plan. Why do you think it’s unreasonable for people to be held responsible for their actions?
“Cons have long opposed higher education and the free press, as a free thinking, educated populace and a free press opens oppressive Conservative ideology to examination.”
“Cons” have done no such thing you lying ass. Is it “cons” who refuse to allow speakers with conservative views to speak on college campus’? Are “Cons” the ones who shout down, fire and penalize professors who don’t agree with leftist policy on sex, race and Freedom? And is it “Cons” who virtually control the entire press and media? You’re either a liar or you are the most ignorant leftist alive.
Lyin’Ass,
Do you agree to have a special tax assessed against only those that support an invasion, e.g., Iraq? That fiasco cost us trillions USD. Should the gov’t dun each Repub about $30,000 to settle up? Send yours to the treasury, please.
Just because Lefties are stupid, yeah, they should be taxed.
And Iraq was where Al Qaeda was broken, where we got rid of Saddam, as well as the WMDs (the ones IS used?) were, in fact there.
But you were demanding we stay in Syria and spend trillions more because Trump wanted out.
Which is it Elwood? Make up your mind instead of trolling. I think you can’t keep all your positions straight.
tRump left troops in Syria and Iraq. The Cove’s most prolific commenter insisted there were only 25 troops in Syria. Will that really cost trillions?
Right after you pony up your 750,000. for the Green New Deal. Elwood.
Yeah, it also opens oppressive Leftist ideology to examination. That’s why universities are Safe Spaces and test scores in grade schools are the worst in 20 years.
So he wants to use the power of government to specifically punish those who advocate policies he opposes.
and this differs from the Lefties, how?
A lesson in climate change “economics”.
https://texasscorecard.com/local/georgetown-suing-to-escape-disastrous-green-energy-deal/
Lolgf
tRump left troops in Syria and Iraq. The Cove’s most prolific commenter insisted there were only 25 troops in Syria. Will that really cost trillions?
Well, first, we’d have to know what point, if any, you’re trying to make.
Commenter typed: * there’s all kinds of scientists who don’t agree with the central theory. Which is irrelevant, anyway, because in the end it only takes one.*
A single scientist disagreeing with a scientific theory invalidates the theory? That’s a novel idea.
You never heard of Copernicus, have you?
TEACH is no Copernicus.