Are they willing to let the world burn?

Then the world will be mostly uninhabitable in 100 years

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2017/07/climate-change-earth-too-hot-for-humans.html

 

What an absurd load of fact-free nonscience. Sorry, but I am old enough to remember when the doomcryers said billions would starve to death in the 1980s, the ozone layer would be gone by 1990, arctic sea ice would disappear by 2010, blah, blah, blah. There is no credible empirical evidence whatever -- none -- that we are in any kind of global climate "crisis" or "emergency," that the 20th century warming was anything but a mostly natural return to more normal Holocene temperatures following the coldest 500-year period in the last 10,000 years, or that there has been any significant additional warming since the weakness of solar cycle 24 became apparent ~10 years ago.

 

From what it said.

It's not necessary, except to rescue rich, greedy takers from the discipline of the market.

And he's wrong about climate, though right that central banks should not create money, though wrong that private commercial banks should.

Bingo.

Which is bull$#!+. It's just another scam to give trillions in unearned wealth to the super-duper uber-rich.

The money is not the point. The associated purchasing power is the point.

Which is just more absurd and fact-free nonscience.

 

1. Time to abandon this 'free market' crap, because free markets don't take into account the negative effects resulting from the reality of different capacities of individuals to compete. That's why sporting competitions have referees and handicaps etc.
In the macroeconomic environment the best 'referee' is a sovereign currency-issuing government authorized to create and spend its own currency into the economy, alongside free-enterprise individual-profit-seeking in private sector free markets.

2. Fossil companies made investments in good faith, so they need to be compensated, or more importantly their employees need to be compensated and transferred into the new green economy without loss of wages.

Wrong about climate? No chance, not even 50/50, that the climate scientists are correct?

As for your second point, I have already explained why your free market ideology is obsolete or at the very least a-moral (and hence immoral, because the economy is a matter of allocation of resources ....and mis-allocation results in poverty and starvation). The correct remedy to the free market is enabling government central bank money creation, alongside private sector banks (in a capitalist economy).

BTW, I'm not clear from your remarks how you believe money should be created, if not in either public or private banks.

So you are half way to enlightenment; the public can vote for a portion of money creation in the public's bank (ie government reserve bank).

Addressed above. YOU need to defend your free market ideology, which you won't be able to do, because competitions need a referee, to avoid anarchy, war and poverty.

Ah.... the inflation bogeyman, you are agreeing with the quoted clown, and his concerns re the inflation controlling functions of central banks. FYI, inflation is ONLY ever a matter of excess demand on resources. Fullstop. You don't need a free market to avoid excess demand on resources. Try some intelligent regulation.

What part of industrial recycling processes which are powered by 100% renewable energy is 'absurd', 'fact-free' or 'nonscience'?

(Avoid a false chicken and egg fallacy, please, given 100% green energy is possible).

 

That's a feature, not a bug.

Only a few have handicaps, and referees are to ensure competition is fair, not to make all the competitors equal.

Agreed.

Garbage. Investors are supposed to take risks, and employees are supposed to be flexible.

The climate scientists who tell the truth are correct. The ones who say CO2 governs global temperature are wrong.

The free market doesn't misallocate resources. You are merely wrong about what constitutes a free market (hint: "free market capitalism" is an oxymoron).

The free market is the remedy.

There is a difference between a central bank and a Mint, and no, private commercial banks should not be creating money.

Money should be created by an independent Mint whose sole mandate is price stability as measured by a commodity price index weighted by value of final deliveries. The Mint should deliver the money it creates to the Treasury to be spent into circulation.

The role of a central bank is to manage private banks' money creation. As private banks should not be creating money, there is no legitimate role for a central bank. The Mint should manage the money supply directly to ensure price stability.

There is nothing about a free market that excludes referees.

Flat false. Full stop. "Excess demand on resources" is anti-economic gibberish.

Trying to control inflation by regulating demand on resources is not intelligent.

The part where 100% renewable energy is non-polluting.

"Green" is also anti-economic gibberish.

 

Who said anything about making the competitors equal? You have fallen for the myth that providing for equality of opportunity means equality of outcome. It does not. But equality of opportunity does mean:
1. access to fresh food.
2. access to accommodation.
3. access to transport
4. access to utilities including internet.

Simplistic. Some people don't need to invest: Bill Gates for example. And as I said, employees need access to the basics out-lined above, if equality of opportunity is to have any meaning at all. A Job Guarantee - with government as ELR - is required.

80/20, in favor of the AGW scientists? Not a guarantee of 'truth' admittedly, but we ARE talking measurements of physical phenomena here...

I don't need your hint. Any market system that does not provide the basics - via a minimum reward - given the right and responsibility to contribute to the nation's development are universal, since we all have something to contribute, is by definition a dysfunctional system which is little better than the law of the jungle (a competitve predatorial system).

You are sounding like spiritgide, who says we all have the free will to succeed in a competitive market, despite the fact many fail to exercise this free-will...

Interesting...except the model is no doubt just a result of your determination that all should compete in free markets regardless of their own handicaps.

Interesting. I would rather a government bank be the sole lender and creator of money.

But there is everything about a free market that doesn't take into account the differing capacities of the competitors (ie , all of us).

Nonsense. You are afflicted with the delusion that money is a commodity. On the contrary, money is merely an IOU, or a promise to pay; and the value of the government's fiat currency (a promise) is backed by the nation's resources and productive capacity.

....maybe, if you are afflicted by the delusion that money is a commodity.....but since it is not, then regulating demand on resources (rather than on promises) is the intelligent way to manage inflation.

You are claiming technology will not be able to eliminate the fossil industry, or at least 80% of it straightaway?

Nor implement a closed recycling industry?

Closed loop recycling is the process by which waste is collected, recycled and produced to make something new. Effectively, the waste does a full circle without having a negative impact on the environment. Closed loop recycling relates to many types of waste, such as: Glass**. Plastic.Jun 6, 2018

**eg, spent solar panels.

 

Social Cost of Carbon May Be Social Benefit of Carbon, Economist Finds
SOCIAL COST OF CARBON MARCH 3, 2021

The Biden administration made headlines on Friday by imposing a “social cost of carbon” – to be factored into federal cost-benefit analysis – that is more than six times higher than the social cost of carbon determined by the Trump administration. However, economist and data scientist Kevin Dayaratna published an article yesterday documenting that the alleged social “cost” of carbon may actually be a social “benefit” of carbon.

In an article for the Daily Signal, Dayaratna observes that any accurate assessment of the social cost of carbon must include social benefits as well as merely social harms. Importantly, Dayaratna observes that any sound cost/benefit assessment must take into account “positive agricultural feedback effects associated with carbon dioxide emissions.”

“In fact, we found that under very reasonable assumptions, those benefits can outweigh the costs, suggesting that the social cost of carbon can indeed be negative,” Dayaratna writes. “The policy implication of a negative social cost of carbon is that the government should not be taxing carbon dioxide emissions, but should be subsidizing it instead.”. . .

 

I started to read the article but quickly got bored, agreeing with the headline:

"Why ‘Social Cost of Carbon’ Is Most Useless Number You’ve Never Heard Of"


If AGW climate change is real, then the BIS is correct: central banks will have to create the funds ex nihilo required to build the necessary green energy infrastructure, AND compensate the fossil industry for its multi $trillion financial losses and associated stranded physical-asset losses.

But no doubt governments (led by the US, now that the Biden admin. has rejoined the Paris accord) will prefer to play silly games arguing over who should pay the most,,,,pathetic.

 

Or perhaps the fossil fuel companies should be subsidized in recognition of their broadly beneficial contribution?