Essay by Eric Worrall
“… in a low emission-scenario most impacts could be removed by adjustment once global temperatures stabilise …”
Global warming and heat extremes to enhance inflationary pressures
Maximilian Kotz, Friderike Kuik, Eliza Lis & Christiane Nickel
Abstract
Climate impacts on economic productivity indicate that climate change may threaten price stability. Here we apply fixed-effects regressions to over 27,000 observations of monthly consumer price indices worldwide to quantify the impacts of climate conditions on inflation. Higher temperatures increase food and headline inflation persistently over 12 months in both higher- and lower-income countries. Effects vary across seasons and regions depending on climatic norms, with further impacts from daily temperature variability and extreme precipitation. Evaluating these results under temperature increases projected for 2035 implies upwards pressures on food and headline inflation of 0.92-3.23 and 0.32-1.18 percentage-points per-year respectively on average globally (uncertainty range across emission scenarios, climate models and empirical specifications). Pressures are largest at low latitudes and show strong seasonality at high latitudes, peaking in summer. Finally, the 2022 extreme summer heat increased food inflation in Europe by 0.43-0.93 percentage-points which warming projected for 2035 would amplify by 30-50%.
Read more: https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-023-01173-x
But farmers will apparently be able to adapt to these upheavals, “once temperatures stabilise”;
… Although the empirical evidence indicates that adaptation to temperature shocks has been limited historically, we explore the potential of adaptation via adjustment to changing temperatures to reduce these future impacts. We do so by using empirical models in which temperature shocks are defined relative to a 30-year moving average rather than a constant baseline (Fig. S6k–t), and by evaluating potential impacts using future temperatures defined in this way. This method indicates that adaptation via adjustment could substantially reduce future impacts (Supplementary Fig. S14). In particular, in a low emission-scenario most impacts could be removed by adjustment once global temperatures stabilise (Supplementary Fig. S14c, d). However, in scenarios of un-mitigated warming, persistent impacts of considerable size remain despite introducing adjustment of this type which has not been observed historically (Supplementary Fig. S14). …
Read more: same link as above
The study authors also admit renewables may be increasing sensitivity to adverse weather.
… Second, our empirical results refer predominantly to food and headline inflation, whereas we find a limited response of other price aggregates to weather changes. However, the strong response of electricity demand to temperature5,6 suggests that impacts on electricity prices are plausible. Indeed, we find that electricity prices show some consistent and persistent response to temperature increases (Supplementary Fig. S1k), but with much larger uncertainty which precludes statements of significance at conventional levels. Lesser data availability for this more detailed price aggregate as well as complex and heterogeneous electricity price-setting practices may contribute to these large errors. However, as electricity supply is increasingly met with renewable sources, the price sensitivity to weather may change. A detailed analysis of electricity and other price aggregates may be a fruitful avenue of future work. …
Read more: same link as above
Naturally the study makes heavy use of RCP 8.5.
In my opinion, citing 2022 in Europe as an example of climate disruption caused food inflation is absurd. The problems being experienced by Europe are because of EU incompetence, not climate change.
Food inflation in Europe is a problem, because European farmers are under attack by radical greens. Ongoing demands farmers restrict use of fertiliser and chemicals, and insane attempts to cut the number of farmers, by coercing farmers to sign agreements to never farm again, are probably not encouraging farmers to invest in upgrading their land. Dutch police shot live ammo at farmers protesting climate rules in 2022.
In 2022, in response to fertiliser shortages triggered by the war in Ukraine, there were crazy policy responses to the looming food shortages. The Scottish Agriculture Minister refused to release more land for agriculture to help farmers maintain food supply. “We are still in a nature emergency that hasn’t gone away… so it’s a no“
Europe experienced fertiliser shortages in 2022, because of their reliance on Ukraine and Russia. Ukraine and Russia are (were?) major suppliers of fertiliser, because they have lots of cheap energy. Producing fertiliser is energy intensive.
Europe’s disastrous green energy policies have made it uneconomical to produce fertiliser in Europe, which made Europe vulnerable to the supply shock caused by the Ukraine war.
In addition the EU operates a strict tariff regime, The European Common Agricultural Policy, which taxes imports of food, and restricts Europe’s ability to combat weather shocks by importing more food from outside the EU.
I’m not disputing that in 2022 Europe suffered adverse weather conditions, but there were confounding factors. If Europe hadn’t made such a mess of their agriculture, climate and energy policies, there would have been a lot less food inflation.
As for adaption, why would a regime of continuous warming be so different to stabilisation at a higher temperature?
Are the researchers suggesting farmers are too dumb to pick up the phone? Why would persistent impacts remain in scenarios of unmitigated warming? Can’t farmers talk to their friends down South, to discover what crops and techniques work in warmer climates?
Farmers all over the world adapt the same crops to radically different temperatures. Subtropical Bundaberg can grow Maine potatoes at 25 degrees South of the Equator, a few hours drive from the 23.4 degree tropic of Capricorn, the boundary of the Southern tropics, because they plant the potatoes in Fall, then harvest them in Spring before the Summer heat kills them.
If temperature rose significantly every year, farmers would adapt by borrowing last year’s planting practices from their friends 50-100 miles South, or switch to new crops.
The Potsdam researchers are wrong about farmers not adapting to a warmer climate. Canadian Geographic admitted in 2020 that global warming is opening millions of square kilometres of new agricultural land. This is a continuation of the process which begun with the end of the Little Ice Age in 1850. Farmers will move into these lands the moment they become viable, unless agriculture hating politicians prevent them from doing so. Similar land openings would occur in Greenland and far Northern Europe, were global warming to continue.
As for drought and flood, there is no evidence extreme weather is getting worse. Upgraded water infrastructure could capture and store floodwater, and transport water to where it was needed. If Western governments spent a fraction of the cash they squander on useless renewables, on building infrastructure which is actually needed, floods and droughts would be much less of a problem.
Just what is “headline inflation?” Newspapers using bigger type for headlines? More headlines? If the latter, about what?
Headline is total inflation reported as the CPI which is an index of the cost to buy a fixed basket of goods. Core inflation is adjusted for the volatile components of food and energy whose cost can move around regardless of economic conditions and is thought to be more closely aligned with cost of living.
So, they are demanding more fossil fuels and fertilizers plus massive increase in CO2 emissions. Those are the only things which will increase agricultural output, which is the only way to curb price inflation. Your welcome.
Who says they want an increase in ag output?
Looks like an excellent place to open a dirt bike race track. Lots of ramps for jumps!
You’re bad. (In a positive way.)
What can I say, I love breaking sounds! 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Thus rendering that arable farmland unfit to farm ever again. The fertile topsoil is destroyed when they do this. And heaven forbid a tornado or hail storm come thru.
‘Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon in the sense that it is and can be produced only by a more rapid increase in the quantity of money than in output.’ – Milton Friedman
‘Climate change’ has nothing to do with inflation – it’s the inevitable result of money printing and alarmist energy policy.
They’re just doing the same thing they’ve always done – identified a problem and worked backwards to find the wrong cause but one which advances their agenda.
The Left’s identified problem is ‘capitalism’, i.e., the spontaneous and voluntary association of free individuals to achieve their ends. Climate alarmism and its collectivist policies are just one of the Left’s means to achieve its end, which is the elimination of capitalism.
Climate change is such an excellent excuse for inflation ..
Thank you, Frank from NoVA.
Just from the title, I knew I would want to write a comment such as you have.
I wonder if any of these authors know any farmers, orchardists, or grape growers?
Such folks are not unaware of the difficulties of weather dependent crops. Growers
are optimists.
Friedman is a numbnuts – there is plenty of inflation from things like countries getting wealthier or poorer. Ukraine and COVID are 2 more examples of inflation caused, at least in part, by things other than money printing.
Europe’s problems aren’t just fertilizer. The article author is wrong in that Europe used to produce far more fertilizer internally from Russian gas than it imported nitrogen plus potash from Russia and Belarus.
BASF – the literal originator of the Haber Bosch process for industrial nitrogen fertilizer production – is ramping down Ludvigshafen (the site of the first industrial Haber Bosch nitrogen fertilizer production) in favor of a $10B new plant in China. Yes, and the Chinese plant is going to be using imported Russian gas via the Power of Siberia pipeline.
Secondly, the article author also leaves out the critical Ukrainian wheat import issue. The ECM – the European Common Market – is the actual EU economic organization governing imports and exports. One of the original core platforms of the ECM was the protection of European Common Market agriculture from outside competition. The EU Commission, in its zeal to support Ukraine, removed all import restrictions and requirements for Ukrainian wheat to be imported and sold in the EU – so the EU farmers not only have to contend with high fertilizer/fuel/labor prices but also cut-rate competition that does not have to follow all the EU bureaucratic rules. Or in other words, this original core constituent of the ECM is being thrown under the bus in favor of supporting Ukraine.
And to add insult to injury: due to budget constraints caused by the economic decline caused by European sanctions to turn the “ruble to rubble” (lol), the EU governments are now cutting even the core subsidies said EU farmers enjoyed in order to reduce food costs for Europeans. So the farmers are getting screwed in multiple ways: cut-rate competition that doesn’t have to follow the same rules, higher input costs due to sanctions and reduced or removed subsidies that they used to benefit from.
It is no wonder that they up in arms – it would not shock me if half or more of European farmers, in absolute numbers, go bankrupt in the next few years.
Nonsense. Inflation is defined as too many dollars chasing too few goods.
If you’d like to redefine the term, be sure to inform all the worlds current economic academia and get them to agree with you first.
All the world’s current economic academia are exactly that: numb nuts.
Perhaps you haven’t noticed that the governments of the world are listening to precisely these people?
And that these people have zero demonstrated skill – as in being unable to predict bubbles, or recessions, or supply chain problems, or really anything whatsoever.
And here’s one of the few big name economists who is actually worth a damn opining on his own profession:
https://www.crikey.com.au/2024/03/12/nobel-laureate-economist-angus-deaton-capitalism-power/
The title says it all:
Nobel laureate economist savages his own profession as clueless and unethical
Anyone who has studied ‘Austrian’ economics believes that Friedman’s ‘Monetarism’ approach, in which the monetary authority can judiciously adjust the money supply to maximize economic output, has serious problems. (Think CO2 is the ‘control knob’ of climate). But the man is right that pumping the money supply at the same time governments curtail production is a certain recipe for price inflation.
You mention a number of government ‘interventions’, above, all of which impoverish us to some extent. But absent monetary inflation, the effect of these would be that less was spent on some things (luxuries) while more was spent on others (necessities). Only with monetary inflation do the impoverishing effects of bad government policies get amplified by the simultaneous loss in purchasing power.
Anyone who reads and believes the nonsense of Austrian economics is gullible.
The reality is that the austerity programs that are a direct outcome of Austrian economics has literally NEVER worked.
Austerity is the one sure way to ensure that a country is forever mired in poverty. Austerity didn’t break the Great Depression – it made it worse. The GD was broken by the massive government spending during WW2.
The problem Austrian economics wants to solve is poor government spending choices, and its “solution” is low to no government spending.
The real solution that has been proven by historical success as well as the Chinese economic miracle is good government spending – or at least not extremely bad government spending.
‘Austerity didn’t break the Great Depression – it made it worse. The GD was broken by the massive government spending during WW2.’
Those two statements alone prove you’re literally clueless.
‘The real solution that has been proven by historical success as well as the Chinese economic miracle is good government spending – or at least not extremely bad government spending.’
Sorry, couldn’t resist – the so-called Chinese economic miracle occured when leadership backed down from full-blown communism to a less virulent form of state socialism, aka, fascism that allowed a modicum of property rights and foreign investment to pull China from the economic sinkhole created by Mao’s Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution.
PS – There is no such thing as ‘good’ government spending beyond that bare minimum necessary to secure ‘certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness’.
BASF is ramping down Ludvigshafen nitrogen fertilizer production in favor of a $10B new plant in China.
And the main reason is “Because it is putting out too much CO2”, and they would have to pay too much in Green Taxes.
That’s the marketing reason.
The real reason is that the cost of inputs is so ridiculously high that they don’t expect to make money out of this facility for the foreseeable future.
The carbon costs existed before 2022 and were tolerable with low natural gas prices. With Nord Stream destroyed…not so much
I think you should change your name to “clueless”. The COVID lockdown was a period of rapid productivity drop coupled with high volume printing of money. The perfect way to cause inflation.
Exactly t2pn!
basic stuff
stupid government interventions meant more money chasing fewer goods. Ridiculous pay to not work schemes pumping in cash coupled with industrial shutdowns and sanctions slashing supplies of goods.
It’s the same reason why it’s impossible to set a $100k/year minimum wage for a McDonald’s worker without having a $40 Big Mac (unless said worker is 400% more productive) and three out of four workers are laid off.
If there’s a $100million mansion for sale and you give all the people interested in buying it $100 million, do they all get the mansion? Of course not. Immediately the price rises until only one buyer can afford it.
Only the person who could afford it in the beginning would stand a chance at being the winning bidder.
Your simplistic understanding of economics is painful to read.
Among other things – Trump printed plenty of money before COVID yet there was no inflation surge. Trump spent in the order of $6T vs. Biden’s $9T to $10T, but there was no inflation surge during Trump’s term nor during the first year plus of Biden’s term. Why?
Similarly, China has “printed” tens and tens of trillions of dollars over the past couple of decades, yet they have no inflation problem. Why?
The reason is productive vs. unproductive use of said money spent.
Government spending that actually improves the lives of people, improves their productivity, etc is very different than government spending to subsidize the rich and/or promote asset price inflation.
There is a reason why the US government and its international proxies like the IMF and World Bank push Austrian austerity policies on other countries: it is to screw their economies over so that US dominance will not be threatened and so that the US and European economies can extract resources at low prices.
Your naive Marxist version of economics is hilarious.
The COVID period was a time of massive supply chain disruption. Industry, mining, transport, etc was literally put into a standstill for a period of months.
Productivity has nothing to do with inflation. The US has had low productivity forever even as the US debt has grown multiple tens of trillions just in the past 20 years – but inflation was not a problem then because it was exported to the rest of the world.
That’s the problem with simpletons who think inflation is just a function of too much money.
You really should learn something about economics before showing your clueless-ness to the world.
Heh
For your edification, numbnuts:
Inflation wasn’t caused by COVID-19. It was caused by the government response to it; printing money out of thin air to supposedly offset the devastation of people losing jobs and businesses caused by tyrannical COVID-19 restrictions imposed by—wait for it— governments.
I couldn’t quickly find the video of her saying it but I found this.
https://imgflip.com/i/2lv82g
The notion that COVID did not cause any inflation via supply chain shocks – yes, it is clear who the numbnuts is.
I’m not saying it was all caused by supply chain and greedflation – the Democrats are totally wrong there but it is equally ludicrous to say inflation in the past few years was only because of money printing. As I note above: Trump printed plenty but there was no inflation surge either during his term or even the first year plus of Biden’s.
The effects of Covid responses, they love to blame on Trump yet it was the Dems that pushed them through Congress.
Trump, during another impeachment proceeding, wanted to shut down flights from China. The same people who were telling people to “ride the subways”, “party in Chinatown”, were calling him xenophobic.
(It did take Trump awhile to realize Fauci wasn’t “The Science”. I’d give them that if they admitted Fauci was WRONG.)
“…once global temperatures stabilise …”
What in the wide, wide world of sports are we talking about now?
I’m gonna guess that in the world of anthropogenic global warming the orthodoxy is that the damage is locked in now and even if we turn off CO₂ emissions today, the CO₂ will remain resident in the atmosphere, keeping it “too warm”, albeit stable, for several generations.
Fairyland it seems.
You know, when either the IPCC, the Biden administration, or the Net Zero Nuts rule the world.
They’re preparing for the next catastrophe, GLOBAL CLIMATE STAGNATION.
We are talking about the earth stopping the rotation on its axis. Otherwise, global temperatures will never stabilize and will continue to vary considerably each and every day and night.
It would also have to stop orbiting the sun…
Alex, I’ll take the Farmers Adapting over the Nut Zero whackos, for a million, thanks. Jeez, looks like potatoes are smarter than the whackos.
Who knew that farms need farmers?
Who knew that farms need farmers?
But we don’t need either of them. Why grow food in that dirty ground when you can just buy it at the grocery store?
Meanwhile:
“From a quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change on April 25.”
— https://www.nasa.gov/technology/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth-study-finds/
(note that this article was published in 2016)
By eyeball estimate of the image of global land masses, color coded for the measure change in leaf area (see image below extracted from the article), the article’s use of the term “significant greening” refers to an increase of 15% or more in leaf area per unit land area.
[N.B. – A Google search today on the terms “Earth greening” will yield as the top hits articles (including those from NASA) fronting that such greening is due to India and China planting very many trees and crops in their countries over this time period (hah!) . . . but fortunately, “the Internet never forgets” and one can readily see from the NASA-provided image that the significant greening, as originally reported, extends far beyond the borders of India and China.]
So, relative to the above WUWT article about “global warming driving up food inflation”, there is a good counter-argument that “global warming” together with rising atmospheric CO2 concentration will be driving down food inflation via increased food production at no cost.
Along the lines of what I was going to say. Crop yields have increased as the climate warms, due to three things – (1) increased CO2 fertilization, (2) the benefits of a “milder” climate (less killing frosts and/or longer crop growing seasons), and (3) use of chemical fertilizers derived from fossil fuels.
The only thing that will increase inflation as respects agriculture is IDIOTIC GOVERNMENT ‘CLIMATE POLICIES’ that would reduce item (3).
And that’s what this is, it’s the propaganda campaign to promote the idea in the minds of the gullible that a warming climate, not THE RESULTS OF THEIR STUPID POLICIES, will be the cause of food prices being “driven up.”
Are the researchers suggesting farmers are too dumb to pick up the phone?
Yes, and also too dumb to adjust to changes (like happen every year) without Big Brother telling them how.
Perhaps I didn’t read far enough, but I never found what is meant by “adjustments”, as in “impacts could be removed by adjustment“.
Where I live, growing tomatoes is difficult mostly because nighttime temperatures often are too cold (below 55°F) to set fruit. Various “adjustments” are possible. My solution is to grow onions and trade with my down-slope friends for their tomatoes.
Aramco World (mag) has an article about an adaptation strategy; “Can fig trees help us adapt to a changing climate?” Location is Tunisia. Nice article with good photos.
[Not that there is a real climate change, but episodic weather patterns can cause short term need of adjustment.]
But farmers will apparently be able to adapt to these upheavals, “once temperatures stabilise”;
**************
How exactly do these brilliant light bulbs plan on “stabilizing” all the natural drivers of climate over which we humans have no control? How do they plan on stopping/stabilizing the natural sources of CO2 and other GHG emissions entering the atmosphere?
The motto of Big Brother in Orwell’s Nineteen-Eighty Four says that ignorance is strength. If that is the case, there are a lot of very strong people in the world.
It’s all crap. If the climate continues to get milder and CO2 continues to rise, food production will continue to hit new records and prices will have to drop, not rise, in real terms (inflation-adjusted).
Longer growing seasons will never hurt yields even if no adjustments are made. How exactly will farmers be harmed if they don’t take advantage of planting earlier and they harvest at the ‘normal’ time even though killing frosts come later? The only effect is that they definitely won’t have frost damage, but the milder nights will probably improve yields just the same.
Clearly if there’s an opportunity to plant a variety that yields more but requires a longer growing season than previously had been viable, that’s the sort of adjustment that will be made, leading to ever bigger crops.
At the same time, places like Alberta and Saskatchewan in the Canadian prairie, Sweden, Finland, Russia will open up vast new areas and support more diverse crops. The tropics will not change in any significant way, so it will be a net increase in arable land with longer average growing seasons.
Everything points to bigger, better, cheaper.
Yup, just like their campaign to make people believe a warmer climate means worse weather, their campaign to make people believe a warmer climate means less crop yields and higher prices/more inflation is a campaign to convince people that black is white and up is down.
What gobsmacks me is why “organic” produce that has had no costly fertilizers or pesticides used in growing, is more expensive than regular produce that has benefited from and has incurred costs by the use of fertilizers and pesticides.
It’s because it is far less productive in terms of saleable product per acre. You’re still using manure, you’re still planting and harvesting, maybe irrigating. Your produce is smaller and you have more yield losses from ineffective pest control. Savings on fertilizer and pesticides can’t make up for all that.
I tried fertilizing my veggie garden one summer with a stew of wombat and wallaby poo.
Epic fail 🙁
Because people will pay more for “organic” produce.
The price premium more than offsets the reduced output.
There are also various impediments put in the way of gaining organic certification. Effectively, only land which hasn’t had pesticides or fertiliser used previously can viably be certified organic.
My sister in law remarked the same thing once when we were orchardists. I snapped at the SIL that having to hire labour to pull off pests by hand is very costly.
Think! — do you really believe pests and diseases bypass plants and trees just because someone nails up an “Organic!” sign?
Yes, farmers will adapt – if they have the money. They probably won’t have the money. First competition from countries not on the Net Zero band wagon will only increase. Second CO2 tax is being considered seriously in at least one EU country (Denmark).
CO2 tax and and the competition from sane countries might even devastate food production in the West.
Yes it’s the restrictions and massive price increases on fertilizer, pesticides, and diesel fuel that will harm the farmers and collapse western food supplies.
Climate change may help mitigate some of that, but not enough, not soon.
It’s almost as if they know that their policies are going to devastate things so they’re trying to establish a narrative that the coming problems are expected climate change impacts.
The Sun has entered into a Grand Solar Minimum. NOAA forecasts that the Sunspot Number which reflects solar output will start declining in about a year and keep declining until it reaches zero in 2040 when their forecast ends
https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/predicted-sunspot-number-and-radio-flux
The Solar magnetic field is weakening as the poles flip letting more cosmic rays strike the upper atmosphere creating more high clouds that reflect sunlight into space, further cooling the Earth.
‘Modern Grand Solar Minimum will lead to terrestrial cooling’https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/23328940.2020.1796243?needAccess=true
The UN/IPCC has never even shown that they can forecast the new short-term “climate” of 30 years, so no one should trust them until they can show a good forecasting record. Having the loudest voice doesn’t mean good forecasting abilities.
Incredible – the authors simply assert a minuscule average temperature increase will lower food production … when anybody who has ever farmed or even just operated a hobby garden knows that higher average temperature does just the opposite … lengthens the growing season and, along with higher humidity and precipitation that accompanies higher average temperatures, increases food productivity.
I can assert that astrology (or popular “climate science”) is an actual science … but saying that doesn’t make it so.
Climastrology
The whole idea is a goof. Agriculture around the world could approach US and European productivity levels if their governments were basically competent.
If plant calories are a big concern, maybe stop throwing so much away to make ethanol…
The one real risk is that some governments will prevent roads and rail from being constructed into melting permafrost areas, or otherwise prevent the new areas from entering production.
World_grain_production.gif (911×623) (wikimedia.org)
does anyone have the heart to tell them? i just can’t
Well, assuming the decrease in land for grain is an increase in land for biofuels then it explains why starvation is no worse than ever. Since it seems more grain is grown on less land.
Still doesn’t make biofuels a good idea or even moral. But I can’t blame farmers for harvesting the subsidies. But I do blame the politicians for subsidizing biofuel production.
The biggest effect on food prices, by far, is the huge tax European governments greedily levy on fuel. Germany, for example, steals the U.S. equivalent of nearly $3 per gallon on gasoline and more than $2 per gallon on diesel. The Netherlands is worse. Americans would riot if the government stole that much. And they convince their sheeple that confiscating that much is for their own good. The rational governments in Hungary and Poland take much less—the lowest in the EU—but it’s still ridiculous compared to the U.S. And our leftist overlords want to adopt the “enlightened” European model.
https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/eu/gas-taxes-in-europe-2023/
The effect of imaginary “climate change” is minuscule compared to kakistocratic government.
Inflation is caused by an over supply of money or an under supply of goods and services. There can be any number of causes for changes in money supply and goods and services supply. Currently in the US our market system is capable of providing the goods and services we demand barring interference from the government. So that leaves money supply. I am not aware of ships or trains or planes or trucks unloading piles of money on our shores or across our borders.
That pretty much leaves the government. The government has plenty of ways to increase or decrease the money supply. Now days they figure that is their responsibility, you can agree or disagree with them but the fact is they can and do fiddle with the money supply. Now I know there are a whole bunch of really smart people who are going to say it is tax rates or interest rates or bond rates or federal borrowing or printing or the Federal Reserve or whatever. Yes all of those things are used to adjust the money supply but they are not the causes. They are the vehicles used by the government to adjust the money supply as well as do many other things I don’t understand. Now there are some who will protest that I just don’t understand and I say to you yes there is plenty I don’t understand. One thing I do understand is that CO2 is damn sure not the control knob for inflation.
“Global Warming Policies will Drive Up Food Inflation”
Fixed!
Farmers adapt every year to changing conditions.
It’s not the moon, it’s the sun.
But, M’Lord…
SILENCE!