Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Another poor people will suffer because climate tear jerker which misses the obvious solution.
Developing countries face rising payments due to climate change, says report
July 2, 2018 by Laura Singleton, Imperial College London
Developing countries face debt payments of up to $168 billion over the next ten years as a result of their vulnerability to man-made climate change.
…
However, the researchers also found that investments in climate resilience can help improve fiscal health at the national level.
Dr. Charles Donovan, Director of the Centre for Climate Finance and Investment at Imperial College Business School, said: “Our work demonstrates that climate change is not only imposing economic and social costs on developing countries, but it is also amplifying existing risks that are already priced in fixed income markets. These impacts will grow.
“The good news is that investments in climate adaptation can not only reduce social, ecological and economic harm, but can buffer against fiscal impairments. But to be effective, these investments need to be made now.”
…
Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-07-countries-payments-due-climate.html
The full report is available here.
The report suggests countries with vulnerable infrastructure should improve their climate resilience, but in my opinion this would be a dreadful misallocation of resources. This would leave countries with already shaky finances struggling to pay off debts for events which might never happen.
A much better solution is to stop being poor. Most poor countries could dramatically improve their financial situation in just a few decades, by copying the 20th century Asian miracle. In the mid 20th century Asia proved to the world what keeps countries poor is their burden of political parasites – greedy kleptocrats stealing so much they suck their economies dry. Remove the worst kleptocrats, curb the greed of the political class just enough that ordinary people start to really believe in a better future, and even the poorest countries surge forward in acquiring wealth.
Rich people can afford all the seawalls and resilience infrastructure they need.
This is the message economists should be spreading – not the gospel of climate fear, keeping poor people in their place, forever indebted up to their eyeballs with no hope for a better future.
boo hoo…
cry me a river.
Their debt bills are like those cities in California looking to cash-in on the Climate Change hustle (now dismissed) by suing Big Oil…. a scam for their decades of the liberal, care-free “spend more money than you have” and hope someone else’s OPM bails you out.
Millennials have been looking to mommy and daddy to bail them out short-term on student loans and then Uncle Sugar to give them student loan forgiveness.
The blue Dumbocrat-run cities and blue states are looking for the climate change shake-down to bail them out of decades of underfunded public pension promises, via a carbon tax and law suits against Big Oil.
Regardless of the science and temperature adjustments to keep the scam alive, running on OPM is all that the Climate Change hustle is now. For all the interested parties, it’s about money.
Yup, and they are still pushing their victim status despite no proof of damages.
Don’t make fun of the Imperial College, a world-class university with a mission to benefit society through excellence in science, engineering, medicine and business.
I wondered how to characterize that outfit, but their own words are best.
The progressive’s goal is for them to be in power (BIG Brother Government) and keeping poor people in their place, forever indebted up to their eyeballs with no hope for a better future. And the (not)federal reserve system + IMF ( cheap money) is providing them with the tools to achieve that goal. If you want to heal the body eliminate those cancers first.
Take away the power of the state by eliminating direct-taxation which make you a slave of the system and gives those in power the right to know EVERYTHING about you.
Exactly, to that end Richard Branson has spouted his belief that the US, E.U, etc… give there citizens a free cash handout each month the solve income inequality and “improve the economy.” Seriously if this works why isn’t he handing out his $$ oh yeah socialism only works with other people’s money not your own….
for far too long it seems the “news” is a not funny at all “Far Side” comic parody.
Cheers,
Joe
joelo
Sadly you are right, even as far as the current UK Government.
Since the Top Gear Two – May and Hammond – effectively blew an election they ‘couldn’t lose’ [Hah], OPM is the only game in town.
“Conservatives”. Allegedly.
I am very tempted to blue my meagre savings to ensure this crock of crooks and closet watermelons don’t get their hands on it. But I may live long – and care homes nowadays do NOT appeal [generally – there is one good one locally, I think].
Auto
$168 billion interest on the debt! Well – that is an obvious demand for more taxes so that bureaucrats can pretend to study searching for ways to pay THAT bill!
The biggest tax is the federal reserve’s goal of an annual 2% inflation.
https://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/money_12848.htm
That means that your money every year loses 2% of its value. That’s the reason you can buy less with your dollar every year.
‘The U.S. Congress established three key objectives for monetary policy in the Federal Reserve Act: maximizing employment, STABILIZING prices, and moderating long-term interest rates.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_System
So the Federal Reserve is betraying Congress (We The People)
Cumulative rate of inflation since 1913
2441.3%
That’s why poor people stay poor.
https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/
20 dollars were a lot of money in 1792.
http://onlygold.com/m/Prices/Prices200Years.asp
And until 1932 you could buy the same stuff with it.
The money supply has to grow as the economy grows. If it did not, we would have deflation.
There is a theory that deflation is more destructive to the economy than inflation.
Personally I’m not convinced that the theory is correct, but a lot of influential economists are.
Because of this theory and the fact that measuring the size of the economy and the amount of money in circulation are not exact sciences, the Fed errs on the side of a little bit of inflation.
It’s not some grand conspiracy to rob the people.
Yes, a deliberate “error” on the side of devaluation, intended to deceive. Why not target an exactly balanced money supply if it’s so easy to target 2% inflation? What inflation does is make repayment of loans in nominal dollars advantageous to the borrower. Lenders therefore charge higher rates to insure against a devaluation loss. It’s a rigged system with an extra burden making it less efficient.
What’s wrong with falling prices especially for the poor?A healthy/free economy/society will make prices fall because we will find a way to produce more and faster and cheaper and better. Just look at your PC. Not even NASA had such a powerful machine when they went to the moon.
In a healthy economy the value of your money has to stay the same. In other words, I can buy the same stuff for an ounce of gold now as I could 100 years ago.
Hummm, how about not building in flood zones or on coastal areas subject to water intrusion. Then give the population inexpensive electricity to help them along and not burden them with unreliable and expensive alternatives to such. The misanthropic manner of the green philosophy is just astounding as has been show over and over again.
Flood plains are typically the best farmland.
When you are poor, you have to live within walking distance of your fields.
Give them cheap energy, then they can live away from the flooding farmland.
Everywhere is within walking distance….
So I have a question…
If green energy (in particular, solar and wind) is so much cheaper in the short AND long run as compared to coal/nuclear/natural gas, then why do we have to PAY people to build it? If they’re going to build power plants anyway, then why would they choose the more expensive option, rather than the cheaper option in the first place?
Is this really about low cost “green” power, or is this about money for spending on other things?
I think the latter…
Because of the VALUE of the power they produce… https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/04/23/if-solar-and-wind-are-so-cheap-why-are-they-making-electricity-more-expensive/#100cc76d1dc6
The reason we had the subprime mortgage crisis is that loans were made to people who had no ability to repay.
The reason we have stupid levels of third world debt is that loans were made to countries that had no ability to repay.
This isn’t rocket science. In both cases, the guilty should be in jail … but they aren’t.
In the case of the subprime mortgage crash, the guilty parties are the politicians who passed laws that required banks to lend to minorities, regardless of the minorities ability to pay back the loans.
I know of only one politician involved in the 2008 collapse who was charged in any way and he escaped going to jail. link
Even if you think a bunch of bankers should be in jail, they were enabled by the politicians who are ultimately responsible.
Barney Frank
It started with Carter’s community reinvestment act, and grew from there. Even the communist organizer Obama got it on the act.
Obama the Pitchfork Operator: A Remake of the Soviet Classic
https://pjmedia.com/blog/obama-the-pitchfork-operator-a-remake-of-the-soviet-classic/
I do not believe that bankers should be put in jail for the crime of obeying the law.
Ding, ding, ding…
We have another winner!!
I’m glad and impressed that intelligent people read this blog.
Ding, ding, ding…
We have a winner!!
The CRA (Community Reinvestment Act) from 1977 is at the core. The adjustments made in 1995 and 2005 to such, is the ultimate culprit.
And who provided all this cheap money the banks gave away ?????
Exactly. the (not)Federal Reserve and IMF.
Government should never be allowed to borrow money. Like every cancer they never have enough. All Federal reserve systems know this debility politicians have to spend so are willingly providing these addicted lawmakers with their drug. Now who is in control ?
Why the founding fathers only wanted congress to have the ability to create money ?
Think of the chillllllddrennnn! The poor chilllllddrennnn … swept away by EXTEREME weather and rising tides swamping their daddies boat. Ohhhhhh mammmmmma!! You EVIL rich (white) people who drive your Ford F150’s with impunity, are killing chillllldrennnn. You are SO evil, that you should be eliminated from the planet. You pickup drivers are RUINING poor nations and poor chilllllddrennn. Death to you, would beigin the healing. /sarc.
The divisive, nasty, make-believe narrative is rapidly escalating to the point of justifying the murder of every first worlder (white – first worlder) who consumes petrol. I believe this is how every fascist, Marxist, Socialist, and communist nation was started … demonizing, then murdering everyone who didn’t OBEY the Party. If this global warming rhetoric keeps escalating … there will be mountains of skulls in our future.
The moment the world no longer accepts the worthless US federal reserve note (dollar) Amerika will change in a third world country overnight.
… there will be mountains of skulls
…so I’m not amongst the EVIL, I drive an F-250. I earned the money to pay for the gas it guzzles (not to mention the money I spend pays someone else’s wages), I’m contributing to the greening of the world, and I sleep good at nights!
Had TPP passed, these countries would likely be extorting a check out of the US… legally. The TPP set up three member climate panels that rule on simply 2/3 vote (2 members from NON US countries, and one from the US) with the authority to fine the offending country (the US) to pay for any climate related expenses a country claims to have incurred. The climate panel was also given VETO power over ANY future changes to our climate related EPA laws.
Don’t forget the private lawsuits that would likely be filed in our courts.
What is TPP?
Trans-Pacific Partnership
Trans-Pacific Partnership
Now, that was a bullet dodged.
You “Nailed It!”, Eric!
“The report suggests countries with vulnerable infrastructure should improve their climate resilience…”
If their infrastructure is as bad as that of Puerto Rico’s, then I wholeheartedly agree.
PR: The best way to “improve climate resilience” would be to end corruption.
Change this to “weather” resilience and I am on board.
But why is Puerto Rico one of the poorest places on Earth when it has the potential to be paradise?
Peter Schiff on Puerto Rico bankruptcy
https://youtu.be/zgC-2QEFOgg
More baseless conjecture.
You just start with climate nonsense, and then you extrapolate:
“if frogs had wings… they wouldn’t have to bump around on their butts.”
If frogs had wings, we would call them climate “scientists”.
This has gone way past being ridiculous.
They better get to work then and pay back that money.
“Developing countries face debt payments of up to $168 billion over the next ten years as a result of their vulnerability to man-made climate change.”
How des a vulnerability translate into a debt?
“However, the researchers also found that investments in climate resilience can help improve fiscal health at the national level.”
This is because the solution to global warming is to tax the people, thus adding fiscal health at the national level. This is not the same as adding fiscal health to the populace.
“Our work demonstrates that climate change is not only imposing economic and social costs on developing countries, but it is also amplifying existing risks that are already priced in fixed income markets. These impacts will grow.”
No idea what this is even saying.
“The good news is that investments in climate adaptation can not only reduce social, ecological and economic harm, but can buffer against fiscal impairments. But to be effective, these investments need to be made now”
Just like South Australia, Canada and California. The more money the government throws at mitigating global warming, the more richer people get. Oh Wait… “Buffer against fiscal impairment” my ass.
Not “…people…” in general, though. Only the crony capitalists who contributed to the proper campaigns. Those who paid the bribes, in other words. The 3rd world doesn’t have a monopoly on kleptocrats, apparently. The rest of us just keep getting poorer, because more and more of our hard-earned income has to go to satisfy the Leviathan, and more and more of what we get to keep has to pay to keep the lights on.
Climate change has been going on for eons and will continue whether mankind is here or not. Bases on the paleoclimate record and the work done with models, the climate change we have been experiencing is caused by the sun and the oceans over which mankind has no control. Perhaps we should be thankful that the climate during this current interglacial period has not gotten as warm as it did during the previous interglacial period when more ice cap melting happened and sea levels were higher than today yet CO2 levels were lower. The responsible party is not mankind but rather Mother Nature.
What is the cost of massive Greenshirt rationing and production constraints on whole sale supply? Globally.
Carbon could cost half without Neanderthal green mediation and dogma. The growth multipliers lost the past 50 years are tragic for the poorest in particular.
Green Academia likes its planning cartel-
“If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face-forever. Orwell “1984”
Anti-carbon isn’t just naive ignorance, it’s rooted in evil.
Which is why I want to see Mr. Mann imprisoned for crimes against humanity
As far as I can determine what they have actually determined is that bad weather has costs but spending some money to reduce weather vulnerability can be cost effective.
The idea that bad weather is caused by climate change is not substantiated in any way, they just assert it for political reasons.
Standard green math involves spending $1000 to save pennies. Advice like that ,poor countries don’t need.
They also face massively increased crop yields due to AGW. (In fact they already are ~20% better then in the 1970s).
Eric you hit the nail on the head.
My climate resilience is up to scratch today. Yours as well I hope.
The minute the concept of foreign aid was conceived, was the minute these countries were consigned to eternal poverty.
The missed opportunity for these places was colonisation. A dirty word these days, but what are countries like without it?
Yep, there were often abuses of the system, slavery, corruption, plundering of resources etc. but it was the first time it had really been tried.
And there are numerous countries still benefiting from it. The UK still has it’s colonies, largely in name only, but Bermuda, for example, possibly one of the wealthiest pieces of real estate in the world, is still a British Colony. Hong Kong was one of the most influential financial centres in the world until it was handed back to China when the lease ran out.
The USA was colonised by numerous European countries before it demanded its independence. That went rather well methinks. Would it have been possible without colonisation though? With the greatest of respect to them, I somehow doubt the indigenous population would have progressed to where the US is now, had they been left to their own devices.
India retains much of the infrastructure the British introduced, it’s one of the largest English speaking communities in the world, despite it being second to their mother tongue. Much of the countries laws, values and bureaucracy still embody a great deal of the UK’s influence. Post colonisation was, however, a disaster with Pakistan and Bangladesh demanding independence and racial tolerance disintegrating. Only now, is the largest democracy in the world catching up with the west. I can’t help but wonder if peace and progress wouldn’t have been better had British colonisation continued a few decades longer instead of Ghandi stifling its progress.
And I almost forgot, the UK is still providing India with financial aid, despite them having their own space programme. And TATA industries, the Indian industrial business, owns 4 steel making sites in the UK (and have just announces a oint venture with Thyssenkrupp to develop a European steel giant) as well as JLR (Jaguar, Land Rover) when Ford sold them.
Then there’s the basket case Zimbabwe, formerly Rhodesia. And whilst only briefly a British colony, it flourished under the influence of white residents from agriculture and industry. Then Mugabi who identified himself as a Marxist–Leninist (surprise, surprise) confiscated their properties and kicked them out. Inflation rose from an annual rate of 32% in 1998, to an official estimated high of 11,200,000% in August 2008 when the central bank introduced a new 100 billion dollar note.
And the point of all this is that the common theme of success is the democratic exercising of capitalism. The USA, Hong Kong, Bermuda, India etc. have all flourished whilst Rhodesia/Zimbabwe’s declined into Marxism/socialism under Mugabi has created a giant slum with 80% unemployment.
Foreign aid largely helps countries bump along the bottom indefinitely, but just perpetuates the misery. Far better to withdraw aid, endure a migration crises, then re colonise the land left behind. If these countries don’t reform their corrupt governments, no one will colonise and they’ll be stuck with what they have until they come to their senses.
But our liberal brethren don’t get this. They would rather a countries population grub for food, for generations instead of affording them the dignity of work.
Here, here.
Although I’ll probably be called all sorts of names for it, I couldn’t agree with you more.
One of the strongest opinions on this matter I’ve heard came from a chap I knew in Trinidad whose view was that there were people in the world who ‘needed to be lead’. Most of his other opinions and descriptions are unrepeatable here, but it took some getting used to because he wasn’t a fat, old, privileged white guy as the habitually indignant brigade would have us believe are the only ones ‘being racist (which is to say ‘stating an inconvenient truth’ as applied to a special interest group).
While there it was refreshing to hear the government’s ideas on future policy, which rested firmly in the very capitalist idea of using oil and gas money to pay for diversifying the economy and teaching and encouraging the population to be more entrepreneurial. I’m not sure how well that’s turned out, but it’s surely a better aspiration than to demand more foreign aid to atone for alleged past grievances (like slavery, exploitation or emissions) or for that matter to use the oil and gas money to pay for a welfare state that rewards mediocrity and dependence.
Climate finance and investment? So no irons in the fire with respect to climate change impacts at all then? Who invents these groups? Madness.
Moving the banks out of London with Brexit will help this tripe.
“Our work demonstrates that climate change is not only imposing economic and social costs on developing countries…”
Actually it is climate change POLICY that is doing the damage.
Having worked in a commercial bank, they will invest in anything that makes money. Remove all subsidies from renewable energy or green initiatives then these banks will run away like rats leaving a sinking ship. Let market forces decide how viable renewables are.
There is evidence that the world bank and national banks are using the fear of “climate change” to make loans (in the case of poor nations, just to pay back the interest on old loans). They, also, keep the rich nations in debt and make money on both. I suggest reading “The Creature from Jekyll Island” by G. Edward Griffin.
The “Asian miracle” is not applicable to the majority of poor countries, especially in Africa and the Mid East. In Africa, tribal identities and ancient animosities decide who is in charge, often brutally. Look at what happened in Zimbabwe (the non-coup coup) and South Africa (after Mandela’s death). Religious zealotry, drugs and just plain desperation also drive the scene. When push comes to shove, the guys with the guns make the final decisions. While sanctions don’t work in this kind of environment, someone with a Big Stick can force a regime change. But that doesn’t always work – see Libya for another example of a preventable disaster.
The sooner developing countries wise up to the fact that “manmade climate change” is just a bogeyman, the better off they’ll be. They shouldn’t waste a dime on that crapola.
The real vulnerability is the rise in U.S. interest rates by the Federal Reserve and value of the dollar with negative impact on dollar denominated debt in those countries. It is low credit quality that forces them to borrow in dollar terms in the first place and sets them up for problems from swings in the dollar.
Bet dollars to doughnuts that these funds would (or mostly be used) for economic development.
Why?
2 reasons:
1) The fertility rate in developed economies is very low compared to un-developed countries.
2) The Rockefeller foundation is concerned with over-population and wants it lower.
For example (of many over the years), from their 1992 annual report, page 5:
“If we assume that the trend toward smaller desired family size associated with development will continue, then quality family planning and related health services made available on a voluntary basis to everyman and woman in the world could help the world’s fertility rate to decline to the replacement rate of about 2.1 in two to three decades.”
Page 5 (if the link still works, haven’t checked it).
http://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/uploads/files/1123ceb2-744c-4ce3-9e73-df03359865d7-1992.pdf
kramer
I didn’t read the report, so I could be wrong here, but the concept of introducing free family planning facilities results in a lot of drunk men wandering about with inflated prophylactics on their heads for a laugh.
Population expansion has, in my opinion, nothing to do with stopping babies being born, and everything to do with care for the elderly.
We know that large families are desirable in developing countries because there is little health or welfare provision. The solution is, have as big a family as you can to ensure their collective contributions will take care of the elderly.
So eradicate the elderly care problem, and we eradicate the symptom of too many kids.
HotScot,
Population control is in many of the Rockefeller reports. Haven’t read or seen anything in them yet where they talk about the elderly in the context of population control. Their focus seems to be on a sustainable (for lack of better word) fertility rate.
If I find anything in their reports that suggests keeping the elderly alive longer is related to the population problem, I will note these instances.
You are correct about large families in DCs. They are aware of this too. What better way to shrink family size than by bringing a modern economy to their worlds and getting their women working. Indeed, I’ve even read in their reports where they talk about getting women into the workforce to reduce the fertility rate.
Regarding who is going to pay for developing the economic infrastructure of these DCs? Rich countries. Wouldn’t put it past these people to fund ‘studies’ or NGOs to implement a global cap-and-trade scheme that results in our wealth being transferred to these countries to pay for these projects.
I would like to see these DCs get developed *assuming* that the majority of the people in a given DC wants a modern lifestyle. I also get the population problem as well as needing to share the world’s resources. Leveraging climate change as a way of doing this (IMO, this is one of the desired outcomes of climate change ‘solutions’ ) doesn’t sit well with me. I believe (again, my opinion) that this is a major reason why there is so much shoddy and adjusted science in climate change and which also probably had an influence in the climate gate emails.
As to why the Rockefeller family (and some other rich people/families also) is so concerned with global matters, I don’t know if it’s because they have so much wealth and hence time on their hands that they can spend this free time ‘solving’ the world’s problem. Maybe this is a good thing.
Or maybe they are so concerned with enjoying and protecting their wealth for themselves and their offspring that they use their wealth to push for policies that are changing the world in ways that makes it safer.
Eric Worrall :
You are SOUNDING a lot like Jordan Peterson !
“Tidy your room , Stand up straight with your shoulders back and address the World
confidently . Adopt a healthy attitude that allows you to deal with the World properly.
Sure ! Life IS suffering and everyone suffers. We all get old , sick and eventually die !
Too bad ! THAT is the price you pay for LIVING ! Realise you HAVE TO TAKE ON YOUR OWN
RESPONSIBILITIES and BEAR THEM ! If you do that successfully you will REDUCE your
suffering and improve yourself and the lives of everyone around you !
Overcome your OWN BLOODY PROBLEMS before you try to tell the rest of the
World how to run it’s economic and political system ! ”
DON’T YOU JUST LOVE IT !
“The report suggests countries with vulnerable infrastructure should improve their climate resilience, but in my opinion this would be a dreadful misallocation of resources.”
“Rich people can afford all the seawalls and resilience infrastructure they need.”
“A much better solution is to stop being poor. ” “Remove the worst kleptocrats”
THE ONLY PROBLEM WITH THAT IS THAT THEY DON’T KNOW HOW
OR THEY WON’T ADAPT THEIR CULTURE TO ACCOMMODATE THE SOLUTION:
The ONLY countries that have managed to do so have ADOPTED WESTERN VALUES
and DEMOCRACY and that is NOT going to work in a lot of places where the
values and culture FEEL unable to align with WESTERN CIVILISATION.
These people are WILLING TO ACCEPT FINANCIAL CHARITY from this
same culture they denigrate and claim to despise , while at the
same time develop a growing resentment and a profound lack of gratitude !
THESE PEOPLE SHOULD BE TOLD TO ” CLEAN UP YOUR ROOM” !!
Easy solution empty the Swiss bank accounts of their kleptocrat rulers.