"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive!"
The International Moneygrab Fund is just another empty globalist elite vassal, funded by globalist elites to serve globalist elites - if they issued a statement saying it was raining, I’d go outside and check - integrity and independent competence long left
Fossil fuels are the subsidy .. without them the governments that believe they are providing subsidies wouldn’t exist. Money is just a claim on the ultimate foundation resource .. fossil fuels. It takes some serious mental gymnastics to believe that FFs are subsidised ..
Excellent. Thank you. I didn’t realize the externalities were being counted as subsidies,and how agenda driven it is. Any assumption that boosts renewables is ok, no matter how silly.
Fantastic article. Curious to know the externality penalty for increased crop yield. Thanks for the high-quality work.
As usual yours is a cogent, useful analysis of the court jester than is eco-politics. When I was a boy, pipe smoking , itchy sweater academics spoke soberly of the coming ice age due to human activity. And of course nuclear power was the ultimate boogie man. Now we have shiny people like Gates and Kerry to point the way from their mansions made of guilt.
I guess Al Gore didn't study physics at Yale.
Per your post it appears the IMF's analysis estimates climate-related damages last year to be about 2% of world GDP. This is at odds with some 20 estimates summarized in the UN FCCC's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change WG2 AR5 (2013) showing that net global economic impact from a 3 degree C temperature rise by 2100 will be 3% or less of global GDP -- far less than even a tenth of a percent per year shaved off annual growth. The summary concludes that for most economic sectors the impact of climate change will be small relative to the impacts of other drivers (medium evidence, high agreement) such as demographics, technology, relative prices, lifestyle, regulation, governance, etc. AR6 (2021) indicated low confidence that global aggregate economic impacts could be higher than the AR5 estimates.
There are good reasons to tackle climate change. But as you say, rigorous and honest accounting for externalities is needed, not inflating numbers to generate outrage.
Sister Mary Cecil, O.P., 8th Grade, St. Thomas the Apostle Grade School, Crystal Lake, IL. 1968
Surely you're not saying the IMF practices "fuzzy math" now, are you?
Oh say it isn't so, the paragon of virtue and truth right behind the United Nations!
Thank you for shedding some light on the garbage that is picked up and reported as gospel, keep up the good work!
Thank you; an interesting and needed update on the fallacy of government interventions. But I do have one question: why do you feel it necessary to invent a word, "charlatician." Can't find that in any of my dictionaries. There are climate alarmists who shout that "climatastrophe" is upon us; I call them on that every time, adding that the word is nowhere to be found in any credible scientific document.
You write well; your data are timely, and your opinions are insightful and thought-provoking. You don't need to stoop to histrionics to make your points.
My two cents, adjusted for inflation but aided by government subsidy (social security).
Old but beautiful joke.
A mathematician, an economist and a statistician are asked “what is 2+2”?
Mathematician answers 4, economist answers it’s somewhere between 3 and 5. The statistician answers, what do you want it to be?
This report was commissioned in the best spirit of decision based evidence making, nonsense on top of garbage all purposed to support the narrative.
No there is no proof of AGW, if you have any please show your work.
Any rational sane analysis shows hydrocarbons to be a huge net benefit, the only way it’s not is if your view is that having happy healthy humans is a bad outcome.
The issue is that our future generations are so disconnected from nature, they don't understand that 1- carbon is food for plants 2 - the sun is the main driver of climate, and our most potent healer! Absorb UV, don't avoid it:
The IMFs « math gymnastics » are just sad , do I smell flop sweat?
Thanks for your pertinent rebuttal.
While I don’t agree with all of this, I’ve always been sceptical of the ‘fossil fuel subsidies’ mantra. In the West, these subsidies ballooned when commodity prices spiked in order to protect consumers and keep business and industries running. The idea of ‘ending’ them, as if they are some dirty underhand deal that must be weeded out, is pure fantasy.
On the flip side, the fact that these subsidies are required speaks volumes about the dangers of hitching economic productivity and human prosperity to such volatile energy sources. Externalities are real, and the economic externalities of FF volatility are perhaps the most underappreciated of all. We urgently need a better debate about all of this.