Juggling Dynamite

Time to sober up. Science alone cannot make up for dumb and wasteful allocation of our resources. Great discussion in this clip:

University of Manchester Professor Kevin Anderson discusses the path of higher temperatures over the next century and what impact agreements reached at the COP 21 Summit in Paris may have on climate change. Here is a direct video link.

And it’s not just planet warming at stake here, it’s also the air we breathe. See: Man makes brick from Beijing’s smog: “Our city is becoming overcrowded by cars and surrounded by chemical engineering. We create more dust by asking for more resources, and we will become dust when all our resources are depleted.”

The climate talks in Paris are negotiating the usual quagmire: how much will rich countries (that have disproportionately created current carbon levels) pay poorer countries so that they can retool to smarter technologies, cut emissions and adapt to some of the effects of climate change. Lest this be mistaken for charity, the money is a critical, self-interested investment richer countries must make if our world is to be sustained.  See:  The $100 billion question hanging over UN climate talks.

Six years ago, industrial nations committed $100 billion (chump change) by 2020. Last year an estimated $62 billion had been collected. A report from the London School of Economics in March said at least $400 billion is needed annually if global warming is to be halted. As with all renovation budgets, this forecast too is likely optimistic. But before naysayers say the cost is impossible, we should remind that to date the debt bubble and crash in 2008 have cost America alone an estimated $22 trillion and counting.  See:  The cost of the crisis. And that money was all mostly wasted bailing out bankers and temporarily re-inflating asset bubbles, rather than life-sustaining long-term investments in improving infrastructure, smarter systems and technologies. The point is that investment for our future can and must be afforded since the downside of inaction is the end of life as we know it.  It’s a matter of realizing our priorities.

The upside is endless.  Making cities green is not only healthier but will cut trillions in current expenditures. A recent report by the New Climate Economy, found that if cities around the world implemented certain carbon-reducing strategies — including making buildings more efficient and investing in public transportation — they could save a combined total of $17 trillion by 2050. See: Cities could save $17 trillion just by reducing their green house gas emissions.  And then there are the millions of productive jobs worldwide that will come from retooling the planet.

Meltdown the science behind climate change.   Here is a direct video link.

Chris Watling does a good job on the laundry list of factors weighing against global stock markets in this clip. While the ever optimistic Schaffrik sprinkles in the usual bullish bites fitting of his job as a cheerleader-in-chief at sell side RBC.

Chris Watling, chief executive officer and chief market strategist at Longview Economics, and Peter Schaffrik, head of European rates and economics research at RBC Capital Markets, discuss global equity markets, the influence of the U.S. economy, and the effect of deleveraging on global growth. Here is a direct video link.