Biden's 'Climate-Resilient Economy' Roadmap Is Largely Superfluous
Businesses, investors, and markets are already adapting to climate change without federal help.

The Biden administration believes that private companies and markets are not effectively pricing into their calculations the effects of man-made climate change on housing, stocks and bonds, physical assets, crop yields, and fire risks. Consequently, President Joe Biden has issued Executive Order 14030 on Climate-Related Financial Risk.
Pursuant to that executive order, Biden's National Economic Council published A Roadmap to Build a Climate-Resilient Economy. The Roadmap is necessary, asserts the council, because "Wall Street financial models and investment portfolios that manage the assets of millions of Americans continue to rely on the basic assumption that climate will be stable." The report outlines a "climate risk accountability framework" with the aim of "safeguarding the U.S. financial system against climate-related financial risk by holding financial institutions accountable for properly measuring, disclosing, managing, and mitigating climate-related financial risks." That emphasis is in the original.
But are Wall Street and other investors blithely assuming a stable climate? Actually, no. There is plenty of evidence that portfolio managers, bond markets, businesses, farmers, and shareholders are taking the effects of climate change into account when planning their investments. On the other hand, government interference in markets is slowing financial and infrastructure adaptation to the risks of climate change.
For example, a March 2021 report on climate change and asset prices by researchers at the private investment firm Dimensional Fund Advisors outlines how various market actors are responding to the risks posed by climate change. That report cites a 2020 study that found that counties and municipalities with greater exposure to sea level rise must pay higher yields on their long term bonds. A 2019 study reported that houses exposed to sea level rise "sell for approximately 7% less than observably equivalent unexposed properties equidistant from the beach." Another 2019 study parsing trends in the Chicago Mercantile Exchange weather futures contracts concluded, "the evidence shows that financial markets fully incorporate climate model projections." The authors of that study added, "at least so far, climate models have been very accurate in predicting the average warming trend that's been observed across the US. When money is on the line, it is hard to find parties willing to bet against the scientific consensus."
The Dimensional report also references a 2019 Swiss Finance Institute study that found that since the 2015 adoption of the Paris Climate Change Agreement, banks around the world have been increasing the rates they charge fossil fuel companies for their loans. Their concern is that the transition to no-carbon energy supplies risks making the reserves of coal, natural gas, and petroleum worthless. "Overall, a growing body of evidence shows that prices across many different markets (stocks, bonds, climate futures, equity options, and real estate) incorporate information about climate risk," conclude the Dimensional researchers.
The Biden Roadmap approves of moves at the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to develop a mandatory disclosure rule for publicly traded companies that would supposedly "bring greater clarity to investors about the material risks and opportunities that climate change poses to their investments." This SEC effort is mostly a following indicator since an increasing number of companies are already disclosing that sort of information. Earlier this year, Bloomberg Law reported that 342 of the companies in the S&P 500 mentioned greenhouse gases and climate change in their 2020 annual reports and 220 of them specifically addressed the risks that climate change poses to their businesses. Even the fossil fuel giant ExxonMobil began listing climate change as a risk factor to its businesses starting with its 2006 annual report. If investors and fund managers demand information, companies, however reluctantly, will supply it.
The Roadmap also observes that the risks stemming from hurricanes and wildfires are already disrupting the ability of local banks, insurance companies, and other institutions to serve particular communities. At the same time that private entities are adjusting their investment strategies to a changing climate, government programs are actually hindering the market signals that could spur people and businesses to adapt faster and more wisely to climate change. This is particularly true of government insurance programs like the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) and the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation.
The NFIP was conjured into existence by Congress in 1968 after private insurance companies had concluded that home and business owners simply would not pay the premiums needed to cover the losses of people who built on floodplains and along low lying coasts. The upshot is that the federal government has been subsidizing people to build, live, and work in areas subject to predictably dangerous and damaging flooding. Over the past 50 years, the NFIP has collected $60 billion in premiums, but has paid $96 billion in costs. In its new housing bill, the Democratic Congressional majority proposed in September to wipe away the $20.5 billion the NFIP borrowed from the U.S. Treasury to cover its losses.
The Biden Roadmap cites the recent implementation of the NFIP's Risk Rating 2.0 that aims to achieve rates that are more actuarially sound and equitable while better reflecting and pricing a property's flood risk. While raising flood insurance premiums is a step in the right direction, a study by the First Street Foundation earlier this year calculated that even after adopting Risk Rating 2.0, the NFIP would have to increase its rates by 4.5 times to cover the estimated flooding risk of the properties it insures in 2021. In other words, the federal government is still subsidizing people to build, live, and work in areas where the warming climate increases the risks of inland flooding, sea level rise and hurricane damage.
The Biden Roadmap also observes that climate change is increasing the risks to houses and people from ever more extensive wildfires. For example, an August 2020 study in Environmental Research Letters found that since 1979, a combination of rising temperatures and falling average precipitation has increased the likelihood of extreme autumn wildfire conditions across California. A recent study by the Milliman consultancy calculated that insurance companies lost a total of $20 billion in covering the losses from the devastating wildfires in 2017 and 2018 in California, twice the industry's profits since 1991.
As wildfire risks have increased in California, private insurance companies have been seeking to raise their rates or drop coverage for especially risky properties. However, state regulators have banned them from doing so. The state has also stepped in with its Fair Access to Insurance Requirements Plan to provide bare bones fire insurance coverage when private insurers pull out. This is another example of how governments are encouraging people to ignore the rising risks associated with climate change.
The Roadmap suggests that increasingly severe heatwaves and droughts are already harming agricultural production. Heatwave intensity and duration in the contiguous United States has indeed been increasing over the past 50 years, but is still well below the hellish levels experienced in the 1930s. With respect to droughts in the lower 48 states, the last 50 years have been a bit wetter than the 120-year average.
On the other hand, in September a team of researchers at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration issued a report analyzing the weather and climate factors behind the exceptionally intense drought now afflicting much of the Western United States. The report looks at regional trends in vapor pressure deficit (VPD), that is, a combination of temperature and humidity that specifies how much and fast moisture will evaporate into atmosphere from the land surface. As temperature increases, atmospheric demand of water increases exponentially. As such, higher VPD means the atmosphere can extract more water from the surface, drying it out.
The NOAA researchers find that normal weather fluctuations can only account for 50 percent of the record high VPD currently experienced in the Southwestern U.S. "This implies that human-caused warming played a significant role in the anomalously high VPD over the last 20 months," concludes the report.
The Roadmap notes that the federal government will likely have to pay out billions more in crop insurance subsidies to American farmers each year by late-century due to the effects of climate change. Crop insurance protects farmers against losses from bad harvests and/or unexpectedly lower commodity prices. The crop insurance program is basically a subsidy in which farmers pay only about 40 percent of the premiums; it loses money every year.
Climate change has already increased federal crop insurance losses by $27 billion over the past 27 years according to a July 2021 study in Environmental Research Letters. On the brighter side, a 2019 study in Climatic Change projects that technological changes in U.S. agricultural production even in a worst case scenario will likely overcome the negative impacts of climate change on the yields of maize, soybeans, and winter wheat in America's heartland.
The Roadmap does offer some useful directions to federal agencies with respect climate-proofing federal infrastructure and procuring climate-friendly products and technologies, but it is largely superfluous with respect to investors and businesses as they are already adapting to climate change well ahead of this exercise in federal guidance.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
>>are already adapting to climate change
lol playing make-believe because of demanding teenagers in commercials
How dare you?
These are 2 pay checks $78367 and $87367. that i received in last 2 months. I am very happy that i can make thousands in my part time and now i am enjoying my life. Everybody can do this and earn lots of dollars from home in very short time period. Your Success is one step away Click Below Webpage…..
Just visit this website …… READ MORE
Hi! Do you love planting? Check out our guide on Best Time of the Day to Plant Flowers
SPECIAL REPORT: At Last...A Diet That Works. Here's How A Local 04 Mom Stumbled On To Secret Diet Used By Rachael Ray To Lose Up To 27 lbs. In 1 Month! Dr. Oz Is Calling It "#1 Miracle Fat Burner In A Bottle.... http://www.Fitapp1.com
Hi! Do you love planting? Check out our guide on Best Time Plant Flowers
Hi! Check out some of Best Microwave Carts with Storage 2021
These are 2 pay checks $78367 and $87367. that i received in last 2 months. I am very happy that i can make thousands in my part time and now i am enjoying my life. Everybody can do this and earn lots of dollars from home in very short time period.RGc Your Success is one step away Click Below Webpage…..
Just visit this website now.......... Pays 24
Telling people that the government is going to save them is pretty much the worst thing you can do to make an economy or civilization resilient.
1000 Times, Yes. There is something magical that happens with my kids once it finally dawns on them that I am not going to bail them out of some problem. Suddenly what was once a person lacking even basic problem solving skills turns into the second coming of Leonardo DaVinci.
It's more like the second coming of Barack Obama's Behavioral Science Insights Executive Order 13707, which Dem technocrats drafted to :" support a wide range of national priorities including ... accelerating the transition to a low carbon economy." by deliberately changing the behavior of the electorate.
His Science Advisor told the West Wing :
" Executive Order, 13707, directs Federal agencies to apply behavioral science insights to their policies and programs, and it institutionalizes the Social and Behavioral Science Team...The adminstration is releasing new guidance to agencies that supports continued implementation of
The Behavioral Science Insights Executive Order."
Biden's Executive Order 14030 on Climate-Related Financial Risk calls for an
" accountability framework" with the aim of "safeguarding the U.S. financial system against climate-related financial risk"
But it leaves the solution in the realm of carbon taxation and behavior modification— nary a word on mitigating climate risks by taking action to mitigate climate on any scale, local , state or national.
Here's more from the original:
https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2017/07/independence-day.html
Manipulation and propaganda has been the playbook of progressives for more than a century.
Are you want to lose your weight 6 KG in a month....... http://www.Fitapp1.com
The only thing government dictated solutions will do is freeze innovation to the current ideas on how to save the environment. It will create constituents that will have a vested interest in keeping those solutions in place forever.
The current solutions are guaranteed to be wrong. Innovation requires freedom. Having the government try and save the environment is literally the one thing most likely to lead to its destruction.
We've already seen what government directed climate change action looks like:
1. Ban efficient gas appliances people like, and force them to use electric.
2. Push utilities to less efficient and less available wind and solar power.
3. Push drivers to electric cars.
4. Nag people to use less electricity from 4 to 9 PM.
5. Push utilities to install remote power meters and remote thermostats so they can cut off power or change your thermostat setting to something less comfortable.
6. Let people freeze to death in Texas, or get stranded at home in California when the grid goes down, without even a stove to cook on.
2. Push utilities to less efficient and less available wind and solar power.
And then lift pollution restrictions on fossil fuel plants because you can't keep the lights on.
Thanks, Gavin. Way to help out.
It will create constituents that will have a vested interest in keeping those solutions in place forever. . . . Having the government try and save the environment is literally the one thing most likely to lead to its destruction.
^
I've told this story here before, but it was too prophetic to not keep repeating:
When I was in my late teens in the late '80s I was a member of CalPIRG and Greenpeace and was doing door-to-door work 'raising awareness' about environmental issues, of which global warming (as we called it then) was but one.
We had an older guy in the group who claimed to have been one of the founding members of Greenpeace, was there on the first Earth Day, etc. Smelled of patchouli from about 100 yards.
He was adamant at the time that the environmental movement was about to die, because the government was about to get involved. Being young and naïve, I thought that was the whole point, but here's pretty much exactly what he said:
The people in government don't have any incentive to solve problems. The people in government have every incentive to identify some problem that they can perpetuate while convincing people that they are trying to solve it. "Environmentalism," therefore, in the hands of government, would be made to be about exactly one, global, issue. All discussion of any other issue would be guided back to the One Global Issue, with the understanding that only government could/should address it, but the "solution" will be a never-ending process that never actually abates the crisis even a little bit.
And I couldn't help but notice that the fiercely non-partisan Independent just a few weeks back ran a passionate screed about how the notion of a "carbon footprint" that is primarily the responsibility of free individuals and their choices is Oil Company Propaganda, and Climate Change can really only be addressed via mysterious processes designed by experts in government who need your tax money.
These observations were more helpful before Biden was elected in November, but just knowing about them isn't enough. We need to act on them.
"Biden believes the Green New Deal is a crucial framework for meeting the climate challenges we face. It powerfully captures two basic truths, which are at the core of his plan: (1) the United States urgently needs to embrace greater ambition on an epic scale to meet the scope of this challenge, and (2) our environment and our economy are completely and totally connected."
----Biden Campaign Website
https://joebiden.com/climate-plan/
This was not only foreseeable but also foreseen, and nothing is unavoidable if we can choose to avoid it. The time to avoid this was before the presidential election in November of 2020 and before the Georgia runoffs in January of 2021. Now, it's probably too late. Our best hope is that we learn from our mistakes in the past and make sure to deprive the Democrats of control of Congress in 2022. We have learned from our our mistakes, right?
Right?!
Will it matter when the elections are fortified again?
Ken doesn’t think they can fortify the midterms because so many of the races are local, and therefore can’t be controlled by urban, Democrat strongholds.
We’ll see.
Just for the record, I agree with Ken - I think the Dems are going to get positively creamed in 2022 and 2024, and if they don't I'll start taking the election-meddling talk more seriously.
Most Popular President in the History of the Nation.
He's magnetic, really.
You misspelled senile.
I think it has more to do with the pins in his joints.
His razor sharp intellect and quick wit took him to the top. He is the only man that can possibly save us from all our problems. If only the media was on his side, things would be better.
I've had a Harvard PhD tell me, unironically, that Trump was propped up by the media. Fox News and all that...
Yeah, and a lot of conservatives convinced themselves that Obama was going to get creamed when he ran for re-election in 2012.
Candidates should be running like they are 5 points behind, not
depending on "historical trends" or "angry school board moms" to help them cruise to victory.
I think Biden and the progressives have given the voters plenty of good reasons to vote against them, and when the campaigns start up in 2022, local candidates will exploit all of this disapproval we're seeing of Biden--among Independents.
Biden's national approval rate hovering just over 40% and disapproval consistently around 50% is pretty harsh considering that Biden's signature legislation hasn't even been passed yet, and those polls aren't specific to purple and red districts. It doesn't matter if Biden is polling really well in deep blue districts in California, New York, and Massachusetts. The real question is how Biden is doing in swing states with swing districts like Iowa.
Here's the view from Iowa:
Thirty-one percent of Iowans approve of how Biden is handling his job, while 62% disapprove and 7% are not sure, according to the latest Des Moines Register/Mediacom Iowa Poll . . . .
The partisan breakdown of the poll shows Biden has nearly no support from Republicans. Just 4% of Republicans say they approve of his job performance as president, while 95% disapprove. Among Democrats, that number is largely reversed, with 86% approving and 7% disapproving. A majority of political independents disapprove, at 62%, while 29% approve.
https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/iowa-poll/2021/09/21/president-joe-biden-job-approval-rating-plunges-after-afghanistan-covid-surge/8378224002/
When 62% of independents in a state like that disapprove of the job you're doing, you're in deep shit. And the $3.5 trillion budget reconciliation bill, with all its welfare spending and Green New Deal provisions, hasn't even passed yet. Through the holidays, this is when Congress is supposed to be in fundraising mode. The campaigning for 2022 doesn't really begin until after the holidays in January. They'll come out swinging.
It's not that.
Here are three things to consider:
1) The Republicans gained seats in 2020 despite whatever shenanigans.
2) Shenanigans are nothing new, and history (over the last 100 years) tells us to expect the Democrats to lose at least 25 seats in the House come November of 2022--despite all those historical elections also being full of whatever shenanigans.
3) Moderate Democrats are behaving as if they were scared to death to lose their seats for towing the progressive line. Meanwhile, Nancy Pelosi, even, is behaving as if she fully expects the Democrats to lose control of the House in 2022, which is presumably why she's promised not to seek the Speaker's chair again after the 2022 election. What do you know about shenanigans that moderate Democrats and Pelosi don't know?
In conclusion, my expectations have nothing to do with assuming there won't be shenanigans (or "believing in the system" as Nardz sometimes says). Expect shenanigans or not, I don't think there are enough shenanigans in the world to stop what's coming for Biden's party in the House, and if they pass the $3.5 trillion budget reconciliation bill, in whatever form, it's going to be a lot worse than just losing 25 seats. And that's in spite of whatever level of shenanigans there are--and have been historically across all elections since the country was founded.
Ballot box stuffing is a great American tradition, and the historical trends we see have always happened in spite of it.
Expect shenanigans or not, I don’t think there are enough shenanigans in the world to stop what’s coming for Biden’s party in the House
^
See my comment below to show how widespread the shenanigans would need to be in order to save the Democrats from what's coming in 2022. We're talking about lifting Biden from the bottom of that chart to near the top of the chart with shenanigans alone. This is why the moderate Democrats are refusing to do what the progressives want. They know what's coming for them, and they know they're the ones who are going to be sacrificed on the altar of progressivism. The progressives in deep blue districts won't be the ones to lose their seats. It'll be the moderates. They're being dragged to the altar of sacrifice kicking and screaming.
I did the following analysis before Trump's midterms in 2018.
These are all the first term midterms going back to 1910.
First column is House seats won/lost. The last column is what I see as the dominant issue(s) of that midterm.
+9 1934 Franklin D. Roosevelt Great Depression Response
+8 2002 George W. Bush 9/11
-4 1962 John F. Kennedy Cuban Missile Crisis
-8 1990 George H. W. Bush USSR Falls, Operation Desert Shield
-9 1926 Calvin Coolidge 1st Midterm in 2nd Term (Harding Died)
-12 1970 Richard Nixon Vietnam, Kent State
-15 1978 Jimmy Carter Energy Crisis, Inflation
-18 1954 Dwight D Eisenhower McCarthyism
-22 1918 Woodrow Wilson Broken Promise not to Enter WWI
-26 1982 Ronald Reagan Recession
-42 2018 Donald Trump, Donald Trump
-47 1966 Lyndon B. Johnson Great Society, Civil Rights Act
-48 1974 Gerald Ford Nixon Pardoned
-52 1930 Herbert Hoover Smoot-Hawley Tariff, Great Depression
-54 1946 Harry S Truman Labor Unrest, Price Controls
-54 1994 Bill Clinton Gun Control, HillaryCare
-57 1910 William Taft Republican/Progressives Split
-63 2010 Barack Obama TARP, ObamaCare
-77 1922 Warren Harding Republican/Progressive Split
The median is -26 House seats lost by the president's party in his first midterm. That's the historical trend. The new president does what he wants early, and then the American people react to it in his first midterm. The more radical the agenda, the bigger the president's losses. TARP and ObamaCare, for instance, provoked the Tea Party into existence, and Obama's part lost 63 seats in 2010.
Some things defy the trend. For instance, the American people unified behind George W. Bush in 2002 in the wake of 9/11 and before we invaded Iraq in 2003. Unless you expect the American people to unify behind Biden between now and November of 2022, he'll probably be judged on his record in his first midterm. There are other anomalies. When the Progressive Party and the Republican Party split, it absolutely destroyed the Republicans in those midterms. That probably won't happen between now and November of 2022 either.
So, expect Biden's Democratic party to follow the historical trends. The more radical the agenda, the worse his party will do. And right now? Biden's agenda is far more radical and unpopular than Bill Clinton's gun control and HillaryCare, and it's far larger, more radical, and will be more unpopular than Barack Obama's TARP and ObamaCare. If I were to bet on this kind of thing, that would mean that Biden's Democrats are likely to lose more seats than the 63 Barack Obama's Democrats lost in 2010, extremely likely to lose more seats than the 54 Bill Clinton's Democrats did in 1994.
That assumes that Biden's $3.5 trillion budget reconciliation bill passes, but even if it doesn't, Biden is almost certain to lose more than the 9 seats the Republicans need to take control of the House--even if the $3.5 trillion budget reconciliation bill fails entirely. Historically, the American people would need to be more unified behind Joe Biden than we were behind Kennedy after the Cuban Missile Crisis. Maybe we'll go to war with China and win between now and November of 2022, but if that doesn't happen, expect the Republicans to take the House in November of 2022--despite any shenanigans.
Love the remark for 2018. The judges also accept Mean Tweets
Have you talked to anybody under 40 recently? They are almost all progressives and/or socialists, thanks to K-12 and universities.
And it's not just that they are greedy and ignorant, the problem is that many of their grievances are justified: they are being screwed over, they simply don't understand who and how.
how various market actors are responding to the risks posed by climate change.
They aren't pricing in any significant long-term risk. All assets are now being priced as if money is near-free forever. Whatever the 'risk of climate change', it is more than 'have we seen that risk in the last 3 years'. Or maybe it is the usual - 'whatever the risk is, we will make sure that government bails us out if/when the risk goes south'.
Well, they have been given reason to believe that they will be bailed out, so of course they behave as if they will be bailed out.
And they will be bailed out.
Coastal property values are way up in the past 10 years.
Former President Obama ignored this when he purchased his Martha’s Vineyard near sea level mansion.
Chocolate Jesus can walk on water.
But can his house float?
"They aren’t pricing in any significant long-term risk..."
And you have no idea what that could possibly be, so please STFU.
"For example, an August 2020 study in Environmental Research Letters found that since 1979, a combination of rising temperatures and falling average precipitation has increased the likelihood of extreme autumn wildfire conditions across California."
It goes on to firmly declare that government dictates that power companies not maintain power line right of way, but divert those funds to "green" efforts were not a factor at all. Further more, the benevolent government insistence that undergrowth (aka tinder) not be removed, and that controlled burns to limit damage were also not a factor in any way. They are next expected to declare all fires are a direct and exclusive result of God, and all churches must forfeit all assets to cover damages.
Fucking idiots.
And what happened in the previous 500 years? I'm pretty sure there have been various periods both wetter and drier.
The whole exercise of trying to blame specific events on human caused climate change is a complete joke (even if it didn't, as you point out, ignore a bunch of other human caused factors that contribute to worse fires).
And what happened in the previous 500 years?
It was consistently dry.
Don't forget green groups suing to block thinning projects using government funds. Saw that several times living downwind froma national forest...
My god, is Mr Bailey still trotting out that damn study? It is HORRIBLE. Look at the study, specifically page 4:
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ab83a7/pdf
Do you see the "Precipitation" graph, B? Notice that in fact the trend of precipitation since about 1985 is UP. The only reason the overall trend since 1979 is DOWN is that 1980 - 1984ish was abnormally wet. Also note that the study seems to end in the 2017-18 season which was the end of the bad drought. The two years following have been significantly wetter.
It is interesting that it is almost impossible to find historical weather data, but something tells me that if we were to extend the window on these records another 10 - 20 years in the past, we would find the trend is almost gone.
1980 – 1984ish was abnormally wet
Hell yeah it was.
And temperatures haven't actually been rising. Bailey's written on this topic more than once. GMT is going up due to higher winter lows, not higher summer highs.
The fact that the people who keep screaming about "The Science!" don't know this/don't want you to know this pretty much tells you everything you need to know.
And CA may be seeing "falling average precipitation" if you measure over, say, 50 years. But I would bet cash money if you pushed that back another 100 years you'd find we're not experiencing anything unusual. The first thing the first visitors to CA noted about it was the lack of rainfall. This is not news.
"It Never Rains in Southern... Californiaaaaa..."
Don't forget the fact that there is a disparate warming trend between collection centers in urban areas vs remote or rural areas by a significant amount. Many of the classic official gages are surrounded by urban encroachment. The one at UAz is just north of the basketball arena near a parking lot for campus services that have cars running near 24/7. Others near airports.
Much of the low temps rising is from urban heating affects that are not correctly accounted for.
Fixed
C'mon man. Every band (of thieves) has a front man.
Adapting to climate change:
If the temperature increases by 2 or 3 degrees in the next 100 years: turn up the AC a little.
If the sea level rises by 1 or 2 feet in the next 100 years: build the sea wall a few feet higher.
In fairness, that also will precipitate changes in wind pressure and pattern, which throws curveballs of its own. Also a few degrees of annual temperature change will change vegetative selection, which then also has local climate impacts. Mostly of concern for the unpredictability and the intensification of weather.
None of which is going to be influenced by any of the crooks pushing the manmade narrative.
^
I personally don't even count the "extreme weather" thing as all that likely of a thing to become a problem. It seems to me like the biggest threat we face is actual climates changing - i.e. some pattern in the atmosphere tilts ever so slightly and now it rains in LA the way it does in Seattle. LA couldn't really exist in the same way - it would have to adapt.
And adapt it would - one of the benefits of the fact that we'll now fund any study with the phrase "Climate Change" in its title is that we now know that there was human civilization in the perfectly-habitable Sahara 10,000 years ago that came to an end when the region turned into a scorched sandpit, because that's just what happens sometimes. People don't stay and get scorched - they move and build new homes elsewhere.
and now it rains in LA the way it does in Seattle.
despite what some idiots believe, worse weather won't fix your homeless problem.
Can I at least hope that it will wash the feces from the street?
No, just makes it soft and spreads it around evenly on the sidewalk.
Have heard of green washing but brown washing?
Are you want to lose your weight 6 KG in a month.......? http://www.Fitapp1.com
Like peanut butter.
Extreme weather events are actually tied to non inflation adjusted cost of repair in dollars. It is designed to become more extreme yearly just from inflation.
What if the sea level lowers by many, many more feet?
Local story.
Whether it's natural or man-made (my bet is natural), any changes are happening so slowly and gradually people can and will simply adapt. There is no crisis. There is no tidal wave or tsunami coming for us. We have no need to run for the hills or deep underground to hide from the burning sun. To paraphrase the great Sam Kinison who once advised the starving people living in Africa: ""Move! YOU LIVE IN A DESERT!!! It's SAND!!! MOVE to where the FOOD IS!!! " And we will if necessary. If the State Apparatus lets us.
Or just remind people that our caveman ancestors adapted to far more significant climate change, and they had none of our advanced technology.
The ability to prosper in every kind of climate is what sets man apart from almost every other kind of animal.
The carbon footprint of Joe Biden and his administration is considerable.
If only we had a word for when big government tells businesses how to operate and sets priorities and financial values.
We used to have some older terms for that, but I believe “Democrats” covers it now.
You know who else was an environmentalist who loved to tell businesses how to operate and to set priorities and financial values?
This whole thing is so stupid, the fact that we're debating it tells you that it's over for the West.
Prove to me that weather event that did some damage to something was related to an uptick of CO2 in the atmosphere that wouldn't have been there except for human behavior. Prove it. Beyond a reasonable doubt. Prove it to 400 decimal places. Prove it.
C2O
Yes, the excess C2O causes changes in the HO2. It is known.
It causes C2H03, which is really nasty stuff.
Bear spray?
"Prove it."
^ Thank you^
"safeguarding the U.S. financial system against climate-related financial risk by holding financial institutions accountable for properly measuring, disclosing, managing, and mitigating climate-related financial risks."
Uh, I’ll take my chances with Holy Mother Earth’s wrath, rather than allowing anymore governmental involvement in the country’s finances, thank you.
Indeed.
Hopefully more folks warm up to this idea so we can leave big government out in the cold.
That's the point. They know that the "wrath" won't amount to much, they just want to a) get more power and b) take credit when the wrath doesn't materialize.
It's like masking mandates. They want to say "See, government intervention worked!" even though there's basically no difference in places that had them or didn't
If earth ever needs saved by man it'll be something like the movie Armageddon and a killer star.
And when that day comes; today's "saving the planet" initiatives will be the VERY setback stopping mans ability to actually 'save' the planet.
Of course that narrative has played out thousands of time; From healthcare, housing, and education. The more "saving" that happens the more crippled they get.
Because propaganda has indoctrinated too many people into believing the stupidity of thinking that Gov-Guns can create Wealth instead of used to just Conquer and Consume what has already been created.
In nature, nothing is perfect and everything is perfect. ..
Thanks for a great piece of content. Love it
Biden's 'Climate-Resilient Economy' Roadmap Is Largely Kickback To Large Democratic Political Contributors
Isn't that descriptive of the entire Biden agenda? What policy has he proposed that won't benefit some cronies or donors?
"...Even the fossil fuel giant ExxonMobil began listing climate change as a risk factor to its businesses starting with its 2006 annual report..."
Pretty sure this is more a move to avoid lawsuits than any real concern on their part. Climate change has shown itself to be perfectly within the changes mankind has dealt with in the past, when we were far less equipped to do so.
Despite claiming public support for action on climate change, proponents are extremely wary of actually confronting consumers, such as by instituting a carbon tax.
This EO is another 'backdoor' attempt to throttle fossil fuels and other sources of GW.
"Wall Street financial models and investment portfolios that manage the assets of millions of Americans continue to rely on the basic assumption that climate will be stable."
They aren't assuming the climate is stable, they're assuming it's relatively stable for "two weeks".
Are you want to lose your weight 6 KG in a month.......? http://www.Fitapp1.com
There is already a publicly developed standard to use for climate change resilience: ISO 14090:2019. Use that.
Nice Blog, keep it up for more information like this.
Nice Blog, keep it up for more information like this.
In nature, nothing is perfect and everything is perfect. ..
“Nice info!”