Klimapolitik mit erhebl­ichen Risiken für das Finanz­system

Schon im August 2020 hatte ich ein Interview mit dem Umweltaktivisten Michael Shellenberger vorgestellt, der die erwarteten Folgen des Klimawandels für übertrieben hält:

Kein Grund zur Panik beim Klima­wandel

Heute die Highlights aus einem Beitrag von ihm, in dem er aufzeigt, dass die Risiken aus dem Kampf gegen den Klimawandel deutlich höher sind als aus dem Klimawandel selbst. Wir sehen das übrigens schon in den Folgen der Kreditsteuerung über ESG, die eine wesentliche Ursache für die gestiegenen Ölpreise ist:

  • “Over the last two years, some of the world’s most powerful and influential bankers and investors have argued that climate change poses a grave threat to financial markets and that nations must switch urgently from using fossil fuels to using renewables. (…) Last year, 36 pension fund managers representing $1 trillion in assets said climate change poses a systemic threat to financial markets and the real economy.’” – bto: und darüber haben wir auch gute Informationen bekommen. Letztlich ist es auch ein großes Geschäft.
  • “But a major new staff report from the New York Federal Reserve Bank throws cold water on the over-heated rhetoric coming from activist investors, bankers, and politicians. ‘How Bad Are Weather Disasters for Banks?’ asks the title of the report by three economists. ‘Not very,’ they answer in the first sentence of the abstract.” – bto: Da fragt man sich, wie kann es sein? Müssen doch Hurrikane etc. die Kunden der Banken ruinieren und damit diese auch selbst.
  • “(…) the Fed economists looked separately at the most extreme 10 percent of all disasters and found that banks impacted not only didn’t suffer, ‘their income increases significantly with exposure,’ and that the improved financial performance of banks hit by disasters wasn’t explained by increased federal disaster (FEMA) aid. In other words, disasters are actually good for banks, since they increase demand for loans. The larger a bank’s exposure to natural disasters, the larger its profits.” – bto: Das kann man sich nicht vorstellen …
  • “While scientists expect hurricanes to become five percent more extreme they also expect them to become 25 percent less frequent, and now, new data show global carbon emissions actually declined over the last decade. And there is no longer any serious risk global temperatures will rise very high, such as to 6°C, and are more likely to peak between 2.5°C and 3°C.” – bto: Aber wir lernen doch jeden Tag, dass 1,5 Grad mehr den Untergang bedeuten.
  • “The real risk to banks and the global economy comes from climate policy, not climate change, particularly efforts to make energy more expensive and less reliable through the greater use of renewables, new taxes, and new regulations.” – bto: Und genau hier spielt Deutschland Vorreiter. Nicht gerade eine kluge Strategie.
  • “‘For policymakers,’ warned the three economists writing for the New York Fed, ‘our findings suggest that potential transition risks from climate change warrant more attention than physical disaster risks.’” – bto: Genau diese Risiken werden systematisch ausgeblendet.
  • “Proof of the threat to the economy from climate policy is the worst global energy crisis in 50 years. Shareholder activists played a significant role in creating it, according to analysts at Goldman Sachs, Bloomberg, and The Financial Times, by reducing investment in oil and gas production, and causing nations to over-invest in unreliable solar and wind energies, which has driven up energy prices, and contributed significantly to inflation.” – bto: Damit wird der Übergang natürlich nicht nur viel teuerer, sondern auch riskanter.
  • ” (…) a crucial Biden Administration nominee for bank regulation has openly said she would like to bankrupt firms that produce oil and gas, the two fuels whose scarcity is causing the global energy crisis. Progressive academic, Saule Omarova, nominated by Biden, said recently that ‘we want [oil and gas firms] to go bankrupt’ and that ‘the way we basically get rid of these carbon financiers is we starve them of their source of capital.’” – bto: “Irre “ist eine zu höfliche Umschreibung.
  • “(…) former Bank of England chief, Mark Carney, co-chair of the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero, has organized $130 trillion in investment and said recently that his investors should expect to make higher, not lower, returns than the market. How? In the exact same way Omarova predicted: by bankrupting some companies, and financing other ones, through government regulations and subsidies. (…) What’s going on, exactly? How is it that some of the world’s most powerful bankers, and the politicians they finance, came to support policies that threaten the stability of electrical grids, energy supplies, and thus the global economy itself?” – bto: Es dürfte immer mit den Profiten zusammenhängen.
  • “Three of the largest donors to climate change causes are billionaire financial titans Michael Bloomberg, George Soros, and Tom Steyer, all of whom have significant investments in both renewables and fossil fuels. (…) All three men finance climate activists and politicians, including President Biden, who then seek policies — from $500 billion for renewables and electric vehicles over the next decade to federal control over state energy systems to banking regulations to bankrupt oil and gas companies — which would benefit each of them personally.” – bto: Nun könnte man ja sagen, sie machen das, weil sie nebenher auch die Welt retten wollen.
  • “Bloomberg gave over $100 million to Sierra Club to lobby to shut down coal plants after he had taken a large stake in its replacement, natural gas, and operates one of the largest news media companies in the world, which publishes articles and sends emails nearly every day reporting that climate change threatens the economy, and that solar panels and wind turbines are the only cost-effective solution.” – bto: was sie nur sind, wenn man das Gas-Back-up nicht mitrechnet.
  • Climate change is punishment for our sins against nature — that’s the basic narrative pushed by journalists, climate activists, and their banker sponsors, for 30 years. It has a supernatural element: the belief that natural disasters are getting worse, killing millions, and threatening the economy, when in reality they are getting better, killing fewer, and costing less. And it offers redemption: to avoid punishment we must align our behavior with the unseen order, namely, a new economy controlled by the U.N., bankers, and climate activists. Unfortunately, as is increasingly obvious, the unseen order is parasitical and destructive.” – bto: Und wir können das gerade in Deutschland sehr gut in den Medien beobachten.
  • “The unseen order of bankers, climate activists, and the news media is so powerful that it is difficult to imagine how it could ever be challenged. The financial might of the climate lobby covers the wealth not only of billionaires Soros, Steyer, and Bloomberg, but also $130 trillion in investment funds, including many of the world’s largest pension funds, such as the one belonging to California public employees. The climate lobby’s political power is equally awesome, covering the entirety of the Democratic Party and a significant portion of the Republican Party, and most center-Left parties in Europe.” – bto: Das bedeutet, man muss sich auf deren Seite stellen und versuchen, von dem Wahnsinn zu profitieren.
  • “But serious cracks in the foundation are growing. The global energy crisis has revealed for many around the world the limits of unreliable renewables, with European governments having to subsidize energy to avoid public backlash, President Biden and other heads of state opening up emergency petroleum reserves, and all nations begging OPEC to produce more energy. The blackouts and rising unreliability of electricity in California, along with the work of the pro-nuclear movement over the last 6 years, has resulted in a growing number of Democrats supporting nuclear energy.” – bto: Natürlich wird das so kommen, weil wir nicht alle von der Rückkehr in eine Welt vor 100 Jahren überzeugen können.
  • “As the world returns to nuclear, policymakers, media elites, and climate advocates will be increasingly confronted with the question of why consumers and taxpayers will benefit from a global carbon trading scheme and more weather-dependent renewables, particularly at a time of declining global emissions from the continuing transition from coal to natural gas, reduced deforestation, and increased reforestation.” – bto: vor allem, wenn man dann noch erkennt, dass die Erneuerbaren durchaus mit erheblichen Nebenwirkungen kommen.
  • “Simply building more nuclear power plants means there is no climate change justification for weather-dependent renewables, which actually require greater use of natural gas, in order to deal with the high amount of unreliability.
  • “(…) policymakers and the public, will be forced to confront facts inconvenient to their narrative, including that humans are adapting remarkably well to climate change, that renewables make energy unreliable and expensive, and that only nuclear can achieve sustainability goals of reduced emissions, material throughput, and land use.” – bto: und weitere Technologien, die wir noch entwickeln werden.

“As people ask, ‘How Bad Are Weather Disasters?’, not just for banks, but for all of us, the answer will increasingly come back, ‘Not very.’” – bto: Wow!

michaelshellenberger.substack.com: “The Real Threat to Banks Isn’t From Climate Change. It’s From Bankers.”, 2. Dezember 2021