Notstromaggregate sind eine bessere Anlage als Windkraftfirmen

John Dizard von der FINANCIAL TIMES (FT) habe ich an dieser Stelle schon mal kritisch zur angedachten Rolle der Notenbanken im Kampf gegen den Klimawandel zitiert:

→ FT: Klimarettung als weitere Entschuldigung für Versagen der Notenbanken

Insofern dachte ich zunächst, dieser Beitrag wäre eine langweilige Wiederholung, zudem noch ziemlich zeitnah an dem ersten. Augenscheinlich scheint ihn das Thema so sehr zu wurmen wie mich. Im Unterschied zu mir sieht er noch nicht die eigentliche Logik der Eiszeit-Bekämpfung dahinter. Aber vielleicht doch und er hebt sich das für einen weiteren Beitrag auf.

Interessant fand ich in diesem Beitrag einen anderen Aspekt:

“The debate over the role of central banks and regulators is heating up (…) On one side is an array of climate activists in the institutions, in particular the Banque de France, Bank of England governor Mark Carney, IMF managing director Kristalina Georgieva and many green consultancies and academics. Up to now they have had the more assertive public presence and have dominated the green finance narrative. On the other side are Jens Weidmann of the Bundesbank and other central bankers or monetary economists who believe the institutions should have a more limited remit.” – bto: Und das stimmt natürlich. Wenn man aber zu der Sicht kommt, dass man nur mit direkter Staatsfinanzierung die Weltwirtschaft vor dem deflationären Kollaps bewahren kann, sind doch staatliche Umweltprogramme allemal besser als Aufrüstung und Krieg.

“Parsing and revising climate-based financial markets risk measures or providing marginally subsidised liquidity for green bonds and similar securities will not do the trick.” – bto: Genau das habe ich auch diskutiert anhand des Papers des DIW zu dem Thema:

→ Nachhaltiges Finanzsystem statt Rendite?

“There is indeed a huge gap between required carbon emissions reductions and the industrial and infrastructure base needed to make that happen. But that is created by political, engineering and supply chain issues, not a lack of box-ticking by financial consultancies.” – bto: Genau, so ist es. Und übrigens ist es ganz falsch, wie wir das machen, aber das habe ich ja mehrfach erklärt.

“So far the public’s conception of a ‘crisis’ has more to do with their lights going out than what is happening to Arctic sea ice. The financial markets reflect that reality. Since the beginning of the year the shares of Generac, a Wisconsin-based supplier of standby generator systems, most of which are gas or diesel powered, are up more than 88 per cent. Those of Oersted, a Denmark-based wind energy provider, are up nearly a third. In the past three months, the divergence between the two companies’ share prices has increased: Generac’s is up nearly 30 per cent and Oersted’s is down more than 9 per cent.” – bto: Haha und ich wette, dass auch in Deutschland die Hersteller von Notstromaggregaten vor einem großen Boom stehen.

“Natural gas and diesel generators can keep going for days or even weeks at a time, while today’s battery back-up systems run down in a few hours. So Generac’s distribution partnerships in California are rapidly expanding, along with the state’s diesel-fuel emissions.” – bto: So viel zum Thema Umweltschutz. Am Ende wird es immer schlechter, statt besser.  

“The problems that have accompanied aggressive renewable energy deployment in California, Germany, Australia, Hawaii or elsewhere had nothing to do with whether the Federal Reserve, the European Central Bank or the Reserve Bank of Australia had sufficiently strict requirements for reporting climate risk or accepted enough green bonds as collateral. Rather, they were created by a lack of green, or even greenish, back-up generation and the relatively slow development of transmission systems compared with the short deployment times possible for wind or solar.” – bto: was zeigt, dass es den Befürwortern einer anderen Rolle der Notenbanken eben um etwas ganz anderes geht. Entweder um eine Ausrede für die Helikopter oder aber – meines Erachtens noch schlimmer – um einen Einstieg in eine staatlich gelenkte Wirtschaft, wo man Geld in genehme Felder lenkt.  

“Those problems could have been foreseen, but climate activists and developers wanted to skip over the challenge of explaining them to the public and developing a truly integrated green energy plan. So now you have diesel generators in California, coal in Germany, energy prices higher than they should have been, and widespread cynicism feeding populist politics.” – bto: So ist es. Allerdings wird es bei uns geleugnet und weil die Bevölkerung sich nicht interessiert, können jene, die schon so viel Schaden angerichtet haben noch einen draufsetzen!

“The next climate policy disaster, in my view, is coming from the simplistic political equation of electric vehicles = greening. (…) That means not enough metals, upgraded electric transmission and distribution networks, or industrial capacity are available to meet climate policy targets. It also means that if western companies want to compete with China in electric vehicles, they would have to make a serious (and expensive) geopolitical commitment to humane and sustainable development in Africa.” – bto: Aber wissen doch, dass die “Kobolde” (Annalena Baerbock) ganz nett sein können.

“If there are to be serious commitments to meeting carbon emission targets within a decade or two, they will not be met by reclassifying a quarter of a fund’s existing portfolio as ‘ESG-compliant’ over a period of months. It means making a sustainable political case for why the public should pay the engineering and industrial costs of an energy transition. Central banks (should) not attempt to be climatologists, electrical engineers or auto designers.” – bto: So ist es!

→ ft.com (Anmeldung erforderlich): “Central bankers are not climatologists”, 8. November 2019