Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Investing Prophet Jeremy Grantham Takes Aim at Climate Change

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 103 posts

Re: Investing Prophet Jeremy Grantham Takes Aim at Climate Change

#91

Post by rexpop »

sigmaprimus wrote: post #80

I have reread this article as some of the comments made me question whether or not I understood it or not. I had assumed that Jeremy Grantham was investing his wealth to save the planet, this was the conclusion that the author presents at the end of the article under the title "Bottom Line". But this is not necessarily the case, Mr. Grantham is investing in technology that will show a profit because of climate change…

It's definitely the case that Capital will profit--in the short term, of course--from climate change, and there's a good argument to be made that Capital is perpetuating the cataclysmic destruction of our system for such profits.

Check out [This Changes Everything](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/21913812-this-changes-ev...).

Re: Investing Prophet Jeremy Grantham Takes Aim at Climate Change

#92

Post by jamesblonde »

SiempreViernes wrote: post #19
seren wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The scary part is that even if you cannot provide food to even, let's say 3% of the human population, it will create massive destabilization, initially in the part of the world affected, then globally. I remember that at the start of the various Arab Spring revolts, protests were about the cost of food. I have never been to Egypt, and maybe I have a distorted view of the situation there, but I don't understand how it…

First of all, the Nile basin covers 32% of the area of Egypt (330 000 km²), which is a bit more than the size of Italy who supports a population of 60 million. Secondly, due to the climate they also get two-three harvests per year.

That said, they still import nearly 20% of their food - https://tradingeconomics.com/egypt/food-imports-percent-of-m...

Re: Investing Prophet Jeremy Grantham Takes Aim at Climate Change

#93

Post by martythemaniak »

rexpop wrote: post #91
sigmaprimus wrote: post #80

I have reread this article as some of the comments made me question whether or not I understood it or not. I had assumed that Jeremy Grantham was investing his wealth to save the planet, this was the conclusion that the author presents at the end of the article under the title "Bottom Line". But this is not necessarily the case, Mr. Grantham is investing in technology that will show a profit because of climate change…

It's definitely the case that Capital will profit--in the short term, of course--from climate change, and there's a good argument to be made that Capital is perpetuating the cataclysmic destruction of our system for such profits. Check out [This Changes Everything]( https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/21913812-this-changes-ev... ).

Well I'm going to recommend not checking that book out because it is of exceedingly low quality and not worth your time. Unless you're looking for something to reaffirm your existing leftist biases and dogma and not make you think uncomfortable thoughts, then it's pretty good.

Re: Investing Prophet Jeremy Grantham Takes Aim at Climate Change

#94

Post by tfehring »

darkpuma wrote: post #8
mooreds wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Generating three centimeters of top soil takes 1,000 years, and if current rates of degradation continue all of the world's top soil could be gone within 60 years, a senior UN official said on Friday. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/only-60-years-of-...

> "Generating three centimeters of top soil takes 1,000 years," Such a vague assertion leaves me with more questions than it resolved. Topsoil should properly be measured in volume, not distance. Presumably they mean a given area will gain three centimeters in 1,000 years, but what area and under what conditions? There are some environments with zero topsoil and some environments with quite a lot of topsoil, so is th…

> Topsoil should properly be measured in volume, not distance.

Presumably topsoil generation is proportional to land area, and volume per unit area reduces to distance. 3 cm per 1000 years is equivalent to 30 m^3 per km^2 per year.

That said, the number still seems wrong. Table 5.2 in [0] indicates that regeneration rates range from 0.25 mm/year to 2.0 mm/year. 3 cm per 1000 years is equivalent to 0.03 mm per year, almost an order of magnitude lower than the lowest rate in that table.

[0] http://www.fao.org/docrep/009/t0733e/T0733E06.htm

Re: Investing Prophet Jeremy Grantham Takes Aim at Climate Change

#96

Post by groby_b »

martythemaniak wrote: post #93
rexpop wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's definitely the case that Capital will profit--in the short term, of course--from climate change, and there's a good argument to be made that Capital is perpetuating the cataclysmic destruction of our system for such profits. Check out [This Changes Everything]( https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/21913812-this-changes-ev... ).

Well I'm going to recommend not checking that book out because it is of exceedingly low quality and not worth your time. Unless you're looking for something to reaffirm your existing leftist biases and dogma and not make you think uncomfortable thoughts, then it's pretty good.

That's somewhat ad hominem. (Well, ad librem. Tomatoe, tomatoh)

I'm not asking for a detailed critique, but what, in your opinion, is a good book discussing the intersection between capitalism and climate change?

Re: Investing Prophet Jeremy Grantham Takes Aim at Climate Change

#97

Post by jtbayly »

CrackpotGonzo wrote: post #44
Balero wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From what I understand it led to (young) people leaving the countryside to live in cities. This lead to large congregations of unhappy unemployed young people, all new to a particular area. These people then grouped up and protested about the ruling regime, which was the start of the current crisis.

Exactly, that's a good summary as far as I understand it. In other words, we're already seeing the impacts of food insecurity as a result of climate change and it will only get worse from here.

None of the previous comments on this topic indicated that the food instability was caused by climate change. Are you just assuming that?

Re: Investing Prophet Jeremy Grantham Takes Aim at Climate Change

#98

Post by clomond »

lordnacho wrote: post #63

As a former fund manager, I found his description of current capitalism quite close to my own. Particularly the bit where he says markets are good at a lot of stuff, but not everything. Has anyone else had that sort of intellectual journey, where you discover libertarianism, you learn all the tropes, you feel very confident, and then after a while you pull back a bit after finding a few issues? And I suppose on the o…

My philosophy is that one can still hold a mostly libertarian perspective regarding markets (particularly as tools) but with minor stipulations.

I hold that the government's primary role with regulating markets is to aid in the pricing of positive and negative externalities. In particular, a focus on pricing in and intervening for "harms" seems to be philosophically consistent (enough) for me.

Re: Investing Prophet Jeremy Grantham Takes Aim at Climate Change

#99

Post by Balero »

jtbayly wrote: post #97
CrackpotGonzo wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly, that's a good summary as far as I understand it. In other words, we're already seeing the impacts of food insecurity as a result of climate change and it will only get worse from here.

None of the previous comments on this topic indicated that the food instability was caused by climate change. Are you just assuming that?

From what I can recall it is due to an overlong drought. This could be due to climate change or not.

There are arguments from both sides: https://www.inverse.com/article/25318-aleppo-syria-conflict-... http://www.sussex.ac.uk/broadcast/read/41428

Also worth remembering that something as complex as the Syrian Civil war is bound to have multiple causes.

Re: Investing Prophet Jeremy Grantham Takes Aim at Climate Change

#100

Post by darkpuma »

SiempreViernes wrote: post #30
darkpuma wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "Generating three centimeters of top soil takes 1,000 years," Such a vague assertion leaves me with more questions than it resolved. Topsoil should properly be measured in volume, not distance. Presumably they mean a given area will gain three centimeters in 1,000 years, but what area and under what conditions? There are some environments with zero topsoil and some environments with quite a lot of topsoil, so is th…

The statement was about the global reserve, so clearly these are all global averages. I don't see volume being very natural reporting unit as farming usually counts by area, so reporting a total volume just forces everyone to convert to length themselves. You want more details, read the Status of the World’s Soil Resources report: http://www.fao.org/3/a-i5199e.pdf

Farmers know their area, so when they count rainfall in inches it's implicitly volumetric.

The problem with that UN official quote is the area being talked about is poorly defined. Is it the global average for all farmland, or the global average of all land area (including Antartica?) The official doesn't clarify, but it matters because if it's the later that number is obviously being suppressed by regions that lack topsoil and were never considered arable in the first place. How long does it take the sand dunes of Gobi desert to create a centimeter of top soil? And I'm sure permafrost regions create new topsoil at an absolute snails pace if at all (although global warming might change this!) It seems obvious that regions like this will make that global average number seem a lot more dire than the situation actually is.

Don't get me wrong, I'm confident that topsoil erosion is a real problem that needs to be addressed. But I think that number; without the official providing any clarification, justification or context for it; qualifies as alarmism. It's obviously not going to take farmers 1,000 years to regenerate three centimeters of top soil on their fields.

Post reply on HN