The formulas that already price your mortgage, your car loan, your business line of credit are being extended to include climate and ecosystem variables.
Too long. Too much assumption of prior knowledge. Too many embedded posts. Why not write 5 or 10 minute (max) summaries and then link to the 40 minute read for those that want to dive deeper?
I know. No one can beat you for detail and context. But your pieces are so detailed as to be completely inaccessible to all but the most perseverent. This makes them useless for all practical purposes. Don't write off accessibility': Writing short accessible summaries is a skill. It’s not easy but you might find a much larger audience. And that is the point, is it not?
Is Larry Fink now a nuclear energy zealot, or has he done an about face on Climate orthodoxy? At Davis said he’s now “100% behind the data center buildout, and that requires energy”, adding “you can’t do it with renewables because they aren’t available[24/7] and you have to have availability”. Perhaps he’s going all in on compact reactors, but they aren’t going to be the total solution either. If he backs off on Wind and Solar investment that alone will add a chink to the Climate agenda. Time will tell.
Credit ratings are supposed to take into consideration all kinds of risks in their ratings. Will rating agencies be obliged to integrate the climate change risk framework encompassing the concept of stranded assets in their approach? How independent could they be from this whole circus especially when the US are considering the whole climate change discourse as a hoax? How will end this disconnect between this pseudo statistical risk assessment and the economic realities as they manifest with the present fight we are witnessing for the control of non western fossil energy on the US part?
Too long. Too much assumption of prior knowledge. Too many embedded posts. Why not write 5 or 10 minute (max) summaries and then link to the 40 minute read for those that want to dive deeper?
because that's not what i do.
my substack is about digging out the critical bits of evidence, regardless of how deep that takes one
I know. No one can beat you for detail and context. But your pieces are so detailed as to be completely inaccessible to all but the most perseverent. This makes them useless for all practical purposes. Don't write off accessibility': Writing short accessible summaries is a skill. It’s not easy but you might find a much larger audience. And that is the point, is it not?
“We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy”
Ottmar Edenhofer UN IPCC official
Is Larry Fink now a nuclear energy zealot, or has he done an about face on Climate orthodoxy? At Davis said he’s now “100% behind the data center buildout, and that requires energy”, adding “you can’t do it with renewables because they aren’t available[24/7] and you have to have availability”. Perhaps he’s going all in on compact reactors, but they aren’t going to be the total solution either. If he backs off on Wind and Solar investment that alone will add a chink to the Climate agenda. Time will tell.
Credit ratings are supposed to take into consideration all kinds of risks in their ratings. Will rating agencies be obliged to integrate the climate change risk framework encompassing the concept of stranded assets in their approach? How independent could they be from this whole circus especially when the US are considering the whole climate change discourse as a hoax? How will end this disconnect between this pseudo statistical risk assessment and the economic realities as they manifest with the present fight we are witnessing for the control of non western fossil energy on the US part?