It is not undesirable weather - it is just weather; and normal weather changes frequently. But to leftwing climate catastrophists everything in their life is caused by climate change as they refuse to take accountability for their own actions did expect everyone else to support them in their failed state.
But moron is the polite word for stupid jackasses!
I will have you know that if it rains when I don't want it to, this is very undesirable weather. Ditto if it's sunny when I need rain for my tomatoes. Undesirable weather is like art, highly subjective. :D
Not just cocoa, which has a tree health problem from lack of investment. Farmers invest, governments set prices 1 year in advance so 0$ of the existing boom in prices goes to the farmers. Governments and middlemen pick up the gains. No one is replacing failing trees. Until demand decreases prices will continue to rise. Coffee is facing a potentially dystopian summer with frost potential adding to already low arabica crop in Brazil and south central America where it is hot and dry from El Nino, to go with significantly lower Robusta crops in Vietnam, wet from El Nino. (A cyclical weather pattern) Same as Cocoa, until demand falls prices will continue to rise. Just wait until the elites can't get their morning cup of Joe! The wailing about climate change will kick into high gear. In both cases products are produced from trees, which will take multiple years after planting to produce crops. Your time frame on cocoa does not look out of line and we could be looking at the same for coffee.
I wouldn't worry too much about elites not getting their 'morning joe'. Even if the prices double or triple, they'll be able to afford it and even profit from it, by investing their millions in the futures market.
Did the Federal Reserve Central Committee on Debt Pricing also examine whether the far greater problem of cold slowing construction would be alleviated?
I initially read the title as "Ruled by Carnot", which would make just as much sense considering how crucial energy is.
This terrible policy is us as a whole suffering from success. Crucial sectors such as agriculture and energy absorb so few people relative to their importance to the whole that we (politicians included) understand them only through interpreters and experts - the great, soupy middle-system of best practices and technical knowledge provided by management consultants, engineering firms, and others - that we all just assume they must know what they are doing because things work so well.
It’s a good point. India for example grows more food than it can consume. So why do people go hungry? The distribution infrastructure is lacking. Why? Government. To protect small shop-keepers (votes, bribery, corruption), supermarket chains - particularly foreign ones - were kept out. Food distribution expertise - farm to fork - is where supermarket chains excel. Much of the food grown in India doesn’t make it out of the field, or is spoiled one way or another in storage and transit. I believe the Government is now less restrictive to big suppliers.
There's also the opposite situation, where big supermaker chains totally dominate the market forcing farmers and other food producers to sell to them cheaply while they remain free to pump prices as high as they like. This is what's happening here right now. A great illustration of unsustainable business practices -- if your suppliers go under, where are you going to source your produce? You'd have to buy at higher prices, profits will shrink. But no one thinks about that.
I absolutely LOVED the part about wind energy companies being penalized for making money and inflating the price of electricity.
It’s what we have all known for a while now about how these heavily-subsidized wind energy projects have been driving up prices for the ratepayers. Now, since so many people are aware of it, the climate grifters, aka, the ones with the decision-making power, are turning and rubbing the noses of companies like Shell into a wet stain on the carpet that they aren’t fully responsible for. “Bad!!! You should have known better!!!” Deferral of accountability is comical.
Yes indeed! If they tried to raise rates without any formal justification, that would have been met with resistance. These wind energy projects have been a pseudo Trojan Horse, more or less.
My pleasure! To be honest, I was a little surprised that wind turbine operator got punished for what it was doing. I had assumed wind and solar are off limits when it comes to accountability. Great to see I was wrong.
I was, too! I admit though that I interpreted it as the turbine operator is being scolded and/or penalized by the same people advocating and pushing for installing more wind turbines or building wind farms. Now that consumers are seeing how the costs of these projects are impacting their monthly bills, they’re sounding the alarm on the utility companies and/or the public utility or service commissions about the raised rates. Rather than accept accountability for pushing these projects in copious amounts, the “climateers” as I call them, i.e., those with the decision-making power regarding green energy policy, are throwing blame on and penalizing utility companies for making money when the profits in this case are due to the raised rates to cover the costs of these wind projects that yield a low return on investment over time. The policy makers and so-called “experts” won’t accept the fact that both their ideas and actions are totally absurd.
Please forgive me if I read the article the wrong way! That was my key takeaway from it. Thanks so much and I have enjoyed our conversation so far, and really enjoy your work! 😃
Thanks, Patrick! Actually, in the case mentioned in the article I think it was Bloomberg that got the ball rolling with an investigation from a couple of months ago that a lot of wind park operators overestimate the amount of energy they lose when their turbines don't turn because the grid operator ordered them switched off. At the time, the market regulator vowed to investigate and I guess this is the first result of that investigation. My take was that this was too blatant a money grab to ignore it, even for the most fervent climateers.
in truth, I think the best economic advice comes from the day laborer or small business as they truly understand the causes and effects of economic pronouncements from on high
Doomberg makes a pretty good case that the sanctions against Russian oil have saved the Russian economy and financed the war in Ukraine. As well as raising prices for the rest of us.
This is one of very few topics on which I disagree with Doomberg. Russia's economy is a lot more diversified than Western observers would like it to be. That's why it not only survived but is thriving. It's called self-sufficiency and they've been working on it for years.
Well I suppose looking on the bright side there will be plenty of carrot juice should we run out of orange juice.
“… forgot that actions have consequences.” Bastiat’s what is seen - what is unseen. The consequences of what is seen are almost always favourable, the consequences of the unseen fatal. That sums up ‘Government’.
Awwww, I worked with a carrot once, nice guy but not very bright🤪
The Federal Reserve writing climate prediction reports makes about as much sense as the US DoD or the pope doing the same. Although, all bets are off the table with respect to anything the San Fran Federal Reserve says or does.
Lots of entertaining content today. I particularly appreciate the attempted pinning of the outsized comparison on the Americans. Alas, we didn't make the cut for that, but the SF Fed provided ample content for a humorous poke.
It's not clear to me that Climate Change can play in the NBA or any professional sport, although I imagine if it works hard enough, it can prevent others from doing so
In 1980, a shipmate pointed out that, as Mt. St Helens was about to blow, he was buying orange juice futures. All the ash in the atmosphere would lower global temperatures just enough that there would be a freeze in Florida, and emotions being what they are (Florida even back then did not produce all the orange juice in the world), the commodity markets would blast orange juice futures through the roof. Long story short, in January of 1981 I had enough equity in the stock market that the Ann Arbor Merrill Lynch office gave me permission to use margin to buy one OJ contract. then selling at about 63¢/lb on a 10,000 lb contract (I may be a little off on the details). It was a huge risk for me, and I decided on a Friday not to buy the future, but by Monday I had decided to go for it. Over the weekend, a frost hit Florida, and OJ futures went up their market limit of 5¢/day for a couple of weeks. I could have paid for my MBA with that one contract, but no guts, no glory. Now, you're trying to tell me that global warming is going to cause the price of orange juice and cacao and coffee to go down? Maybe from other reasons, but definitely not "climate change/global warming".
A nice mix of sarcasm and incredulity. How could people who used to mix intellect with sober reflection turn into a room full of screaming children who've had their all day suckers snatched? The idea that Lloyd's, the most famous and conservative name in big insurance in history is blathering about dastardly ships shipping dastardly oil is pathetic. I expect this kind of nonsense from the chattering classes who never met a bad idea that assuages their guilt they didn't like. But scientism, or maybe climatism has denuded some once great institutions.
It is not undesirable weather - it is just weather; and normal weather changes frequently. But to leftwing climate catastrophists everything in their life is caused by climate change as they refuse to take accountability for their own actions did expect everyone else to support them in their failed state.
But moron is the polite word for stupid jackasses!
I will have you know that if it rains when I don't want it to, this is very undesirable weather. Ditto if it's sunny when I need rain for my tomatoes. Undesirable weather is like art, highly subjective. :D
Not just cocoa, which has a tree health problem from lack of investment. Farmers invest, governments set prices 1 year in advance so 0$ of the existing boom in prices goes to the farmers. Governments and middlemen pick up the gains. No one is replacing failing trees. Until demand decreases prices will continue to rise. Coffee is facing a potentially dystopian summer with frost potential adding to already low arabica crop in Brazil and south central America where it is hot and dry from El Nino, to go with significantly lower Robusta crops in Vietnam, wet from El Nino. (A cyclical weather pattern) Same as Cocoa, until demand falls prices will continue to rise. Just wait until the elites can't get their morning cup of Joe! The wailing about climate change will kick into high gear. In both cases products are produced from trees, which will take multiple years after planting to produce crops. Your time frame on cocoa does not look out of line and we could be looking at the same for coffee.
I wouldn't worry too much about elites not getting their 'morning joe'. Even if the prices double or triple, they'll be able to afford it and even profit from it, by investing their millions in the futures market.
Well, that's just great -- coffee withdrawal-fuelled climate hysteria is just what we needed.
Did the Federal Reserve Central Committee on Debt Pricing also examine whether the far greater problem of cold slowing construction would be alleviated?
No, cold doesn't sell half as well as heat, apparently.
I wonder how much cocoa Klondike bar, Magnum and Breyers (Unilever brands all) process and sell every year?
Don't know but Nestle, apparently, consumes 300,000 tonnes annually. And that figure's from 2019.
https://www.nestle.com/sites/default/files/2020-06/nestle-cocoa-plan-progress-report-2019.pdf
I initially read the title as "Ruled by Carnot", which would make just as much sense considering how crucial energy is.
This terrible policy is us as a whole suffering from success. Crucial sectors such as agriculture and energy absorb so few people relative to their importance to the whole that we (politicians included) understand them only through interpreters and experts - the great, soupy middle-system of best practices and technical knowledge provided by management consultants, engineering firms, and others - that we all just assume they must know what they are doing because things work so well.
https://argomend.substack.com/p/the-middle-system
There are so many layers between us and where are food comes from that we never think about how it gets to us anymore.
It’s a good point. India for example grows more food than it can consume. So why do people go hungry? The distribution infrastructure is lacking. Why? Government. To protect small shop-keepers (votes, bribery, corruption), supermarket chains - particularly foreign ones - were kept out. Food distribution expertise - farm to fork - is where supermarket chains excel. Much of the food grown in India doesn’t make it out of the field, or is spoiled one way or another in storage and transit. I believe the Government is now less restrictive to big suppliers.
From what I remember there is also a policy where the government is the major buyer of Indian produce. Their prices throw everyone off.
There's also the opposite situation, where big supermaker chains totally dominate the market forcing farmers and other food producers to sell to them cheaply while they remain free to pump prices as high as they like. This is what's happening here right now. A great illustration of unsustainable business practices -- if your suppliers go under, where are you going to source your produce? You'd have to buy at higher prices, profits will shrink. But no one thinks about that.
Having tried to discuss recent events with a carrot I can confirm the Welsh are correct. Where's my medication?
I feel like it would have been a better conversation in the supermarket with an actual carrot
Mabihay!
I absolutely LOVED the part about wind energy companies being penalized for making money and inflating the price of electricity.
It’s what we have all known for a while now about how these heavily-subsidized wind energy projects have been driving up prices for the ratepayers. Now, since so many people are aware of it, the climate grifters, aka, the ones with the decision-making power, are turning and rubbing the noses of companies like Shell into a wet stain on the carpet that they aren’t fully responsible for. “Bad!!! You should have known better!!!” Deferral of accountability is comical.
Great article, Ms. Slav! Thank you!!
The great sin there was it usurped the UK Government’s exclusive right to inflate the price of electricity.
Yes indeed! If they tried to raise rates without any formal justification, that would have been met with resistance. These wind energy projects have been a pseudo Trojan Horse, more or less.
My pleasure! To be honest, I was a little surprised that wind turbine operator got punished for what it was doing. I had assumed wind and solar are off limits when it comes to accountability. Great to see I was wrong.
I was, too! I admit though that I interpreted it as the turbine operator is being scolded and/or penalized by the same people advocating and pushing for installing more wind turbines or building wind farms. Now that consumers are seeing how the costs of these projects are impacting their monthly bills, they’re sounding the alarm on the utility companies and/or the public utility or service commissions about the raised rates. Rather than accept accountability for pushing these projects in copious amounts, the “climateers” as I call them, i.e., those with the decision-making power regarding green energy policy, are throwing blame on and penalizing utility companies for making money when the profits in this case are due to the raised rates to cover the costs of these wind projects that yield a low return on investment over time. The policy makers and so-called “experts” won’t accept the fact that both their ideas and actions are totally absurd.
Please forgive me if I read the article the wrong way! That was my key takeaway from it. Thanks so much and I have enjoyed our conversation so far, and really enjoy your work! 😃
Thanks, Patrick! Actually, in the case mentioned in the article I think it was Bloomberg that got the ball rolling with an investigation from a couple of months ago that a lot of wind park operators overestimate the amount of energy they lose when their turbines don't turn because the grid operator ordered them switched off. At the time, the market regulator vowed to investigate and I guess this is the first result of that investigation. My take was that this was too blatant a money grab to ignore it, even for the most fervent climateers.
That was the part I must have missed. Thanks for taking the time to help explain the details!
Happy to help!
I could use an organic free range dark chocolate bar from sustainable indigenous peoples right about now. Friday on my mind.
Responsibly sourced - of course.
The PhD carrots at the San Francisco Fed are just astonishing. I'd rather get economic advice from a doctor in theology.
in truth, I think the best economic advice comes from the day laborer or small business as they truly understand the causes and effects of economic pronouncements from on high
Well, they certainly experience the effects!
Doomberg makes a pretty good case that the sanctions against Russian oil have saved the Russian economy and financed the war in Ukraine. As well as raising prices for the rest of us.
This is one of very few topics on which I disagree with Doomberg. Russia's economy is a lot more diversified than Western observers would like it to be. That's why it not only survived but is thriving. It's called self-sufficiency and they've been working on it for years.
Well I suppose looking on the bright side there will be plenty of carrot juice should we run out of orange juice.
“… forgot that actions have consequences.” Bastiat’s what is seen - what is unseen. The consequences of what is seen are almost always favourable, the consequences of the unseen fatal. That sums up ‘Government’.
Awwww, I worked with a carrot once, nice guy but not very bright🤪
The Federal Reserve writing climate prediction reports makes about as much sense as the US DoD or the pope doing the same. Although, all bets are off the table with respect to anything the San Fran Federal Reserve says or does.
Lots of entertaining content today. I particularly appreciate the attempted pinning of the outsized comparison on the Americans. Alas, we didn't make the cut for that, but the SF Fed provided ample content for a humorous poke.
The question now becomes this: What CAN'T Climate Change® do?
It seems omnipotent and omnipresent. Is it also omniscient?
It's not clear to me that Climate Change can play in the NBA or any professional sport, although I imagine if it works hard enough, it can prevent others from doing so
Perhaps Climate Change® should identify as a lecturer in Quantum Field Theory.
I wonder, is Climate Change also part of the oppressed minority? that would give it credence!
There is nothing that climate change cannot do, except, perhaps, change its gender.
In 1980, a shipmate pointed out that, as Mt. St Helens was about to blow, he was buying orange juice futures. All the ash in the atmosphere would lower global temperatures just enough that there would be a freeze in Florida, and emotions being what they are (Florida even back then did not produce all the orange juice in the world), the commodity markets would blast orange juice futures through the roof. Long story short, in January of 1981 I had enough equity in the stock market that the Ann Arbor Merrill Lynch office gave me permission to use margin to buy one OJ contract. then selling at about 63¢/lb on a 10,000 lb contract (I may be a little off on the details). It was a huge risk for me, and I decided on a Friday not to buy the future, but by Monday I had decided to go for it. Over the weekend, a frost hit Florida, and OJ futures went up their market limit of 5¢/day for a couple of weeks. I could have paid for my MBA with that one contract, but no guts, no glory. Now, you're trying to tell me that global warming is going to cause the price of orange juice and cacao and coffee to go down? Maybe from other reasons, but definitely not "climate change/global warming".
A nice mix of sarcasm and incredulity. How could people who used to mix intellect with sober reflection turn into a room full of screaming children who've had their all day suckers snatched? The idea that Lloyd's, the most famous and conservative name in big insurance in history is blathering about dastardly ships shipping dastardly oil is pathetic. I expect this kind of nonsense from the chattering classes who never met a bad idea that assuages their guilt they didn't like. But scientism, or maybe climatism has denuded some once great institutions.