fascinating and concise overview of Welch's work in progress!
Obviously, the feedback arrows between CO2 and economic growth are always going to be fuzzy. IT-led growth means folks have to travel less and purchase less physical goods (DVDs and whatnot). AI-led growth means incredibly energy-intense IT. Unless they use renewables and nuclear to power AI...
My problem with your last, optimistic paragraph: nobody knows how fat the tails are going to be. If, say, the Gulf Stream is weakened after Greenland ice melts, then all bets are off. When you have cascading effects on a global level, then you get risk of ruin. And as us investors know, ruin is the one thing we need to avoid, at all costs.
exactly. That's the precautionary principle. When we don't really know what's going on, but there is a non-negligable risk of ruin, we do what we can to prevent ruin.
I'm with you 100% on the stupidity of Germany's energy policy. Nuclear is on balance OK because its risks are local, and don't cascade. To burn coal instead (increasing the global and cascading risks of CO2) is moronic.
fascinating and concise overview of Welch's work in progress!
Obviously, the feedback arrows between CO2 and economic growth are always going to be fuzzy. IT-led growth means folks have to travel less and purchase less physical goods (DVDs and whatnot). AI-led growth means incredibly energy-intense IT. Unless they use renewables and nuclear to power AI...
My problem with your last, optimistic paragraph: nobody knows how fat the tails are going to be. If, say, the Gulf Stream is weakened after Greenland ice melts, then all bets are off. When you have cascading effects on a global level, then you get risk of ruin. And as us investors know, ruin is the one thing we need to avoid, at all costs.
exactly. That's the precautionary principle. When we don't really know what's going on, but there is a non-negligable risk of ruin, we do what we can to prevent ruin.
I'm with you 100% on the stupidity of Germany's energy policy. Nuclear is on balance OK because its risks are local, and don't cascade. To burn coal instead (increasing the global and cascading risks of CO2) is moronic.