The disastrous Economics of Climate Change, with Prof. Steve Keen | Nucleus Investment Insights 

One of a few elephants in the room that never seems to be mentioned is the the fact of food shortages. People forget or don’t know that plants/food crops grow within a certain temperature range and when this range is surpassed we can’t grow food. The other factors are when we have drought we can’t grow crops without water and our water supplies are diminishing ie our under ground water is diminishing, our rivers are not doing too well either and then when we get torrential rain (which is now becoming more common due to storms becoming more intense and slow moving due to climate change) it can either destroy crops or it delays harvesting due to not being able to use harvesting machines due to namely bogging etc. so I think that we will starve well before we have to worry about sea level rise although that will cause enough problems for us as well. Just ask a farmer.

I’ve read where the digital economy is already contributing 5% of greenhouse gases and that this is ever growing.

Our viewer question of the week: Will reality force the economists hands or do they have a trump card?

The costs of climate change are equivalent to a carbon price of thousands of dollars per tonne in the long run.

Re the solar solution to climate change, don't put all your (nest) eggs in that one basket. Solar is going to be very useful in Australia, but has limited applicability in the rest of the world. It needs too much space (usually too far away from the cities that need it), requires too many mineral resources to be sustainable, and produces a lot more toxic waste (by volume) than nuclear. Worst of all, solar power is hugely dependent on production in China at the moment, which is going to be a catastrophic weakness if and when the Chinese economy fails, which is very likely before 2030. (The same issue applies to electric car lithium batteries, of course, but this is NOT what is needed for grid-scale battery backup - that hasn't been decided yet.) So, investments in solar tech are great where they make sense - but be careful of bubbles and don't generalize what works in the Australian context to other economies. Solar is a niche solution that will be great for 30%-ish of today's energy needs (Wind power is good for even more) - but does not scale up well if we need even more energy in future ("they just aren't making any more land these days"), or if we need to use the land for other needs instead. It's not a silver bullet. As mentioned by Steve, a "rational" solution may need to include reducing the total energy demand - although this is going to be very difficult to sell politically. Note: don't invest in ANYTHING (in the US context) which depends on US federal government legislation ("Green new deal", etc.). The US legislative system is totally dysfunctional, with 100 veto votes in the 100-member senate. Look instead at smaller-scale initiatives in individual states - that's where there might be green energy investment opportunities. Finally, be hyper-aware of what you are investing in, and the specific context. Financial, housing, and stock markets are beyond "frothy", and have been in bubble territory for more than five years already - in most of the world (it's hard to think of any exceptions in the western world). "Green Energy" markets are no exception, and appear to be overvalued by most "normal" metrics. It's very hard for any rational or conservative investor to know what to do, other than maybe invest in warehouses full of toilet paper...

You must be joking! Steven Keen is right. BUT, he is an economist. Although he seems to be better at doing arithmetic than most economists, its about ENERGY. There is a law of conservation of energy. No-one has so far been able to defy the laws of physics. We are demanding more energy for our mobile phones, EC cars etc but where will, that come from? Give me a break, if you need to drive cars and trucks then you need the same amount of energy as burned by gasoline Where will that come from thin air? roof top solar - no F***ing way!

Fossil fuels have been 80% of global energy for over 25 years. Electricity is 20% of global energy, renewable electricity is 4% of global energy, solar & wind electricity is 2% of global energy. North Euro solar panels work 11% of the time. North Euro onshore wind turbines work 22% of the time. North Euro offshore turbines work 30% of the time. The F-35 fighter jet works 11% of the time. By 2040 15% of global energy will be renewable. By 2050 30% of global energy will be renewable. Water stress will threaten 50% of thermal power capacity. By 2025 66% of us will live in water stressed areas. Most solar solar panels will become un-recyclable garbage generating 6 million tons of waste per year by 2050. Europe gets 50% of its renewable energy burning stuff. Europe burns 80% of the world’s wood pellets for renewable electricity , Europe burns 80% of its recycled plastic & paper for electricity . Europe burns 50% of its palm oil shipments in cars & trucks . Out of earth's 1.2 billion vehicles only 6 million are electric . Electric cars will have no effect on the climate whatsoever. Total greenhouse gases went up 45% in 30 years. Weather = flash floods + flash fires + flash mobs + flash infections Climate = 30 years of weather 500 years ago there were so many cod fish John Cabot thought they would lift his ship off the water 400 years ago there were more Caribbean sea turtles by weight than buffalo on the plains 300 years ago Passenger pigeon migrations would block out the noon day sun 97% of great fresh water species gone since 1970 ( Guardian 2019 ) 96% of mammals are livestock and human by weight ( Ecowatch 2018 ) 96% of tigers gone in 100 years ( IFL Science 2019 ) 90% of elephants gone in 100 years ( Hurriet 2019 ) 90% of lions gone in 100 years ( African Impact 2019 ) 90% of Leatherback sea turtles gone since 1980 ( Earth Watch undated ) 90% of Monarch Butterflies gone in 20 years ( Inhabitat 2014 ) 80% of Antarctic Krill gone in 30 years ( Research Gate 2005 ) 77% of Eastern lowland gorillas gone since 1996 ( Treehugger 2020 ) 68% of world’s wildlife has been wiped out since 1970 ( Mongabay 2020 ) 50% of Marine vertebrates gone since 1970 ( WWF 2015 ) 50% of Great Barrier Reef gone since 1985 ( Live Science 2012 ) 40% of Giraffes gone since 1990 ( NRDC 2019 ) 40% less insects in next 30 years ( PNAS 2019 ) 4% of mammals are wild ( Vegan News 2020 ) Sources for all these statements can be found at Loki's Revenge blog on wordpress. You can also find a massive research library there on how pollution is affecting our youth support James Hansen's monthly private carbon dividends If I had a nickel for everytime I didn't know what was going on, I would wonder where all the nickels are coming from -- Loki 2020 zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

huh- if agriculture is affected then Everything is affected! and we don't want cheap subsidized energy! since we will still destroy every ecosystem on the planet with even green energy!! we need expensive clean energy! thats the only way to motivate people to conserve energy- which is the biggest piece of the solution!

How can someone smack that much while talking!?

Talk about calling others the thickest economist on the planet. Keen must be trying to get to that level himself. Steve Keen is a promoter of the Modern Money theory that makes such claims as federal government sector deficits are savings for the private sector because the excess spending flows to the private sector. The illustration he uses to support his claim relies on omitting the fact that federal deficits have to be funded by borrowing from the private sector or the reserve bank and this borrowing is a burden that the private sector. This is so because the private sector is forced to pay out the bonds when they mature. So Government deficits are a Burden to the private sector and Not a saving. Of course Keen cannot answer to explain his faulty claim because to do so would put it in the winners circle of the contest " Thickest Comments of Economist That They have to Retract" . Similarly the statement he makes about the earth retaining energy from the sun omits the relevant fact that the earth radiates long wave infrared energy outwards which cools the planet. All planets do likewise depending on mainly their temperature and other factors to a smaller degree.