Mark Carney: Why are financial regulators and central bank governors looking at climate?

“We don’t want a Minsky moment about climate.”

Update, 2016-07-19

Interesting that Carney talks about “stabilizing at a temperature” when emissions are stabilized using a Carbon tax. He agrees with a Carbon tax, but he seems to have his science wrong. I did not get the impression he understands that to stabilize at any temperature, Carbon emissions need to go to zero. In his world, I wonder, does that mean that a price on Carbon needs to go to infinity? From my perspective, there is an implicit ceiling on Carbon price, and that is the realistic price per tonne to exact a unit of Carbon from atmosphere. Perhaps it would be more, before it’s not just about extracting this tonne of Carbon but this one, and another, and more. But, still, there is a kind of ceiling.

About hypergeometric

See and
This entry was posted in adaptation, Anthropocene, Bloomberg, Bloomberg New Energy Finance, BLUE, central banks, civilization, climate, climate business, climate change, climate disruption, climate economics, climate education, climate justice, corporate litigation on damage from fossil fuel emissions, corporate supply chains, demand-side solutions, ecology, economics, education, environment, false advertising, finance, fossil fuel divestment, fossil fuels, global warming, greenwashing, grid defection, insurance, investing, Joseph Schumpeter, liberal climate deniers, local generation, organizational failures, rate of return regulation, rationality, reasonableness, solar domination, Spaceship Earth, stranded assets, sustainability, the right to know, the value of financial assets, zero carbon. Bookmark the permalink.