*This article was published in our email for paying subscribers. See here for more details and how to subscribe.
7 Comments
How Bad Are Weather Disasters for Banks?
Kristian S. Blickle, Sarah N. Hamerling, and Donald P. Morgan
Federal Reserve Bank of New York Staff Reports, no. 990 November 2021
Abstract
Not very. We find that weather disasters over the last quarter century had insignificant or small effects on U.S. banks’ performance. This stability seems endogenous rather than a mere reflection of federal aid. Disasters increase loan demand, which offsets losses and actually boosts profits at larger banks. Local banks tend to avoid mortgage lending where floods are more common than official flood maps would predict, suggesting that local knowledge may also mitigate disaster impacts.
profile,
I have set myself the task of educating you on climate change by putting information in front of you on a regular basis.
I don't want to overload you, so I'll do it gradually. Here's the first one. https://www.climatefiles.com/shell/1988-shell-report-greenhouse/
Just like the tobacco companies before them, the big oil companies knew that global warming was real back in the 80s and just like the tobacco companies, sought to hide this inconvenient fact. This report lays bare their duplicity. Merchants of Doubt by Oreskes and Conway is worth a read.
Over time, I will present you with further good quality evidence. One day you will thank me.
I can assure you people knew the globe warmed well before the '80's ask any Aborigine who walked across the Bass Strait to Tasmania or anyone who ice skated on the Thames during the Little Ice Age. I guess our forefathers had more things to concern themselves with than a warming/cooling planet.
Or you could ask Phil Jones - oh look it was warming back when Shell was still a sea shell importer - or maybe they were doing a deep cover operation before unleashing global warmingTM on the planet. I can't imagine what lengths the evil corporate would go to to cover their tracks.
'Do you agree that according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical?
An initial point to make is that in the responses to these questions I've assumed that when you talk about the global temperature record, you mean the record that combines the estimates from land regions with those from the marine regions of the world. CRU produces the land component, with the Met Office Hadley Centre producing the marine component.
Temperature data for the period 1860-1880 are more uncertain, because of sparser coverage, than for later periods in the 20th Century. The 1860-1880 period is also only 21 years in length. As for the two periods 1910-40 and 1975-1998 the warming rates are not statistically significantly different (see numbers below).
I have also included the trend over the period 1975 to 2009, which has a very similar trend to the period 1975-1998.
So, in answer to the question, the warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other.'
Usual spin from Profile, proffering the usual stuff.
The problem is a wee bit of Boolean algebra, though. If we keep below the point where feedback loops take options away from us, we need to stay not only well below 1.5 degrees, but we need to be off carbon completely by 2030.
There is no chance we can build replacement infrastructure in that time, and if we did, it would be by using so much FF that we'd be in the over-2-degrees-and-into-feedback-territory anyway.
The only way is to do less - orders of magnitude less. Which means David Chaston is wrong, with every growth-lauding adjective. And in doing less, we cannot honour the eye-watering collection of forward bets; pension expectations, return expectations...... So what happens to the NAB (and all the rest)?
...the NZ Reserve Bank must have been taking bribes from Shell too.
'Preliminary analysis suggests that climate change need not be a significant threat to the soundness and efficiency of the financial system, provided all risks are proactively analysed, understood (to the extent possible), communicated and appropriately factored into decision making from the outset. However, climate change could be a significant aggravating factor in the event of a broader negative shift in market sentiment or conditions.'
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.