Central Banks' Adoption of Flawed Climate Damage Reporting Raises Concerns
In an article authored by climate policy analyst Roger Pielke, Jr., it has come to light that the central banks of the Network for Greening the Financial System (NGFS) utilized a questionable economic paper as the foundation for their climate damage model. This paper, titled "The Economic Commitment of Climate Change," published by Kotz et al. in the revered journal Nature, has drawn significant criticism from scholars for its inaccuracies. Despite its apparent flaws, the NGFS has proceeded to adopt it as part of their calculations concerning future economic damages likely caused by climate change. Such decisions have substantial implications, skewing how financial institutions and governments set policies regarding climate action.
The paper relies on a controversial scenario known as Representative Concentration Pathway 8.5 (RCP 8.5), which has been misrepresented for years as the "business-as-usual" case, when in reality, it suggests a drastic and potentially catastrophic climate emergency. Pielke Jr. and his colleague Justin Ritchie continue to shed light on how the misuse of such scenarios has distorted public perceptions and policies regarding climate risk.
Friends of Science Society, a group advocating for more accurate interpretations of climate science, has voiced its concerns, stating that projections derived from RCP 8.5 could lead to an 'implausible distortion' of climate risk analysis. They have reached out to entities like the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Services and the Canadian Securities Administrators to bring to attention the consequences of relying on this unmoored analysis.
In their outreach, Friends of Science Society pointed out how Alberta, a key player in oil and gas production, was hit hard by job losses following the global energy price downturn of 2014. They reported that the Pembina Institute had released a document purporting that declining employment trends in the oil and gas sector could forecast future job availability in the clean energy field. This assertion was mirrored in their call for legislative measures to transition more workers toward a supposed clean energy economy.
However, Robert Lyman, a retired energy economist and a key contributor to Friends of Science Society's analysis, dismantles the Pembina Institute's claims in his report, "The Energy Sector That Enriches Canada and the One That Does Not." Lyman argues that the clean energy sector has contributed a meager 3% to Canada’s GDP over the past ten years, despite billions in government spending aimed at boosting it. He cites that the main beneficiaries of the renewables sector predominantly reside in countries like China, undermining local job creation.
He highlights that Alberta's oil and gas industry still generates substantial revenues and supports numerous jobs, contradicting the narrative crafted around a shifting employment landscape due to climate policies. Lyman's findings challenge the assertion that a shift toward clean energy inherently strengthens Canada’s economy.
Amid ongoing debates and discussions around the impact of climate ideologies on various sectors, Friends of Science Society encourages public engagement, offering opportunities to learn from experts like Dr. Joseph Fournier on how such policies could influence food prices and farming practices in the future. For interested audiences, details about the related presentations are available on their website.
Friends of Science Society continues to advocate for a scientifically backed approach to climate change, proposing that the sun, rather than carbon dioxide, is the primary driver of climate dynamics, urging for a reevaluation of how climate policy narratives are framed and acted upon. As debates continue surrounding the prioritization of climate action vs. economic stability, the excerpt from the incident involving NGFS and the adopted paper serves as a potent reminder of the need for careful scrutiny in policy formation based on climate data.
The paper relies on a controversial scenario known as Representative Concentration Pathway 8.5 (RCP 8.5), which has been misrepresented for years as the "business-as-usual" case, when in reality, it suggests a drastic and potentially catastrophic climate emergency. Pielke Jr. and his colleague Justin Ritchie continue to shed light on how the misuse of such scenarios has distorted public perceptions and policies regarding climate risk.
Friends of Science Society, a group advocating for more accurate interpretations of climate science, has voiced its concerns, stating that projections derived from RCP 8.5 could lead to an 'implausible distortion' of climate risk analysis. They have reached out to entities like the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Services and the Canadian Securities Administrators to bring to attention the consequences of relying on this unmoored analysis.
In their outreach, Friends of Science Society pointed out how Alberta, a key player in oil and gas production, was hit hard by job losses following the global energy price downturn of 2014. They reported that the Pembina Institute had released a document purporting that declining employment trends in the oil and gas sector could forecast future job availability in the clean energy field. This assertion was mirrored in their call for legislative measures to transition more workers toward a supposed clean energy economy.
However, Robert Lyman, a retired energy economist and a key contributor to Friends of Science Society's analysis, dismantles the Pembina Institute's claims in his report, "The Energy Sector That Enriches Canada and the One That Does Not." Lyman argues that the clean energy sector has contributed a meager 3% to Canada’s GDP over the past ten years, despite billions in government spending aimed at boosting it. He cites that the main beneficiaries of the renewables sector predominantly reside in countries like China, undermining local job creation.
He highlights that Alberta's oil and gas industry still generates substantial revenues and supports numerous jobs, contradicting the narrative crafted around a shifting employment landscape due to climate policies. Lyman's findings challenge the assertion that a shift toward clean energy inherently strengthens Canada’s economy.
Amid ongoing debates and discussions around the impact of climate ideologies on various sectors, Friends of Science Society encourages public engagement, offering opportunities to learn from experts like Dr. Joseph Fournier on how such policies could influence food prices and farming practices in the future. For interested audiences, details about the related presentations are available on their website.
Friends of Science Society continues to advocate for a scientifically backed approach to climate change, proposing that the sun, rather than carbon dioxide, is the primary driver of climate dynamics, urging for a reevaluation of how climate policy narratives are framed and acted upon. As debates continue surrounding the prioritization of climate action vs. economic stability, the excerpt from the incident involving NGFS and the adopted paper serves as a potent reminder of the need for careful scrutiny in policy formation based on climate data.
Topics Policy & Public Interest）
【About Using Articles】
You can freely use the title and article content by linking to the page where the article is posted.
※ Images cannot be used.
【About Links】
Links are free to use.