Fed's Core Mission Now Includes Climate Change


The Fed, ECB, Bank of England, and Bank of Japan have now embraced climate change as part of their mission.

It's bad enough that central bankers are clueless about inflation.

They now want their hands in another thing they do not understand and cannot control even if they did.

Fed's Core Mission Change

Lael Brainard, Chair of the Fed's Committee on Financial Stability, says Climate Change Matters for Monetary Policy and Financial Stability.

So how does climate change fit into the work of the Federal Reserve? To support a strong economy and a stable financial system, the Federal Reserve needs to analyze and adapt to important changes to the economy and financial system. This is no less true for climate change than it was for globalization or the information technology revolution.

To fulfill our core responsibilities, it will be important for the Federal Reserve to study the implications of climate change for the economy and the financial system and to adapt our work accordingly.

Climate Change Essential to Achieving Mission

Brainard was just one of the speakers at the Fed's Economics of Climate Change summit last November.

Mary Daly, San Francisco Fed president has this Q&A in her presentation.

Q: Why is the San Francisco Fed hosting a climate conference? Why this? Why now?

A: The answer is simple. It’s essential to achieving our mission.

Bank of Japan Warns of Climate Change Risks

Japan Times reports Bank of Japan Gov. Haruhiko Kuroda Warns of Climate Change Risks.

The challenges posed by a string of recent natural disasters and the potential hit to the economy from slowing overseas growth “should be better addressed by government with fiscal policy and structural policies,” Kuroda said at a seminar.

As Japan is prone to big typhoons and earthquakes, Kuroda highlighted the risks related to climate change as an example of new issues central banks must deal with in maintaining financial stability.

“Climate-related risk differs from other risks in that its relatively long-term impact means the effects will last longer than other financial risks, and the impact is far less predictable,” he said. “It is therefore necessary to thoroughly investigate and analyze the impact of climate-related risk.”

Bank of England Climate Change Warning

The Bank of England hopped on the climate change bandwagon on December 30, with a Climate Change Warning from BoE Chief Mark Carney.

The world will face irreversible heating unless firms shift their priorities soon, the outgoing head of the Bank of England has told the BBC.

He said leading pension fund analysis "is that if you add up the policies of all of companies out there, they are consistent with warming of 3.7-3.8C".

Scientists say the risks associated with an increase of 4C include a nine metre rise in sea levels - affecting up to 760 million people – searing heatwaves and droughts, and serious food supply problems.

“Now $120tn worth of balance sheets of banks and asset managers are wanting this disclosure [of investments in fossil fuels]. But it’s not moving fast enough.”

ECB in on the Climate Change Act

The Financial Times reports Christine Lagarde Wants Key Role for Climate Change in ECB Review.

Consider this Open Letter to ECB head Christine Lagarde from the European Parliament.

During your hearing at the European Parliament, you rightly pledged to make sure the ECB puts the “protection of the environment at the core of the understanding of its mission.” As academics, civil society and trade union leaders, entrepreneurs and citizens deeply concerned by climate change, we believe that the most powerful financial institution in Europe cannot just sit passively as we witness a growing environmental crisis.

Climate change not only imperils life-sustaining processes, it also threatens the financial stability, real economy and jobs. It has been estimated that without mitigation efforts, physical risks related to climate change could result in losses of up to $24 trillion of the value of global financial assets.

Wow. $24 Trillion at risk.

Nonetheless, Germany’s Bundesbank president Jens Weidmann, who also sits on the on the ECB’s governing council, understands the silliness of the move.

Weidmann says that he would view “very critically” any attempt to redirect a central bank’s actions towards climate change, such as favouring the purchase of green bonds as part of a quantitative easing programme.

Weidmann is guaranteed to be overruled.

Excellent Video on Climate Nonsense

Global Warming Fraud Exposed In Pictures

Image placeholder title

Please consider Global Warming Fraud Exposed In Pictures

The key to understanding the fraud is a changing timeline for temperature, fires, Winters, growing seasons, and sea level, all cherry picked for maximum impact.

Central Bank Fearmongering Blue Ribbon Contenders

  1. European Parliament: $24 Trillion in Damages
  2. Bank of England: 9 Meter rise in seal level (29.53 feet).

To decide who wins the blue ribbon, first let's do a simulation.

10 Meter Rise in Seal Level

Image placeholder title


The above Alarming Map shows what might be left of Florida when the sea level rises by 10 meters.

Caney said 9 meters but the average elevation of Florida is allegedly only 6 feet. The highest elevation is only 312 feet.

Mark Carney Wins Fearmongering Blue Ribbon

I give Mark Carney the Central Bank fearmongering Blue Ribbon because people can understand the concept of Florida being three feet underwater.

In contrast, no one understands $24 trillion. Besides, that estimates will soon be $250 trillion or higher due to Fearmongering Inflation.

Fearmongering Lesson

None of the above tops AOC who says World Will End in 12 Years: Here's What to Do About It

Here's a lesson for you climate fearmongers: Never put a time frame on your prediction that is shorter than your expected life or you will be ridiculed until you die.

Mike "Mish" Shedlock

Comments (105)
No. 1-31

The Central banks will be "adjusting" their money printing (ramping it up) to monetize the upayable debts of their respective bankrupt governments. Combating "climate change" is a convenient, if hare-brained, fig leaf. The Fiat End Game is rapidly approaching.

Tony Bennett
Tony Bennett

Why stop at climate change?

Surely, if Powell dumped enough liquidity on cancer, he could eradicate.


Well Mish, Brian Deese, head of sustainable investing for Blackrock would appear to disagree with you. But hey, they are only the world's largest asset manager, what could they possibly know compared to an internet blogger? [lol]

Why climate change means new risks for U.S. financial markets Jan 17, 2020


Doesn't congress give them the mandates? They can't do this on their own? What a joke, if they handle climate change issue as well as they do the economy we will be dead in 20 years as AOC predicted.


Ben Bernanke used to say that the Fed had a mandate for "price stability". Does it have (a legal) one for climate change?

What can the Fed do to reduce CO2 levels other than cause a recession?

"The above Alarming Map shows what might be left of Florida when the sea level rises by 10 meters."

Even if CO2 causes atmospheric temperatures to rise, the aggregate heat capacity of oceans, glaciers and ice caps far exceeds that of the atmosphere and will easily absorb the heat.

I suspect that what the climate change people are really afraid of is a global cooling cycle (due to low sunspot activity) without any 'intervention' from government policies - which will make people will realize they were FOS.

By claiming they want to fight climate change, central banks will claim 'credit' for stopping it - while we shiver through colder winters and higher food prices due to a shorter growing season.


The Florida on the right looks much better.


The 'End of the World' has been predicted for 2000 years (Bible, Revelations). So far, all those predictions have come to naught.

But this time around, they 'really mean it', just like the threats of nuclear war, worldwide pandemics, killer bees, the 'Big One' in California and Washington state, etc. And that is a short list.

In the meantime, I was scared of rising sea levels, till I saw the beach I grew up with get bigger than ever in Google Maps. Go to Google Earth, and use the timeline to see Palmar, Ecuador, lose and then gain beach.

The best part, I did the calculations to figure out if there is enough electrical grid capacity to charge all those electric cars, and the answer is a resounding NO.


I like it. Climate control should be added as their third mandate, but with the proviso that there be no future Fed nor FOMC meetings pending their proof of progress by restoring the California Grizzly and Dire Wolf.


Mish, it’s time for you to learn some science about global warming. I have posted this once before, but you probably didn’t read it because you keep posting nonsense about global warming fraud. I thought you were smarter than that. Is it because you need activity on your blog?

There are always people who do not understand science, making ridiculous claims. That includes people on both sides of the global warming debate. ”The world will end in 12 years”. ”Miami will drown in 6 years” Making such stupid statements does not help contribute to a rationale discussion of the issue.

Equally ridiculous are those who refuse to accept the reality of global warming and climate change, saying it doesn’t exist. (a stage 1 denier)

Mish is a stage 2 denier. He understands that global warming is real. Or I thought he did.

A stage 2 denier thinks that global warming is not the result of anything man is doing (like adding extra greenhouse gasses such as CO2 and CH4 to the atmosphere). Rather a stage 2 denier like Mish thinks any change in global temperature is primarily linked to changes in solar irradiance. He also expects solar irradiance to drop dramatically in the next decade or two (a Maunder Minimum) which will cause the planet to cool significantly.

Let’s discuss this.

What contributes to the temperature of our planet? In order of significance:

  1. The sun: The amount of energy that the earth receives from the sun is the most important factor in the temperature of the planet. If someone could flip a switch and turn off the sun, the temperature of earth would soon plummet to around -240C, similar to the temperature of Pluto, which is very far from the sun. Based on the earth’s distance from the sun, if the sun was the only factor in the earth’s temperature, then the earth’s temperature would average -18C. Since the average temperature on earth is +15C, there are other factors in addition to the sun that contribute to this 33C additional warming of the earth.

  2. The thickness of the atmosphere and the level of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere: Planets without an atmosphere cannot distribute the sun’s energy around the planet. They also quickly reflect the heat received back into space. If a planet has an atmosphere that contains some greenhouse gasses, it can hold on to the heat longer. For example, Mercury, the closest planet to the sun, does not have an atmosphere to either distribute or retain any of the sun’s energy it receives. The side of the planet which faces the sun has a surface temperature of +450C. The opposite side which faces away from the sun has a surface temperature of -170C. The average is +165C. Unlike Mercury, Venus has a thick atmosphere, containing at lot of CO2, which is a greenhouse gas that traps a lot of the sun’s energy. Without an atmosphere, Venus would have a surface temperature averaging below 0C. Because of its thick atmosphere and greenhouse gasses, Venus has an evenly distributed temperature all over the planet of +465C (+870F). What Mercury and Venus show is that even though the sun provides the energy, an atmosphere with greenhouse gasses can dramatically increase the temperature of the planet. The CO2 heavy atmosphere of Venus adds over 500C to its surface temperature. Earth has a much thinner atmosphere than Venus, with far fewer greenhouse gasses, so it contributes much less to the temperature compared to Venus. Based on the amount of energy received from the sun, the Earth should have an average temperature of -18C, but because of the atmosphere and greenhouse gasses, it has an average temperature of +15C. As a result, the Earth is merely 33C warmer than what it would be without an atmosphere.

  3. Orbital changes of a planet: The third most important determinant of Earth’s temperature is from variations in the planet’s orbit (eccentricity), the tilt of it’s axis (obliquity), and tilt direction (precession). Milankovitch described these orbital changes, which cycle over very long periods of time (100,000; 41,000; and 26,000 years). These cycles affect how much of the sun’s energy is available to be captured by the planet. Note, that this has nothing to do with the amount of energy emitted from the sun. But it does affect how much of that energy the planet can absorb. These cycles change the amount of energy received by as much as 6.8% over many tens of thousands of years and coincide perfectly with ice ages and inter-glacial periods which go through hundred thousand year cycles. Currently, all three Milankovitch cycles are in a cooling phase. Based on past history, the planet should be slowly cooling, CO2 levels should be dropping, the glaciers should be growing, and sea levels should be dropping (actually, the planet was cooling for around 6000 years, until 250 years ago, when we started using fossil fuels). One more thing to understand about Milankovitch cycles is that their effects on temperature are very small and take very long periods of time; however there are natural feedback loops on the planet which amplify their effect. The two significant feedback loops are ice albedo and Carbon Dioxide. At the end of a cold cycle there is a lot of ice on the planet and CO2 levels are lower. When a warming cycle begins, it begins to melt the ice and to cause more release of CO2. Less ice means less reflected sunlight and more absorption, which causes more warming, less ice, more absorption, more warming, less ice, more absorption, etc. (a feedback loop). The same feedback loop adds more CO2 to the atmosphere, which causes more warming, more CO2, more warming, more CO2, etc. Without the feedback loops, even a 6.8% change in the sun’s energy reaching earth would have a very small effect on temperature, but with feedback loops the temperature can vary up to 10C over a hundred thousand years.

  4. Fluctuations in energy from the sun: The amount of energy the sun gives off is remarkably constant with very small fluctuations over time. During the typical 11 year solar cycle, the energy varies by 0.1%, though it can vary by as much as 0.24% during Maunder Minimums (compare this tiny change to the 6.8% change of Milankovitch cycles). In addition, certain wavelengths of light can vary by as much as 10%, though these variations don’t have much effect on surface temperature. Most of these changes affect the upper atmosphere (the stratosphere). Subsequently, these changes filter down to the lower atmosphere (the troposphere) and often have an impact on weather patterns and a slight influence on temperature. The current cycle (cycle 24) is just ending after 6 years of falling irradiance. This should also have been cooling the planet very modestly over the last 6 years.

  5. Other factors include volcanic eruptions, Pacific oscillations such as El Nino and La Niña: These other factors are mostly short-term and effect temperature for only a year or two. For example a very strong El Nino in 2016 added a little temporary warmth for one year which helped 2016 be the warmest year since we started recording temperatures in 1880. The La Nina that followed in 2017-18 subsequently cooled the planet slightly for two years. An El Niño in 2019 was so weak that it might have added a tiny bit of warmth, but nothing like the strong one in 2016.. When looking at a temperature chart you can see these short term fluctuations in the see-saw patterns. However, since these effects are short term or temporary, they are mostly noise in the overall trend of warming. Volcanic eruptions add dust particles to the atmosphere which shade the planet slightly for a few months, causing very minor cooling, until they settle back down to the planets surface. However, volcanic eruptions also add extra CO2 to the atmosphere, which takes more than a hundred years to dissipate, and contributes a small amount of heating. The amount of CO2 released from volcanic activity is very tiny, compared to the amount of CO2 being released by man each year.

  6. Internal Core: The temperature of Earth’s core is around 4400C. However, very little of this heat reaches the Earth’s crust, and therefore only contributes a very tiny 0.03% of energy to the planet’s overall energy budget. The rest is from the sun. The core temperature has been cooling for billions of years, but the cooling amounts to about one degree in the core every ten million years.

Summary: The sun provides enough energy to raise the temperature of the earth’s surface from -240C to -18C. The atmosphere and greenhouse gasses subsequently increase the temperature from -18C to +15C. Orbital changes cause long term fluctuations of the planet’s temperature of as much as 10C (over a hundred thousand years). Fluctuations in the suns output can cause 11 year temperature changes of 0.1 to 0.3C. Pacific oscillations like El Nino can cause a one or two year change in earth’s temperatures of 0.1 to 0.3C.

At present, Milankovitch cycles have been cooling the planet for 6000 years and will continue to for tens of thousands of years more. The 11 year solar cycle has also been cooling the planet for 6 years, though a new warming trend will begin shortly. A very weak El Nino in 2019 may have contributed a tiny bit of warmth to the Earth’s temperature, reversing two years of cooling from the La Nina year’s of 2017/18. Putting these factors together indicate that the planet should be cooling, especially in the last 6 years.

But the temperatures are rising. In fact, the last 6 years are the warmest 6 years globally since we started recording temperatures in 1880. This warming has been going on for quite some time now, and it is accelerating. The ice is melting, and oceans are rising. And the pace of these changes are also accelerating.

There is one primary factor that is causing this. Greenhouse gasses, particularly CO2, has increased from 280 ppm to 412 ppm in the last 250 years because of man. And this is the primary cause of global warming.

Please note that all I am trying to do here is present the facts, or as I call it, reality. I am not talking politics. I am not telling anyone what to do. I am not advocating for taxes. I am not advocating for any kind of action.

In fact, I do not expect any significant actions. I expect the warming to continue to accelerate because of a lack of action. That is also reality.

I am also realistic enough to understand that there are plenty of morons out there who are blind to reality, and would rather subscribe to conspiracy theories than admit they don’t know anything about global warming. There are many who comment on this blog who are in that category.


Makes sense. Climate change is something you can throw tons of money at despite nebulous goals. Discernible results don't matter because the goalposts can be moved as much as needed. It's a lot like the MIC.

Note that it doesn't even matter if climate change is real. The Fed has no intention of "helping" anyone below elite status anyway.


"It's bad enough that central bankers are clueless about inflation.

They now want their hands in another thing they do not understand and cannot control even if they did...

... Here's a lesson for you climate fearmongers: Never put a time frame on your prediction that is shorter than your expected life or you will be ridiculed until you die."

That's some real kickass writing!

The climate change thing is really about globalism and pushing for global governance of sorts. The central banking cartels are always looking for more ways to trump national sovereignty without explicitly saying so. So this is a natural fit - and for all we know, the latter is funding the former anyway. Right up their alley.

I read a lot about climate twenty years ago and every so often check back in but nothing really has changed, except that the more that is known about climate, the more apparent it is that we have only just begun. (Although Piers Corbyn might argue with that since apparently his forecasts are second to none.)

A couple of points: if you can't determine, let alone measure, nearly all the variables involved in any subject of scientific inquiry, you are not able to determine if current behavior deviates from the norm or not. That pretty much sums up where we are with climate studies. The matrix of variables in planetary climate is beyond our ken at this point but they do include things like: solar sunspot and related magnetic cycles; similar galactic cycles; (these effect particle density and the amount that penetrates the atmosphere to help seed clouds which are generally cooling because they deflect the suns' rays, still the largest input we are aware of; bacterial behaviors - there are zillions around the world currently changing their physical properties so they can rise up on thermals and then change again to become nuclei (like space particles) for forming raindrops (woo woo stuff!); various gases, of which by far the largest is (drumroll please) water vapour, but also complex interplays with nitrogen, oxygen, hydrogen and to a far lesser extent CO2, which is a bit player. Without them there would be no life as we know it. Then you have oceanic currents with their cycles, and vegetation inputs, the infamous termites who output more Co2 than we do apparently, planetary core issues involving both temperature (esp. if there we go through an active volcano period) and magnetic field (which is reducing in strength at an accelerated rate which some believe might precipitate an axis tilt which will destroy all life on earth and end our climate change worries right there - and finally END THE FED to boot, so there's some upside!).

The bottom line: we don't have the scientific ability to measure what 'normal' is, let alone what anthropogenic inputs may or may not have created deviations in that normal. It is entirely reasonable to suppose we are effecting global climate, but it is entirely unreasonable to believe that we are anywhere near being able to measure it, let alone do anything about it. Vegetation is up 14% in past 2-3 decades and that's probably because Co2 levels have been rising from historically very very low to historically very low (IF our ways of extrapolating data from past events is accurate which there is NO way of proving one way or another).

So when you read apocalyptic doom and gloom statements of any ilk, although it's possible they are more or less true, at the very least you can be sure that the people parroting such talking points, even if they have PhD's and stirling reputations, don't know one way or another. They have no proof; they are guessing.

Climate science (if you can call it that) is in its infancy. Tinkering with the climate to 'fix' what we have harmed is an exercise in both ignorance and hubris, take your pick.

Mish is bang on with this one.


Just picture the carbon credit arrangement as being a global asset forfeiture law. Why? Because that's what it is.


Environmentalists are confusing pollution with climate change...someone please get them a dictionary!


Does she spend time making her hair look like that - or does she just get out of bed in the morning and do nothing with it?


Funny stuff, Mish. It's the intersection of two hopelessly biased and corrupted fields.


A war on climate change will soon replace the war on terror. Terror requires us to fund & train terrorists who often screw up and give away the "esoterics" of terror theater whereas climate change merely requires selective data timelines and MSM mouthpieces.


People upstream ranting about predictions being wrong. You want predictions that might be right? Here you go!

Blind Mystic Baba Vanga’s 2020 Predictions Are As Bleak As All Her Others 23 DEC 2019

Fancy knowing what’s going to happen to us all next year, doom and gloom and all?

Of course you do, because why wouldn’t you want to dampen your spirits just two days before Christmas? That’s what the festive period is all about, hey?

Enter: Baba Vanga, the blind Bulgarian mystic who has so far correctly predicted 9/11, the rise of ISIS, the Boxing Day tsunami and Brexit – and who, just before her death 23 years ago, had some chilling predictions for 2020. ... https://www.unilad.co.uk/life/blind-mystic-baba-vangas-2020-predictions-are-as-bleak-as-all-her-others/


Every Hour's Idiot Hour at the Dumb House.

What else is new?

Runner Dan
Runner Dan

This recent advocacy for climate change is just another cover for their true purpose - bailing out banks.

"See! Look people, we are up to date with the latest fads - just like you!" (or so they perceive).

Reminiscent of a mafia movie which traces a family's history through the years: The faces, hair styles, cars, mannerisms, etc. all change with the times, but the occupation stays the same - criminal enterprise!

Christian dk
Christian dk

MISH Follow the money...Thanks to this climate bullshit, the money supply / M3 MUST continue to expand...thank god or else the bankers could NOT receive their interest... First they deny Gods creation promising that every thing came from nothing and now they want us to pay for the fight against natural selection that will kill,drown and starve the least fittest.


I would hate to take the risk and live in Florida or some other place at sea level in the tropics where hurricanes happen. There is already evidence seas are rising as some islands have receded in the last 30 years. Whatever it is that is causing this does have economic impact whether you think it is global warming or something else.


See the videos of Tony Heller.

  1. There is no climate change that must be attributed to CO2 (and probably never will be).
  2. The proposed 'green' measures are extremely damaging as well as totally useless.

I'm a stupid man but what I fail to get is this. Central banks are about propping up economies. Addressing global warming if taken seriously demands that they stab a dagger into the heart of the economy.

People can talk about green jobs all day long, but the reality of our situation is that any serious attempt to stop global warming must involve cutting back on our economies. Killing the old economy in favour of the new green one. Which at a minimum would not only involve defunding coal mines, oil fields and the like but also cutting back on construction, the airline industry, the automotive industry and so on.

I imagine people are going to argue that central banks will splash out on massive new infrastructure projects (generating new emissions while doing so of course). And that these new green projects will employ the people left unemployed from the stranded assets of the old economy. Of course running the risk of leaving those very same people stranded as they lack the proper skills to join the new green economy.

I just can't see how letting central banks attempt to pick the winners of the new green economy and the losers of the old one is going to be compatible with maintaining employment and industries because at some point these are going to be mutually exclusive aims.


Well now this should make Greta attempt to smile. I am so sick of the people that run this circus.


This is the same as the government justifying their over-reach in many things by how it will affect interstate commerce.


Yes, very good, thank you. Obviously he can't go into detail in 4 minutes, but even though apparently it's quite heroic to have got 250 years of reliable data (exactly what I didn't catch), 250 is just about 8 data points (using the typical 30 year integer).

Also, even if the correlation of Co2 to globally higher temperatures is a helpful observation, given the complexity of Gaia, how many feedback loops and mechanisms are in the mix? Maybe some other driver manifests in part as increased Co2. In any case, my personal bottom line for this is that unless and until we have a solid handle on what the normal variations are, how can we possibly determine what is abnormal, let alone how to fix it without going back into the stone age?

Bottom line: there is far too much hyperbole and guesswork in the mix.
And those pushing the hyperbole - especially the 'world is over in 12 years stuff' are doing far more harm than good, both to their argument, and to the impressionable minds of young people who feel they have no future because of all this brainwashing. I have very little sympathy for people pushing all that societal anxiety was trumpeting that they only deal in 'facts' or 'science' when in fact their speech is mainly hysterical in tone and impact.

Bah Humbug! I say!


The earth's mean surface temperature is not going to warm anywhere near 4C from human produced CO2.


How did the FED deal with the cooling after the warm 1930's?

The real threat for the FED is the 250 trillion dollar global debt bubble.


I think a reason why it is difficult for those like Realist to accept that climate science is a fraud, is that the fraud is so extreme. Tony Heller makes an outstanding case for this extreme fraud, and that's the only reason I think of why anyone would reject his slam dunk argument.

I am in the healthcare field, and fraud is rampant. Most medical studies are fraudulent, paid for by the drug companies. Then there are many studies that are just plain bad science. Additionally, many studies are simply from researchers trying to make a name for themselves ("publish or perish"). Good honest studies are few.

Because of the politicization of global warming, climate scientists either go with the program, or find a new job and new friends. Not many will do this, but a few brave souls have and are then free to tell the truth.

Global Economics