No, not the real climate tipping point, but is one of the main drivers of the coming eco-disaster about to change sides? Or will the scientists be sacked as whistleblowers?
This report was of course not meant for publication. It was intended purely for JP Morgan’s decision makers. Thank you Extinction Rebellion and Rupert Read (and the Guardian).
But JP Morgan still has the dilemma they have had ever since the MIT questioned unending growth in 1972. I like the Simplol ‘gunslinger’ example, but poker is another good analogy. Quit too soon, and they lose vital market share. Too late, and the consequences are spelled out well enough by JP Morgan’s own economists. But JP Morgan knew this already. Shell and ExxonMobil had done the same homework as the MIT, but instead of a halt to growth, they funded climate denial.
What would be the point of hindering JP Morgan’s clients? Their power is huge, but they do not so far as I know, have the complete power necessary. They are not mentioned in the Guardian article as funding Brazilian cattle ranching, palm oil, or anything in China. Even if JP Morgan never again invested in anything unsustainable,the rush towards a crisis would only be slowed by their current market share. They must make sure they are still major players when the actual crisis occurs.
But could this leak bounce JP Morgan into talks with their competitors? If not them, who is funding rainforest destruction, for palm oil as well as cattle, or China’s ‘Belt & Road’? But if this happens, the recession (slump?) will happen earlier than it would. There will be riots similar to those which led to a version of the basicincome in Iran, which will, failing a similar rapid response, lead to martial law and the suspension of democratic institutions.
It may well be too late, but a universal basic income (UBI) associated with the advice in this leaked report would have allowed both governments and private individuals to downsize their economic footprints. I am still suggesting it now because no one has though of a better catalyst for the more obvious ideas.
It would have been possible for the economy to contract gradually, as a result of decisions by many governments and countless individuals. Only then will those guilty of ecocide, and their backers call it off.
Should I apologize for saying the same thing again and again? It still hasn’t happened. I just want to save the ecosphere for my grandchildren – without too much bloodshed.