Flaming madness

I knew I was in trouble when I read this summary of the Fed's reluctance to transform the U.S. monetary policy in preparedness for possible future climate-change shocks:

[A]ccording to the Fed, severe weather isn’t new and climate change isn’t their responsibility. The American agencies that oversee the financial system have decided to ignore climate change. . . .

nodded in relieved agreement, then noticed that it was the furious summary of a Hawaii senator who pronounced it "garbage." And noticed that it was featured in a Wall Street Journal article that seemed to agree with the honorable senator, in part because:

Research from some regional Fed banks has pointed to considerable disruption in coming years if nothing is done to mitigate rising global temperatures, which scientists broadly agree are driven by human activity.

The devil you say!  Research points to a future problem if nothing is done?  Do these awful conservatives want us to ignore research about the future now?  I realize the existing climate data don't yet support the catastrophic predictions placed before a breathless public over the last two decades, but if you research the future instead of letting yourself be distracted by the boring present and past, you can see there is some very alarming news out there.  Something's got to be done.  Each federal agency must stand by to do its part.

Fed Chairman Powell doesn't actually adopt the bare-knuckled rhetorical style of the Hawaiian senator's summary.  Instead, he seems to be trying to smooth this panic over rather than talking plain sense to spooked, irrational people who probably would only become more hysterical in the presence of declarative statements in plain English. He makes some friendly noise about how severe weather events sometimes have an impact on the economy, and the Fed stands ready to take them into account, as usual, if they happen at some point. He also "played down climate-change issues as a high-priority issue for monetary policy." What criminal lassitude! Doesn't he know that

Some regional Fed leaders have said the central bank may need to take on the issue more aggressively, as some central banks in Europe are doing. Philadelphia Fed leader Patrick Harker said last November that “there is no question we’re going to have to start factoring this more and more” into how the central bank thinks about the future of the economy.

Well, I'm second to none in my admiration for European economic policy, and I'm all for factoring things into how we think about the future of stuff, and aggressive action is always best even if you don't know quite what to do.  Nevertheless, I found the following foot-dragging approach a bit easier to understand:

Others at the Fed believe climate change isn’t something that matters much for monetary policy. “It’s hard for me to imagine the climate changing sufficiently to affect the next three to five years and how we look at the potential growth rate of the U.S. economy,” Minneapolis Fed leader Neel Kashkari said in a March interview.

It looks like we've got some virtuous, caring people who find it easy to imagine how something might have an effect on something else, even if they find it hard to let us know what they're imagining about it these days and why we should care. Then we have some bad people who are finding whatever it is rather harder to imagine, and who in any case can't see that anyone has entrusted them with the task of letting their minds wander in those regions, lost, let alone jacking with the nation's monetary policy in an effort to have an effect on something that may or may not happen according to predictive models that have failed abjectly over the last 20 years.

But . . . but . . . what about preparedness? Really, if these guys must engage in preparedness, I'd rather they geared up to combat the known, predictable, and even currently tangible effects of redistributivist socialist nonsense in aid of further nonsense.