soros121_ARIS MESSINISAFP via Getty Images_ukrainewar

Politics

Actualización de mis predicciones de Múnich

Mar 16, 2023 George Soros

LONDRES – Hace exactamente un mes di un discurso en la víspera de la Conferencia de Seguridad de Múnich. Desde entonces pasaron tantas cosas notables —y tan rápidamente— que vale la pena comparar mis predicciones con lo que realmente ocurrió.

Los cambios más grandes se dieron en el sistema climático mundial. Con esto me refiero tanto a las cuestiones climáticas en sí como a la comprensión que de ellas tienen los científicos climáticos. El mensaje principal que procuré transmitir en Múnich fue que el sistema climático mundial depende en gran medida de lo que ocurre en el círculo ártico. El sistema climático del círculo ártico solía estar separado del sistema climático mundial: los vientos solían soplar predeciblemente en dirección antihoraria, pero debido al aumento de la interferencia humana, la separación entre ese sistema y el mundial dejó de imperar.

De hecho, ahora el aire frío escapa del círculo ártico y es reemplazado por aire caliente que este absorbe del exterior. Por eso el círculo ártico se calentó cuatro veces más rápidamente que el resto del mundo durante las últimas cuatro décadas, y la tasa de calentamiento se acelera rápidamente. Desde que di el discurso las temperaturas del círculo ártico se dispararon para subir más de 20 °C por encima de lo normal, marcando récords y aumentando la preocupación por la tasa a la que se derrite la capa de hielo en Groenlandia.

To continue reading, register now.

Subscribe now for unlimited access to everything PS has to offer.

As a registered user, you can enjoy more PS content every month – for free.

Already have an account? Log in

Subscribe to PS Digital

Access every new PS commentary, our entire On Point suite of subscriber-exclusive content – including Longer Reads, Insider Interviews, Big Picture/Big Question, and Say More – and the full PS archive.

Subscribe Now

George Soros

Writing for PS since 1997
124 Commentaries

George Soros is Chairman of Soros Fund Management and the Open Society Foundations. A pioneer of the hedge-fund industry, he is the author of many books, including The Alchemy of Finance, The New Paradigm for Financial Markets: The Credit Crisis of 2008 and What it Means, and The Tragedy of the European Union: Disintegration or Revival? His most recent book is In Defense of Open Society (Public Affairs, 2019).

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 17 Comments on this article

Mirek Fatyga Mar 20, 2023

Perhaps this essay requires a more thoughtful response than a quip I made before.

I take no position on the Ukraine war. Perhaps Mr Soros knows something the rest of us do not, but I would make no wagers on the outcome here. Russia is three times as large as Ukraine in terms of the population. She still has military resources of the former Soviet Union and complete disregard for the human life, including the lives of their own soldiers, quite similar to what was happening during WW2 when Soviets overwhelmed the Germans by their sheer numbers and the willingness to sacrifice millions in the battlefield. Meanwhile, political winds that are sustaining Ukraine's defenses might shift as early as 2024. I wish I could share Mr Soros's optimism, but we should all be cognizant of the fact that the arc of history often twists and turns, even if it somehow bends in the long run towards something that would please us. Russian society seems to be quite firmly in the grip of state propaganda, even if these sentiments are beginning to sour as the war grinds on.

I do take the position on the global warming, though. To an extent to which Mr Soros represents "the world elites", he presents an example of a dangerous obsession that seemed to have overtaken these elites to the point of actually becoming a growing threat to the stability of the world.

The true problem of the world today remains want, deprivation and poverty. Not carbon dioxide in the atmosphere which, incidentally, feeds the plants that world multitudes depend on for their very survival. One can examine a few simple numbers to see this. If one wanted to extend North American consumption of oil per capita to 8 billion people, world oil production would have to increase by ~600%. To the EU level, by ~300%. Energy consumption is the very foundation of prosperity that the industrial civilization has to offer.. Take this away, or even seriously limit this consumption, and the whole humpty dumpty falls down in a blink of an eye. Costs of energy have two impacts on the world. In the developed world, they put a relentless, downward pressure on living standards. This, combined with generational amnesia, feeds ever more dangerous, populist movements that can take us into widespread Fascism. In the developing world these costs put a lid on available development, which is helpfully translated into radicalization, populism and authoritarianism which almost has to be used to retain some control over the society.

Citing "unusual temperatures" at both poles as the evidence of impending catastrophe fits in the pattern of incessant hype coming from the "global warming establishment" where every deviation from our short observation records is a proof of doom, particularly if it is on the warmer side. When it is on the colder side it is "just weather". Mr Soros is old enough to remember similar hype professing impending ice age in the 1970-ies when temperatures dipped. Then it was supposed to be particulate pollution. Today we have computer models which are too simplistic to predict anything of value, as evidenced by the fact that "dangerous" temperature increases require a fudge factor known as "climate sensitivity". Using such models for extrapolations is marginally better than using a ruler to draw the line along the temperature trend, which is itself uncertain since the proponents of doom have been messing with the data ("adjusting" for stuff).

We will face doom in the world full of nuclear weapons if we do not wake up, urgently, and focus on real problems: want, poverty, declining living standards, overexploitation of finite resources and general pollution of the environment by things that are actually toxic.

In the area of energy generation, climate warriors can have at least some of their cake while eating it. Given the scarcity of fossil fuels we need to broaden the energy base by energy sources which do not come from fossil fuels. If someone believes that they are saving the climate through this transition, they are welcome to it. What we can't do is demonize fossil fuels. If the civilization starts collapsing into Fascism, carbon dioxide will be the least of our worries. We need to ensure the energy base that is capable of actually sustaining industrial civilization.

For the readers, I recommend a one hour investment in listening to this guy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXvBdwmxT2c
Steve Koonin has the credentials that are not really disputable, just listen with an open mind to what he has to say.
- Larry Kaumeyer Apr 5, 2023
  
  Mirek touches on a fact based reality that is substantially missing from this perspective from Mr. Soros. How Mr. Soros has found his way into the climate debate with such proclivity is a real mystery to many. A career in hedge funds and taking significant financial risk has somehow provided him with the ability to speak on climate. I, like many can't make this leap.
  
  Your comments Mirek are very practical and my recommendation to anyone who really is looking for a similar educated and historical perspective on these areas is Vaclav Smil's recent book: "How The World Really Works". I would highly recommend this be reading for anyone who is an arm chair climate evangelist.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Waleed Addas Mar 19, 2023

What happens when you take an ice cube from a refrigerator and place it in your hand? It dissolves slowly. This is what’s partly happening to the Arctic for more than 100 years since the 1st human expedition: tampering with nature; making camps etc.etc. weakens icebergs over time! All Trespassers should be summoned and also fined.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Paul Friesen Mar 17, 2023

I really hope it is correct that "Putin is desperate for a ceasefire". Maybe, maybe not. But a ceasefire is what we really need. We should not seek to restore Ukraine's 1991 borders. That would put many with Russian loyalties under Ukrainian government, which is not something we should aim at.

We should take the Chinese peace proposals seriously, not just dismiss them.
- Vidvuds Beldavs Mar 19, 2023
  
  The agreements between Russia and the other newly independent states in December 1991 that created a sovereign Russian state guaranteed the territorial integrity of Ukraine with borders that existed at that time. These agreements included the granting to Russia the right to hold the seat of the former USSR in the UN Security Council. By violating the agreement that created Russia as a sovereign state Russia has destroyed the legal basis for it to hold the seat of the former USSR in the UN. If Russia wants to occupy Ukrainian territory illegally it must give up the seat of the former USSR in the UN otherwise the legal foundations of the UN would be threatened if an illegal state occupies a central position in the Security Council with veto powers. See - https://www.venice.coe.int/webforms/documents/?pdf=CDL(1994)054-e
  
  It is noteworthy that in 2008 Putin responded in an interview that of course Crimea is part of Ukraine. See -https://www.rferl.org/a/putin-crimea-ukraine/26942862.html
  
  Allowing Russia to hold Ukrainian territory with a settlement would be akin to letting ISIS hold territory in Syria, Iraq and other lands that it had seized to restore Islam's past greatness. There is no difference between the past greatness seen by Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and the past greatness seen by Putin. Both are myths. The crucial difference between ISIS and Russia is that ISIS did not have treaties with Iraq and Syria while Russia had treaties with Ukraine. https://www.journalofdemocracy.org/putins-war-of-recolonization/
  - Paul Friesen Mar 19, 2023
    
    I give a lot less weight to such legal arguments than you do. Every patch of land on earth has been occupied by someone other than its current occupants at some time and legal arguments can be made by many parties.
    
    To me, the important question to ask is, how can we settle this with as little bloodshed as possible and with as few people as possible living under governments that they do not want and that may not recognize their minority rights. I do not like to see Russians having Ukrainian culture and language forced on them any more than the other way around.
    
    I am sure that it is impossible to draw a perfect line to make everybody happy, but as far as I know, the current line of control would not be too bad. By stopping this now, we could end the bloodshed and have a reasonable border. Or at least have a position from which to negotiate one.
    - Vidvuds Beldavs Mar 19, 2023
      
      I am very concerned about the future of the UN and the Security Council as global humanity must address rising global threats. The Security Council needs to be made more effective rather than have its legal foundations destroyed by allowing the Russian Federation to gain anything from its aggression.
      In March 2014. when Strelkov was sent to the Donbas to start the war the conditions for war were weak. Strelkov then bragged that the people there did not want to fight until he, Strelkov, made war unavoidable. The Russian security forces have agents skilled in exploiting divisions in society to the maximum. In May 2013 the majority of the people of Crimea were enthusiastic about being on the path to Europe. In a Gallup poll 53% indicated a preference for being an autonomous part of Ukraine, 22% had a preference for Russia. At the time the parliament of Ukraine approved the association agreement with the EU that had been negotiated by the Yanukovych government 319 votes out of 449 possible. The parliament did not approve Yanukovych opting to choose the Eurasian Union late in the year under pressure from Putin.
      If people are given the choice to live in peace they will prefer being where they have wider opportunities, not in an authoritarian state that limits their opportunities. That would be the appeal of living in a Ukraine that becomes a member state of the EU with full rights to travel for its citizens and with significant investment for rebuilding leading to a booming economy. Given that EU membership is secure and jobs and opportunity is plentiful loyalty to the loser would be weak. People tend to be pragmatic.
      Russian security forces have developed techniques to create the appearance of loyalty to Putin. If you assume that Putin will emerge from this unscathed and be reelected in 2024 by a landslide vote perhaps Russia can manufacture the needed animosity to make restoration of Ukraine's territorial integrity unthinkable.
      However, much effort is underway to plan for the rebuilding of Ukraine. practical people will gravitate towards where there is opportunity rather than harbor illusions of some past Russian glory and oppose the real presence of opportunity.
      - Paul Friesen Mar 19, 2023
        
        I am sure there are two sides about what the people of the Donbas want and I am sure they don't all want the same things. I have read reports of Ukrainian soldiers complaining that the local people were giving their positions to the Russians. It's easy to see how that could lead to suppression of the local populations by Ukraine.
        
        Don't place so much belief in people to choose what you think is best for them. People are complex. They are far more than the economist's utility maximizing agents. I am Canadian. My head tells me Canada could be more prosperous if it joined the U. S. That border is just one big pain for our industry. But I and millions of others would resist like crazy any attempt to take us over.
        
        Vidvuds Beldavs Mar 19, 2023
        
        The overwhelming support for the path to Europe under Yanukovych's leadership in 2013 was reflected in the overwhelming parliamentary vote for the Association Agreement with the EU from all regions of Ukraine. Yanukovych, a Ukrainian, also had the backing of the Donbas, which was his powerbase. He strongly opposed the annexation of Crimea as well.
        While the Russian leadership has stoked hostility between Ukrainians and Russians, effective leadership in Ukraine can overcome the hatreds that have been fueled to advance Russian ultranationalist and imperial interests.
        In advance of the referendums in 2014 the pensioners were promised major increases in pensions and other benefits. In that case practical considerations won.
        Given that Ukrainian leadership can deliver an economy with declining corruption that is rebuilding the country with a modern industrial base and much better healthcare they will win hearts and minds. The Crimeans were eagerly awaiting tourists from Europe in 2013 and the freedom to travel. Crimea had tourism offices established in several European cities. Given the renewal of tourism from Europe and genuine development in Crimea conditions for Crimeans can improve dramatically. If the majority favored being a more prosperous part of Ukraine in 2013 I can see a similar attitude emerge in 2024. Kharkov was a largely Russian city that has strongly resisted the Russian invaders. Given a real choice of fighting for Russian ultranationalism or building a country at peace the vast majority will choose building the country.
        It is not at all like Canada and the U.S., the choice is not between slight increase in per capita GDP, where in the U.S. the 1% derive the greatest benefit, but rather living like a Canadian and accepting the diversity of peoples of your country or adopting a manufactured patriotism created to control the population and drive imperial ambitions of the leadership.
        
        A new reply to this comment has been posted.
        
        A new reply to this comment has been posted.
      A new reply to this comment has been posted.
    - Frank Youell Mar 19, 2023
      
      I think Iceland is something of an exception to your statement. The Vikings settled Iceland roughly 1,000 years ago. They did not displace any existing population to do so.
      - Paul Friesen Mar 19, 2023
        
        Well, I suppose Antarctica is another exception. But that still leaves most of the earth.
        
        A new reply to this comment has been posted.
      A new reply to this comment has been posted.
    A new reply to this comment has been posted.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Elizabeth Miller Mar 17, 2023

I'm sorry, but that statement is not entirely accurate. The winds in the Arctic do not typically blow in a predictable counterclockwise direction. The Arctic climate is influenced by several large-scale atmospheric circulation patterns, including the Arctic Oscillation and the North Atlantic Oscillation, which can cause variations in wind patterns and other weather phenomena.

While human activities have certainly had an impact on the Arctic climate system, the idea that they have caused a breakdown in the separation between the Arctic climate system and the global climate system is not entirely accurate. The Arctic climate is still influenced by global atmospheric and oceanic circulation patterns, and changes in the Arctic can also have impacts on the global climate system.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Edward H.C Graydon Mar 17, 2023

They have been able to prove that the release of methane, a far more potent and dangerous greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, is greater than can be explained by the sources of emissions associated with human activity.

Can we assimilate the meaning of human activity to encompass materialism ? And if the world was accepting to the idea that this was in fact true as a general understand, would the stance by some that interest rates should rise be more embraced by those with the strongest public ties and voices surrounding the issue of climate change? Are the casualties of higher interest rates { Home for closers ,higher car payments ,over all cost increase} worth it?

I suppose that depend's on your perspective! And personally if I am to believe those that advocate for more action to be taken like Bill Gates and George Soros who I happen to associate my name by way of written interaction,I would be raising the rates to the point that North America is living the life style of citizens of other countries that they know little about .

I suppose I am not unsympathetic to the real carnage that needs to take place if what George Soros ,Bill Gates is true. So would it not be prudent to raise rates as a strategic move that aligns more with climate change than interest rates and should the carnage of higher interest rates be ignored and brushed aside for the betterment of all mankind.

Could it be argued that when Bill Gates publicly stated goverments and politicians are not taking efficient action when dealing with the urgency of reducing global emissions Is it out of negligence on behalf of governments that they talk about possible interest rate reductions .
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Oleksandr Diachenko Mar 17, 2023

It seems to me that this is a very correct prioritization. I fully agree that the priority of the whole world and challenge number 1 is global warming, this problem needs to be addressed by everyone. Against this background, everything else is processes that can be managed and so on, although I do not downplay them. Of course, the war acted as a catalyst for the restructuring of the entire energy market. But now this war is getting in the way and the world needs to do other things. Therefore, the message to end this war as soon as possible is absolutely clear to me. I can only add that the problem called Putin and his regime must be removed as soon as possible!
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Mirek Fatyga Mar 16, 2023

if Mr Soros's understanding of war is as deep as his understanding of climate appears to be, I grieve for Ukraine.
- Larry Kaumeyer Apr 5, 2023
  
  Mirek: I totally agree with you. I would highly recommend that Mr. Soros stick to investments. His perspective on climate is wrong, not fact based as can be seen by this article. All broad sweeping generalizations, quoting climate scientists with no names, no facts and no credibility.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Edward H.C Graydon Mar 16, 2023

I concur and it is for this reason Materialism, the addiction that it is be crushed by higher interest rates! I think the premise or argument around global warming would be better served targeting the human weakness ? Greed! I concur with your analogy that makes it seem that Americans are out of control in regards too extra curricular vices and or miss guided addictions possible caused by the system itself . Capitalism is the problem that leads to despair as the game of capitalism let's call it materialism, is based on a human weakness as humans are weak minded and not prone to applying delayed gratification hence the reason for bank service charges that are almost more destructive than compounded interest.

Not all people are as you describe them ! And for those that play the game well and manage to enjoy the system and are prone to benefiting from it ! How can the elite of this world reduce their carbon footprint ? The excesses in personal consumption are seen in those that are currently facing calls from the banks asking for payments as debt levels are barometers or indictors of lack of control regardless of inflation at least regarding North Americans as they lack insight into the meaning of true hardship.This is an assumption on my part. But one that I believe to be true.

I believe the best thing that could be done to help eliminate the plaque of righteous misguided consumerism would be to raise the rates to where it really starts to hurt the bottom line as it seems this is now the intent? But I would promote higher rates as a God send to those that advocate on behalf of climate change the premise of needing to raise rates based on inflation and argue in front of the world its necessity in the global fight against materialism as a strategic way of fighting climate change and the excesses of modern life on this planet or at least in North America.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.

https://prosyn.org/KERrzVees

Actualización de mis predicciones de Múnich

Subscribe to PS Digital

Global Warming, Hot Wars, Closed Societies

New Comment

Contact us

Log in/Register

Actualización de mis predicciones de Múnich

Subscribe to PS Digital

Edit Newsletter Preferences

Set up Notification