Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Global Warming Will Raise House Prices


 Share

Recommended Posts

Seen on page 2 of the Daily Mail today - a committee in the House of Lords is arguing that we shouldn't do anything about reducing emissions to combat climate change. Instead we should spend the money adapting to change. Among the benefits are possible rises in house prices (can you hear the electorate salivating?) 'because house prices tend to be higher in favourable climates' :angry: :angry:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

committee in the House of Lords is arguing that we shouldn't do anything about reducing emissions to combat climate change. Instead we should spend the money adapting to change.

Wow, politicians actually talking sense for once!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Incidentally, the Times has a good article about this:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1072-1682423,00.html

"Britain’s own climate change strategy is a shambles based on “dubious” assumptions, vague, “wildly optimistic” estimates of costs — and a politically correct approach so dominated “by certain renewable technology interests” that the “big” future technologies, such as hydrogen power, are being neglected in favour of an obsession with wind power."

Edit: oh, and another one: http://news.scotsman.com/scitech.cfm?id=746502005

And an interesting article about the 'scientific consensus':

http://www.nbr.co.nz/home/column_article.a...=Business+Today

Edited by MarkG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Climate change does not mean it just gets a bit warmer all year round.

It more probably means greater extremes of weather.....wind, sudden rain, hot summers of drought, colder winters, more snow.

The increased frequency of flash floods recently have devastated some towns and leave many properties uninsurable.

Repair costs from storms and other freak weather will increase insurance costs.

I really can't see how global warming can possibly inflate prices.....same as royal weddings, dying popes and sporting events cant depress them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll admit that the Greens seem to be freakishly obssessed with wind power, but this,

the “big” future technologies, such as hydrogen power,

is equally as preposterous.

http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:6u86T...m&hl=en&start=1

Hydrogen from fossil fuels runs into the same problems that fossil fuels will. Hydrogen from seawater consumes vast amounts of electricity; if you have the energy to make hydrogen from seawater, cut out the middleman (hydrogen) and go straight to electric cars.

http://priuschat.com/forums/archive/o_t/t_...lternative.html

http://www.peakoil.com/fortopic161-0-asc-60.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hype_about_Hydrogen

http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/001501.html

http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/002768.html

http://www.popsci.com/popsci/generaltech/a...27469-3,00.html

http://www.powerswitch.org.uk/portal/index...id=483&Itemid=2

Edited by zzg113
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Climate change does not mean it just gets a bit warmer all year round.

It more probably means greater extremes of weather.....wind, sudden rain, hot summers of drought, colder winters, more snow.

The increased frequency of flash floods recently have devastated some towns and leave many properties uninsurable.

Repair costs from storms and other freak weather will increase insurance costs.

I really can't see how global warming can possibly inflate prices.....same as royal weddings, dying popes and sporting events cant depress them.

Agreed. Isnt the big worry that the gulf stream stops, thus pushing down temperatures in Western Europe?

Favourable climates? That would explain houses prices as high as they are in Hartlepool.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Climate change does not mean it just gets a bit warmer all year round.

It more probably means greater extremes of weather.....wind, sudden rain, hot summers of drought, colder winters, more snow.

Is this evidenced historically by the last global warm period between the 9th-14th centuries when termperatures were somewhat warmer than they are now?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Incidentally, the Times has a good article about this:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1072-1682423,00.html

"Britain’s own climate change strategy is a shambles based on “dubious” assumptions, vague, “wildly optimistic” estimates of costs — and a politically correct approach so dominated “by certain renewable technology interests” that the “big” future technologies, such as hydrogen power, are being neglected in favour of an obsession with wind power."

Edit: oh, and another one: http://news.scotsman.com/scitech.cfm?id=746502005

And an interesting article about the 'scientific consensus':

http://www.nbr.co.nz/home/column_article.a...=Business+Today

BTW Mark, as a Tory eco - warrior I argue the only energy path worth following is Nuclear. Wind power takes up too much room.

Nuclear is safe and efficient. If we want we could get new reactors built well within the 15 year usuall.

Climate change isnt nearly as important as natural habitat destruction. Id sooner kill people than ruin natural spaces that are vastly older and of course infinately more important to planet earths survival. People = pests. Except for me that is. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"a committee in the House of Lords is arguing that we shouldn't do anything about reducing emissions to combat climate change. Instead we should spend the money adapting to change."

...or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Carbon Emissions.

Brings this image to mind.

strangelove.jpg

post-1824-1120667869_thumb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would also agree that being able to adapt to climate change is far more sensible than trying to control something that is fundamentally uncontrollable.

Climate change due to natural disasters / events (e.g. massive volcano eruption) are far more likely to cause problems than so-called "man made" climate change. Also natural climate can vary by as much as ten degrees C (global mean temp was approx 7 to 8 deg C warmer than today in the Jurassic period, didn't seem to cause the dinosaurs any great difficulties, and 2-3 deg cooler during the carboniferous, when CO2 concentrations were at 6000ppm, which was far more difficult to live with!)

This is admittedly on geological timescales, although sudden shifts can occur following shock natural events. But being able to adapt to what can occur naturally makes infinitely more sense than trying to control climate, which is just plain daft. IMHO.

Usually I'm more interested in the science than the politics, this is the only political aspect of climate change I tend to discuss - adapt rather than control.

Also agree with the increased use of nuclear power, though. It is the only currently viable technical solution that can come close to meeting our voracious energy appetites outside of fossil fuels. Nuclear power is uncompetitive compared to "cheap" fossil fuels, but as we move to fossil fuels that are more expensive to extract (deep water, orimulsion tars etc) nuclear power will become much more competitive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Man has not changed the climate, there are not enough fossil fuels if you burnt them all up today in one go to have an impact.

10,000 years ago the whole of the UK was covered in Ice three miles thick, and again 10,000 years before that, and again before that.

Climate change is a thinly veiled attempt on the west to enter in more taxation on the basis it will help the third world, when in fact it will only go into the pockets of the rich running the show as is the case today.

How would taxing aircraft fuel reduce global warming?. Any ideas would be welcome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Man has not changed the climate, there are not enough fossil fuels if you burnt them all up today in one go to have an impact.

10,000 years ago the whole of the UK was covered in Ice three miles thick, and again 10,000 years before that, and again before that.

Climate change is a thinly veiled attempt on the west to enter in more taxation on the basis it will help the third world, when in fact it will only go into the pockets of the rich running the show as is the case today.

How would taxing aircraft fuel reduce global warming?. Any ideas would be welcome.

The consensus of scientific opinion would suggest otherwise, as the IPCC (and many others) have produced significant peer reviewed reports, which suggested that global warming is occurring and human activity is, in part, responsible for the change.

As you point out, global climate fluctuation is natural and has always occurred. However, this problem (and our contribution to it) is going to bite us on the ass, but the people who primarily pay for the damage caused be the west will be in the third world, as they can least afford to 'buy' there way out of trouble as we will be able to (at least temporarily).

Personally I think the kinds of political initiative required to force meaningful action upon this country, and on the west as a whole, are so drastic that no political party proposing such measures will every win the popular vote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The consensus of scientific opinion would suggest otherwise, as the IPCC (and many others) have produced significant peer reviewed reports, which suggested that global warming is occurring and human activity is, in part, responsible for the change.

Ah the good old "scientific concensus" which doesn't exist (scientists disagree over the cause of global warming) - of course this is an Appeal to Popularity logical fallacy.

... "many peer reviewed reports" through a highly politicised peer review process where coming to the correct "conclusion" is more important than technical content.

This factor is noted well in the House of Lords report, the IPCC is rapidly losing trust in the scientific community as a sound source of good, independent science.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reality is that with the huge emissions growth from China etc. nothing the UK, Australia etc. do about domestic emissions is going to make any real difference. Sand but true.

The worldwide fossil fuel industries are gearing up for ever increasing expansion (untill it runs out) at the same time as many trump the benefits of the Kyoto Protocol. Sign Kyoto and the world mines more coal - clearly it's not working.

So, given that there is little we can do to stop the emissions apart from a token contribution, the only real option whether we like it or not is to adapt.

That is the situation with which we are faced. Adapt or face the consequences of not adapting since prevention just isn't going to happen unless there is a radical shift away from politics (Kyoto) and towards actually doing something which seems unlikely.

The oil problem also requires an urgent focus as to how to adapt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest magnoliawalls
The reality is that with the huge emissions growth from China etc. nothing the UK, Australia etc. do about domestic emissions is going to make any real difference. Sand but true.

The worldwide fossil fuel industries are gearing up for ever increasing expansion (untill it runs out) at the same time as many trump the benefits of the Kyoto Protocol. Sign Kyoto and the world mines more coal - clearly it's not working.

So, given that there is little we can do to stop the emissions apart from a token contribution, the only real option whether we like it or not is to adapt.

That is the situation with which we are faced. Adapt or face the consequences of not adapting since prevention just isn't going to happen unless there is a radical shift away from politics (Kyoto) and towards actually doing something which seems unlikely.

The oil problem also requires an urgent focus as to how to adapt.

Good post.

I have read into this in some detail and economic growth and carbon emissions are almost inextricably linked - particularly for less developed countries. At present there is no feasible way of implementing measures to reduce global carbon emissions - Kyoto is little more than a politically motivated trade agreement.

Emissions could however be reduced by either a global depression or a great leap forward in technological progress.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Emissions could however be reduced by either a global depression or a great leap forward in technological progress.

We have the technologies now to reduce carbon emissions; the question is who will pay for them. Because the developing countries certainly won't if they aren't forced to and measures to cut emissions aren't also implemented in the West.

(I'm thinking of carbon sequestration, clean coal, nuclear, etc)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.