Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

interestrateripoff

The Financial Markets Are The Only Hope In The Race To Stop Global Warming

Recommended Posts

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/ipcc-report-the-financial-markets-are-the-only-hope-in-the-race-to-stop-global-warming-8843573.html

But Dr Pachauri warned that unless a price could be put on carbon emissions that was high enough to force power companies and manufacturers to reduce their fossil-fuel use, there seemed to be little chance of avoiding hugely damaging temperature increases.

“An extremely effective instrument would be to put a price on carbon. It is only through the market that you can get a large enough and rapid enough response,” he said, calling on policymakers around the world “to see what’s required”.

Dr Pachauri said the IPCC was working on “mechanisms” through which the market could be used to reduce carbon emissions. These are likely to be announced in April next year when the IPCC releases the third part of its assessment, which deals with climate change mitigation.

Clearly the global economy can take higher energy costs in the middle of a global depression.

The answer isn't to increase the price of carbon fuels it's to develop cheaper energy alternatives and the free market will take care of the rest. However there are too many VI's keen to keep everyone hooked on oil / gas to make any other alternative viable. Although if things carry on as they are those lovely people in the City and Wall Street will price carbon energy above the reach of the proles anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They finally run out of collateral, they are literally going to hypothecate stuff out of thin air.

If sea level rises as predicted, there are insufficient funds in the insurance industry to cover the claims that will come from Florida alone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If sea level rises as predicted, there are insufficient funds in the insurance industry to cover the claims that will come from Florida alone.

Not interested in turning this into a denier Vs zealot thread. Just commenting about the financial entities loving the idea of CO2 warrants. Imagine the financial engineering you can get from that stream.

Oh and AIG told me they have plenty. And if they don't, Ben has.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not interested in turning this into a denier Vs zealot thread. Just commenting about the financial entities loving the idea of CO2 warrants. Imagine the financial engineering you can get from that stream.

Yes, it is dire the way it is spun. Top down vs bottom up

Much better to invest in some decent, non-carbon based energy sources, starting with nuclear.

Oh and AIG told me they have plenty. And if they don't, Ben has.

Very good

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

course, they could just stop digging the stuff out of the ground...but nobody makes money that way....

lucky for us the financial sector were never involved in the COD wars....quotas...that was good...you fished the cod, hit your quota and dumped perfectly good food back overboard...dead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, it is dire the way it is spun. Top down vs bottom up

Much better to invest in some decent, non-carbon based energy sources, starting with nuclear.

Very good

where is all that deadly highly toxic nuclear waste?..

encased in crystal and buried 1000 feet underground?

entombed in led and sunk into the San Andreas Fault?

safely packaged at sellafield and disposed of safely into the Sun?

No, its in a pool of water on top of the reactor....

reassured of Colchester.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

where is all that deadly highly toxic nuclear waste?..

encased in crystal and buried 1000 feet underground?

entombed in led and sunk into the San Andreas Fault?

safely packaged at sellafield and disposed of safely into the Sun?

No, its in a pool of water on top of the reactor....

reassured of Colchester.

In fairness, not all of it is sitting on top of reactors. Some of it is pulverised and scattered over the Middle East

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If sea level rises as predicted, there are insufficient funds in the insurance industry to cover the claims that will come from Florida alone.

how can you claim natural (not human caused) sea level rises ???

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/01/130123133612.htm

The new results show that during the Eemian period 130,000 to 115,000 years ago the climate in Greenland was around 8 degrees C warmer than today.

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

Sea level at peak was probably 4 to 6m (13 to 20 feet) higher than today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

how can you claim natural (not human caused) sea level rises ???

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/01/130123133612.htm

The new results show that during the Eemian period 130,000 to 115,000 years ago the climate in Greenland was around 8 degrees C warmer than today.

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

Sea level at peak was probably 4 to 6m (13 to 20 feet) higher than today.

Easily, that is all I'll say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/ipcc-report-the-financial-markets-are-the-only-hope-in-the-race-to-stop-global-warming-8843573.html

Clearly the global economy can take higher energy costs in the middle of a global depression.

The answer isn't to increase the price of carbon fuels it's to develop cheaper energy alternatives and the free market will take care of the rest. However there are too many VI's keen to keep everyone hooked on oil / gas to make any other alternative viable. Although if things carry on as they are those lovely people in the City and Wall Street will price carbon energy above the reach of the proles anyway.

How do you fancy a 500 quid gas bill a month? To stop global warming - even though the models predicting this have been proved wrong by the fact there has been no warming for 16 years.

Let's just ramp up your gas bill just in case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How do you fancy a 500 quid gas bill a month? To stop global warming - even though the models predicting this have been proved wrong by the fact there has been no warming for 16 years.

Let's just ramp up your gas bill just in case.

I do not understand the purpose of the winter fuel allowance for the old. we pay them to make CO2 to keep warm.

let's let these old farts to freeze to death ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The idea of financial markets being the solution to a problem caused by market forces is a bit odd isn't it?

Or is the notion of financial intermediaries rigging the free market just so accepted now that it seems entirely natural?

As PJW points out- the solution is to create viable non polluting alternatives that could compete in the energy market with fossil fuels- but that would mean making long term investments in new technology and research- a process that takes far too long for the junkies on wall street who need their fix's of other people's money to be both frequent and often.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The IPCC has told the stock markets it can use 20% of the Carbon it has invested in or we are fecked, like a geordie lass on a hen night.

Remember the tobacco companies casting doubt on the science linking smoking to lung cancer the carbon investors are doing the same .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Climate science is just nonsense. No scientist can possibly understand all the specialisms. It's all just guesswork and conjecture, and there are some powerful vested interests at work. All the "predictions" are farcical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Climate science is just nonsense. No scientist can possibly understand all the specialisms. It's all just guesswork and conjecture, and there are some powerful vested interests at work. All the "predictions" are farcical.

The most powerful vested interests are, of course, those who have a lot to gain by persuading us that climate science is just nonsense!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The most powerful vested interests are, of course, those who have a lot to gain by persuading us that climate science is just nonsense!

Yes, that's true, perhaps. Hard to tell who has most to gain. I'm a scientist by training and having read my first ever heavyweight climate science book I'm incredible sceptical about all these predictions being trotted out. We just don't know. Nobody does. The scientists use modelling a bit like the banks did...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, that's true, perhaps. Hard to tell who has most to gain. I'm a scientist by training and having read my first ever heavyweight climate science book I'm incredible sceptical about all these predictions being trotted out. We just don't know. Nobody does. The scientists use modelling a bit like the banks did...

Well, it's not really that hard to tell. Some of the richest companies in the world are oil and coal producers, and the executives of these companies are paid a lot more than climate scientists. Didn't you ever see Dallas on TV?

Which book was it, btw?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, it's not really that hard to tell. Some of the richest companies in the world are oil and coal producers, and the executives of these companies are paid a lot more than climate scientists. Didn't you ever see Dallas on TV?

Which book was it, btw?

Why do you assume that just because they earn less, publicly funded climate scientists are less motivated v.I.s?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, it's not really that hard to tell. Some of the richest companies in the world are oil and coal producers, and the executives of these companies are paid a lot more than climate scientists. Didn't you ever see Dallas on TV?

Which book was it, btw?

Well, it's not really that hard to tell. Some of the richest companies in the world are wind and solar equipment producers, and the executives of these companies are paid a lot more than climate sceptics / tax payers.

http://heartland.org/policy-documents/questions-over-business-deals-un-climate-change-guru-dr-rajendra-pachauri

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do you assume that just because they earn less, publicly funded climate scientists are less motivated v.I.s?

and publicly admitted they got it wrong to loose the grants, fame and potentially jobs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The most powerful vested interests are, of course, those who have a lot to gain by persuading us that climate science is just nonsense!

climate science is not non-sense. it depends who you are asking. for example:

Judith Curry - Professor - Judith A. Curry is an American climatologist and chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology.

http://judithcurry.com/2013/09/26/the-relentless-increase-of-ocean-heat/

Well, Lubos Motl has done the arithmetic in this post Ocean heat content: relentless but negligible. This is a good post, check it out. The punchline of his calculations: the heating in the layer 0-2000 m translates to 0.065 C +/- 20%. His calculations are essentially confirmed from this ARGO page where they confirm that since the 1960s, the warming of that layer was 0.06 °C.

So, can anyone figure out why 0.06C is a big deal for the climate? Or how all that heat that is apparently well mixed in the ocean could somehow get into the atmosphere and influence weather/temperatures/rainfall on the land? Or is sequestering heat in the ocean a fortuitous ‘solution’ to the global (surface) warming problem?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   210 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

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.