Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Business decisions related to climate change

Knobby22

Mmmmmm 2nd breakfast
Joined
13 October 2004
Posts
9,586
Reactions
6,362
I thought I would start a new thread that showed hard nosed businessmen making tough decisions because they understand we are undergoing climate change. If you see a decision like this please post it.

First one below:

Climate drives big wine deal Andrew Darby
August 17, 2010

VICTORIAN winemaker Brown Brothers has outlined critical environmental reasons behind its $32.56 million purchase of Gunns' wine assets in Tasmania.

Chief executive Ross Brown said the move south was spurred by global warming, and after deciding that the controversial $2.2 billion Gunns pulp mill project's effect on Tamar Valley vineyards would be benign.

Brown Brothers has bought 400 hectares over three vineyards, which produce about 3000 tonnes of fruit marketed under seven brands.

It has subcontracted to manage Gunns' wine grape managed investment schemes that Mr Brown said were ''totally interwoven'' in the business.

He said the Milawa, Victoria-based Brown Brothers had been considering for some time how to deal with climate change.

''Until recently, we had always thought we were drought proof in north-east Victoria.'' But he said higher temperatures and bushfires encouraged the 120-year-old company to source grapes from cooler areas.

''We want to position ourselves to combat global warming.''

CSIRO climate change models show much of Tasmania to be slightly warmer, but also wetter, in decades to come.

The shift puts Brown Brothers slightly ahead of the pack, according to wine writer Huon Hooke.

''A lot of people in the industry are thinking about this, but few have actually acted on it,'' Mr Hooke said.

Brown Brothers also examined the effect of the proposed Tamar Valley pulp mill on its purchase.

Non-Gunns winemakers in the valley have been at the forefront of opposition to the mill, fearing air and water pollution, as well as damage to the district's image.

''We're comfortable about the pulp mill,'' Mr Brown said. ''Having examined all the environmental regulatory requirements, we believe it's very benign.''

Gunns' sale of the wine assets comes as the company refocuses on its timber businesses and relieves debt.

In recent months, Gunns has sold its hardware stores to a Woolworths subsidiary for about $40 million, and 28,000 hectares of Tasmanian native forest for $27.5 million, mainly to retail entrepreneur and philanthropist Jan Cameron.

The shedding of these businesses continues a broad restructure, and Gunns said that its final result tomorrow would be a $28 million profit.

This compares with $56 million in 2008-9, but follows a half-year to December 31 of just $400,000, which sent its share price into a tailspin that bottomed at 26 ¢ in May.

Gunns closed up 1 ¢ at 62 ¢, after touching 64.5 ¢ yesterday.
 
Well I'm still looking at Esplanade developement opportunities.
 
That article was from the Age today by the way.

With property development Tech, its up to the council. If they say you can build in flood zone then you can do it. Sea level rise is only slow anyway.
 
This is an interesting proposition Knobby. In my view if the totality of what climate scientists believe will happen as a result of climate change occurs the outlook for civilisation as we know it is exceedingly dim. In that sense setting up a winery in a cooler climate sounds clever but only if we see alcohol as the last refuge. :eek:

The really big changes we need to see? How about re establishment of coastal cities away from expected sea levels rises of 1-2 metres this century (if not substantially more). THAT would be a big challenge.:2twocents
 
After the hysteria created by the Heartland Foundation over who agrees with the mainstream science on climate it's worth having a look at these supporters.

It's worth pointing out how utterly stupid the Heartland Foundation was in it's attempt to associate madmen and tyrants with climate scientists.

Who Are the Most Prominent Advocates of Global Warming?
Posted on 20 May 2012 by Rob Honeycutt

Last week, as many know, the Heartland Institute put up a billboard with a picture of Ted Kaczynski (the Unabomber) with the caption, "I still believe in global warming. Do you?" The outrage was instantaneous from people on all sides of the issue and the billboard was taken down within a day.

Heartland, though, has chosen not to apologize for making such an outrageous association. They have instead chosen to double down on their position and maintain a statement on their website where they include the statement...

"The people who still believe in man-made global warming are mostly on the radical fringe of society. This is why the most prominent advocates of global warming aren't scientists. They are murderers, tyrants, and madmen."

The statement defies all logic. It is a clear and fundmental logical fallacy like saying, "Hitler liked cats, so the most prominent cat-lovers are murdering fascists."


The insanity of the Heartland's statements have brought upon them a rash of companies pulling funding and an exodus of the people they had once listed as experts on their website.

Peter Sinclair has just produced a new video for the Yale Forum channel that takes a look at who the most prominent advocates of global warming science really are...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=77VejUbuFsk

http://www.skepticalscience.com/who-are-the-most-prominent-advocates-of-global-warming.html
 
Having opened this discussion elsewhere let's bump this thread and see if we can get some sense into the discussion.

Came across an excellent website which pulls together many issues around climate change. Well worth a look.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/
 
The obvious one relates to energy.

Ignoring the scientific issues and looking at it in a pure business sense, there's a definite chance that we'll see some form of carbon price reintroduced well within the lifetime of any plant or equipment installed today.

A sensible business owner would be factoring that into their decisions where they have a choice of energy sources to run their business with or are considering whether or not it's worth paying the extra $ for something that is more efficient.

The energy industry itself is certainly thinking along those lines. Few would say that a carbon price is 100% certain but likewise few if any would say that it's zero chance. So quite a lot of investment decisions (or the decision not to invest) is being based on that possibility and has been for several years now. :2twocents
 
A bit off topic, but related to business and shares (as this is primarily a share/investor forum), l don't buy shares in any type of home insurance companies. With the weather patterns changing, more floods, storms etc etc will mean more payouts.
 
A bit off topic, but related to business and shares (as this is primarily a share/investor forum), l don't buy shares in any type of home insurance companies. With the weather patterns changing, more floods, storms etc etc will mean more payouts.

So you don't have confidence in the actuaries doing the requisite homework?
 
A bit off topic, but related to business and shares (as this is primarily a share/investor forum), l don't buy shares in any type of home insurance companies. With the weather patterns changing, more floods, storms etc etc will mean more payouts.

See your point on this. The concern goes further than this IMO. How strong will these financial institutions be with multiple events ? Which areas will be uninsurable ? Here and abroad ? What changes to population centres might be required with increased storm events and increased sea levels ? When would governments take open action on these possibilities?
 
Hypothetical scenario. A cyclone hits a major city not presently considered to be in a cyclone area and thus with buildings that aren't built to cope.

Payout = truly massive and I do wonder if they'll cope.

Anyone like to take a guess what would happen in terms of costs and insurance payouts if a decent cyclone slammed into Sydney or Brisbane?

Unlikely yes but it's not totally impossible.:2twocents
 
Hypothetical scenario. A cyclone hits a major city not presently considered to be in a cyclone area and thus with buildings that aren't built to cope.

Payout = truly massive and I do wonder if they'll cope.

Anyone like to take a guess what would happen in terms of costs and insurance payouts if a decent cyclone slammed into Sydney or Brisbane?

Unlikely yes but it's not totally impossible.:2twocents

A cyclone in Brisbane, and an earthquake in Sydney are both considered to be top 10 global reinsurance cost events. Very low probability 1:1000 years, but extremely costly.
 
Hypothetical scenario. A cyclone hits a major city not presently considered to be in a cyclone area and thus with buildings that aren't built to cope.

Payout = truly massive and I do wonder if they'll cope.

Anyone like to take a guess what would happen in terms of costs and insurance payouts if a decent cyclone slammed into Sydney or Brisbane?

Unlikely yes but it's not totally impossible.:2twocents
Agree that it is certainly possible.

My guess is that they blame it all on God and leave it to Her to foot the bill!
 
Hypothetical scenario. A cyclone hits a major city not presently considered to be in a cyclone area and thus with buildings that aren't built to cope.

Payout = truly massive and I do wonder if they'll cope.

Anyone like to take a guess what would happen in terms of costs and insurance payouts if a decent cyclone slammed into Sydney or Brisbane?

Unlikely yes but it's not totally impossible.:2twocents

I reckon the insurance companies would declare bankruptcy and a lot of people would be homeless and destitute.
 
Top