Jeez Rumpy, how long have I been banging on about hydrogen, it well could be the saviour of Australia's living standard.Thanks for that.
Alan Kohler always seems to have a lot of commonsense and business nous, it will be interesting to hear what he has to say on 7:30 this week.
Also eventually Antarctica will open up.
What will be the outcome of that? Should Banks lend money to people who want to buy a home near water? Should Banks lend money to people who want to buy a farm in drought affected areas? Should Banks underwrite insurance policies for properties in aforesaid areas?Something to think about when investing in companies.
ASIC investigating large companies' climate change risk management
By political reporter Jackson Gothe-Snape
Posted about an hour ago
Photo: The corporate watchdog has advised company directors to be proactive about climate change risk. (ABC News: Sarah Gerathy)
Related Story: Did he say it or not? Defence Chief's climate speech warns of 'serious ramifications' of climate change
Related Story: Climate change is accelerating, with alarming new data revealing the extent sea levels are rising
The corporate watchdog has launched a new surveillance program to ensure Australia's biggest companies are dealing with the risks of climate change.
Key points:
- ASIC has commenced surveillance of large listed companies to investigate how they are addressing climate change risk
- Former banking royal commissioner Kenneth Hayne warned last month that company directors faced court if they were negligent about climate change risks
- Directors of government enterprises like the Murray-Darling Basin Authority face the same obligations to address risk
The move follows comments by former High Court judge and royal commissioner Kenneth Hayne that directors of companies could end up in court if they do not properly deal with the risk.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-12-10/asic-launches-climate-surveillance-of-big-companies/11786070
What will be the outcome of that? Should Banks lend money to people who want to buy a home near water? Should Banks lend money to people who want to buy a farm in drought affected areas? Should Banks underwrite insurance policies for properties in aforesaid areas?
If they do will they be held responsible for negligent behaviour?
So in summation the Banks shouldn't lend or insure those properties near the coast, well that is 90% of properties, FFS why post up this shyte?
What will you be pasting up, if the Banks say we can't lend for housing near the coast, only for those over the blue mountains?
Jeez i'm going to sit under a pyramid for a while.
My attitude completely.Why exaggerate? Banks and insurance companies already factor in all types of risk and you can't build a house anywhere you want. Local and State governments determine planning anyway. ASIC is simply firing a small shot over the bows of medium sized companies (I believe this thread already contains links to what the majors are already doing) and (probably) superannuation trustees who have been slow to react. If the best scientific advice available says to eg. avoid building less that 3M above current high water levels, why would a financier or insurer take on that risk for their own shareholders? If that same advice says productivity (and therefore profitability) of some current cropping land will fall, do you want companies that you have shares in making large investments in that area?
Exaggerated claims of the predicted rate and level of sea level rise don't help anyone. Nor does saying we won't have "normal" rain fall ever again. (I don't think saying that "this is the new normal" is particularly true either, but it may shake a few more people out of total denial.)
There is a asset price and risk re-rate underway whether you believe climate change is real or not. The only questions relate to who bears the losses and whether there are compensating gains in other sectors or places. Hence this thread.
Isn't it great to see some proper reasoning and reasonable discussion!Why exaggerate? Banks and insurance companies already factor in all types of risk and you can't build a house anywhere you want. Local and State governments determine planning anyway. ASIC is simply firing a small shot over the bows of medium sized companies (I believe this thread already contains links to what the majors are already doing) and (probably) superannuation trustees who have been slow to react. If the best scientific advice available says to eg. avoid building less that 3M above current high water levels, why would a financier or insurer take on that risk for their own shareholders? If that same advice says productivity (and therefore profitability) of some current cropping land will fall, do you want companies that you have shares in making large investments in that area?
Exaggerated claims of the predicted rate and level of sea level rise don't help anyone. Nor does saying we won't have "normal" rain fall ever again. (I don't think saying that "this is the new normal" is particularly true either, but it may shake a few more people out of total denial.)
There is a asset price and risk re-rate underway whether you believe climate change is real or not. The only questions relate to who bears the losses and whether there are compensating gains in other sectors or places. Hence this thread.
There could/will be some very far reaching consequences of the current bushfire catastrophe . Off the top of my head these come to mind.
1) Risk of many small towns or whole areas becoming unviable because new bushfire regulations prevent rebuilding
2) Similar risk as above but becasue insurance companies refuse to insure properties in many areas or have an impossible premium
3) Very serious consequences for tourism and thus viability of a number of areas
4) Big increase in infrastructure replacement. Well worth looking at building industry investments
5) Challenges to many agricultural industries. Dairying will be hard hit. Knock on effects for producers of all dairy products
6) Very big hits on insurance premiums across the board. Thousands of cars lost as well as houses and general property. Still don't know how the rest of the fire season will pan out.
7) A long and debilitating recovery period. It won't be as "simple" as cleaning out the mud from a flooded house and letting it dry out. Total loss.
In the longer term Governments may be forced to face the uncomfortable realities of ongoing climate change and realise many places in Australia won't be viable. Challenging thought.
https://www.climatecouncil.org.au/r...ow-climate-change-damages-australias-economy/
There could/will be some very far reaching consequences of the current bushfire catastrophe . Off the top of my head these come to mind.
1) Risk of many small towns or whole areas becoming unviable because new bushfire regulations prevent rebuilding
2) Similar risk as above but becasue insurance companies refuse to insure properties in many areas or have an impossible premium
3) Very serious consequences for tourism and thus viability of a number of areas
4) Big increase in infrastructure replacement. Well worth looking at building industry investments
5) Challenges to many agricultural industries. Dairying will be hard hit. Knock on effects for producers of all dairy products
6) Very big hits on insurance premiums across the board. Thousands of cars lost as well as houses and general property. Still don't know how the rest of the fire season will pan out.
7) A long and debilitating recovery period. It won't be as "simple" as cleaning out the mud from a flooded house and letting it dry out. Total loss.
In the longer term Governments may be forced to face the uncomfortable realities of ongoing climate change and realise many places in Australia won't be viable. Challenging thought.
https://www.climatecouncil.org.au/r...ow-climate-change-damages-australias-economy/
- which is probably as good a reason as any that 'old' economic concepts need revisionGDP is a measure of the nation’s current production of goods and services. GDP is not directly affected by the loss of property, residential and nonresidential structures, or vehicles and equipment that were produced previously.
Yes Dona, I hinted on this at the start of the fire: a great stimulus ,sadly the best GDP growth you can have is a population of dying patients in intensive care burning their life savings before being dispatched in a grandiose sent off..Sadly, strangely, curiously, disasters are good for GDP
- which is probably as good a reason as any that 'old' economic concepts need revision
Sadly, strangely, curiously, disasters are good for GDP
- which is probably as good a reason as any that 'old' economic concepts need revision
We need to remember that European and Japanese recovery after WW2 was a deliberate and long-term project by the "victors". There was a short-term, but massive, transfer of resources to the poorer economies to kick start new industries and infrastructure. In the case of Japan, there was also a significant transfer of technology. It stands in contrast to the outcome of WW1, where the victors deliberately punished and tried to hold back the economies of the losers, resulting in, firstly, a huge disparity in economic growth between the "winners" and "loser" economies (the 1920s), then a global economic collapse (1930s) and then a resumption of hostilities.WW2 was certainly good for Germany and Japan in the long term.
We need to remember that European and Japanese recovery after WW2 was a deliberate and long-term project by the "victors". There was a short-term, but massive, transfer of resources to the poorer economies to kick start new industries and infrastructure. In the case of Japan, there was also a significant transfer of technology. It stands in contrast to the outcome of WW1, where the victors deliberately punished and tried to hold back the economies of the losers, resulting in, firstly, a huge disparity in economic growth between the "winners" and "loser" economies (the 1920s), then a global economic collapse (1930s) and then a resumption of hostilities.
Do you think China will give us loans and send experts after the fire?Yes, we have seen the benefits of the Marshall Plan in 70 years of peace and economic progress in Europe and Japan.
One of the US's best efforts in international relations, I wonder if Trump has heard of it ?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?