Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Resisting Climate Hysteria

Jump to new
Knobby22 said:
Scott Phillips of Motley Fool - the investment group, stated that he is squarely in the global warming is real camp and it would be wise to consider this when investing -e.g. don't invest in coal and electrical retailers and distributors.

He stated even if you are one of the people who don't believe it is real that you should do this in any case as it looks like the weight of public opinion will force change in any case.
Click to expand...

Bang on Knobby22 ...

A former investment banker turned climate change adviser says the world risks building trillions of dollars worth of uneconomic fossil fuel projects over the next 10 years because of measures to limit global warming.

Research analyst Mark Fulton is the lead author of a report by London based environmental think tank Carbon Tracker, which has warned there are $US2.2 trillion in potentially unviable coal, gas and oil projects around the globe.

The report said the US had the greatest exposure to the fossil fuels industry with $US412 billion in unnecessary future projects while Australia's potentially uneconomic developments were worth $US103 billion.

Mr Fulton came up with the $2.2 trillion figure by conducting stress tests on planned fossil fuel projects with a scenario where global warming is limited to 2 degrees Celsius, the threshold above which the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimated that global warming becomes serious and extreme.
Click to expand...

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-11-25/viability-of-future-fossil-fuel-projects/6974538

Mr Fulton said it was time for investors to reduce their exposure to fossil fuel projects.
Click to expand...
 
That was a very interesting story on the 2mw solar farm in Calgary TS. I think they were a bit skinned on the solar technology. It looks as if they are using first generation solar panels for a start. Nonetheless they and the bank thought the figures added up so it was obviously economically viable.

In fact this group is a Hutterite religious community. Very much into self sufficiency and conservation.

http://calgary.isgreen.ca/energy/solar-power/green-acres-the-largest-solar-farm-in-western-canada/
http://www.hutterites.org/news/who-recycle-bag/
 
And while we are looking at how cost effective solar power is and singing Kumbya perhaps a look at one of first places about to be overrun by the rising seas and other effects of Climate Change.

Shrinking Alaskan village of Kivalina leaves locals fearing destiny as America's first climate change refugees

As world leaders gather in Paris for the UN Climate Change Conference, Janet Mitchell in the United States will be worrying about how to feed her family during the winter.

The Inupiat Eskimo community where she lives in western Alaska relies on hunting seals in the warmer months and drying their meat for the winter.

"My own family, we need about 14 bearded seals," she said.

But this past summer hunting became impossible.

"Our hunters couldn't leave the island as it was jam packed with broken ice," she said.

Waves sweep across the island at times. For many of those Alaskans, it's no longer a question of if they're going to relocate, but when.
US president Barack Obama

The tiny barrier island where Ms Mitchell lives is called Kivalina. About 120 kilometres from the Arctic Circle, it is one of the most remote places in America.

Destined to become the country's first climate change refugees, Kivalina's residents have watched their island shrink before their eyes in recent decades.

Sea ice that would usually protect the island from storm surges has been disappearing, causing waves to gradually eat away chunks of the coastline.

"This year we lost, I believe, about 12 feet by the runway," Ms Mitchell, who is also the city administrator, said.

Temperatures in the Arctic are, on average, rising faster than anywhere else in the world, and there is widespread agreement among scientists that places like Kivalina will soon cease to exist.
Click to expand...
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-11-...change-locals-say/6975994?section=environment
 
It's called erosion :banghead:

A section of beach that fell into the sea on North Stradbroke Island is starting to reappear.

Sand is already returning with the tide to the site next to Jumpinpin channel, according to the Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service.

However, swimmers are still being advised to keep away from the area, which was initially described as a sinkhole the size of a football field.
Click to expand...

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/que...-north-stradbroke-island-20151126-gl8jhd.html

Must be climate change eh? :rolleyes:
 
trainspotter said:
Oysters will be just fine as a few more degrees celsius water temperature will actually help them grow pearls quicker ;)

They are ALL natural colours made by Mother Nature and Pinctada margaritifera. The oyster undergoes an operation to insert a nucleus into the gonad which then secretes nacre around the irritant. So to answer your question they are cultured. Natural pearls happen when an irritant gets inside the gonad and usually they are munted or misshapen. They are called Keshi pearls.

View attachment 65104
Click to expand...

So come Hell or high water, it's win-win then? haha... Better stop, I might be really paying for it later ey?

You insert what into the oyster's where? Gonad is its ball sack right? :D

So natural pearls are usually misshapenned? The round ones must cost a few tears yea? So when you culture the pearl, how big is that nucleus usually? I heard somewhere from someone that those tend to be pretty big marble-sized insert where the oyster then only need to secrete a thin layer. Is that how it's done or the nucleus are gain size?

But yea, thanks. Give me a year or two. Might be sooner if she decide she might leave me.
 
trainspotter said:
Sometimes I think pearl farming is Hell :eek:

Go here to learn more http://www.zeewykpearl.com.au/pearl history.htm

If she leaves ... who do you give a pearl necklace to? ;)

Sort of :topic but a few degrees warmer would be better :D
Click to expand...

Yea, off topic my gonad. :D

Give the necklace to her of course... to win her back :) So them pearls better be, you know...


I didn't know Australia was such a large exporter of Pearl. Always thought it's the Middle East or Japan.
 
Bill Shorten's overambitious omissions reduction scheme will cost us plenty.......He must have rocks in his head if he thinks voters will fall for his stupidity.....This whole Global Warming talk is a scam and the alarmists are now in the minority.
I am prediction the Paris Climate Change conference will be a flop as all of the previous talks.


http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...626267843?sv=cb36cffad49bf8bc06cfd9a32e256d2b

Bill Shorten has sparked a polit*ical fight over the cost of living after setting a climate change target that could impose a cost burden 10 times greater than Julia Gillard’s carbon tax.

The new Labor target was branded “way out of range” of other countries as world leaders prepare to meet in Paris on Monday to try to agree on a united plan to address global warming.

Labor is defending its goal of a 45 per cent cut in Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions by insisting* it will not need an expensiv*e price on carbon that drives up household energy bills.

In a break from bipartisanship on previous targets, Labor’s ambition is almost twice the size of the government’s offic*ial goal of cutting carbon pollution by 26-28 per cent, which Malcolm Turnbull will reiterate when he attends the Paris talks.

Some comments by readers.....

Lester
1 hour ago

When will our politicians come to their senses and realise that Climate Change is a bigger scam than the Nigerian ones, and a far larger conn than the Y2K ever was. The majority of ordinary people world wide now see it for what it is, just a blatant grab for more of the tax payers money, because in the end it is us that have to pay for it.
FlagShare
9MikeDavidDrAKSteveLikeReply
Ross
Ross
1 hour ago

Quote : Mr Shorten countered the idea that his target would hurt the economy, saying “this modelling took no account of the *economic consequences of not adopting this sort of target”.

But isn't that what Labor has always done? - taking no account of the economic consequences.
 
The ABC and the rent a crowd folks at it's finest again yesterday in Melbourne. The question I always ask while I'm at work trying to make a living and pay my taxes is why , these kid's were not in school and why the rest of them were not at work ? All these climate love in's want us to pay for a greener world but I bet they are not contributing one cent to the economy themselves. :banghead:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-11-27/people-rally-in-melbourne-for-climate-change/6981136
 
noco said:
Bill Shorten's overambitious omissions reduction scheme will cost us plenty.......He must have rocks in his head if he thinks voters will fall for his stupidity.....This whole Global Warming talk is a scam and the alarmists are now in the minority.
I am prediction the Paris Climate Change conference will be a flop as all of the previous talks.


http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...626267843?sv=cb36cffad49bf8bc06cfd9a32e256d2b

Bill Shorten has sparked a polit*ical fight over the cost of living after setting a climate change target that could impose a cost burden 10 times greater than Julia Gillard’s carbon tax.

The new Labor target was branded “way out of range” of other countries as world leaders prepare to meet in Paris on Monday to try to agree on a united plan to address global warming.

Labor is defending its goal of a 45 per cent cut in Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions by insisting* it will not need an expensiv*e price on carbon that drives up household energy bills.

In a break from bipartisanship on previous targets, Labor’s ambition is almost twice the size of the government’s offic*ial goal of cutting carbon pollution by 26-28 per cent, which Malcolm Turnbull will reiterate when he attends the Paris talks.

Some comments by readers.....

Lester
1 hour ago

When will our politicians come to their senses and realise that Climate Change is a bigger scam than the Nigerian ones, and a far larger conn than the Y2K ever was. The majority of ordinary people world wide now see it for what it is, just a blatant grab for more of the tax payers money, because in the end it is us that have to pay for it.
FlagShare
9MikeDavidDrAKSteveLikeReply
Ross
Ross
1 hour ago

Quote : Mr Shorten countered the idea that his target would hurt the economy, saying “this modelling took no account of the *economic consequences of not adopting this sort of target”.

But isn't that what Labor has always done? - taking no account of the economic consequences.
Click to expand...

It's the biggest scam and fear based marketing you will ever see. The ABC continues to run story after story on how we are all going to burn in hell. How the Barrier Reef will vanish overnight and how we will all be living six feet under water. The Green left bash us around the scone at every given opportunity , to drive home their end of the world scenarios. And yet , it's November here in Hobart and yesterday it snowed at 500 meters and Mt Wellington had snow on it all day yesterday. Was there even a sniff of this event on the ABC news , No of course not. They were to busy telling us about melting glaciers and how 2015 is going to be the hottest ever year on the planet .:2twocents
 
Ijustnewit said:
It's the biggest scam and fear based marketing you will ever see. The ABC continues to run story after story on how we are all going to burn in hell. How the Barrier Reef will vanish overnight and how we will all be living six feet under water. The Green left bash us around the scone at every given opportunity , to drive home their end of the world scenarios. And yet , it's November here in Hobart and yesterday it snowed at 500 meters and Mt Wellington had snow on it all day yesterday. Was there even a sniff of this event on the ABC news , No of course not. They were to busy telling us about melting glaciers and how 2015 is going to be the hottest ever year on the planet .:2twocents
Click to expand...

And the naive believe it.
 
I'm firmly in the "truth is somewhere in the middle" camp on the whole issue.

Changing the composition of the Earth's atmosphere likely would have an effect on something, that's just commonsense, and the best scientific knowledge suggests that the effect would most likely be an increase in temperature.

On the other hand, we're not going to burn in hell by the end of next week. And even if we were, closing a coal mine or two won't stop it.

I retain my view that we need an orderly, gradual transition to energy sources that do not emit significant CO2 but that a panic response would, at best, lead to a raft of unintended consequences that won't be nice.

Any sensible action on CO2 also needs to focus attention on the many other environmental problems we face. Turning crops and forests into fuel is a truly terrifying prospect if done on a large enough scale. Then there's all the non-energy things and we've got a lot of very real problems there already and some are likely more urgent than CO2 :2twocents
 
Smurf1976 said:
I'm firmly in the "truth is somewhere in the middle" camp on the whole issue.

Changing the composition of the Earth's atmosphere likely would have an effect on something, that's just commonsense, and the best scientific knowledge suggests that the effect would most likely be an increase in temperature.

On the other hand, we're not going to burn in hell by the end of next week. And even if we were, closing a coal mine or two won't stop it.

I retain my view that we need an orderly, gradual transition to energy sources that do not emit significant CO2 but that a panic response would, at best, lead to a raft of unintended consequences that won't be nice.

Any sensible action on CO2 also needs to focus attention on the many other environmental problems we face. Turning crops and forests into fuel is a truly terrifying prospect if done on a large enough scale. Then there's all the non-energy things and we've got a lot of very real problems there already and some are likely more urgent than CO2 :2twocents
Click to expand...

common sense.jpg

Finally this thread is back on track :xyxthumbs
 
trainspotter said:
View attachment 65147

Finally this thread is back on track :xyxthumbs
Click to expand...

Got a slogan for ya: Trainspotter's Pearls. She'll wear ours before she'll wear yours.

You welcome. Just don't put your mug next to the slogan.. that'd be wrong.


OK, back on track the way world leaders will be this December in Paris discussing how CO2 is bad, fossil fuel is a likely major cause of it but let's ruin Russia's economy by pumping more of it out and getting them into another proxy war in Syria. :xyxthumbs

With all the APEC, G20s, G8, G3, Gn, Davos, ASEAN etc.... maybe teleconferencing might cut back a bit CO2 from the jets ya? Can't do much about the hot air they create when they talk a good game, but put those internet to some good use beside spying.
 
Still can't understand "science stuff " can we folks ?

Still totally and absolutely certain that because it was cold yesterday the other 3000 million papers on climate change are gigantic hoaxes written up one world government quasi scientists ?

What's truly fascinating about such total wrong-headedness is how out of step it is with the mainstream business community in 2015.

1) The broad majority of the business community including the Mining Council is now strongly in support of a constructive approach in Paris to keep the worlds temperature below 2C. Somehow all the big boys have decided that it's time to stop denying and ignoring the obvious and move quickly to Plan B - somehow

2) Bill Gates is about to announce a multi -billion dollar Renewable Energy Research fund to give an almighty kick to rapid de-carbonisation of the planet. On all the current models we , somehow have to have a zero carbon emission world by 2050 and then draw down CO2 if we are to have a chance of not going over 2C warming. (And that figure will still increase global sea levels by many metres..)

And by the way Noco et al those figures on the projected cost of Labours commitment to a 45% renewable target are just fictitious. It will be one of the things that Malcolm Turnball will have to quietly throw out with the garbage when he reviews CC policies post France.

Groundswell of business support for Paris climate action

Date
November 28, 2015 - 1:24AM

Angela Macdonald-Smith



....As the 40,000-plus attendees to the Paris climate summit congregate on Monday at a former aircraft hangar in north-east Paris, a surprisingly large chunk of Australian big business will be cheering them on.

In the 12 months leading up to the 21st Conference of the Parties – more snappily known as COP21 – a groundswell of change has built across the business community and encroached on even the sector that has most to lose, energy and resources.

We fully acknowledge there is a climate change issue and we believe we need to be part of the solution.
Rio Tinto head of coal and copper Jean-Sebastien Jacques

One by one, miners and energy companies have been ditching any lingering reluctance to become engaged on climate commitments and started to urge world leaders to use the United Nations-backed talkfest to set long-term goals for emissions reductions. They want to know where they stand.

"You're getting a sense of inevitability that this is the path, and now the question is how are we going to get on with it," says AGL Energy chief executive Andy Vesey, who will join business leaders flocking to Paris-Le Bourget.

It is certainly not a Damascus conversion: the statements many chief executives have put their names to are meticulously worded and come with plenty of caveats from companies on the side on the realities of the energy mix, and of continuing reliance on fossil fuels.

Green groups say they do not go nearly far enough and question whether some of the commitments constitute much more than "greenwashing".

But an open acceptance of the necessity to limit global warming to less than 2 degrees above pre-industrial levels and of action to support that has been signed by Vesey, as well as his peers at fossil fuel producers BHP Billiton, Santos and others. Such a public recognition would have been inconceivable for some of those involved several years ago.

"Early global agreement on the steps to achieve this goal will allow for a responsible transition to decarbonised and sustainable economic development," the CEOs say in the September declaration.

An open letter published last week by the CEOs of 78 companies with operations in 150 countries gave an idea of the breadth and depth of the business push on climate.
Click to expand...
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/bus...for-paris-climate-action-20151123-gl5fuv.html

Microsoft's Bill Gates to start multi-billion-dollar fund for clean energy

Date
November 28, 2015 - 12:13PM


Bill Gates will announce the creation of a multibillion-dollar clean energy fund on Monday at the opening of the Paris summit meeting intended to forge a global accord to cut planet-warming emissions, according to people with knowledge of the plans.

The fund, which one of the people described as the largest such effort in history, is meant to pay for research and development of new clean-energy technologies. It will include contributions from other billionaires and philanthropies, as well as a commitment by the United States to double its budget for clean energy research and development, according to the people with knowledge of the plans. French government sources also confirmed the launch plans.

The announcement of the Clean Tech Initiative fund, which has the joint backing of the governments of the United States, China, India and other countries, the people said, is intended to give momentum to the two-week Paris climate talks.

....Fundamental shift

If successful, the Paris meeting could spur a fundamental shift away from the use of oil, coal and gas to the use of renewable energy sources such as wind and solar power. But that transition would require major breakthroughs in technology and huge infrastructure investments by governments and industry.

...This summer, Mr Gates pledged to spend $US1 billion of his personal fortune on researching and deploying clean energy technology, but the people with knowledge of his plans said the new fund would include larger commitments.

In a blog post in July, Mr Gates wrote: "If we create the right environment for innovation, we can accelerate the pace of progress, develop and deploy new solutions, and eventually provide everyone with reliable, affordable energy that is carbon free. We can avoid the worst climate-change scenarios while also lifting people out of poverty, growing food more efficiently and saving lives by reducing pollution."
Click to expand...

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/bus...ar-fund-for-clean-energy-20151128-glacw0.html

And as for believing the rubbish peddled up by the Liberals and parroted by it's pets in the Press.
Coalition's weird climate rhetoric says one thing, its modelling says another

Post-Abbott, the Coalition is still claiming its own policies can cut emissions with almost no cost while wildly exaggerating the cost of alternatives

Lenore Taylor Political editor


Friday 27 November 2015 14.48 AEDT

Remember how Malcolm Turnbull promised to respect the intelligence of the Australian people if he became prime minister?

Some of his ministers seem to have missed that memo, because they are now recycling the same discredited Abbott-era claims about the cost of more ambitious climate change action, while ignoring their own up-to-date economic modelling that says deeper emission cuts would come at far lower additional costs.

After Bill Shorten announced that Labor was likely to adopt a much tougher greenhouse target than that promised by the Coalition – a 45% cut in emissions by 2030 from 2005 levels – treasurer Scott Morrison immediately dusted off the Coalition’s claim that the independent climate change authority had found such a cut would “cost” the economy $600bn. Education minister Christopher Pyne said it was a “mad” policy that would “smash” the economy.

Environment minister Greg Hunt tweeted his old “$600bn carbon Bill” press release.

.....However the government has its own, much more recent, modelling from leading economist Warwick McKibbin, which found that the difference in economic growth between the government’s target and Labor’s target would be far, far lower.


...It showed the government’s 26% target would shave between 0.2% and 0.4% from continued growth in Australian GDP in 2030, and based on similar assumptions, a 45% target would cut between 0.5% and 0.7% from continued economic growth. That means the difference in the economic cost of the Coalition’s 26% cut and Labor’s 45% cut is about 0.3% of GDP in 2030. The Coalition’s $600bn figure, comparing 45% with doing nothing and then adding up the cumulative costs, finds an extra GDP cost in 2030 of more than 2%.

In a way the “weird and misleading” modelling is a perfect microcosm of the weirdness of the Coalition’s climate rhetoric – pretending its own policies can do the job with almost no cost while wildly exaggerating the cost of alternatives.
Click to expand...

http://www.theguardian.com/environm...ric-says-one-thing-its-modelling-says-another
 

Similar threads

ducati916
August 2024 DDD
2 3 4
Replies
75
Views
19K
ducati916
ducati916
divs4ever
ZYAU - S&P/ASX 300 High Yield Plus ETF
Replies
0
Views
1K
divs4ever
divs4ever
basilio
How do we deal with bushfires in a warming climate?
8 9 10
Replies
199
Views
11K
basilio
basilio
kahuna1
All trading needs to cease for 14 days prior to Monday open in Sydney
2 3 4
Replies
75
Views
11K
divs4ever
divs4ever
R
When you invest, remember to commune with the dead
Replies
2
Views
3K
Wysiwyg
Wysiwyg
Top