Global warming and financial positioning

[2B]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Texas Proud "Sea levels during several previous interglacials were about 3 to as much as 20 meters higher than current sea level. The evidence comes from two different but complementary types of studies. One line of evidence is provided by old shoreline features (fig. 2)" SO... just NORMAL global warming without human intervention COULD have the water level rise by as much as 20 METERS!!!

The Texas Hill Country used to be underwater. Every rolling hill is a former reef. Try digging in one without finding massive amounts of fossilized sea life. I can't. It's a great Cub Scout outing. Nobody fails to bring home a bag of fossils.

[arandomwalk07]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Texas Proud SO... just NORMAL global warming without human intervention COULD have the water level rise by as much as 20 METERS!!!

Ireland used to be a tropical jungle several million years ago and you could stroll from here to the tip of south america on foot, but that's not the point. The point being made is not that the earth doesn't change, but that natural changes have come slowly over thousands and millions of years. There is a direct correlation between the period at the beginning of industrialisation and the level of CO2 in the air, all noticeable in the space of 150 years. Sure it may be a natural change, but the balance of probabilities attribute it to human interaction.

One of the problems here is the language that scientists are forced to use - because science is a moving target, they have to couch their findings in terms like "balance of probabilities" and "risk", which leaves the door open for opponents to scream "haha! they don't really know". The opponents usually have no problem being 100% confident in their own opinions of course.

[donheff]

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2B The Texas Hill Country used to be underwater. Every rolling hill is a former reef. Try digging in one without finding massive amounts of fossilized sea life. I can't. It's a great Cub Scout outing. Nobody fails to bring home a bag of fossils.

But they are only 6000 years old. And they were planted there. I think it was by extraterrestrials.

[Texas Proud]

Quote:

Originally Posted by A Random Walk One of the problems here is the language that scientists are forced to use - because science is a moving target, they have to couch their findings in terms like "balance of probabilities" and "risk", which leaves the door open for opponents to scream "haha! they don't really know". The opponents usually have no problem being 100% confident in their own opinions of course.

I don't have any problems with the language they use... I invest in the stock market because of probabilities...

It is the conclusions that cause me concern.. that because of man, global warming is occuring (or should I say occuring faster than normal)... and that the water level will rise up to 2 feet... (or 20, who knows the correct number that is 'official')... and because of this, let's harm the people of certain contries by up to 3% of GDP PER YEAR without even knowing if that would do anything different using models that even they say are flawed..

That is a LOT of money.

But, if global warming is eventually going to have the water rise 20 meters... then the cost to man will be a LOT higher than that... but it seems that we could not stop that because it happens... and has happened a few times already in the Earths history..

[HFWR]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ERD50 Looks like the USGS talks about glaciers melting in one hundred years, while the IPCC is talking about thousands (yes, plural) of years (if present trends continue - another big IF)(p17). So, where is this 'consensus' we hear so much about? The scientists were wrong about global cooling just 20 or 30 years ago - now they are going to be accurate thousands of years out?

I don't believe many scientists took the "global cooling" idea seriously...

Quote:

JMO, but I don't think Al Gore has the slightest intention of saving the environment. He is a politician and sees it as a ticket to... something, somewhere.

Shirley, you jest... :P

[arandomwalk07]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Texas Proud let's harm the people of certain contries by up to 3% of GDP PER YEAR without even knowing if that would do anything different using models that even they say are flawed.. That is a LOT of money.

It's not like this money disappears, it ends up redistributed. We've had a couple of posters here rubbish Kyoto, but the facts on the ground are that European economies in particular are rapidly moving towards carbon neutral technologies and investments. Money that would previously have gone towards oil and coal fired stations are going into wind, wave, gas & nuclear projects. Carbon trading will in my opinion be a massive source of financial service jobs in the future. Sure if you have everything invested in Exxon you may be in trouble, but that's why diversification is preached in the first place.

As an investor the key thing is not to be caught in industries or companies that refuse to recognise the new reality. I have difficulty seeing which technologies or industries can clearly profit, but as far as I'm concerned my investing in stock market index funds will negate any upside or downside.

There seems to be an undercurrent that money will be taken from business by "socialist" governments and dumped into the arms of who knows who, the poor maybe? In reality, the money is being reinvested in new & innovative technologies and applications of technologies. I would imagine there are a number of companies or states in the US who would not like to be left out in the, err, cold while their competitors around the world gain an advantage.

[al_bundy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by A Random Walk Ireland used to be a tropical jungle several million years ago and you could stroll from here to the tip of south america on foot, but that's not the point. The point being made is not that the earth doesn't change, but that natural changes have come slowly over thousands and millions of years. There is a direct correlation between the period at the beginning of industrialisation and the level of CO2 in the air, all noticeable in the space of 150 years. Sure it may be a natural change, but the balance of probabilities attribute it to human interaction. One of the problems here is the language that scientists are forced to use - because science is a moving target, they have to couch their findings in terms like "balance of probabilities" and "risk", which leaves the door open for opponents to scream "haha! they don't really know". The opponents usually have no problem being 100% confident in their own opinions of course.

2000 years ago tunisia, egypt and other north african countries were the biggest food producers of the civilized world and fed the roman empire. why are they wastelands now? why did the climate change so drastically in less than 2000 years before industrialization? why did we have a little ice age that ended in the middle of the last century? all this alarm about climate change, but the base measurements are from the little ice age and they are supposed to rise after it ends.

[al_bundy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by A Random Walk It's not like this money disappears, it ends up redistributed. We've had a couple of posters here rubbish Kyoto, but the facts on the ground are that European economies in particular are rapidly moving towards carbon neutral technologies and investments. Money that would previously have gone towards oil and coal fired stations are going into wind, wave, gas & nuclear projects. Carbon trading will in my opinion be a massive source of financial service jobs in the future. Sure if you have everything invested in Exxon you may be in trouble, but that's why diversification is preached in the first place. As an investor the key thing is not to be caught in industries or companies that refuse to recognise the new reality. I have difficulty seeing which technologies or industries can clearly profit, but as far as I'm concerned my investing in stock market index funds will negate any upside or downside. There seems to be an undercurrent that money will be taken from business by "socialist" governments and dumped into the arms of who knows who, the poor maybe? In reality, the money is being reinvested in new & innovative technologies and applications of technologies. I would imagine there are a number of companies or states in the US who would not like to be left out in the, err, cold while their competitors around the world gain an advantage.

US is doing more to be carbon neutral than other countries. the europeans just talk about it

[ERD50]

RE: Euro vs US greenhouse gas - This does not explain the hows or whys, but it is interesting, I think:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_P...esults_to_date

Quote:

From 2000-2004, the United States' CO2 emissions growth rate was 2.1%, compared to the EU-15's 4.5%. That happened while the US economy was expanding 38% faster than the economies of the EU-15 while experiencing population growth at twice the rate of the EU-15.[72] This naturally has led to questions and debate about the merits of a mandatory emissions cap approach (as currently adopted under Kyoto) versus a voluntary approach to emissions reduction (as adopted by the United States.

and

Quote:

On June 28, 2006, the German government announced it would exempt its coal industry from requirements under the Kyoto agreement.

The numbers look worse for the US when you go back from 1990-2004. Plus 16% for US, minus 0.8% for EU-15. I'm not sure what to make of that.

Relative to Texas Proud and some other comments on the natural cycles - I think this is what must be put in perspective. For example, if the one-half of the predicted 7 to 23 inch rise in sea level is from natural changes, we could see a 12 inch rise due to natural cycles alone. We would need to do something regardless of our greenhouse gas emissions. That number is larger than the low end of the estimate.

If we need to take action to adapt to the natural cycles (evacuate coastal areas for one), the incremental cost to adapt to the incremental rise due to man-made GHG must be estimated. Then, the cost of mitigating the incremental damage must be estimated. Then, a risk/reward assigned.

I'm not saying we should not do something. But I'd hate to see billions and billions of $$ and energy diverted from other uses, and possibly provide only a very marginal benefit. Just maybe, those $$ and energy are better spent in adapting to change, rather than minimizing man-made contributions. IMO, those are the important numbers. We need to be pragmatic about this - 'feel good' stuff is just that.

-ERD50

[Zathras]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Texas Proud ... and because of this, let's harm the people of certain contries by up to 3% of GDP PER YEAR...

Why do people keep repeating this? It will SAVE you money to use a cfb instead of incandescant bulb. It will save you money to conserve energy. There are a ton of things you can do on an individual level that cost you nothing, or even save money.

If you don't like the people that say it will cost the public tons of money, criticise THEM, not the underlying issue.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Texas Proud But, if global warming is eventually going to have the water rise 20 meters... then the cost to man will be a LOT higher than that... but it seems that we could not stop that because it happens... and has happened a few times already in the Earths history..

Following that logic, would you also hold that we can't prevent any forest fires, because they have happened before mankind has been around?

CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
We are adding CO2 to the atmosphere.
The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing.

These are really the basics. To claim mankind is not contributing to GW, one must falsify one of the above claims. Forget all the rest, it is really pretty simple.

[wabmester]

Quote:

Originally Posted by A Random Walk One of the problems here is the language that scientists are forced to use - because science is a moving target, they have to couch their findings in terms like "balance of probabilities" and "risk", which leaves the door open for opponents to scream "haha! they don't really know". The opponents usually have no problem being 100% confident in their own opinions of course.

It has nothing to do with science being a "moving target." They really don't know, can't know, and never will know. It has to do with complexity.

[arandomwalk07]

Quote:

Originally Posted by wab It has nothing to do with science being a "moving target." They really don't know, can't know, and never will know. It has to do with complexity.

Fair enough, but when my children and grandchildren are spending billions to shore up flood defences 30 years in the future, and when we have 100% proof that global warming was in fact manmade, I reserve the right to say "I told you so, we should have used the best models we had available at the time"

[ERD50]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zathras Why do people keep repeating this? It will SAVE you money to use a cfb instead of incandescant bulb. It will save you money to conserve energy.

Many conservation efforts have a quick payback - no problem there. But, remember that chart I posted that showed a CO2 sequestering power plant will use 25% *more* fossil fuel? Plus the cost of the sequestering infrastructure. That is going to cost plenty. And, if natural cycles are also contributing, we need to spend money on the effects anyhow.

Knee-jerk reactions can cost us plenty too. Greenies are on a pro-ethanol kick, but does it really improve the environment? Doubtful, and it really can't be expanded before we run out of crops. Again, this 'feel good' stuff is detracting from real solutions. And the Greenies hate Nuclear, which just might be a significant part of a solution.

Quote:

If you don't like the people that say it will cost the public tons of money, criticise THEM, not the underlying issue.

We need the numbers. They are probably right.

Quote:

Following that logic, would you also hold that we can't prevent any forest fires, because they have happened before mankind has been around?

There is plenty of evidence that when man interferes with the normal cycle of natural forest fires, the problem gets worse. Brush builds up beyond normal levels and the fires that do start are worse then ever. There may be a lesson in that.

It seemed like a good idea at the time though. I'm sure there was a consensus on it.

Quote:

CO2 is a greenhouse gas. We are adding CO2 to the atmosphere. The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing. These are really the basics. To claim mankind is not contributing to GW, one must falsify one of the above claims. Forget all the rest, it is really pretty simple.

But it is also true that we are in a natural warming cycle. We are going to have to spend money to adapt to that cycle, regardless of our contribution to GW.

See my post above - we need to understand what our *incremental* contribution is to GW, what the *incremental* cost of adapting to our contribution is, and what the cost savings would be from mitigating some of our contribution is.

Let's put it in simple terms. If my basement floods with 6 inches of water, I've got a mess on my hands, and a cost. If my basement floods with 12 inches of water, there is little additional damage. So, if I realistically could not stop the flood, how much would I spend to keep it down to 6 inches instead of 12? Not much, especially if I was told there was a chance that it may do nothing at all to help. It would be cheaper and less painful to adapt to a 12 inch flood than to mitigate 12 inches down to 6 inches.

From what I've gathered, this is the situation we are most likely faced with. So, unless you have a plan to reverse the *natural* global warming cycle, better start adapting.

-ERD50

[al_bundy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by A Random Walk Fair enough, but when my children and grandchildren are spending billions to shore up flood defences 30 years in the future, and when we have 100% proof that global warming was in fact manmade, I reserve the right to say "I told you so, we should have used the best models we had available at the time"

the world was a lot warmer back at the height of the roman empire than it was 100 years ago. only time i ever read of coastal flooding is when earthquakes hit

[Texas Proud]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zathras Why do people keep repeating this? It will SAVE you money to use a cfb instead of incandescant bulb. It will save you money to conserve energy. There are a ton of things you can do on an individual level that cost you nothing, or even save money. If you don't like the people that say it will cost the public tons of money, criticise THEM, not the underlying issue. Following that logic, would you also hold that we can't prevent any forest fires, because they have happened before mankind has been around? CO2 is a greenhouse gas. We are adding CO2 to the atmosphere. The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing. These are really the basics. To claim mankind is not contributing to GW, one must falsify one of the above claims. Forget all the rest, it is really pretty simple.

I am 'repeating' what I read about the cost... It is not all CFB etc. that is the cost... it is spending money to remove CO2 from our byproducts... which cost money. I am all for the conservative approach that will save us money AND make the air clean... but if everybody replaced all lights with CFB, I don't think that would be enough...

BTW, WE CAN NOT PREVENT FOREST FIRES!!! They happen every year and destroy a lot of property and usually kill people every year...

The 3% was in one of the articles that was on the 'man is causing global warming' articles.. it is a COST. If we spend money of stuff we do not need it is taking away from something we do need.. As an example... spending money on a missle defense shield is a waste of good money... yes, it was spent, but what did we get for it... and, I think the article was saying that we would NOT have as much GDP as before, so in fact it would not be 'going someplace else', but never exist in the first place..

[greg]

janeeyre:

Some funds to look at:

http://biz.yahoo.com/cnw/070411/algo...tion.html?.v=1

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/070410/nytu089.html?.v=83

and a list of stocks that might interest you:

http://www.ardourglobalindexes.com/indexes_agi.php

[Zoocat]

Quote:

Originally Posted by janeeyre I have seen studies on the internet with regard to endangered populations and reduced sea ice but I haven't read them. Below is a study by the US Fish and Wildlife where they are asking to place the polar bears on the endangered specie list. They only mention the reduction of habitat and food due to ice melting but they don't say WHY or WHO (page 1072..). While the WHY/WHO debate will continue, the fact remains that global climate change is happening and it looks like steps will be taken to attempt to reverse it whether we like it or not. http://frwebgate4.access.gpo.gov/cgi...ction=retrieve

Because of melting ice bergs, Polar Bears have to swim farther and have been drowning.

When you have cancer, noone would expect you to start taking courses in biochemistry in order to decide whether or not to start your chemo treatment. We can't all be climate scientists. There must be a certain amount of intelligent trust in scientific opinion in order for our society/culture to continue to flourish.

I agree that the way global warming is presented is alarmist because I think that those who are talking about it are genuinely alarmed. I think they, scientists and politicians, deserve respectful consideration.

At the very least, everyone could just buy low energy light bulbs and be open to the idea of buying a fuel efficient car.
We need to reduce our consumption of oil for other good reasons anyway.

[wabmester]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oldbabe I think they, scientists and politicians, deserve respectful consideration.

I have a lot of respect for glorified lab techs scientists. But they are trained observers, not fortune tellers. And I'm sure most of them understand the social trap we're in even if their predictions are accurate. I like the idea of reducing our environmental footprint, and not just for CO2 (in fact, that should probably be a relatively low priority compared to other emissions), but I prefer to view that as a Grand Moralistic Pursuit rather than a knee-jerk reaction to alarmist cries of doom. It's all in how you frame the problem, solutions, and timeframe of implementation.

If we're going to re-engineer the world, let's do some top-down design from a well-articulated philosophical basis rather than random ad-hoc panic-driven band-aids applied in a hostile us-vs-them environment.

Let's make "Zero Footprint" our new "Space Race." I think everybody could get on board to such a high-minded pursuit.

[Zoocat]

Quote:

Originally Posted by wab If we're going to re-engineer the world, let's do some top-down design from a well-articulated philosophical basis rather than random ad-hoc panic-driven band-aids applied in a hostile us-vs-them environment. Let's make "Zero Footprint" our new "Space Race." I think everybody could get on board to such a high-minded pursuit.

Friedman has an article in the NY Times Magazine that says basically the same thing. He makes some very interesting points, especially about how the USA could take the lead and solve our economic enslavement problem to China, Japan, and the Middle East. He points out a few US companies that have had success (such as the more energy efficient locomotive) which might be an investment opportunity.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/15/ma...73d&ei=5087%0A

[Texas Proud]

Some interesting reading..... here is a section that talks about what we can do... think of the costs of these... so, tell me which ones we should do?? I still say NUCLEAR is my #1 as it improves air quality... I also don't mind the cars getting better gas mileage as long as the cost does not go whacky (which to me it is)...

To convey the scale involved, Socolow and Pacala have created a pie chart with 15 different wedges. Some wedges represent carbon-free or carbon-diminishing power-generating technologies; other wedges represent efficiency programs that could conserve large amounts of energy and prevent CO2 emissions. They argue that the world needs to deploy any 7 of these 15 wedges, or sufficient amounts of all 15, to have enough conservation, and enough carbon-free energy, to increase the world economy and still avoid the doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere. Each wedge, when phased in over 50 years, would avoid the release of 25 billion tons of carbon, for a total of 175 billion tons of carbon avoided between now and 2056.

Here are seven wedges we could chose from: “Replace 1,400 large coal-fired plants with gas-fired plants; increase the fuel economy of two billion cars from 30 to 60 miles per gallon; add twice today’s nuclear output to displace coal; drive two billion cars on ethanol, using one-sixth of the world’s cropland; increase solar power 700-fold to displace coal; cut electricity use in homes, offices and stores by 25 percent; install carbon capture and sequestration capacity at 800 large coal-fired plants.” And the other eight aren’t any easier. They include halting all cutting and burning of forests, since deforestation causes about 20 percent of the world’s annual CO2 emissions.


So, cost of cars... 2 billion X 2,000 per (current cost approx)... $4 Trillion
1,400 gas fired plants.... (don't know how much, but lets say $100 mill each)... $140 trillion...

anybody have any clue on the costs of the others (or shoot mine down)



EDIT...

Hmmmm... later in the article... "The total world fleet today is 800 million vehicles!" So we can not even do the first one!!!