Global warming and financial positioning

[wabmester]

You shouldn't.

Ugh. Another content-free post from SG? The only reason I engaged you in this discussion was because I figured you'd be likely to bring more light than heat to the debate. About that, I was wrong.

 

[sgeeeee]

Ugh. Another content-free post from SG? The only reason I engaged you in this discussion was because I figured you'd be likely to bring more light than heat to the debate. About that, I was wrong.

I feel the same way about your own contributions. And you score yet another post without answering a simple question.

 

[samclem]

Will someone please write a 10 million line computer program so that SG can finally have his "model" and we can move on?

 

[wabmester]

I feel the same way about your own contributions. And you score yet another post without answering a simple question.

Sticks and stones.... Neener neener! Seriously, I have no friggin' clue what simple question I'm so assiduously avoiding, but if it's part of some semantics game, I'll pass.

Back to the original topic (hah) of investment opportunities, I did take some solace in the NPR interview. Most of the participants knew they had to do a soft sell to get any sort of adoption of CO2 control, so I wouldn't try to do any sort of "front running."

It seems safe to assume that the US and European economies will be burdened by whatever policy is enacted, but places like China will not. China will probably be the ones selling us emission control devices and other goodies. Their economies will continute to grow faster than ours. Country-specific investing looks like the way to go.

 

[samclem]

Best investments to take advantage of global warming worries? Invest in companies that sell bumper stickers and slogan buttons.

 

[Brat]

Many of you are getting hung up on whether or not global warming is real or whether or not, if real, it is human caused. What I do know is that the earth's fresh water inventory at the poles is diminishing and that the good old USA is dependent on other countries for a HUGE piece of our energy resource. I don't give a fig about the reason(s). It does matter that we need to address the energy issue.

If countries from which we purchase crude oil dropped the price to $20/barrel it doesn't change our vulnerabilities... in fact crude oil price increases are a blessing because it gets us off our ever increasing energy fannies....

I agree with Wab, the issue is where to invest our precious nickel and dimes. At this moment I am not prepared to bet on any particular horse in the field.. but I did notice that one of Wab's ponies was on the top 100 list. Few of the 100 are publicly traded.

A while back I was pondering Norse Hydro as an investment until I found that they bought a French aluminum company. I nixed it because of the ever increasing cost of electricity necessary to produce aluminum, and the fact that it was French . Then I learned that France has the lowest electrical rates in Europe (except maybe Norse hydro electric dams) because they use nuclear power. Hummm. Maybe that wasn't so dumb an acquisition. Of course there is the imp in me who thinks that if any nationality willing to risk glowing in the dark to see in the dark it would be the French .

 

[Texas Proud]

sgeee is right on the model.

If you have an opinion then you have a model. Your definition of "model" is to narrow and you just don't recognize the model for what it is.

If you don't have a model then you have no basis for forming an opinion on the future consequences of CO2 emissions and with out an opinion on the future you cannot arrive at a opinion on what if any action (including no action) should be taken.

That fact that some of you have strong opinions that CO2 emisssion are benign suggests that you place great faith in your model but the fact that you don't even recognize your model for what it is just suggests that not a lot of thought has gone into it and that it probably isn't a very good model!

MB

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source

10. a simplified representation of a system or phenomenon, as in the sciences or economics, with any hypotheses required to describe the system or explain the phenomenon, often mathematically.

15. to form or plan according to a model.

19. to simulate (a process, concept, or the operation of a system), commonly with the aid of a computer.

21. to use or include as an element in a larger construct: to model new data into the forecast.

American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source

A schematic description of a system, theory, or phenomenon that accounts for its known or inferred properties and may be used for further study of its characteristics: a model of generative grammar; a model of an atom; an economic model.


OK... above are the definitions of 'model' that might apply.... tell me which one you are refering...

 

[Texas Proud]

sgeee is right on the model.

If you have an opinion then you have a model. Your definition of "model" is to narrow and you just don't recognize the model for what it is.

If you don't have a model then you have no basis for forming an opinion on the future consequences of CO2 emissions and with out an opinion on the future you cannot arrive at a opinion on what if any action (including no action) should be taken.

That fact that some of you have strong opinions that CO2 emisssion are benign suggests that you place great faith in your model but the fact that you don't even recognize your model for what it is just suggests that not a lot of thought has gone into it and that it probably isn't a very good model!

MB

How can both you and SG be so wrong in your statements.... I am using a MODEL.. I am using YOUR model... I listen to the OPINIONS that the people are giving based on the model, but then see how it is only an OPINION and that those OPINIONS keep changing, sometimes drastically... and I read how the people who put these models together keep saying they can not go back and predict how global weather would be today if they input the information from years ago... they have to 'fix' the data when it start to drift from what really happened....


So, I say, flawed model, flawed analysis, flawed cure....

 

[sgeeeee]

The scientific method and the english language have never been so tortured.

 

[HFWR]

Some models are better than others...

 

[ERD50]

.... Then I learned that France has the lowest electrical rates in Europe, because they use nuclear power.

if any nationality willing to risk glowing in the dark to see in the dark it would be the French .

Except the data indicates just the opposite. People are exposed to more radiation from coal fired plants than from nuclear plants.

http://www.uow.edu.au/eng/phys/nukeweb/reactors_nuc_v_coal.html

They also found that the radiation exposure from an average 1000 MW power plant comes to 4.9 person-sieverts a year for coal-fired power plants and 0.048 person-sieverts a year for nuclear-fired power plants.

This factor of 100 just looks at the nuclear fired power plant by itself. It doesn't include the complete nuclear fuel cycle, which starts with ore mining, goes to fuel processing and operation of the reactor, and finishes with waste disposal. In that case, the radiation dose from a nuclear-fired power plant increases to 1.36 person-sieverts a year.

Still 3.6x the radiation from coal. Those environmental people sure are doing us a favor with the 'No Nukes' bumper stickers, aren't they?

-ERD50

 

[mykidslovedogs]

Financially speaking, I just heard on the news this morning that there is a bill being worked on (can't remember which State) whereby anyone who buys an SUV will have to pay a $2500 penalty which will go into a "pot" to be used as a rebate for anyone who buys a more energy efficient vehicle.

My neighbor has 7 kids. They HAVE to have an SUV (Suburban to be exact). Why should they be penalized for that? I disagree that certain families should be penalized for purchasing a car that best meets their needs. I live in Colorado and my family loves to vacation with our travel trailer. In order to pull the trailer, we HAVE to use a TRUCK. Why should we be penalized for wanting to have fun, when no one really knows for sure if the SUVs are at the heart of the problem?

I don't mind doing my part to do the best I can to be responsible for preserving our planet, but I don't want financial penalties FORCED on people. When someone invents a cost-effective energy efficient SUV that handles well in the mountains and on the snow, people will buy it.

 

[bosco]

My neighbor has 7 kids. They HAVE to have an SUV (Suburban to be exact). Why should they be penalized for that?

where's the problem? They are contributing not only to global warming, but all other pollution problems as well by having such a large family.

Although they are helping keep SS and medicare solvent

 

[brewer12345]

My neighbor has 7 kids. They HAVE to have an SUV (Suburban to be exact).

They don't need a Suburban. They need birth control.

 

[kcowan]

I live in Colorado and my family loves to vacation with our travel trailer. In order to pull the trailer, we HAVE to use a TRUCK. Why should we be penalized for wanting to have fun, when no one really knows for sure if the SUVs are at the heart of the problem?

A better solution would be to increase the price of gas substantially and let the market decided. The taxes should be earmarked for alternative energy deployment.

 

[sgeeeee]

Some models are better than others...

I don't know if it's global, but this model definantely casuses warming.

 

[ERD50]

..... anyone who buys an SUV will have to pay a $2500 penalty.....

My neighbor has 7 kids. They HAVE to have an SUV (Suburban to be exact). .....

I don't view it as a 'penalty'. Assuming that we, as a society, want to encourage conservation, it seems reasonable. It is basically an (very imperfect) attempt at a 'progressive' tax on fuel consumption. The more you use, the more you pay.

And I imagine the tax is based on mpg ratings. So that should provide more incentive for families that need a 7 passenger vehicle to buy an efficient one and in turn, more incentive for manufacturers to fill that need.

Overall, not a *bad* idea, IMO. I think it would be better to have a truly progressive tax on fuel itself (kind of hard to implement though - issue a 'tax debit' card for X gallons per year to every driver?). That would encourage people to drive less. But that one-time charge of $2500 probably has the psychological effect of people saying, 'hey - I paid for the privilege, so I'll drive as much as I want now'. Not really changing behaviors in the way we probably want.

I am saying this from an oil conservation point - it is not a comment on global warming.

I don't mind doing my part to do the best I can to be responsible for preserving our planet, but I don't want financial penalties FORCED on people.

So, make a suggestion.


-ERD50

 

[sgeeeee]

If we want to have a progressive fuel tax, then establish a progressive fuel tax. Don't tax the car. Tax the fuel use. Some people with SUVs may use them only when they need to -- when they are filled with passengers. Others may drive them around when a Smart Car would do the trick. If you tax the car, both pay the same penalty.

There is a certain amount of misguided, self-riteous furry directed at SUVs by some people. Some people have them because they dramatically improve and simplify their transportation requirements. They may even save gas in some situations. If an SUV is being used primarily only when 5 or 6 kids are being towed somewhere, then it may actually be preserving gas. If every parent had a 2 seater and took their kids to soccer practice individually, it would take more gas. I know a lot of people who do archaeology field work in the Southwest. These trips often last weeks. They require camping in remote areas, carrying a lot of gear, and driving over rough terrain. SUVs are the vehicle of choice and really provide a way to bring the lab into the field and get a lot more work done. Overall, the SUV is cost effective in this case and would be for any reasonable tax on gas.

 

[samclem]

A "progressive" fuel tax will be a nightmare to implement (progresssive in what way--tax increases as you use more fuel, or increases with income? Maybe based on net worth? Do you get a credit for "distance from place of employment? PLEASE, not another place to introduce complexity via the IRS!!) I'd like to reduce the amount of government meddleing in the market, but if we decide as a nation that a tax on fuel is smart, then a flat "cents per gallon" would be the best way. Just as we do for highway taxes.

 

[wabmester]

There is a certain amount of misguided, self-riteous furry directed at SUVs by some people.

Yeah, you tell it like it is Brother SUV Owner! (But first get a spell-checker. Self-riteous furry?)

And I figure my SUV will still be useful as a storage unit even after we run out of fossil fuels. I'll always need a place to store all the stuff I'm consuming.

 

[mykidslovedogs]

So, make a suggestion.
-ERD50

I just don't think our freedoms should be compromised just because SOME people "THINK" that Humans "MIGHT" be responsible for global warming. When if it can be absolutely proven, then, and only then, should anyone be FORCED to do anything. In the meantime, the market will adjust when people feel there is a great need to conserve fuel and reduce emissions. If driving an SUV becomes prohibitive, people will look for better options. As people demand better products, they will be produced, and people will buy them. Why should we penalize people in the meantime for having large families or for having a need for an SUV? Look, my husband drives to the mountains, where the roads are icy and dangerous for 9 months out of the year, weekly because of work. We want him to be safe, therefore, he drives a 4WD Subaru Outback. Why should we be penalized for that?... We have to be penalized for wanting my husband to stay alive? That's crazy! It is a PENALTY.

My suggestion is, let the market dictate the need for more efficient products. Even as we speak, it is becoming obvious that a large number of people are beginning to demand more efficient cars. Why do we have to un-naturally create demand by imposing penalties on people who don't want them yet, when eventually, the large majority will WANT more energy-efficient choices? When the time comes, and when the great majority of the population demands it, profit-seeking producers will invent better and more efficient products in a cost-effective manner, and then people will buy them. After all, fossil fuel is a finite resource, so there WILL come a time when we all WILL need alternative sources of energy. As supply dimishes, price will become prohibitive, and people will begin to demand better and more efficient products at that time. My hypothesis is that the world will not come to an end before that time...I'll even go as far as to bet that Polar Bears will not be extinct by then, either....

In the meantime, we can choose to drive our smaller cars when we don't need to transport lots of people or tow campers, and we can ride share, etc... in order to conserve on our OWN terms, without someone forcing it down our throats or penalizing us unneccessarily.

If you believe so strongly that HUMANS are definately the cause, why don't you start your own non-profit charity to collect money that can be used as rebates for people who buy Prisms? Why do non-believers have to be penalized? Why do certain people feel the need to IMPOSE their unproven beliefs on other people?

 

[Texas Proud]

If we want to have a progressive fuel tax, then establish a progressive fuel tax. Don't tax the car. Tax the fuel use. Some people with SUVs may use them only when they need to -- when they are filled with passengers. Others may drive them around when a Smart Car would do the trick. If you tax the car, both pay the same penalty.

Absolutely agree with you on this... tax the fuel... even go so far to tax carbon use (which would help on you global warming issue, but would help on ME wanting cleaner air)...

ALSO, tax tail pipe pollution... every year, go to the inspection place, calculate the pollution a car puts out, multiply by mileage etc. and get a tax... need to make sure that people can't fiddle with their odometer this way... but why not do it??

 

[haha]

When if it can be absolutely proven, then, and only then, should anyone be FORCED to do anything.

Do you have a test in mind for when it will have been "absolutely proven"?

Sounds like a tall order, and one guaranteed to forestall proactive response. Which come to think of it may be the goal.

Ha

 

[eridanus]

I just don't think our freedoms should be compromised just because SOME people "THINK" that Humans "MIGHT" be responsible for global warming.

Compromising freedoms? No one is compromising freedoms. A gas or carbon tax is more economically fair than our current system.

 

[mykidslovedogs]

Do you have a test in mind for when it will have been "absolutely proven"?

Sounds like a tall order, and one guaranteed to forestall proactive response. Which come to think of it may be the goal.

Ha

Being pro-active is fine, as long as you don't take away people's freedoms to do it. Especially if you are being proactive about something that may not even exist. OK...how about this one... I want all of you to go to HEAVEN. I am being PROACTIVE ABOUT IT.. therefore, I am going to force you to go to church, and if you don't, then you have to pay me $2500.00, so I can give it to other people in order to encourage them to want to go to church....