Climate change
7 responses | 0 likes
Started by wglassfo - Jan. 9, 2020, 11:24 a.m.

Mark Carney has made a very interesting observation

He claims that investors in the fossil fuel industry may have asset investments with  reduced value, going forward

This includes the industry  and those that buy stks in the industry

Now his theory is climate will increase in temp which is bad

However, it doesn't seem to matter if he is right or wrong

He claims that gov't will buy into the thinking of temp increase, which gov't will then assume is bad and will mandate fossil fuel changes

So: no matter if he or the gov't is right or wrong, no amount of scientific evidence will sway gov't action

And he thinks the gov't will force the fossil fuel industry to abandon some projects, just because they might cause harm

He lists the canada tar sand as one project that gov't might force  drastic reduction in operations and loss of asset value

So: no matter what the science says, if gov't is sufficiently concerned that fossil fuel is bad, then these operations will have to change because of gov't mandate

He thinks if 95 % of the science says gloabal warming is bad, right or wrong, the gov't will act to change the fossil fuel industry

And change will mean loss of asset value

He says the gov't can be wrong but will still mandate fossil fuel change

I would not bet against gov't action. Those of us who use newer engines have to abide by gov't fuel regulations

Try driving a commercial truck into Ca with out fuel standards mandated by Ca law. You will not be allowed to cross the state line into Ca.

He isn't argueing the merits of climate change as much as he is saying gov't will mandate fossil fuel change

You can argue the climate change science until you are blue in the face, gov't still controls our destiny

You all know what politicians will do when a majority want some thing.

Mark Carney is saying a majority will want some thing to change

We can see fossil fuel regulations are already changing 

Mark says that will  continue by gov't mandate, leaving fossil fuel assets with reduced value

By mcfarm - Jan. 9, 2020, 11:46 a.m.
Like Reply

that's great logic. all based on rising temps. As most of us know temps rise and fall. cannot wait foe all the breathless white papers shortly when temps start fall for decades. When, who knows, but happen it will. Volcanos, nuclear explosions, just plain old weather changes.

By wglassfo - Jan. 9, 2020, 12:22 p.m.
Like Reply

Hi ncfarm

I am not saying you are wrong

What I am saying is once gov't mandates some thing it stays on the books as law

You may know the requirement to use DEF with newer diesel engines. That is gov't mandated

No matter if the gov't is right or wrong

How long do you think we will still be adding DEF to our newer diesel engines

Older tractors with out the DEF requirement are worth more than newer tractors with same or even more hrs , at auction, simply because of the DEF hassle

But our gov't will not change the law, if ever

Same with our energy tax

It's stupid but it will not go away

Your correct but that won't change a dog gone thing

By metmike - Jan. 9, 2020, 1:17 p.m.
Like Reply

Fossil fuels will continue to increase in the world and in value.

The fake climate emergency exists to be used to tax those fossil fuels and to impose socialism.

100% certain of this!

Renewable vs fossil fuels: Diffuse solar vs dense fossil fuels. Benefits of CO2. September 2019

Another secret about fossil fuels: Haber Bosch process-fertilizers feeding the planet using natural gas-doubling food production/crop yields. September 2019

Renewable energy:  When can it replace fossil fuels? August 2019

Sanders Touts $16 Trillion Climate Plan: Anti Science Bernie = the complete opposite of the truth! August 2019

By metmike - Jan. 9, 2020, 1:24 p.m.
Like Reply

"He thinks if 95 % of the science says gloabal warming is bad, right or wrong, the gov't will act to change the fossil fuel industry"

The benefits to life outweigh the negatives by many times. Our planet is massively greening up.

Cold kills 10 times more than heat.

The break even point of global warming is around 4 deg. C higher than this. We are having a climate optimum and the best weather/climate in the last 1,000 years.

You should note that in the Winter of the high and mid latitudes, creatures still migrate south to avoid being killed by the cold and to find food. Many creatures hibernate to survive the killing cold. Plants either go dormant or die from the cold.

Global warming is warming up the coldest places during the coldest times of year the most. 

How is that a bad thing for life?

The only "science" that shows a problem are busted, speculative global climate models going out 100 years.........that have been too warm.

This is being used in politics and the actual observations of our planet and life on it, that loves more CO2 and  warmer temperatures is being ignored.

If  you had done a poll of scientists 60 years ago, before climate science was hijacked for political agenda and asked them what the ideal temperature is for life on this planet, almost every single one would have said WARMER!

...............and they all would have been correct.

Life did better in the past when it was warmer than this. The planet is greening up. 

By metmike - Jan. 9, 2020, 1:28 p.m.
Like Reply

Thanks Wayne and mcfarm!

By mcfarm - Jan. 9, 2020, 1:46 p.m.
Like Reply

there is no doubt  Wayne. Yu have it covered. Whenever big gov gets involved its pretty much a cluster f

By metmike - Jan. 9, 2020, 8 p.m.
Like Reply