Half Moon Bay Review
 
 
 
 
 
TalkAbout Start a topic Login Create Login Forgot Password  
All Categories Around Town Elections Entertainment/Dining Schools
City Council Environment Sports Beyond the Coastside Catch All
Clay Lambert's Blog Mark Foyer's Blog Stacy Trevenon's blog Mark Noack's blog Bill Murray's Blog

It's All About The Money

Global warming hysteria now a $1.5 trillion global industryracket: Web Link

Who was it that often said "it's all about the money?"


Comments

From the full article which was the basis of the WaPo copy:

"Much of the growth is expected to come from demand for forward-looking strategic assessments of climate risks, with more corporations making risk assessments to look at the impacts of climate change over the next 10 to 15 years, according to the report.

“Growth in the climate change consulting market continues to shift from greenhouse gas (GHG) management and mitigation to climate change risk assessment and adaptation,” the report states. “Adaptation is increasingly folding into a broader concept of resilience which itself lines up with the even broader goal of sustainability—a focus on how companies, communities and nations can grow economically while enhancing environmental and social values.”

"Who needs these services? Those who own large property portfolios, big retailers and giant food producers to name a few. In other words it’s anyone who fears losses from more frequent extreme weather events – whether they are climate change related or not is anyone’s guess and a contentious point for some – as well as those who fear business interruption.

Supply chain management is a significant source of new busines for those in the climate change consulting market, according to the report, which states that “climate change consulting for large firms is moving further down into supply chains.”

"In the report Mazzacurati describes a hypothetical climate risk scenario for a large corporation:

“Let’s say you have a lot of semiconductors being manufactured in a certain region of China that is going to be experiencing higher temperatures and lower water availability. Since manufacturing is very energy and water intensive, you’re going to have a problem there. You may see increasing costs or disruptions in the availability of the products.”

For corporations with several products, a supply chain assessment may be quite a challenge. IBM has disclosed that it has 27,000 suppliers, the report notes.

“Assessing global supply chain impacts for a company like that is probably a two-year study from A to Z, and when you’re done with that you probably have to start over again,” Ferrier said, adding that he believes such assessments are going to be an “ongoing service.”

Not only are corporations beginning to recognize the potential cost impacts of supply chain interruption, but there are reputational impacts to be considered – say it turns out a well-known brand is buying its products or supplies from a far-flung company that’s considered a “gross polluter.”

Web Link

Sometimes looking at the real article puts things into perspective.


BP, which has changed its position and now accepts that fossil fuel burning is the leading cause of climate change has issued this statement

"Reflecting on BP's 'Beyond Petroleum' shift, new study puts climate change responsibility on energy companies"

Web Link

Shell Oil on climate change

"Population growth and economic development are driving up energy demand. All energy sources will be needed, with fossil fuels meeting the bulk of demand. At the same time CO2 emissions must be reduced to avoid serious climate change. To manage CO2, governments and industry must work together. Government action is needed and we support an international framework that puts a price on CO2, encouraging the use of all CO2-reducing technologies. Shell is taking action across four areas to help secure a sustainable energy future : natural gas, biofuels, carbon capture and storage, and energy efficiency."

Web Link

Total Petroleum on climate change

Carbon capture and storage (CCS) could account for up to 30% of the reductions in global carbon emissions from energy combustion in 2050. We have our sights firmly set on becoming proficient in this technology. Carbon capture and storage is a promising avenue for combating climate change.

Web Link

Nearly everyone who is not a Republican understands


It comes as no surprise to me that a big government statist like "Boney Bills" would use essentially a "broken windows" analogy to justify a huge expense that doesn't achieve any measurable reduction in global temperatures.

Nearly everyone that can think for themselves will understand -- they don't need to fall back on unscientific far-Left talking points.


"Nearly everyone that can think for themselves will understand -- they don't need to fall back on unscientific far-Left talking points."

I quoted Shell Oil, BP, and Total Petroleum and the article that you originally quoted yet you refer to unscientific far-left talking points. Are you implying that any of these are far-left organizations?


Honey buns likes clapping seals who clap for HIM.

Sorry, honeybuns."@


^^^ I quoted Shell Oil, BP, and Total Petroleum and the article that you originally quoted yet you refer to unscientific far-left talking points. Are you implying that any of these are far-left organizations? ^^^

I'm not implying anything. I'm saying as bluntly as I can that government has created an industry that sucks $1.5 trillion from our global economy for no measurable effect on climate.

Why are you so desperate to obfuscate those facts?


Why are you so desperate to obfuscate those facts?

Prove that's fact. Don't just spew your own flavor of propaganda. If you have proof - actual proof, not blogosphere tripe - post it.

Prove that the government is colluding against the oil industry.

Prove the 97% of scientists supporting AGW are wrong.

Go for it, Honeybean.


"Prove that's fact." He can't, which is part of the problem.

"Prove that the government is colluding against the oil industry." Now that would be a neat trick. As the very title of this thread states; "it's all about the money".

Oil companies provide substantial contributions to legislators. That is one of the reasons that some of them pay no taxes at all; using "loopholes" in the Tax Code to net $1 Billion per month in income.

The shareholders are sure happy about it, but the idea that "the government is colluding against the oil industry" is beyond hilarious. Any reasonable individual with 1/2 a brain would know that.

Reminds me of the old - just because you're paranoid doesn't mean that they're not out to get you - a time honored sentiment by our Gualala troll.

And the funny part is; he really believes it, as is evidenced by his posts. Life is one big conspiracy, isn't it francis?


^^^ Prove that's fact. ^^^

I don't have to. All I need to do is rely on the IPCC 5th assessment, which states that attaining CO2 targets will avoid 0.02 degrees C in warming. And that assumes their predictive computer models are correct, which they aren't.

^^^ He can't, which is part of the problem. ^^^

It will be much easier to read the above response after you take your foot out of your mouth.


"And that assumes their predictive computer models are correct, which they aren't." What a feeling it must be to know everything and be an expert at everything.

There are some that would be jealous ... but I doubt you'll find any of them here.

Perhaps you can provide support for your comments? Other than your word, of course. This is similar to the Iran nuclear discussions and agreement - Trust but Verify.

So, if you would be so kind as to explain (and support) your claim, in the simplest terms possible because nobody is as smart as you oh wise one; "And that assumes their predictive computer models are correct, which they aren't."

Thank you, in advance.


^^^ Prove that's fact. ^^^

I don't have to.

Then you're simply trolling us.


Yep, it's all about the money!

"Republican hopefuls reap $62m in support from donors with fossil fuel ties"

"Connor Gibson, the Greenpeace researcher who oversaw the Greenpeace/Center for Media and Democracy study, said that fossil fuel industries were pouring money into the 2016 election cycle in unprecedented quantities. “To see so much money flowing into the war chests of viable Republican candidates so early in the race from people linked to climate change pollution is very concerning.”

"According to a study of donations based on filings to the Federal Election Commission carried out by Greenpeace and the Center for Media and Democracy in collaboration with the Guardian, by far the greatest beneficiary of what might be labelled fossil fuel donations has been Ted Cruz. The sitting US senator from Texas, who is among the most prominent and blatant climate change deniers in the US, has been showered with a staggering $36.5m from just four wealthy sources with links to fossil fuels interests."

"Gibson said it was reasonable to ask what favors might be expected down the line as quid pro quo. “Will these candidates be expected to roll back federal oversight and regulation of fracking and methane leaks? Will they be more likely to allow drilling in the Arctic at a time when scientists are warning that fossil fuels must be kept in the ground?”" Web Link

Francis and I are in agreement, it's all about the money.


^^^ Then you're simply trolling us. ^^^

This is a very good example of the dishonesty of "Coasters," who used a portion of my statement to deliberately alter the context and meaning.

I don't have to "prove" my assertions correct because they come from the IPCC AR5. Furthermore, it is not up to be to "disprove" they hysterical claims of the alarmist industry. It is they that must prove that increased levels of atmospheric CO2 will lead to the global temperature increases they predict. That is the scientific method, and that is where the hysterical and dishonest alarmists like "Coasters" fail time and again.

^^^ Thank you, in advance. ^^^

It's quite clear that you're either too stupid or too biased (or both) to rationally discuss global warming. Otherwise, you'd recognize that even the IPCC AR5 doesn't claim much of a temperature reduction as a result of all the costly CO2 reduction targets.

^^^ Francis and I are in agreement, it's all about the money. ^^^

Except that you are hostile to the energy providers you need to maintain your lifestyle. And that you still peddle the lie that skeptics deny climate change. And that you still pretend the alarmist industry isn't subsidized by the government.


"...who used a portion of my statement to deliberately alter the context and meaning." Damn that villainous scofflaw for trying to steal your posting patterns, huh?

Pot meet kettle.

Everybody get back; Drama queen troll at work here.


When you're too stupid and too biased to comment intelligently on the issue of global warming, you may as well approve of alarmists deliberately taking skeptics out of context.


When you're too stupid and too biased to comment intelligently on the issue of global warming, you may as well approve of alarmists deliberately taking skeptics out of context.

What's more alarmist than someone who cannot unwad their panties enough to confront the inconvenient truth of AGW?

Nothing, that's what.


The biggest oil money goes to...

Ted Cruz ($36.5 million from just FOUR wealthy donors from the industry;)

Jeb Bush

Rick Perry

Those three POTUS candidates would absolutely agree with Honeybilge that "It's all about the money".

Source:

Web Link


While $36.5 Million Dollars is big time money for folks like you and me, Coasters, it's chicken feed compared to the $900 Million Dollars the Koch Brothers are going to spread around to the candidates who dance to the right tune.

"As the Koch network of funders gets ready to unleash an unimaginable $900 million on the 2016 campaign, they are busily trying to remake their public image and spin undisclosed dark money as a plus in political campaigns."

Web Link


Boney, the political stuff is interesting. Looks like a growth industry for those without integrity and a willingness to suck the cream from the creme de la creme.


Or there's always the already rich that want to get richer, like Carly who laid-off Americans and shipped jobs to China:

“As CEO of HP, Carly Fiorina laid off 30,000 workers. Fiorina shipped jobs to China. And while Californians lost their jobs, Fiorina tripled her salary, bought a million-dollar yacht and five corporate jets.”

Then she halved the value of HP. A real "conservative".

Read more at: Web Link

Web Link



Matt Ridley on the green scare problem and the harm caused to populations and the environment by environmentalists: Web Link

Making dire predictions is what environmental groups do for a living, and it’s a competitive market, so they exaggerate. Virtually every environmental threat of the past few decades has been greatly exaggerated at some point...[snip]...Yet taking precautionary action against pesticides, acid rain and ozone thinning proved manageable, so maybe not much harm was done.

and

Climate change is different. President Obama’s plan to cut U.S. carbon-dioxide emissions from electricity plants by 32% (from 2005 levels) by 2030 would cut global emissions by about 2%. By that time, according to Energy Information Administration data analyzed by Heritage Foundation statistician Kevin Dayaratna, the carbon plan could cost the U.S. up to $1 trillion in lost GDP. The measures needed to decarbonize world energy are going to be vastly more expensive. So we had better be sure that we are not exaggerating the problem.

But it isn’t just that environmental threats have a habit of turning out less bad than feared; it’s that the remedies sometimes prove worse than the disease.

Just ask the folks along the Animus River!


Add a comment

Please login to comment on this topic.

Login Here

Create a Login

Powered by Podium