The perfect headline when discussing “climate change”, from hyper-Warmist Eric Holthaus
New Report Finds the Best Way to Make Industry Care About Climate Change: Money
Force industry to care.
A new report out earlier this month by the global consulting firm Mercer is perhaps the most striking argument yet for fossil fuel divestment, written in the cold, calculated prose of international finance. Its very blunt conclusion: “Climate risk is inevitable. Some impacts on investment returns are inevitable.â€
The report looks out to 2050, but its focus on the next 18 months to 10 years—and its emphasis on the unique risks to the fossil fuel industry—makes it especially relevant in the near-term. Specifically, the report advocates for “portfolio decarbonizationâ€â€”aka divestment—and argues that by reducing your investment exposure to sensitive sectors of the economy (the report identifies utilities, real estate, timber, agriculture, but calls the fossil fuel industry the most risky) you can avoid holding “stranded assets†should world governments put caps on carbon emissions or extreme weather produce escalating damage.
In short, by ridding your portfolio of climate sensitive or fossil fuel intensive companies, you can make the world a better place, and make money at the same time. Climate deniers with fat bank accounts, consider this your chance to change your tune—it’s OK to be selfish, to do it for the money, we won’t blame you.
Warmists keeping showing their cards, that what they really want is to force Other People to obey the tenets of the Cult of Climastrology. All while refusing to give up their own use of fossil fuels.
They are actually getting desperate after a Gallup poll came out where only 2 percent of the respondents placed Global warming as the most serious issue facing America.
Just 11 percent in a poll last year of LIKELY VOTERS showed climate change as the most important issue.
The IPCC recently announced that the technology is just not available to give up fossil fuels in the next two decades…
When asked what is the plan to FEED the world with windmills and Solar Panels and nukalar plants….the blank stares are comical and then they begin a rant about evil oil companies or idiot deniers.
They are getting desperate and now they are just slinging stuff and trying to find something that gains them some traction.
Teach added the word “force”, it wasn’t in the article.
The point was that savvy investors will take the transition to renewables into consideration if they are interested in making money. Companies exist in the real world, not in an ideological mist. They have real world investors who expect a return on investment.
We would be surprised if many Pirates are big investors -no offense – but when big investors are faced with losing money they’ll do the smart thing.
So Teach was right.
It is force.
The same way businesses were “forced” to reduce investments in tobacco stocks?
Poor Jeffery.
When his own position is wrecked by the very article he cites, he tries to deflect.
Jeffrey wrote:
Solyndra. Do I really need to list more?
There will (probably) be a net return on investment, in the short term, in companies looking for ways to make more energy efficient products, because such have a sales advantage in the marketplace. The investment problems arise when they are based on pure speculation, or, in the case of Solyndra and the similarly-situated and failed companies, government over-pushing of poor companies based on political considerations.
If an economist in the private sector tells you that something will work, be wary; if an economist employed by the government tells you that something will work, do the opposite.
Dana,
Making a return on an investment is risky! The Mercer report advises investors that investments in fossil-fuel dependent industries will become more and more risky.
And why is that? The world is becoming more and more aware of global warming and behaviors are changing.
Jeff, if behaviors are changing, why do you think that the government must step in and force behaviors to change?
It makes perfect sense to try and find cleaner, alternative energy sources; what makes far less sense is the government trying to force increased reliance on technologies that do not yet exist, or technologies that simply cannot provide energy in the amounts needed to maintain a first world society.
As for fossil fuel dependent industries, I’d guess that the industries which will lead the way in technological innovation to provide better energy sources will be the oil companies: they have the resources and the engineers and the scientists to develop those energy sources, and have all of the profit incentive to do so.
Obama Declared war on coal. At the Behest of Warren Buffet, George Soros and Bill Gates. Why? Because they all make billions each year in OIL and GAS.
I have made a fortune on Exxon, Chevron, Marathon Oil and Conoco Phillips along with American Electric power.(I have many others in my portfolio but these are the energy stocks in my portfolio) Dividends and long term dollar cost averaging.
At one time I was invested in US Steel and Peabody Energy….the coal company….the minute Obama was elected I dumped both. The reason was that there was obviously big money men behind Obama that wanted coal gone. Steel is much more costly to produce without coal as the energy of choice/) Coal states account for about 12 electoral votes.
However Oil and Gas states account for about 200 electoral votes…..pretty clear to me where the politics and the funding lie.
Alternatives are attractive as a long term play. The problem is that any long term play is beat over the head before the average investor can become a share holder.
Initial public offerings are at huge price entry points and the stock only goes up from there making the stock incapable of making any significant money as a long term investment. The hedge funds and mutual funds that are in on the ground floor are there for the growth and not the potential earnings.
Hence any Alternatives company is hugely risky for all but the most speculative millionaires because the price points are too steep and the potential for that company to actually have positive EPS is a rather distant pipe dream.
Take TESLA for example….a fairly decent alternative company with a stock market price of 250.00 per share and an Earnings per share of -3.58 or in other words it loses roughly 350 million per quarter even though its cranking out 70-150k battery operated cars.
LONG term? Sure it might be a viable company but the average investor would not touch that with a 10 foot pole so this article was written to influence the millionaire and billionaire players on the market who rape the average investor unless that investor is someone like me who just simply picks forever stocks and buys them for 40-50-60 years.
By the way I want to thank Warren Buffet for offering to buy Kraft. I have owned Kraft for nearly 30 years and bought stock literally every month for 30 years…..The price of the stock shot up 27.00 overnight on his announcement and I sold my position. Much to Jefferies dismay I bought a SECOND Vacation Home.
Thanks Mr. Buffet. Im now hoping George Soros offers to buy Campbell Soup and Ill buy a third Vacation Home.
The point of the Slate article is not that global warming is creating economic problems or that oil companies et al are bad investments per se. It’s that they want to pressure people to divest from such companies, thus forcing the stock price down, and they want government to take punitive action against such companies, to cost them revenue. If they succeed in doing these things, then such companies will be bad investments.
This says absolutely zero about the truth of global warming claims. If the government decided tomorrow to punish companies that make cornbread (for whatever reason), than cornbread companies would become a bad investment. That would hardly prove that cornbread is bad for your health or anything else about cornbread. It would just prove that the government has succeeded in punished cornbread companies.
Liberals routinely say that the fact that the government is taking some action that they have called for, or that a court has ruled in their favor, proves that they were right all along. Bosh. All it proves is that they have political influence. In this case, they’re not even claiming that they’ve convinced the government to take this action. They’ve just said that they are going to try to convince the government to do this.
By that reasoning, I could announce, “I’m trying to convince the government to build a space station to protect us from invasion by the Martians. The fact that I think that the government will do this proves that my warnings about the imminent Martian invasion were right all along and that the Mars-doubters are wrong.”
If what you typed is true, it would explain your unwavering support for burning fossil fuels. I am not surprised. And here you were pretending to be disinterested.
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.”
— Upton Sinclair
Says the guy who has railed against the patent system but won’t allow others to use his patents because they make him money.
Hypocrisy, thy name is Jeffery.
The “DEMOCRAT BILLIONAIRE DONORS LIST†includes Democrat “powerbrokers†including, Steven Spielberg, George Soros, Charles Ergen, Vance K. Opperman, Daniel Abraham, Warren Buffett, Jeffrey Katzenberg, Robert F.X. Sillerman, George Lucas, Alice Walton, Paul Allen, Sumner Redstone, Bill Gates, William Barron Hilton, Eric Schmidt, William Randolph Hearst III, Marc Benioff, Anthony Pritzker, Ray Milton Dolby, Charles Schwab, Robert Kraft, Gordon P. Getty II, Oprah Winfrey, Steven Ballmer, Ralph Lauren, Jeff Bezos, Henry Samueli.
Most of these people either own outright or own huge positions in oil and gas because they pay well. My portfolio has mirrored Warren Buffets for years.
Some of his current and past holdings include Phillips 66, Exxon, Conoco, Suncor Energy, National Oilwell Varco, Inc.
Warren Buffet……Being a huge Donor is hardly a Climate change Bandwagoner….He has more then once smacked down Climate change in favor of all the money he makes which would make his democratic donors pass right on out.
Dumbassery, thy name is gitarcarver. Or is thy name Asshattery? Whatever.
You have no idea what you are talking about.
And it’s not relevant to a Denier who is wealthy from fossil fuels. Of course he’s a Denier, because:
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.”
— Upton Sinclair
Does The Teach receive funding from Heartland or some other Denier fund? It is certainly relevant.
The fact is that people will perform all sorts of unsavory acts for money.
Its actually rather telling that you would pull this quote out in order to defend your positions.
Sinclair was an outspoken socialist and ran unsuccessfully for Congress as a nominee from the Socialist Party. He was also the Democratic Party candidate for Governor of California during the Great Depression, but was defeated in the 1934 elections.
Gee, what a surprise. A few weeks ago Jeffery agreed with Teach that the name calling was getting out of hand and should be stopped. Who breaks that agreement?
Why Jeffery, of course.
I am shocked – shocked I tell you – that Jeffery is not a man of his word.
The problem isn’t that I don’t know what I am talking about, Jeffery, it is that I do know what I am talking about.
Some people will perform acts for money. Some people have morals and principles.
You fall into the former group and hate those in the latter.
I would actually respond to this but what difference would it make? The point of my post was that the AGW crowd are now on the run and they are just throwing shit out there now hoping something sticks and gains traction.
They already have had to move their date back by 6 decades. A Princeton study concludes its already too late……were all doomed even if we stop Fossil fuel use today…..
The IPCC says we dont have the technology available to us to halt fossil fuels in 20 years.
On and ON it goes…..Whats actually wonderful about their position is that.
1. If its hot….its AGW.
2. If its cold…Its AGW.
3. If it rains…Its AGW.
4. If It snows…Its AGW.
5. If the wind blows its AGW.
6. If the wind doesnt blow its AGW.
7. If the Ice melts its AGW.
8. If the ice doesnt melt its AGW.
9. If there are tornadoes its AGW.
10. If there are NO tornadoes its AGW.
11. If there are floods its AGW.
12. If there is drought its AGW.
13. If we have record crop harvests its AGW.
14. If We have poor Crop harvests its AGW.
15. and the coup de Gra? It will take 85 years to prove them right or wrong…in the meantime keep those checks coming.
Didn’t you type –
Is your argument that ‘dumbassery’ is somehow worse than ‘hypocrisy’?
Telling how? In any event, I didn’t use it to defend my position but to help explain why people should ignore your comments on global warming. Your income depends on fossil fuels.
You ignore the central point: The Earth is warming because of CO2 from our burning fossil-fuels, and the results of this rapid warming will be largely damaging to human civilization.
See how simple the story is? Importantly, you don’t need 50 items to refute the theory – you need just one! Break the chain of evidence or offer a plausible alternative – not your previous silliness that you’ve since run from when challenged.
Oh Jeffery, have the senility and the lies gotten to you so much that you can’t remember the names you have called people?
Really?
Then again, you are the one who said your wife was delusional, so I expect nothing less from you.
A few weeks ago Jeffery agreed with Teach that the name calling was getting out of hand and should be stopped
Well he hasn’t called me a pussy lately so there’s that.
Telling how? In any event, I didn’t use it to defend my position but to help explain why people should ignore your comments on global warming. Your income depends on fossil fuels.Sinclair was an outspoken socialist and ran unsuccessfully for Congress as a nominee from the Socialist Party. He was also the Democratic Party candidate for Governor of California during the Great Depression, but was defeated in the 1934 elections.