The next focusIR Investor Webinar takes places on 14th May with guest speakers from Blue Whale Growth Fund, Taseko Mines, Kavango Resources and CQS Natural Resources fund. Please register here.
London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
Getagrip, you are correct. There is no such thing as a free lunch. What is important is knowing the true environmental cost of 'everything' we use. Sometimes doing what one thinks is the right thing isn't optimal.
So forecasts made by the IPCC in 1990/92, have been proven inaccurate by facts that we know now! Amazing - who would credit that. It's a recipe for always feeling you are right about something I suppose, but has little credence or point.
"UK co2 output has been falling pretty steadily for those three decades and is now 40% below the 1990 figs" so that it is someone else's problem as it always is! This is extremely short-sighted & disturbingly pays no attention to the wider picture. It is true only if we accept no responsibility for the ramifications & true costs of green-washing our economy. Everyone should be looking at these climate change issues holistically.
BE has a very valid point. It is a bit like the HSE making British jobs safer over the years. Yes - but tighter job protection in the UK has simply exported jobs, and killed & injured workers in other countries instead. With climate change it is not as simple as sticking a big battery in your car, banning coal, and powering your home with a few windmills. Assessing the true costs of going green means looking at how the windmill was made, where the mining took place for lithium etc and what the co2 impacts were in total.
Time would be better spent reading Guillaume Pitron's Rare Metals War. The facts and figures on the real costs of going green are staggering. One rare earth metal (windmills EV's etc are packed with them) requires the processing of 1200 tonnes of rock to produce one tonne of the metal. Because it does not happen in the UK does not mean it is not happening & can be conveniently ignored as part of the climate equation! Vast tracts of Africa & China are moonscape wastelands caused by the extraction of these metals & this is without the vast toxic lakes associated with processing, abnormal birth defects in the population etc.
We have simply and irresponsibly exported most of the missing co2 emissions. We have to accept that it is our problem as well or we will always see climate change issues with a one-dimensional view.
"So I extrapolate those to suggest.....
As an aside the Uk co2 output has been falling pretty steadily for those three decades and is now 40% below the 1990 figs so the issue is essentially one for China, India, US, Russia and Indonesia who make up half of the worlds co2 output(also todays FT) behind paywall else I would link."
============================================================
It is scientifically incoherent to simply extrapolate data from 30 years ago...just to try to prove a point. There are potential feedback loops within the Earth's climate - both positive & negative - that the scientists don't fully understand at the moment that could make simple linear extrapolation incorrect. In next few weeks we will find out if the 'Do Nothing' strategy in the hope that climate change is over-hyped is something that world leaders are still following.....there comes a point when 'Do Nothing' equates to 'Missing the Boat'!
As for saying that UK doesn't emit much Carbon, I would say it is partly because we have exported our manufacturing & carbon emissions to third world countries....and we now expect them to bear the cost of going clean. Doesn't seem fair to me!!
Boyo.. one last comment on this as I don't want to continue a back and forth exchange overlong , BUT, the model implies a parabolic curve and estimates were/are based on that ,the outcome over the last thirty years is essentially a steady gradient ,(see nasa again)still concerning, but current evidence supplied by those most concerned implies sharply lower outcomes than they originally projected and which are still widely promulgated.
bald.... I reread the 1990/92 to see how accurate the predictions were.
I found that broadly they were significantly out, ie
Temp projection 0.3 degrees per decade, actual 0.57 in 3 decades(source nasa figures)
Sea level projection 6cm rise per decade, actual 10cm in 3 decades (also nasa figs)
So I extrapolate those to suggest that their 3 degrees warming by 2050 and 0.5 metre sea level rise by the same date are, shall we say, unlikely.
As an aside the Uk co2 output has been falling pretty steadily for those three decades and is now 40% below the 1990 figs so the issue is essentially one for China, India, US, Russia and Indonesia who make up half of the worlds co2 output(also todays FT) behind paywall else I would link.
I am not King Canute (indeed nor was King canute if you know the full story!)I am merely someone who bases his judgement on the facts and has an optimistic view of humankinds adapability and ingenuity.
‘It underlines my view that the climate hysteria industry , with us now for almost forty years, has so far proved wildly pessimistic’...... ‘NO ONE can predict what the next thirty years will bring, to do so is beyond arrogance.’
Hysteria (outright frustration for those of a more measured temperament) is indeed building because too little seems to be being done. On the point of prediction: the accumulation of greenhouse gasses and subsequent environmental impact has been well documented for decades and the model has naturally become more accurate as the data has been gathered over the period - it is surely arrogant to suggest otherwise. Assuming that unforeseen technology developments will eventually fix the problem doesn’t seem like a plan to me: a given technology needs to be sufficiently deployed in order to stimulate improvements, efficiencies and cost reductions.
In my view, the Oil Majors rather deserve to be excluded from COP by having failed to read the signs very astutely and, through strategic failure, by allowing themselves to be cast as obstructors of carbon reduction rather than part of the global team actively working to achieve it. RDS has a swiftly closing window of opportunity to remedy this perception.
King Canute is also known as King **** the Great (google it).....which I suppose is apt!!
"....but there are more jokes in there than at the Edinburgh fringe."
==============================================================
Casapino, So it's acceptable to have a weekend shopping break in NewYork but it isn't OK to have face to face meetings on arguably the most important issue facing civilisation?!..give me a break.
I suspect one needs to ask ones children & grand children their view on the subject of climate change....I suspect they will have a different perspective. They weren't the cause for our generations (albeit ignorant) mistakes, however they have to live with the consequences. As I said I will be dead and can only wish them good luck and the thin hope that the science is wrong.
The Seychelles & the Maldives aren't under water....really!!! Those island communities can see the water levels approaching on a yearly basis, which must be sickening and you suggest they should be glad. With the amount of glacier retreat and loss of artic sea ice I am sure they will be glad of your scepticism...like king **** the Great I'm sure it will keep the oceans from rising.
PS Credit for reading a climate report but zero for your understanding of it.
PPS I can see you are up to date?....1992 (FFS). I think there is a new one out now or very soon.
bald eagle.... I recently re read the IPCC 1990/92 report .
see
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/05/ipcc_90_92_assessments_far_full_report.pdf
I found this recommendation particularly laughable
"Uninterrupted travel assistance to the developing countries
for attendance at the meetings of IPCC and follow-up activities should be ensured.", but there are more jokes in there than at the Edinburgh fringe.
It underlines my view that the climate hysteria industry , with us now for almost forty years, has so far proved wildly pessimistic, the Seychelles and Maldives should be well under water now according to early projections- they are n't.
"....NO ONE can predict what the next thirty years will bring, to do so is beyond arrogance."
================================================================
Unfortunately we don't have the option to do nothing....I wish we did, but we don't.
If we wait until the 'later decades of this century' for the technologocal advances to tackle climate change then it will be too late for many communities & cities around the world....sea level rises alone will cause food insecurity & mass migration on a scale never seen before (if you believe the scientists). Thank god I won't be here....
Gary59: Please quote the source of your text. Thanks.
The climate change lobby really doesn't get that with half of the world's population (reasonably) still aspiring to a "Western" lifestyle, energy requirements aren't going to fall any time soon . Given that renewables etc fail to meet even half of current needs they cannot posssibly meet ever rising needs over the next few decades. Fossil fuels , hopefully non-coal will be with us for decades, or the lights will have to go out.A sensible strategy is to seek to minimise the effects of fossil fuel use, by carbon capture, efficiency gains, better planned environments......while developing the newer technologies of energy production (fusion,biofuels etc..)which can come onstream in the later decades of this century. In todays hysterical climate I fear such a rational approach is unlikely.
As an aside It always stuns me when people talk of an emergency thirty years from now , can you remember the state of technology thirty years ago? no mobiles, no internet (pretty much) no electric cars, no online shopping , no streaming,...NO ONE can predict what the next thirty years will bring, to do so is beyond arrogance.
Most if not all of the big fund managers are attending COP 26 & it is interesting to read the following which gives an insight into how much work the big oilers need to do to put their message out. It's the big buyers that move the SP's not us P.I.'s ...
"Fossil fuel firms have been given no official role in the Cop26 climate summit, it can be revealed, against a background of growing concern among UK officials that big oil’s net zero plans do not stack up.
Private emails from civil servants in the Cop unit, seen by the Guardian, show doubts about one oil major’s net zero plans, with an official saying BP “[does] not currently fit our success criteria for Cop26” and another noting “it’s unclear whether [its net zero] commitments stack up yet”.
Last year the Guardian revealed that fossil fuel firms had held a series of private meetings with UK officials in an attempt to be part of Cop26. Documents revealed that some of the world’s biggest polluters had been lobbying the government, offering money in return for exposure at the event and in one case saying they could act as an intermediary between UK officials and other governments.
But now, in what campaigners say is a big win for climate activism, the UK’s Cop unit has confirmed that no fossil fuel majors will have a formal role.
Chris Garrard, of the campaign group Culture Unstained, which obtained the emails under freedom of information legislation, said: “For years oil companies have been given prominent platforms at the UN climate negotiations, promoting themselves as climate leaders while they continued to pour millions into new fossil fuels, so this is a big step forward.”