Posted on 05/12/2005 2:06:24 AM PDT by Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit
UNITED NATIONS — In a daylong brainstorming "summit," a dozen U.S. state treasurers and hundreds of financiers and other major investors debated ways Tuesday to pressure more U.S. companies into dealing openly with the financial risk of climate change and with ways to reduce it.
"Climate change poses a long-term financial and business risk for many of the companies in which we invest," said Connecticut Treasurer Denise L. Nappier, a co-chair of the event. "For us today it's all about our money."
Harvard University environmental scientist John Holdren gave the more than 300 participants an update on the latest climate research, saying it's increasingly clear that rising global temperatures caused by emissions of carbon dioxide and other "greenhouse gases" would intensify heat waves, storms, floods, droughts and wildfires in the 21st century.
"After years of debate, the scientific community has arrived at the conclusion that global warming is in fact a reality," said William C. Thompson Jr., who as New York City comptroller handles $82 billion (euro64 billion) in invested assets. "Global warming is likely to result in billions and billions of losses for public companies."
Everything from agricultural productivity to the health of the global insurance industry would be adversely affected. Big investors like the treasurers, who manage state pension funds, are particularly concerned about electricity and other energy companies, which may face government-mandated cutbacks in carbon dioxide emissions, produced when they burn coal and other fossil fuels.
"If, in fact, someone invests $2 billion in a coal-fired power plant, and the laws change -- and they will change at some point -- with those changes come perhaps hundreds of millions of dollars of stranded costs," said Mindy S. Lubber, who heads an environmentally minded investors group, CERES.
Unlike most of the rest of the world, the United States has not ratified the Kyoto Protocol, which mandates emissions cuts. But many view such U.S. controls as inevitable as evidence of warming mounts.
Investor groups, seeking fuller disclosure of risks, last year persuaded two Ohio-based power companies -- Cinergy and American Electric Power -- to issue reports examining the possible impacts and financial uncertainties of such regulation, as well as steps they're already taking to reduce emissions, such as switching to renewable fuels.
Cinergy has since been bought by North Carolina's Duke Energy, whose chairman, Paul Anderson, said last month his company would lobby for a tax on carbon dioxide emissions because "the time has come to act" on climate.
Summit participants also repeatedly focused on the "opportunities" represented by the climate threat -- in new energy technologies, for example. The General Electric Co. announced on Monday it will more than double its research investment in environmental technology over five years, with an emphasis on products to reduce greenhouse gases.
Thompson noted that in just 18 months a coalition of state and city officials representing $2.7 trillion in investments has formed around these issues, and North Carolina's treasurer called on his fellow heavyweight investors -- "as owners" -- to act aggressively and selectively.
"We should pick four or five companies that could make the most difference and give them a reasonable timetable," Richard Moore said. "We should tell them, `If you don't do this we will not own your stock.' We will be successful if we all stick together."
The meeting was sponsored by CERES and the Ted Turner-financed U.N. Foundation. Among the participants were representatives of major financial houses, foundations and university endowments, union pension funds and insurance companies
They have Star Trek reruns in Norway? :-)
True Logic. Which means something other than: Simultaneity = Causality
by emissions of carbon dioxide and other "greenhouse gases" would intensify heat waves, storms, floods, droughts and wildfires in the 21st century.
Why is it that they never mention that most plants are CO2 starved? They used to add co2 to greenhouses to get the roses to grow faster.
I thought everyone knew that cloudless winter nights are colder than cloudy winter nights. This is because the "cloud cover" traps heat radiated from the surface of the earth.
I thought everyone knew that cloudy winter days are colder than bright sunny winter days. This is because the "cloud cover" prevents heat from the sun from reaching the surface of the earth.
My question was a leading question.
I was trying to get the addressee engaged in a thought process.
I know very well how hydrogen is produced. I'm a chemical engineer with five years of eperience with fuel cell research.
Global warning is a hoax, climate change however, is a natural occuring event that continues without aid from the human race. Were we to stop using oil completely and all other carbon based energy sources , stop poluting the atmosphere this instant, we would see no change in the climate that wasn't going to occur anyway.
Humans do not pollute enough to actually cause any climate changes. World wide temps were warmer 1000 years ago than they are now. I suppose it was all the smoke from wood and buffalo sh*t fires that caused it because those were about the only thing being burned back then, maybe some coal here and there.
Get real, stop scaring yourself with the lies the greenies tell and most importantly stop trying to force your opinion onto the citizens of the US.
This is a bizzare statement. Um, H2O is water. Yes, there is lots of water stored in the sea :) .
I assume you meant to write CO2, not H2O. And yes, the ocean is a huge CO2 sink (storage). In fact, its the biggest source of error for those modelling climate change - they just can't account for all the CO2 in the CO2 cycle, because of the ocean's ability to store CO2.
However, that has nothing to do with mitigating human produced CO2. We cannot make more ocean. We can plant more trees and manage them better. But in reality, the amount of human produced CO2 is extremely small in comparrison to the amount of CO2 that is cycled in and out of the oceans. In reality, human produced CO2 is insignificant.
Yep...
Those pesky clouds are like that...
Cloudless skies: More heat in, more heat out
Cloudy skies: Less heat in, less heat out
Partly cloudy, partly sunny, clouding up, clearing up, etc.
Basically, my point is that any "analysis", which selects just those data points which support a pre-ordained conclusion, proves nothing.
BTW, do you remember why the thermos bottle has been called the "world's greatest invention".
No, I am curious :)
By the way I don't know of any climate models that incorporate cloud cover in there computations.
My father can get some subsidies for putting windmills on his property (more than 50% of the cost). Typically they just hook them up to the grid and forget about them but my father was wondering if it might not be possible to use the energy to create hydrogen.
So my question to you is. Is there an economical way create, store and use hydrogen (he would like to convert his vehicles to hydrogen) given that the primary energy source (the wind and windmills) is free?
All of my research indicates that it is a lot cheaper to simply buy gas at the pump even if the price dramatically goes up.
If your father could afford a fuel cell car, he wouldn't need the windmill subsidy.
The present price of a fuel cell passenger car is approximately $800,000.
If the electricity if free, then electrolysis of water will produce hydrogen for the cost of the water. Of course windmill power will produce it very slowly; I doubt that a single windmill would even produce enough for use by a single vehicle.
For storage options, see: http://www.fuelcellstore.com/information/hydrogen_storage.html
however none of these storage options mention anything about regulatory issues and the cost of required safety systems.
Yes, it is quite a bit cheaper to buy gas at the pump. If oil ever goes up to $100/barrel (gas at about $4/gallon), then the vast quantities of oil sands in Canada and Utah become economically desirable - thus it is unlikely that gas prices will go much higher.
First, the story...
An American, a Brit and a Frenchman were discussing great inventions.
The Americican said he thought the greatest invention was the computer, because the computer has made all administrative work much quicker and much more accurate.
The Brit said that he thought the greatest invention was
the alternating current generator, because our modern life would be impossible without the widespread transmission of electrical energy.
But the Frenchman said the world's greatest invention was the thermos bottle.
His colleagues stared at him in shock...
Jacques continued, "Eet keeps ze hot foods hot an ze cold foods cold..."
His colleagues said, "Sooooo...?"
"Well..." replied Jacques,
"How do eet KNOW?"
But seriously, if no "climate model" considers cloud cover (or, as reported, the thermal energy stored in the sea), then aren't these "scientists" merely extrapolating our "future" from a very limited set of data points?
And, if so, shouldn't their "conclusions" be viewed with a skeptical eye?
Bingo : ) Computers are great for predictions "if" the programmer has all the necessary data. As far as I can tell, Monte Carlo simulations are more accurate than current climate models.
Water vapor is the number one greenhouse gas (by a huge margin) and no one actually knows what its effects are. When meteorologists can make consistent and accurate predictions a few months out, then maybe we can start taking the climatologists seriously.
No, Bellows, the enviroment is not a joke but enviromentalism is a joke!
I see no evidence of that.
LOL!
Yes sir!
Righty ho!
smuck
1 or 2
BTW, I still belive that the air is not cleaner today.
examp: Times Square, Rush hour Today and 100 yrs ago.
When is the air cleanest?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.