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
LOL :D
Carolyn
The easiest source is water aka H20, although yields are not as high as wanted.
You asked if the changes promoted by the "Greens" would really constitute a lessening of lifestyle. I submit the answer is a clear yes and people know it for a fact. Otherwise, global government treaties would not be required. Were the impacts of those changes negligible, then people would make those changes on their own, without the threat of government force.
What say you to that?
Wow.
This is defeatism at its very root.
With this kind of attitude, the Wright brothers never would have built an airplane ("if man were meant to fly he would have been given wings"). We never would have landed men on the moon ("there is no way that this can be done in less than a decade").The list of examples is endless.
My friend, this is the basic difference between Americans and Europeans; Europeans will give in to popular public opinion while Anericans give popular public opinion little weight. Europeans operate with a democracy; Americans operate with a representative republic. Americans celibrate their rebels (Rosa Parks, Jackie Robinson, Founding Fathers) - Europeans do not (they celibrate artists, authors and scientists).
I refuse to let public opinion gain any ground on the wrong side. That is why I signed the Petition Project - a collection of nearly 20,000 scientists and engineers who have signed a petition AGAINST the Kyoto protocals.
Climate change is a hoax!!!!!
...and how do you convert H2O into hydrogen?
And the energy to create hydrogen from water? Hydrogen is an energy storage system not an energy creation system. There is no panacea in hydrogen.
hmmm, no!
We can produce items that can replace the onces that we take from oil even today.
And the use of waterpower from falls or dams are very good in yield, electricity can replace most of the purposes of comb. engines, heck Diesel engines actually produce electricity for power.
I have to say I see that none of your arguments hold their grounds under scrutiny, and ofcourse lands on the list of "most used excuses" when someone just doesn't want to change their life style.
There is ALWAYS a valid alternativ to anything we are doing today that harms our own future.
Btw: What in H!LL!! is wrong with "for the children?" I actually find that quite offensive, there is nothing more precious in my life then my son, and in that I include my wife.
So if children aren't good enough argument for you, the I think you need to do the Ostrich procedure.
And the energy to create hydrogen from water? Hydrogen is an energy storage system not an energy creation system. There is no panacea in hydrogen.
I think what he wants to know is -- how will you unlock the hydrogen? Where will you get the energy required to separate the hydrogen from the H2O? The process requires more energy than what is obtained. That energy must be created somehow. Would burning oil or coal be a part of you equation? Would the carbon created by the process simply disappear on it's own?
You need to think this stuff through, or your "cure" may kill you.
Right on, but by spliting it into it's two parts H and O(x2) it becomes a valid source for energy.
Electrolysis is the method of choice here.
Hydrogen is probably the best method we could use, after all it's what power that large burning ball in the sky.
NTNU in Norway has already created a small engine that uses water to power a RC car, so it does work.
And heck, I'm all for use of oil in it self, as I stated above it's not what we do that is the primary cause of the events taking place.
And as long as Oil is as expensive and important, my country's wallet keeps getting thicker.
Once again my friend, the article is about individuals who control huge amounts of capital and have huge amounts of influence on the way decisions get made at the very top.
They are saying something is going to be done. Now, if those who want to most extreme measures implemented win while you are off shouting about how we should do nothing, your worst-case scenario will come true.
But, if you make a tactical retreat and recognize the political reality for what it is, you can mitigate the harm.
Sometimes when you lose it is best to admit it and move on.
In other words defeatism is only a term when you are still in the game. The game is over, start preparing for the next battle.
We have many valid sources of energy already, it's just that hydrogen has an imense potential for energy and cost.
Now that word has to be one that should help give you a reason to go for it
So in your magical "green" world, we should all drive cars that use diesel engines to charge batteries to run electric motors to power our cars.
We could also save energy if we all only drove our carrs downhill, but that is hardly practical.
Are you familiar with the scientific principal of "conservation of energy"? Every time you change an energy source from one form to another, you suffer losses. The more times you flip the energy sources, the more energy you waste.
I know that you understand this, but you just can't be bothered with the laws of physics when you are busy saving the world.
As for public transportation; as one of the 8% of Americans who commute to work via public transportation (and thank you to the 92% of you who help to subsidize my ride to work each day) just let me just say YES!!! Living standards DO go down when you have to use public transportation.
I spend about an hour a day getting five miles to and from work. I can drive it in 10 minutes each way if I want to pay $15 a day for parking. Even using BART, America's #1 public transit system according to JD Powers and Associates, public transit takes at least 40 minutes a day out of my life. Not to mention all of the wonderful side benefits from public transit - ranging from being crammed into an enclosed space with people suffering from about every communicable disease on earth short of a few hemorrhagic fevers, the smell left behind by the unfortunate homeless person who puked in the seat next to you last night, the not too sane gentleman who wanders from one end of the train to the other asking everyone if they know where Mary is and of course the drunk guys coming back from the baseball game who want to fight because the Giants lost again - and who are headed in the wrong direction.
Given the option of taking public transportation or paying $2300 a year more to drive myself and park, not counting gas and maintenance, I'll take the train - cheap bastard that I am. But don't think for a moment that it doesn't negatively impact my quality of life.
Sorry, end of rant. Now I have to hit the shower, then go see if anyone knows where Mary is...
Well, it looks like several other Freepers have caught on to my line of thought.
Hydrogen is not a source of energy - simply because it cannot be obtained naturally on Earth.
Hydrogen is an energy carrier. It requires energy to be made. And it takes more energy to make hydrogen than the energy that it will produce.
Yes, hydroelectic dams are wonderful. But all of the electricty that they produce are used for existing needs. And there are very few places left to build new hydroelectic plants.
Replacing hydrocarbon fuels with hydrogen fuel for automotive purposes would roughly double our need for electricity. There is no way that hydro, solar or wind power could meet that demand. Not even close.
If we are to have hydrogen cars (and as a former fuel cell engineer, I'll let you know that these are at least 20 years away), then we will need more nuclear or coal-fired power plants. Twice as many as we have now.
Hydrogen cars/buses are wonderful for specialty applications, but are horrible for general purpose use. Do not place your hopes on them as a means of helping the environment.
You missed the point, it was an example of how you use one thing to produce another.
point of interest would be that changing it from diesel to, (still f.ex) Hydrogen.
Over here there is not a single train that runs on anything but electricity, ofcourse there are exceptions due to f.ex the fact that power can go out and you need to retrive an engine on the mountain, clear tracks or in emergencies.
Hydrogen, as an energy storage medium, is one of the most expensive options. It is difficult and expensive to obtain. It is difficult and expensive to store. It is difficult and expensive to distribute.
Given all the negatives, why would it be a better choice than other forms of energy that are cheaper and easier to use?
>>>Won't people just reduce their carbon production voluntarily?>>>
That is an absurd statement. If people did things that they new were good or bad or right or wrong voluntarily we would not need government. Expecting indivudals to have the capacity to "volunteer" to change their actions to solve a macroeconomic issue has no precedent, because it cannot happen.
Perhaps you are an anarchist at heart.
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.