Global Warming

[tigersnake]

Only a global agreement to reduce CO2 emissions makes sense. Unilateral action of course suits those that want to feel good about themselves, and care more about good meanings than good outcomes.

You could have made that argument 10 or 15 years ago. Not now. The explicit direct effects of rapid industialisation are there for all to see, its not just about altruism which is anothe driver as much as you hate to contemplate it, which is why China is moving.

I've said it before, the smart countries will be at the forefront of cleanand efficient energy enegy tech, it will be the driver of the next big economic boom. We were making small moves in that direction, until Abbott got in.

On another note, my super fund started an investment option called 'global environmental solutions' investing in high tech envrionmental and energy firms. Up 45% in one year. That is some smart capitalism right there.

 

[This Is Anfield]

On another note, my super fund started an investment option called 'global environmental solutions' investing in high tech envrionmental and energy firms. Up 45% in one year. That is some smart capitalism right there.

Mmmmm...Money to be made in the Global Warming Industry it seems!

 

[tigersnake]

Mmmmm...Money to be made in the Global Warming Industry it seems!

Call it whatever you want, (your use of that term gives away your anti-science flat-earth bias) but correct. Its amazing, but it seems theres a demand for energy efficient, low- or non- polluting and damage-remediating/ cleanup technology. If it didn't make so much sense, some people might think it was a conspiracy.

Meanwhile, the Queensland government is giving tax incentives to get the biggest brown coal mines developed in the Galilee basin. Partly because they know that coal is on the way out, let alone the most innefficient of coal, brown coal, and if they don't develop the deposits soon, they may never be. Its a bit like a tobacconist offering specials in a lung cancer hospice.

 

[Giardiasis]

You're nuts.

Cheap energy is the cornerstone of high immediate material living standards, lets be precise (and even that is highly debateable). If you don't care about pollution, ecology, equity, your view is valid from that perspective.

You are categorically wrong in that attempt at precision.

 

[Giardiasis]

this post proves you don't consider opposing views, or look at evidence.

Sure I do, I just consider them wrong.

 

[bullus_hit]

Mmmmm...Money to be made in the Global Warming Industry it seems!

Why the cynicism? Would you rather live next to a solar panel or a smoke stack?

Not a fan of clean air? Maybe a trip to Beijing might be in order.

 

[Giardiasis]

I've said it before, the smart countries will be at the forefront of cleanand efficient energy enegy tech, it will be the driver of the next big economic boom. We were making small moves in that direction, until Abbott got in.

On another note, my super fund started an investment option called 'global environmental solutions' investing in high tech envrionmental and energy firms. Up 45% in one year. That is some smart capitalism right there.

That sounds wonderful, and if it was true, the market would naturally move in that direction by itself. Alas the fact is that it requires significant tax payer subsidies for current green technologies to be adopted.

Good to see you throwing your money in what you believe will make money. Personally I think I can put my money to better use. Alas I can't stop the government stealing a fair chunk of my wages to pay for their green visions.

 

[tigersnake]

You are categorically wrong in that attempt at precision.

No I'm not, but it pointless us having an argument G man. Its been done and goes nowhere. We have different values basically.

 

[tigersnake]

That sounds wonderful, and if it was true, the market would naturally move in that direction by itself. Alas the fact is that it requires significant tax payer subsidies for current green technologies to be adopted.

Good to see you throwing your money in what you believe will make money. Personally I think I can put my money to better use. Alas I can't stop the government stealing a fair chunk of my wages to pay for their green visions.

Wrong again, not subsidies, stopping the free-ride that is free polluting. And the market is moving in that direction by itself. The smart money is heading that way.

Also, I don't only believe I'll make money, I did make money. And its an international fund.

 

[Giardiasis]

No I'm not, but it pointless us having an argument G man. Its been done and goes nowhere. We have different values basically.

Yes you are. Agreed, there is little point. However I will chime in now and again, as it does bring the bile to the back of my neck reading the global warming crew in this thread spew nonsense.

 

[Giardiasis]

Wrong again, not subsidies, stopping the free-ride that is free polluting. And the market is moving in that direction by itself. The smart money is heading that way.

Also, I don't only believe I'll make money, I did make money. And its an international fund.

Eh, yes subsidies. It is not even debatable.

It is a bit early to say that you will make money from your super fund. It could easily turn sour.

 

[bullus_hit]

Yes you are. Agreed, there is little point. However I will chime in now and again, as it does bring the bile to the back of my neck reading the global warming crew in this thread spew nonsense.

mirror, mirror on the wall.........

 

[tigersnake]

Yes you are. Agreed, there is little point. However I will chime in now and again, as it does bring the bile to the back of my neck reading the global warming crew in this thread spew nonsense.

Likewise G-man, likewise. I get so exasperated by the backward-looking, anti-science, short-term thinking pea brains at times that I just can't help jumping in on occassion.

 

[tigersnake]

Eh, yes subsidies. It is not even debatable.

It is a bit early to say that you will make money from your super fund. It could easily turn sour.

No its not even debateable. And yes, funds go up, funds go down, that is the caper. Right now, 45% up. Pretty sweet. But you stick to backing big coal funds old son.

 

[Giardiasis]

No its not even debateable. And yes, funds go up, funds go down, that is the caper. Right now, 45% up. Pretty sweet. But you stick to backing big coal funds old son.

Actually I'm just sitting on cash waiting until the next inevitable bust happens.

 

[tigersnake]

Actually I'm just sitting on cash waiting until the next inevitable bust happens.

don't disagree on the bust thing. I'm sure we'd disagree on the reasons.

 

[Giardiasis]

don't disagree on the bust thing. I'm sure we'd disagree on the reasons.

Yeah? What are your reasons?

 

[tigersnake]

Yeah? What are your reasons?

we already had a debate on the cause of the GFC, it must have made a big impact, mine was a pretty garden variety mainstream view, mal-distribution of wealth upwards being out of whack with production, the inability of governments to come up with a way to inhibit those in charge of the cookie jar to give themselves ever increasing payrises, bonuses, etc which involves coming up with ever increasingly complex smoke and mirror schemes like NINJA mortage bonds, and the closed shop that is high end finance which sees them regulating themselves, specifically the alleged/ nominal independent ump, S&Ps and Moodys, giving these crooks a green light.

You on the other hand thought it was due to too much regulation, and some obscure law change in the 70s or something or other.

 

[Giardiasis]

mal-distribution of wealth upwards being out of whack with production

Sorry, can you expand on this?

 

[tigersnake]

Sorry, can you expand on this?

in a nutshell, people not being paid in accordance to their value. There's high finance spivs on millions, then there is everyone else. There will always be some out-of-whackness, and people will debate the worth of individual professions, but finance just got too far out of whack to be sustainable, something had to give, and it did.