The Forum > Article Comments > UN’S decarbonisation mission impossible > Comments
UN’S decarbonisation mission impossible : Comments
By Michael Kile, published 24/12/2015An international pension fund coalition - co-founded by a UN agency last September - wants to shift at least USD600 billion of other people’s money out of fossil fuels and into renewable energy projects.
- Pages:
-
- Page 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- ...
- 9
- 10
- 11
-
- All
Posted by Rhrosty, Thursday, 24 December 2015 9:19:07 AM
| |
Michael Kile,
"The planet’s future climate may – or may not – turn out be an insoluble mystery, but one thing is certain. Sooner or later, the wheels will come off Clean Voyage 2 (or 1.5). For climate-$$-change is shaping up as the greatest boondoggle in history." Well said. This is the real issue. The policies being proposed by climate alarmists cannot succeed. This explains why carbon pricing cannot succeed: http://anglejournal.com/article/2015-11-why-carbon-pricing-will-not-succeed/ . The same applies to any policy that will reduce economic growth in any country. Such policies are not politically sustainable. 'The Climate Industry' is a $1.5 trillion per year industry according to the Climate Change Business Journal, reported in Insurance Journal here: http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2015/07/30/377086.htm . That's a massive waste of money delivering no net-benefit whatsoever. And the vast majority (~99%) of the people of the world couldn't care less about the climate change. It is not their priority. Even climate scientists lack the evidence to support the argument that GHG emissions are dangerous: "What is there a 97% consensus about?" http://judithcurry.com/2015/12/20/what-is-there-a-97-consensus-about/ 97% of the 12,000 abstracts considered by Cook et al., 2013 - that made implicit or explicit statement about attribution - state humans are having some effect on the climate, but we don’t know how much. A reanalysis of Cooks data shows just 0.5% of the abstracts analysed “explicitly states that humans are the primary cause of global warming” and 8% “explicitly states that humans are causing warming or refers to anthropogenic global warming/climate change as a known fact”. The best description of the whole climate change thingy is the world's greates ever boondoggle. Posted by Peter Lang, Thursday, 24 December 2015 10:02:42 AM
| |
The scale of this corrupt fraud is quite breath-taking and it puts the mediaeval church's selling of indulgences in the shade.
The facts are staring everyone in the face. The data don't support the theory, simple as that. Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Thursday, 24 December 2015 10:34:49 AM
| |
It is my quest that we, the advanced countries of the world, band together and give the $Billions in aid to the needy developing nations of the world who will be inordinately swamped be raptures of now warm, ex-icy water. The UN demands it.
To that end the largest developing countries must receive now. So give to China and India. After all they have the most poor* and needy**. C'mon, feel guilty and hand over the readies today to third world leaders who promise not to have Swiss Bank Accounts. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_space_program ** https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction Posted by plantagenet, Thursday, 24 December 2015 2:18:12 PM
| |
I don't know what the answer is but I would suggest everyone watch this YouTube clip to inform yourself of the IPCC and the danger exposed if we follow the mantra blindly. I think some serious questions and answers need to be given in relation to the content as we all have so much in 'play'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5weFQYBL5w For some reason I can't turn this into a hyperlink, you will need to copy it and paste into your browser, it is worth the effort A very, very interesting interview I am sure you all will appreciate it Cheers Geoff Posted by Geoff of Perth, Thursday, 24 December 2015 3:07:44 PM
| |
This was always the end game. They want all our money!
My suggestion is the Australian Government gives the billions allocated to public service pensions including the political ones. Let's see how that pans out and if it all goes sour, well we can all have a laugh and suggest Centrelink to the PS and politicians. That is certainly a case of putting one's money where one's mouth is lol! Posted by JBowyer, Thursday, 24 December 2015 5:15:45 PM
|
For reasons only known to him, The author is limited in his assessment of alternative decarbonizing options, to the most expensive renewable options?
And ignores sane economic options, like cheaper than coal thorium, which given its logical application, can produce industrial energy for around half of today's cost.
He also ignores the production of homemade cheap as chips biogas (methane and scrubbed able o be used in ceramic fuel cells to provide free hot water, and on demand energy 24/7.
Moreover, thanks to the 80% coefficient of the ceramic fuel cell and very localized distribution models, able to produce domestic energy for less than a quarter of the current gold plated charges of coal fired power.
And emerging battery technology is bound to see the electric car or methane consuming fuel cells completely replacing gasoline fueled variants in the next 15 years.
Anyone with half a brain and a position on some energy related business board, would see their fiduciary duty is embracing these new technologies rather than arguing against them!
The fossil fuel barons have had their day, and would be well advised to act like competent businessmen, cut their losses and get on board with those alternatives of which there are many, which forever end our reliance on fossil fuels, all while massively improving our economic prospects and theirs.
Simply put, they need to embrace change or be steam rolled by it.
Financing much of the alternatives into being, is loaded with quite massive money making/earning potential!
Albeit, loss of central control and a captive market, would reintroduce competition, the very cornerstone of a capitalist style free market!
And don't we need that restored in the energy sector, one of the two support pillars that support every western style economy?
And routinely white anted by the very commercial entities the Author seems to seek to "protect"?
Rhrosty.