Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Monday January 16 2017, @10:16PM   Printer-friendly
from the it's-all-about-the-money dept.

An article in CleanTechnica describes how we are in a carbon bubble. Renewable energy sources are expanding quickly at reduced cost, leading to a likely mass stranding of fossil-fuel related assets as fossil fuels become more expensive than renewable sources of energy.

The current push for natural gas (and with it the related push for hydrogen fuels) is the last gasp of the fossil fuel industry. Hydrogen as a fuel source can only economically be produced from fossil fuels and hence provides no net reduction in carbon emissions, but the fossil fuel lobby are trying to convince people that it is a viable alternative to electric cars.

When the carbon bubble does burst, the impact on asset valuations is likely to be huge, with consequent impact on the larger economy.

Where do you plan to be when the carbon bubble pops?


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 4, Interesting) by Sulla on Tuesday January 17 2017, @02:00AM

    by Sulla (5173) on Tuesday January 17 2017, @02:00AM (#454671) Journal

    I have always found it odd that the Coal/Oil companies are attributed with being brilliant and evil yet incompetant when it comes to the end of their traditional source of revenue. BP/Exxon/CP/the rest all hoard renewable energy patents and I doubt have any intention of their profits going down when they run out of oil, gas, and coal. They have all the data be it on climate change/effect of carbon, remaining resources in the ground, and how they will make money when the current stock runs out. Would be pretty easy for oil to switch to methane sequestration, use their engineers to set up solar farms, use their slury to built slury/saline pond batteries, etc.

    I suppose they could be planning to make the rest of their money on cap and trade oxygen after they ruin the environment or farm kelp/krill to make soylent.

    --
    Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Interesting=2, Total=2
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   4  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 17 2017, @02:28AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 17 2017, @02:28AM (#454679)

    Agreed, the "Big Oil is suppressing knowledge about climate change" idea never made sense. And sure enough, you don't see evidence of that happening.

    • (Score: 2) by fritsd on Tuesday January 17 2017, @10:24AM

      by fritsd (4586) on Tuesday January 17 2017, @10:24AM (#454837) Journal

      Agreed, the "Big Oil is suppressing knowledge about climate change" idea never made sense. And sure enough, you don't see evidence of that happening.

      Not yet.

      Here is a fascinating article n the Bloomberg website from september 2016: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-09-07/will-exxonmobil-have-to-pay-for-misleading-the-public-on-climate-change [bloomberg.com]

      It is written from Exxon's perspective, as if it's all a big conspiracy by the government and population and lawyers to prevent us from getting away with extracting our God-given profit-making oil and waging our disinformation war.

      It contains talk about RICO charges. That would mean Exxon is a criminal organization, IF it is proved.

      "Schneiderman doesn’t have a slam-dunk case. “The New York attorney general has a plausible theory, but he’ll need more than the results of the journalistic investigations,” says Michael Gerrard, a law professor at Columbia who directs the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law. “It’s not enough to show that Exxon had internal knowledge of climate change when external knowledge was widespread. The government would have to show that there were things that only Exxon knew and that were material to investors and that Exxon kept from investors. Such evidence might be there, but we don’t know yet.”
      "

      Update: oh wait, Exxon is going to get away with it now (article from 2 december 2016):
      https://morningconsult.com/opinions/trumps-victory-mean-end-exxonknew-movement/ [morningconsult.com]

      Trump’s election victory should put an end to this thought. The practical implications of the result are clear. As president, Trump will nominate commissioners to fill the SEC’s existing vacancies. He will also nominate a replacement for SEC Chair Mary Jo White when she steps down in the near future. It is unlikely that the incoming regulators will place the same emphasis on climate policy risks given Trump’s stated support on the campaign trail for U.S. fossil fuel production.

      IOW Trump is going to replace the investigators to give Exxon free reign, therefore Exxon lieing about climate change was never a problem for US society and the world anyway...