Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Wednesday July 15 2015, @01:09PM   Printer-friendly
from the how-to-make-or-lose-a-fortune dept.

The world's fossil fuel companies risk wasting billions of dollars of investment by not taking global action to fight climate change seriously, according to the chief economist of the International Energy Agency (IEA).

Fatih Birol, who will take the top job at the IEA in September and is one of the world's most influential voices on energy, warned that companies making this mistake would also miss out on investment opportunities in clean energy.
...
The World Bank and Bank of England have already warned of the serious risk climate action poses to trillions of dollars of fossil fuel investments and the G20 is investigating the risks. The think-tank Carbon Tracker has estimated that over $1tn (£0.6tn) of oil investments and $280bn of gas investments would be left uneconomic if the world's governments succeed in their pledge to limitglobal warming to 2C.

The warnings are based on policy proposals that are entirely creatures of human decisions rather than hard economic realities. Then again, all demand is ultimately the product of human decisions.


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This discussion has been archived.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: 2) by Thexalon on Thursday July 16 2015, @01:38PM

    by Thexalon (636) on Thursday July 16 2015, @01:38PM (#209911)

    Here's the expanded version of that argument:
    Premise A. Economic growth requires energy.
    Premise B. The only known sources of consistent energy are fossil fuels and biofuels, but biofuels have a maximum capacity that is far too inefficient to use universally.
    Conclusion C. Ergo (per A and B), sustainable economic growth demands consistent access to and use of fossil fuels.
    Premise D. AGW says you can't use fossil fuels in anything close to the levels we currently are.
    Conclusion E. Ergo (by contrapositive C and D), AGW puts an end to sustainable economic growth.

    I don't entirely agree with this argument, but many do (it's been driving US foreign policy for approximately the last 40 years). The weak point in the argument is Premise B: Environmentalists argue that solar + wind + biofuels + other alternatives + batteries + improved energy efficiency can provide the necessary capacity for growth, while technological utopia believers argue that a yet-to-be-discovered system for energy extraction (e.g. cold fusion) will come along and solve everything. I personally land mostly on the environmentalists' side on this question, but reasonable people can disagree about it.

    All of this is about real material economic growth, as in the expansion of the productive capacity of a society, as in producing 105 widgets when a year ago the same amount of human labor produced only 100 widgets. That is only tangentially related to fiat currency and central and reserve banking, which has to do with nominal growth (measured in money) more than real growth (measured in actual useful goods and services).

    --
    The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2