Guest essay by Eric Worrall
The Bank of England has stepped into the climate fray, with a claim that climate change poses a huge financial risk to UK based businesses. For once I believe the Bank of England is absolutely correct (more below).
According to the Sydney Morning Herald;
Bank of England Governor Mark Carney said Britain’s insurers face potentially “huge” exposure to shifts in climate-change policy and Group of 20 nations need to do more to combat associated financial-stability risks.
“The challenges currently posed by climate change pale in significance compared with what might come,” Mr Carney said in a speech at a Lloyd’s of London dinner.
“Once climate change becomes a defining issue for financial stability, it may already be too late.”
England’s central bank has been looking into the economic and financial-stability risks posed by climate change and Carney spoke as the BoE published a report on the impact on the British insurance industry. As well as physical and liability risks, British insurers, which manage almost £2 trillion in assets, also face threats from the re-pricing of investments in fossil fuels in the move toward a lower carbon economy, Mr Carney said.
“The exposure of UK investors, including insurance companies, to these shifts is potentially huge,” Mr Carney said. General insurers are the most directly exposed to such losses, he said.
Why do I agree with Mark Carney, that climate change poses a huge financial risk to UK based businesses? The reason has nothing to do with the weather, which, given the multi-decadal decline of weather extremes, is currently surprisingly benign.
In my opinion, the biggest climate related risk for owners of UK based businesses, is the risk of lunatic political interventions, which destroy the financial viability of your business.
WUWT reported that Shell recently abandoned exploring the US Arctic, because of regulatory uncertainty.
In the UK a similar scandal has erupted, with the closure of Redcar steel, a major steel works. One of the reasons given for the closure, and loss of thousands of jobs, is that the excessive green tariffs UK based steel plants and other intensive energy users have to pay, are making it impossible to compete with foreign businesses. (h/t Roger Helmer MEP)
Gareth Stace, director of UK Steel, said: ‘Sympathy and warm words are welcome, but Ministers must now get behind British steel and deliver the support that we urgently need.’
He called on the government to ‘create a level playing field for British steel by fully compensating the industry for the high cost of electricity caused by the imposition of climate change policies‘.
What should UK businesses do, to avoid catastrophic regulatory instability, and unsustainable, politically imposed green costs? One option surely well worth considering is to relocate business assets and infrastructure to Asia.
Asia does not appear to have abandoned cheap energy and economic sanity. As WUWT recently reported, China and Japan are stepping in, to finance energy / industrial infrastructure, and to facilitate economic activity on a scale which the Western world no longer wishes to embrace.
Businesses should also seriously consider moving their head office and share market listing, as well as their physical assets. There have been multiple suggestions over the years, that the global assets of businesses should be fully included in any carbon accounting regime, regardless of the regulatory regime in the country where the assets are physically located. Keeping the business head office in the UK might still leave a business vulnerable to future regulatory instability.
The Bank of England???? Those super conservatives??? Unbelievable.
Only in Europe are socialists considered conservative.
What does that even mean? dumb ass!!
Sparks, it means that Democrats in the US are far to the right of European Conservatives. Perhaps you should do a little research on this or be the dumb ass.
Obviously to late to avoid being the “dumb ass”
“Democrats in the US are far to the right of European Conservatives.”
Yeah, but that is ’cause they ain’t done yet.
Unless conservatives have anything to say about it…next November.
Hey Sparks!
So I’m thinkin’ you’re a low-bid hive-bot, from the workshop of Shukla, Shukla, and Shukla, designed to seize and dominate the heretofore neglected “commanding heights” of “AU” (Artifcial Unintelligence) agit-prop, currently failing your Beta-test. Anything you got that says different, Sparks?
Hey Sparks,
Look I know your Beta-test is kinda goin’ South, and all, and we might very well loose you in the next hive-purge, just like we lost Al Gore and Naomi Oreskes, in the last, (though we did get Naomi Klein and her Fox-News hot-babe good-looks in exchange), and everything.
So lookin’ out for you, Sparks, I’m thinking all that’s needed to fully realize your “AU” (Artificial Unintelligence), hive-bot potential is for the geekball flunkies, managing your programming details, to provide you with a mummy-bot that coos “I’m just so proud of my little Sparky-bot, snookum-wukums sweetie-pie! and his little potty-piehole!” I mean, like, add that last feature to your hard-coded instruction-set and you’ll be an instant hit with the Hive-Bozos who count, since you’ll fit right into their mummy-dearest, weenie-normative, testosterone-phobe, group-think world of good-comrade, chronic-whinger Gruber-clones.
And just so you know that your little, hive-bot self-esteem is so very, very important to moi, Sparks, i’ve even taken the trouble to award you a trophy for each and every one of your comments! That’s right, Sparky–a whole shelf full of unearned trophies! That’s a happy-bot, Sparky!
P. S. Hey, Sparks, you might want to let your hive-“betters” know that if they paid for a “spell-checker” feature in the contract for your manufacture, then they got de-frauded. Just sayin…
Hey Sparks!
I just want you to know, Sparks, ol’ buddy, that I feel for you and your can’t-scratch-the-itch frustrations, guy, what with you being an electronic-fiction hive-bot, and all, with no corporeal reality, and thus lacking any real-life zits on which to work out the insistent, bathroom-mirror-tropic demands of your “SZA” (Serial Zit Abuser), hard-coded program-module. And no!–I don’t want get into your “play with yourself”, wanker-module issues–thank you very much, Sparky.
But I guess that’s what you get when a bunch of hive-dorks design a bot–right, Sparks?
There is no doubt that in UK and Europe conservatives are socialists. I think the same applies to USA. In both USA and Europe the cons. refuse to roll back socialism.
The other shoe drops:
–Let’s see now, the hive unleashes “dumb ass” Sparks–a tourette-syndrome wrecker-bot, of the crudest, lackluster, eco-lout variety–on this blog as a Beta-test of the hive’s latest agit-prop fad–weaponized coprolalia. In addition to which, Sparks, down thread, there, treats us to a half-baked, hive-plant CO2 theory.
–Hotwhopper, then, at her obscure, pathetic, loser, nerd-pit blog, picks up on Sparky’s CO2-theory hive-handiwork and–get this!–works-up a little blog-post that takes WUWT to task for giving Sparky (which Hotwhopper pretends is a “denier”) a platform!–remember we’re talkin’ Sparks, here, the world’s first hive-bot public-nuisance to be experimentally fitted with a “tic-disorder” program-module (so what demented-dork, good-comrade, bot-design-bureau apparatchik came up with that crazed, moronic idea, anyway?). (Google: hotwhopper out of the mouths of deniers it snows CO2 when its cold”).
–So I think it’s evident that the whole Sparky-deal was a ham-handed, multi-blog team-effort at a full-monty, slicko-booger bit of Alinskyite dirty-trickery. Not that us lovers of liberty and ethical science have anything to worry about as long as it’s Hotwhopper and her half-dozen-or-so, geekball creep-outs workin’ the hive’s big-push, run-up-to-COP-21, flim-flam offensive.
Political orientation has nothing to do with it. The big money in climate change is in the carbon exchanges. Brokerage houses, such as Goldman Sachs and presumably the BoE, will take a piece of every carbon credit they trade. And all they have to do is move electrons back and forth. The profits will be immense.
Now that’s hilarious. “Big money” in carbon exchanges? Bwahahaha.
After the hottest year evaaaah and the hottest decade evaaaaaah here are the results from the insurance industry…………….NOTHING! Zilch! Nada! Unimpressed! Business as usual! See my references.
Mark Carney was a gift from Canada — oh, and his wife too.
Hopefully they will not be returned.
What you may not realise is that the current Governor of the Bank of England is Mark Carney, a Canadian with a Greenpeace obsessed wife.
As I recall, Mark Carney came from the Bank of Canada to the U.K.
Same reason German energy giants like E.ON split off fossils (coal) from renewables, forming two separate businesses.
Both E.ON & RWE are suffering currently. The Greens think this is great – “punishment” for not having jumped on the Renewables bandwagon early enough!
But how much longer will German taxpayers and ratepayers put up with exorbitant prices and wastefulness?
Questions which were asked here in this brilliant analysis of the PV subsidy bubble, back in 2008 and revised in 2012:
http://www.rwi-essen.de/media/content/pages/publikationen/ruhr-economic-papers/REP_12_353.pdf
A Reuters article on Wacker, a German chemicals company which is being whacked by high energy costs. Not surprisingly, Wacker are now investing outside Germany and exporting German jobs. Same happened with UK aluminium smelting and iron production.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/06/02/us-usa-germany-power-specialreport-idUSKBN0ED0CS20140602
De-industrialisation eventually results in unemployment, poverty and depopulation. Ask Chicago what happens when you lose all your industry. And this is especially hard on the working classes, who man the production lines of big industry and do not have the skills and education to retrain for other jobs.
Is this what Greeny politicians want? Probably yes, in the short term. But they will soon find that no profitable companies, means no tax receipts, a bankrupt government, and no money to finance all these subsidised Green projects. As usual, Socialism is the best political policy – until they run out of other people’s money.
R
What do the Reds & Greens want?
Nationalization of industry – weakened industry could be “rescued” by the government.
This may be happening right now.
Either that or bankruptcy. Take your pick.
http://boerse.ard.de/aktien/eon-und-rwe-infusion-fuer-totgesagte100.html
E.ON and RWE: look at the trends since Dec. 2007:
http://www.reuters.com/finance/stocks/chart?symbol=EONGn.DE
http://www.reuters.com/finance/stocks/chart?symbol=RWEG.DE
Energy and “Climate” Policies have exacerbated the disastrous trend.
The eventual outcome is still uncertain, but the empty statements about “solar and wind costs being at all-time lows” haven’t translated into cheaper energy – neither for industry nor for consumers. Simply because the Renewable Energy Laws make the users foot the bill — especially if the wholesale energy prices tank!
Smart companies with high energy consumption will hedge their bets – this means investing in production sites with low unit energy costs.
The Detroit area can be added to this list as well. Auto makers moved to China and Mexico.
Good thing us Canadians send this joker and his greenie spouse across the pond.
I, for one, would like to see how they calculated that. I’d love to see the actuarial tables and their assumptions… aside from the trade related tariffs imposed by green socialist nations.
Wouldn’t you like to bale out a bank or two before you start taking down some busy body? dumb ass!
Sparks …. do you have anything to add to the debate? Or are you congenitally retarded?
It may be hard for Sparks to answer a question with so many big words in it.
We used to tell he kids not to be a “potty mouth”. I also think that would be good advice here.
Dumb ass! Is that the same as “shit for brains”?
bail out, not bale out.
You’ll find that it is all scenario based, Paul. None of it flows from actuarial tables or data. Scenarios are valid for exploring the tails of extreme distributions but hold no predictive power. They are also useful as a justification (for reinsurers in particular) to increase premium rates.
Eric,
You may be interested in this fine example of flattery:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/samie-alachrafi/cop21_2_b_8205670.html
Hilarious 🙂
Maybe you should sue (or just embarrass) him for “plagiarizing” your Google search and reposting without so much as acknowledgement.
Except THE CLIMATE ALWAYS Changes ,,, when the climate stops changing we have a real problem ,,, and if that evil climate were to stop changing exactly at what temperature should it stop at,,,, now a hiatus in climate change that’s normal as after a hiatus the climate will either warm or cool as it always does !!!
No person alive has ever said, “I wish everything was expensive” that’s one thing “man made global warming” has been responsible for.
Sparks! You forgot to add “dumb ass”
Edmonton Al:
Yes, Sparks did forget which is a shame because it is the first time in this thread that Sparks did not add “dumb ass!” when it was warranted.
Richard
My exact thoughts on this announcement.
i.e. that extreme weather is a massive risk to long term UK financial security.
And that it is what we are doing in response to this hypothetical problem that is producing the risk, and not the non-existent problem that we seek to solve!!
In addition problems that are falsely blamed on extreme weather are in reality neglected whilst the weather-changers commit billions to sun catchers, wave machines and floating windmills.
And who is Mark Carney? What is his expertise?
The BBC reported his words as a main news item.
Criticism of his views, even if sourced from a long-standing professional climatologist such as, let’s say, Judith Curry, would have been excluded from BBC airing due to their ban on the views of climate skeptics.
And so, a non expert can now voice his delusional beliefs and go unchallenged by even the accepted science. Even if his views are NOT supported by the IPCC.
His direct audience, Lloyds Insurers are surely very happy for this delusion to play its course.
Any business is interested in its customers over-valuing its products.
In the case of insurance, the market value of the product rises in proportion to the customers estimation of risk.
If the perception of risk rises whilst the actual risk does not, then profits rise.
So, no wonder that the insurance business is happy to play along with the trumpeting of this chief fool.
And who is Mark Carney? What is his expertise?
His wife has swallowed the green pill.
http://www.theguardian.com/business/shortcuts/2012/nov/27/diana-fox-carney-bank-governors-wife
… a tree hugging radical leftist …
Thanks for that insight.
How wonderful to be lectured by the super-rich on how wealth can not buy happiness.
That tired old cliche.
She should try living on my salary for a year. Approximately 1% of her husbands state funded salary.
Then she’d change her mind about the merits of having shedloads of dosh to play with.
How tired I am of hearing about the challenges faced by those at the top.
They have no idea what life is like for real people at the bottom.
I haven’t been on holiday in over ten years.
It isn’t me guzzling all the jet fuel.
So why am I expected to suffer the increased regulatory burdens and meddling and increase bills and taxes to serve the fantasies of these fools?
Brilliant article. That really did brighten up my morning.
>>She blames the “visibility and excess” of those in the “top
>>0.1%” for increasing the gap between the rich and the poor
Says the wife of a man earning $1 million a year, without a trace of irony. Or does she imply here that the wealthy should conceal their wealth more?? A bit hard to ‘conceal’ that rocking-great Rolls Royce, darlin’.
.
>>She wrote warmly about the Occupy movement –
>>which channelled public anger against bankers.
You really could not make this up. Its like the feminist movement in London protesting and chanting: “we are all Hamas now”. I suppose they will all join ISIS-ISIL next, because they are sooo liberal daarrrling, especially their progressive views on gay rights.
.
>>The politics of division are coming home to roost.
She declared, while adding to their mansion’s already substantial security systems.
.
>>She has seen the devastation that our consumerist
>>habits are wreaking on marginal communities.
Apparently, her cleaners, maids, gardeners and chauffeur told her all about the difficulties of ‘marginal communities’. And she advised that everything would be fine if they purchased cake instead of bread. Such a wise woman, you see.
.
>>News reports gushing about the “classic English rose”.
Grauniad-speak for looking like a strangled vegetarian weasel – but worth praising because her husband is a banker. With a ‘b’, of course.
A Guardianista’s ‘English Rose’:
http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/About/General/2012/11/27/1354037535394/Diana-Fox-Carney-giving-a-011.jpg
Mark Carney is a former governor of the Bank of Canada. Here’s a sample opinion from a Carney skeptic:
http://business.financialpost.com/fp-comment/peter-foster-mark-carney-zamboni-driver
Great, I’ve bookmarked that one to read tomorrow.
Initially, I simply concluded that the women of the UK would have ideally wanted George Clooney for the job.
Clooney had other commitments and so Carney was the closest thing available at the time.
After all, how difficult can NOT MAKING AN INTEREST RATE RISE actually be?
I wonder what the total cost of green lunacy is – so far?
…and will its finale cost end in world war? (Not a poor attempt at humor, but a serious question)
OLT, But…Joaquin now nearing major Hurricane status…winds at 105 MPH. Eye has formed, eyewall becoming more circular.
Wasn’t it about 8 years ago where the Corus steel plant closed , and I believe it was owned by Tata. The reason for closing then was the sale of carbon credits yielded 3/4 of a billion dollars. 3,000 jobs were lost. Then, Tata opened a new, modern plant in India with lower operating costs. All part of the Carbon Credit scam.
Corus was located in Redcar – SSI UK bought the closed steel mill from Tata in 2011 and it was named Redcar Steel..
Any idea how much rising UK energy costs played a part in the TATA calculations?
No, but the entire plan all along was to utilize the carbon credits at a good price for a huge payoff, plus close the Corus plant, and to build a modern plant in India.
And now what remains is being closed with the loss of further jobs.
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/sep/28/redcar-steel-plant-to-close-with-1700-job-losses
To which can be added aluminium smelting – none left in the UK. Oil refineries are becoming rare as it is cheaper to bring in the finished products from abroad because of….high energy costs. That was mentioned in the Grangemouth refinery scuffle with unions. So green policies at work where renewable green energy destroys proper jobs in a ratio of 3.4 to 1.
Mark Carney is clearly new to the UK.
When he arrived to receive his very generous tax-payer funded salary of the larger part of £1million per year, he first announced that he was going to use our employment figures as a measure of economic growth. Unemployment fell in the years following the crash, but this did not equate to growth.
Mr Carney was seemingly mystified and eventually announced a change of plan.
Had he actually lived here, then he might have known what I, an ordinary British bloke, know.
Which is that the unemployed people claiming Job Seekers Allowance were being encouraged to set up fake self-employed status and then claim Tax Credits for their new loss making or zero-profit making business enterprise.
I personally know people who have been self-employed for several years in an imaginary role, in which they have made zero money.
If Mark Carney had known about our propensity to fiddle our employment figures then I can not imagine that he would have relied upon them as any kind of useful indicator of anything at all.
Similarly, here in the UK, we all know that extreme weather occurs primarily when the weather is cold.
This is my cold weather is shitty weather hypothesis.
Warmth is a boon to the UK. And warm balmy summer weather is the safest and least extreme weather that we have. Heat waves and droughts when they rarely arrive are rarely serious and are generally enjoyed by all the family.
Cold shitty weather is what we should be afraid of. Such as nasty winter storms.
Unfortunately the much touted 4 degree rise in average temps is not currently manifesting as promised.
For most citizens, this temperature rise could not come soon enough.
Many people have constructed a patio and water feature in anticipation of the onset of global warming!!!
The climate has always been changing and so that risk has always been there. It is not more nor less extreme since the end of the LIA though it was far more risky as the LIA developed. It is probably a good thing bankers of the period lacked the technology to prevent the (presumed) dangerous warming that followed the LIA else we’d still have glaciers in the most awkward places. Turns out the end of the LIA preceded a very pleasant climate for quite a long time. But as stated, the climate always changes with ups and downs. Learn to live with it because it was never going to be permanent.
When does a minor fluctuation of temperature effect a bank? surly the bank and it’s employes use models or something?
Are you familiar with the agriculture industry? That is a huge banking interest. A bad season for soy or wheat or what ever is huge. So too is a good season. Climate and ag go hand in hand.
The Bank of England isn’t alone in its ‘fight against climate change’ today:
Prince Charles has urged judges to use courts to combat climate change:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3254256/Back-climate-change-agenda-Charles-tells-judges-Prince-makes-public-bid-influence-courts.html#ixzz3nGuzdg4F
And in a similar Mail article on a related subject:
“But scientists accuse him of promoting ‘mumbo jumbo’ and ‘quackery'”
The Princes clear mission in life, to lead us all, away from real science, and towards popular mass delusion.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2938733/Homeopathy-petulant-prince.html
Write it up, send it to Anthony using submit story 🙂
Conflating financial risk with climate change is a no-brainer. Financial risk is concerned with cost, particularly with assets such as residential/commercial premises rapidly rising in value (aka … inflation) and riskier siting of those assets in areas likely to flood or due to lowering quality standards of construction. It only becomes a problem when insurers have to pay out the higher amounts on the riskier construction (or insurers refuse to insure, which then allows the media to trot out the poor “victims”)
Those causes are more likely to be caused by politicians and/or bankers than climate change. Carney being of the latter group diverts attention by invoking “climate change” and no doubt supported by the former group – both of whom do not wish to be seen as the perpetrators of silly policies
They have lost the argument on the facts, They are losing the argument for public opinion. Last chance, is to convince the legal system that their argument has merit!
The laws of men do not trump the laws of physics, no matter the eloquence of the lawyers…pg
What argument? what facts? who won? The laws of men are there to guide! dumb ass!
Exactly so, Mr. Worral. It’s not climate or climate change or weather that poses huge financial stability risk, it’s bone-headed climate change POLICY. And there’s plenty of that on the table.
“The exposure of UK investors, including insurance companies, to these shifts is potentially huge,” Mr Carney said. General insurers are the most directly exposed to such losses, he said.
“Potentially huge”? That puts it in the future and means it’s not happening yet. I thought we had been told that catastrophic climate change was already happening. So when is it supposed to begin? That would be good to know.
Hey dumb ass, did your boyfriend tell you to give your opinion on this topic so that you could say “potentially huge” and “catastrophic climate change” in the same sentence?
It certainly got your attention, didn’t it Sparky?
Mods, can you do something about this dumb-ass called Sparks. This creature is not adding anything to the debate.
Dangers reside where idiots reside.
I’m writing that important of topic advice down after I pull my pen from your cold lifeless scull… haha just kidding I’ll get my pen back whenever!
*off
Reblogged this on Public Secrets and commented:
The only “financial risk” is being bilked into bankruptcy by the Green Cult and its cronies.
It’s not a secret and when you grow up, we’ll still call you a “big dumb ass” you can still live in your dumb ass house and say what “financial risk” means to other dumb asses..
Mods. The more you let profanity rage on this site the more you lessen its uniqueness.
The insurance industry faces even higher risk if resources are wasted on reducing CO2 instead of strengthening infrastructure against the increase in fire, flood and famine … which may occur when the climate warms and cools, as it always does. (Compare light hurricane/cyclone damage to strengthened Australia vs heavy damage to The Phillippines.)
The problem is, the liberals are all ” HOT ” heads…..so of course they want the planet to cool ! they will not be satisfied until we are in the next LIA !!!! Then , of course , they will complain about the cold !!!!
What problem? Marcus you need to get out more, enjoy yourself, meet a girl, let her rip your heart out, have kids… commenting on here is out of your depth.
Sparks, your commentary has put a smile on my face. My favorite is: “Commenting on here is out of your depth.” Hilarious, and so true!
Sigh !!! After watching the news tonight about the chaos in the Middle East, I suddenly realized that none of this matters….Obama is pushing us to the brink of WW3 !!! Now THAT will cause some Glo.Bull Warming !!!!
Of course, as a Canadian with winter approaching, I kinda like the the idea of Glo.Bull Warming , so my opinion might be am little bias !!!! Se La Vie !!
I wish you had editing !!!! LOL
Is there anything CO2 cannot affect? Clear the North West Passage? Cause the Thames to freeze over? Wine into water?
Liberal intelligence into a non oxymoron ????
markl when CO2 cools it falls from the atmosphere, it’s a low lying gas, higher levels of CO2 falling from the atmosphere are being recorded at ground level observatories beside a volcano and all other measurements are calibrated around the planet to assure the correct measurement of “atmospheric CO2” is recorded… is there one thing in mind that you think CO2 has to do with “the North West Passage” or the “Thames”?
Sparks commented: ” is there one thing in mind that you think CO2 has to do with “the North West Passage” or the “Thames”?
Other than failed alarmist claims…..no.
Sparks,
You are so far off base you are not even wrong in your comments about CO2 in the atmosphere.
@sparks. Seriously?
>>when CO2 cools it falls from the
>>atmosphere, it’s a low lying gas.
Err, what??
Mods, can you do something about this dumb-ass. It would appear that someone left the play-pen open, and the escapee has found its parent’s computer. You might also want to call Social Services, before the infant finds the electric fire too. Erm …. on second thoughts hold the Social Services, the electric fire might solve our problem….. 😉
R
Brilliant Sparks!!
We’ve all learned something today.
This will, of course, allow chemists to develop a new process for refining individual gases by cooling a mixture of gases and waiting for specific gases to preferentially “fall” due to the fact that some gases are “low lying” gases.
You should slap a patent on this idea, before somebody else figures out that gases do not tend to natural diffuse into equally proportioned mixtures as formerly anticipated and predicted by the principles of physics.
Well done, for making this incredible discovery!!
We can also now all see why it is that you have come to assume that all responses to ordinary comments should be furnished with the words, “dumb ass”.
You have doubtlessly been the recipient of this form of address for quite some time.
P.S. There is only one small problem with your theory about CO2 being a “low lying” gas
It’s bollocks.
I shall helpfully provide you with a counter example (below). But please look up “gas diffusion”, “entropy”, “kinetic theory of gases” etc and then return in about 5 years when you have completed your basic education:
http://phys.org/news/2012-11-atmospheric-co2-space-junk.html
Too funny! The Bank of England….hummm…the bank that brought the world interest bearing debt over 300 years ago. The Bank that does not create wealth but instead creates debt. And now they want in on the carbon scare? That Bank? Riiiiiggggghhhhhhhttttttttt!
one way to end the suspense about when the asians will take over economic leadership of the world is for the west to hurry it along by committing economic suicide.
Dumb ass!
Mods, time for sparks to be grounded….
Can they commit any more economic suicide? The patient has no life signs now.
I was just going to say…
No surprise , anyone who can make a dollar from this scam will , who is there to prosecute them ?
Edmonton Al
very intelligent and has a lot of potential… that’s why!
Why yes isn’t it obvious that there is going to be financial risk to allow these frigging banks and funds to trade in yet another unsecured piece of paper representing nation’s contribution to the atmosphere? Back in the old days they called that sort of thing a “blue sky” scam. It’s now central to our monetary system! Damn volatile too!
Must be nice to have billions of “dollars” to move at a whim.
Generally before anybody else sees/were notified of the play.
It must get boring after awhile, always being on the right side of the play ?
Please recheck that the source of this quote is not “The Daily Onion”.
hunter:
No, the source is not “The Daily Onion”.
The BBC is reporting the Governor of the Bank of England, Mark Carney, claims “In other words, once climate change becomes a defining issue for financial stability, it may already be too late.”
The link provides a report and a video of him saying it.
Richard
It’s not a coincidence, I think, that the wives of our PM, Cameron, our former Liberal Party leader, Clegg, and the BoE governor, Carney, all have “green” credentials. Clearly these chaps are all scared of being condemned to sleeping in the spare room – if you get my meaning. Christopher Monckton would have the right word – uxorious.
You’re not funny!
I think that it is an example of the “Lady Bountiful” effect.
In times past , when great country houses dominated rural England the lady of the house would drive around the hamlets , dispensing money and food to those she thought in dire need of them .
The money , for this exercise of aristocratic philanthropy came from her estate coffers , but in the modern examples it comes from the UK taxpayer. It is not her money at all .
That is why one dreads to hear of Cameron visiting anywhere in the world because it inevitably means that his wife is telling him to offload a billion here , 500million elsewhere , etc and it is getting some of us very angry , the more so because there is no way of stopping him.
hunter
September 30, 2015 at 9:14 pm
“Sparks,
You are so far off base you are not even wrong in your comments about CO2 in the atmosphere.”
Hi Hunter! first of all you’re not even false admitting that I’m correct, Carbon dioxide under our atmospheric conditions is a low lying gas, it falls to the center of gravity when it’s potential is lost. a bit like you right now dumb ass.
ralfellis
Are you calling for the “RICO” act? because I can say a lot worse..
ralfellis
Carbon dioxide under our atmospheric conditions is a low lying gas, it falls below nitrogen and oxygen, it is heavier. every plant including you have evolved taken advantage of this principal.
ralfellis
Carbon dioxide under our atmospheric conditions is a low lying gas, it falls below nitrogen and oxygen, it is heavier. every plant including you have evolved taken advantage of this principal.
Oh, dear. I was right, Sparks did escape from the play-pen.
Joking aside, take a look at a plot of CO2 vs altitude. The concentration of CO2 is constant all the way up to 80 km altitude. CO2 a ‘low lying gas’? You mean ‘low lying’ up to 80km? Or do you mean ‘lying’ out of your backside?
The graph is taken from Spectral-Cal.
http://spectralcalc.com/atmosphere_browser/modify_atmosphere.php
CO2 vs Altitude VMR = volume mixing ration in ppm.
.
You might also want to browse this science paper from ACP. Check out figs 7, 8 and 9, which show how CO2 vs altitude varies between spring and summer. Despite surface concentrations varying by 20 ppm, the concentration with altitude does not vary by more than 5 ppm all the way up the 300 mb or hpa (or 8,500m altitude). And sometimes, the CO2 concentration is lower at the surface than at high altitude (I shall give you a clue – plants).
In the adult world, which I presume you will reach in a couple of decades, this is called ‘a well mixed gas’. We are not talking oil and water here, but well-mixed gasses. You will come across more of these difficult terms and concepts when you go to the big school.
http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/11/2455/2011/acp-11-2455-2011.pdf
Kind regards,
Ralph
Funny.. Are you trying to prove that there is CO2 in earths atmosphere with that graph? I don’t know anyone disputing that fact, CO2 is heavier than O2 and N it falls to the center of gravity where all the trees are, if CO2 was lighter than O2 it wouldn’t be a well mixed gas and very little would reach the surface, do you see what I’m getting at? you seem to have a fear of the fact that CO2 is regulated in earths atmosphere, it is cooled by the same processes that cools every other component, got that? .
Is this Sparks guy for real?
It has to be a wind-up.
I seriously doubt it, Siilver, looks to me like one of the hired for a mere pittance “trolls” that I figure are surely assigned to a site like this one, to disrupt and sidetrack rational discussion, and make the joint seem inhospitable to any fresh eyes. Look at the topic for a clue as to who hired them, I suggest.
Hi Sparks, you’re in a big hole already, but I recommend that you keep digging just so that people can laugh at the spectacle of a person making a total arse of themselves.
Unfortunately for you, many of the people who visit this site have a solid rounded practical grasp of physics and engineering principles.
And therefore the majority of people can immediately spot that you are a faker.
“WUWT reported that Shell recently abandoned exploring the US Arctic, because of regulatory uncertainty.”
No, Shell abandoned exploration due to poor results from their initial drilling. Whatever regulatory uncertainty you are referring to has existed for 6 years under Obama (who approved Shell’s request in April 2015 over the objections of environmentalists). Why on earth would Shell spend billions, work for 10 years to get approval, get a rig to the site, start drilling in early August 2015, and then abandon the project 6 weeks later due to regulatory uncertainty?
Ask Shell
I provided a link to support my claim about Shell. The following WUWT article references a quote in Bloomberg.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/09/29/shell-to-quit-us-arctic-due-to-unpredictable-federal-regulatory-environment/
Eric, you provided a link to a WUWT article about this topic, but you listed only one reason as the cause – a reason that Shell only listed at the bottom of their quote – and you made no mention of the primary reason. Your statement was “WUWT reported that Shell recently abandoned exploring the US Arctic, because of regulatory uncertainty.”
Here is the first paragraph of Shell’s press release: ““This is a clearly disappointing exploration outcome,” Marvin Odum, director of Shell’s Upstream Americas unit, said in a statement. While indications of oil and gas were present in the Burger J well in Alaska’s Chukchi Sea, they weren’t sufficient to warrant further exploration, the company said. Shell will now plug and abandon the well.”
Is regulatory uncertainty one of the factors in Arctic drilling? Yes, but that was known 10 years ago, when Shell started their multi-billion dollar effort. They still proceeded. It makes no sense that they would abandon 10 years of effort and billions of invested dollars 6 weeks into a drilling program due to new-found regulatory uncertainty. Exactly what changed in the last 6 weeks from a regulatory standpoint?
No doubt if the results had been more encouraging that might have tipped the balance. But regulatory uncertainty played a part in killing that effort.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-09-28/shell-to-stop-exploring-offshore-alaska-on-regulations-costs
No they abandoned exploration because the oil price is low and they are cutting costs on non essential expenditures. The reality is that this was a very expensive undertaking that looked unlikely to find economically recoverable oil. Even had the single well they drilled been a high producer they would likely have sealed it and pulled out. If oil hits $100 per barrel they will probably start looking again.
All the major oil companies are cutting expenditures as this Wood MacKenzie report shows
“EDINBURGH/SINGAPORE/HOUSTON, 26th March 2015 – The oil & gas industry is responding to the low oil price environment with exploration budget cuts in 2015 which will average 30%, leading to suggestions that exploration activity could be significantly curtailed. However in an effort to drive value, Wood Mackenzie says the industry is addressing a long standing cost inflation issue, and asserts that on average exploration costs will fall by a third, softening the blow of budget cuts. Although overall well numbers will dip in 2015, Wood Mackenzie says drilling activity in 2016 is set to recover as many explorers seize their chance to drill at lower costs.”
Of course they want the regulatory regime to be clarified but that’s not the primary issue.
Chris, it used to be called: “shovel in the ground”, or “staking a claim”.
Fewer regs and hoops to jump through to restart exploration than to start from scratch. Shell know what they are doing. I imagine their projection for the oil price into the future is the guiding factor. It never hurts to have a dig at the regulatory regime to remind the next administration to watch their step or risk no oil at all.
Ivor, sure, I understand them getting that point in their press release, I just have an issue with it being conveyed as the primary reason. I believe if it was a promising well, they would’ve continued, even with oil prices where they are, since developed Arctic sites takes many years. I think only a dud outcome would have caused them to cap it, after all the effort they have gone to to get approval.
It is strange that Mr Carney has total faith in predictions of catastrophic climate change over the next 100years, yet he cannot even predict when he is going to raise UK interest rates, let alone the future of the world economy.
Isn’t this just a result of the current market for energy being in the cellar?
How can Arctic Oil and Gas exploration be profitable at $40 USD/barrel?
The glut will end, eventually; and prices will go up.
Wait for 2016 elections to see if the political winds change.
I find it interesting that financiers , government and warmists do not realise that the halving of fossil fuel prices actually doubles the relative cost of renewables. Therefore the financial risks are now entirely with renewables where the equivalent increase in expense represents a bubble. Renewable prices are in fact only maintained by government subsidy with the taxpayers hopefully realising that the opportunity cost of choosing to support these industries has doubled. The impact of choosing coal rather than renewables on electricity prices and the consequent improved competitiveness of industries would be very significant. In fact I believe that countries such as Germany with strong green influences are heading for an economic crisis from which it will take years to recover.
The financial risks globally are all skewed to things affected by green policies not climate change.
Yep. Bubbles have come and gone. Renewables next. Good riddance.
Carney is right, insurers risks are “exposure to shifts in climate-change POLICY”. He didn’t say they were exposed to “shifts in climate”.
The problem is that most people don’t listen carefully enough to the words he uses — he is very precise. He said he would not raise interest rates until unemployment was below 7%. Not, that he WOULD raise rates when unemployment dropped below 7% — which is how everyone (mis)interpreted it.
Risks are actually opportunities for insurers. That’s what their business is with profits to be made from uncertainty.
Wonder if interest rates have been kept low so as to facilitate renewable energy investments? Any thoughts on this?
You can bet your boots that the Marxist-Maoist pinko Commie socialists who run the British insurance companies (and City generally) will find a way of making vast sums of money from this.
RoHa:
Please say what you think are “Marxist-Maoist pinko Commie socialists” and inform as to how you think some (all?) of them have taken control of “the British insurance companies (and City generally)”.
Thanking you in anticipation of your explanations.
Richard
richardscourtney:
Hi Richard. Didn’t you say you lived in Surrey?
Dahlquist:
No. I have made no such claim and I never have “lived in Surrey”.
I was born on 1 October 1946 and lived with my parents in Devon until we moved to Cirencester, Gloucestershire, in the 1950s. I moved to Cheltenham, Gloucestershire, in the 1960s, and since 2000 I have lived in Falmouth, Cornwall.
But I know the origen of your suggestion.
John Hunter started a smear campaign against the late John Daly and me as response to our documented complaint that he had published fabricated data. Hunter’s campaign focused on me when John Daly died. Several blogs have copied those fabrications one of which was that I lived in a Surrey town I have never visited. .
I can always tell when people are referring to Hunter’s fabrications when they assert that I live – or have lived – where Hunter claimed. And I always address that fabrication when rejecting all of them because addressing that one demonstrates the assertions are fabricated without drawing attention to the more serious untruths.
Richard
I keep getting told that anything and everything to do with Climate Change (TM) is a Marxist-Maoist pinko Commie socialist plot, and anyone who does not roundly denounce that plot is a Marxist-Maoist pinko Commie socialist. Since the BOE and insurance companies are not denouncing it here, that suggests that they have all been taken over by Marxist-Maoist pinko Commie socialists,
Somehow, people seem to have forgotten that organized crime syndicates/cartels really exist, and really do take over Governments and thereby countries/regions.
If they have taken over the banking sector, of course they’re not going to present themselves as psychopathic criminals, anymore than bank robbers are going to dress in striped jumpsuits to gain entry undetected. They’re going to present themselves as our buddies on high, fighting for the downtrodden and oppressed . . dressed as Marxist-Maoist pinko Commie socialists, or something like that.
RoHa:
Thankyou for your reply to my question.
I, too, keep being told the same meaningless gobbledygook.
In reality, of course, financial services – especially insurance companies – gain financial benefit from perceived scares and, therefore, they promote AGW.
The anthropogenic (ie. man-made) global warming (AGW) scare is a bandwagon that people join because it is going in a direction they all want to go. Increased profits are where financial service providers ‘want to go’.
Richard
Richard,
“In reality, of course, financial services – especially insurance companies – gain financial benefit from perceived scares and, therefore, they promote AGW.”
Seems rather callus and disingenuous, don’t you think? Have they no scruples? No hearts? No honor?
Sounds like sociopaths/psychopaths to me. You know, like the sort of people who run organized crime syndicates; i.e. criminally insane?
the full Mark Carney text:
30 Sept: AFR: Mark Carney: The financial sector needs a new set of time lines when preparing for climate change
The combination of the weight of scientific evidence and the dynamics of the financial system suggest that, in the fullness of time, climate change will threaten financial resilience and longer-term prosperity
There is a growing international consensus that climate change is unequivocal. Many of the changes in our world since the 1950s are without precedent, not merely over decades but over millennia…
http://www.afr.com/news/policy/climate/the-financial-sector-needs-a-new-set-of-time-lines-when-preparing-for-climate-change-20150930-gjxy02
As a Teessider born and bred it pains me to see the reality of the crisis in the Steel Industry described so simplistically. The simple reality is that the steel made at Redcar costs more to produce than they can sell it for. Yes carbon taxes and their ilk are a factor in their costs but the collapse in the world price of steel is the main problem. Rolled steel prices are down to almost half of what they were 3 years ago, They dropped 25% in the last year alone.
The reason is simple. Between 2007 and 2013 Global steel consumption rose from 1,000 million tons to 1,388 million tons but production rose faster. In the home market (the EU) steel consumption fell by almost 30% in that period. The slow down in the Chinese economy has made things worse.
Increased supply and low demand have only one result.
So your thinking is loading on massive politically determined arbitrary extra costs on Teeside steel plants at a time of competitive stress is not an important factor?
Keith,
A reality check. I’m a shareholder of Origin Energy Ltd and as I was pursuing thru the 2014/2015 financial statement, it’s cash flows were down 394 million which 300 million of that was the carbon scheme payment owed to the government. The result? Dividend payout was down a few cents and the company is now trying to raise funds and manage capital by investing in other activities not related to energy exploration and extraction and retail distribution.
An imposed carbon tax does impact on productivity and supply.
Did Leahman carbon trading start the last financial crash?
It isn’t “climate change” that’s driving this “huge financial risk”. What’s driving it are brainless policies imposed by idiots that believe the meme. Stupid is as stupid does.
Meanwhile, in the UK, Scotland’s last remaining coal-fired power station is to close in March 2016.
Lang Banks, WWF Scotland director, commented that the power station is “Scotland’s single biggest source of climate emissions and a combination of its age, air pollution rules, carbon pricing and transmission charging have made closure inevitable.”
Source:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-33970594
But in Germany two new coal-fired stations have just opened.
AND approval has been given for a new open-cast coal mine.
Climate Change Idiocy is like slimemould: it creeps everywhere and digests everything in its path.
Making AGW climate change scare a business risk message is just another aspect of the propaganda effort, along with public health, religion, education, and other social programs. It’s a peeking order of using and undermining institutions in succession. That is not so hard to understand. Once science process was warped for policy reach goals, the template for callus use and abuse of other disciplines followed. That does require an ongoing disrespect for fact checking at its core. It’s a form of mob rule with organization.
Bank of England Governor Mark Carney said Britain’s insurers face potentially “huge” exposure to shifts in climate-change policy and Group of 20 nations need to do more to combat associated financial-stability risks.
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/markets/climate-change-a-huge-financial-risk-warns-bank-of-england-20150930-gjy3th.html#ixzz3nKEZSKrd
Follow us: @smh on Twitter | sydneymorningherald on Facebook
I think some of the bloggers are misreading the message of Mr Carney. He is not implying that he supports GLOBAL WARMING . He points out that the anti global warming policy currently in place and still to come will put many investments and industries that use carbon at financial risk . It is the constant fluctuations of these environmental rules that make it difficult to continue to invest and support these industries unless the there is more national government support to either relax the rules or offer financial support
He was an excellent head of BANK of CANADA during the past financial crisis
I did say I agreed with him – I just took it a bit further, and provided a suggestion of what businesses facing this uncertainty might do about it.
A lost decade or more for world economic growth is the main risk to central banks, investment, budgets, debt leverage, and citizens. It is a very real possibility mixed in with data uncertainty about where China is in controlling debt and risk. This is not the time to continue the policy game of carbon taxation and other global NGO schemes as though nothing changed in affordability. In other words, the well is running dry for policy over reach schemes. At a minimum, the damage list of undermined institutions is growing long.
I thought non scientists weren’t allowed to comment on Climate Change.
Lord Lawson got vilified by the ‘Green Mob’ because of his non consensus views on the subject and has forthwith been banned from uttering any comment against the sacred doctrine on media channels by its devotees
Its OK if you support climate change – Pachauri, climate fanatic former head of the IPCC, is a railway engineer…
Silver ralph Says:
“Is this Sparks guy for real?
It has to be a wind-up.”
Which part of the humor in my comment are you referring to? remember the bank of England is depending on your opinion..
The first expectation of any bank governor is to study the data. If he’d done that he would have realized several things; the ‘climate change’ models are very wrong in their forecasts of warming, there has been no significant change in the number of severe or catastrophic weather events, the polar bears are alive and thriving, and the North-west passage is not navigable for commercial vessels despite all the alarmist forecasts.
It would have been better if Mr Carney had pointed out that, when you build your business on a very speculative model, there’s a good chance you’ll lose a lot of money. The Renewables industry is finding that out.«
Absolutely it would make sense to go to where the regulations are more business friendly. After all, hands up one person who would put their house and other capital on the line with such governmental policy uncertainty undercutting business confidence and assurity?
car·ny/car·nie
a carnival or amusement show.
“a carny atmosphere”
a person who works in a carnival or amusement show.
That just about sums up old Mark, I’d say.
An example of that phenomenon which is replete in quality assessment circles ISO and BS standards. It is an obligation to show to that you have a policy to deal with whatever is demanded of you by some outside mediator. In this way it is possible that all producers at the BBC, no matter what show they are proposing, have some content to describe such elements as sexual equality, racial diversity and probably, most probably, climate change. In such ways people are subsumed into the great airless aridity of oppressive conformities which through there distribution can be said to be truth. No wonder Spain is in financial trouble, it has always been a warm place, what chance does it have? Yet the amazing diversity of weather in the US seems nothing but a stimulus to industry. The hot wheat lands of the prairie feed the world while the vast waste of Antarctica are just that, waste. We are not dealing with science or enquiry but the proving of a political theory which has been so invested in that if it failed now the certainty proposed politics would be so badly undermined as to look back to 1848, the year of revolutions. If Antarctica were brought back into food production is would almost seem like a natural response, a thankful change to feed the burgeoning population of the world, that’s joke by the way.
Yesterday, in Britain, the once scientific adviser to the Blair Government opined that he had got it wrong about those diesel engines that he had proposed back then as being the future and infinitely more acceptable than petrol technology. In the light of the VW imbroglio it even looks as though he might be saying that he had been misled by the industry and not just goofed-up. When certainty is king we are all the victims of ignorance. Such is the power that the ‘quality standard’ demands that there is to remain a tick box pertaining to the slavish adherence to imposed norms. The Governor of the Bank of England for all his notable attributes and especially in a free, democratic industrialised capitalist system is but an opinion. It is the market and its innovators that will fashion the environment and improve the condition of mankind and not this hopeful sentimentalising. We rush to the element that we believe that we can influence and yet the biggest dangers to mankind are inherent in the ever restructuring nature of Mother Earth. In this sense the |Governor’s sentiment is but a rain dance, a capitulation to the unknown, that place “where dragons be”. It also says some thing for the efficacy of capitalism that as with so many banking scandals of late which the Governor of the Bank of England seems to have been incapable of spotting, that the most capitalist country in the world despite its clamour for riches is the one that has caught the cheats, something that the sometime capitalist country of Great Britain could not. Diesel gained green credentials and stopped enquiry. Thank goodness the US has, still, no such acceptances. If VW is climate change, or the non-enquiry into sex scandals involving gangs of Asians in Britain, associated with racial laws and imposed morality, then the blanket attributions and the coralling of opinion seems like that Civil War pronouncement, “they couldn’t hit an elephant at this distance”. What did he know.
Not paying attention to the effects of Solar Minima on English weather variability is a huge financial risk to UK based businesses, especially farmers.
A few wet-cool Summers in row like 2012 could put half or more of them out of business.
I am already warning UK farmers of such summer weather conditions through most of the next five years.
UK weather is dominated by the NAO. Increased CO2 forcing is supposed to increase positive NAO, yet the NAO turned increasingly negative from 1995 along with solar plasma density/pressure.
That is much as the Bank of England needs to know about anthropogenic climate change.
TATA has been divesting for quite some time. No surprise that SSI is going the same way.
eg http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29628813
While, for sure, their reasons are complex, competition is always the issue and if you are forced to spend more and more time and capital dealing with an unstable (political) environment then this must impact ones competitiveness.
If, hypothetically, TATA (SSI or whoever) were to propose building a new UK plant atop some 500 years worth of shale gas then they would quickly face the wrath of every green group, every SIF, every MP looking for the green vote, every EU directive aimed at ‘levelling the playing field’ etc etc. In the end it is much cheaper and easier to just build the plant atop the shale gas fields of a more business friendly nation.
Globally, nothing changes, the Steel is still produced. Just not in your region. Redcar takes a massive hit and some town somewhere else throws a party. The amount of Steel produced remains constant and takes exactly the same amount of energy (and CO2) to produce that it required yesterday in Redcar. Redcar becomes another ‘Social Security’ (US readers – think Detroit) stronghold and everyone, bar the residents of Redcar, continues on as normal.
Back on July 8, JC did a review of a 2006 study of the effect of th ‘Fu-Liou’ effect, and buried in it was the revelation that CO2 effects are analysed on the basis of double-doubling (the 4X effect) of
cO2. I am aware of no scenario of fossil fuel use that could result in such an increase…or even 2X, for that matter.
Only if you bet on it! (Climate Change that is)