On Oct 8, 4:08 pm, John McCormick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Their statement that the US should reduce GHGs to 60-80 percent by
> 2050 may not soon be enacted into law but it serves a much greater
> purpose in a wholly separate world..the investment world of pension
> and mutual funds.
The folks in the economic world think they are wholly separate, but
those of us who are thinking in the environmental world know that this
is a delusion. Traditional neocon economics considers the environment
to be an externality which usually isn't included in their cost
calculations. Economics activities function only as a subset of the
life support provided by the natural world and I doubt that things
will ever be otherwise. We all live on this planet and what ever
happens to climate will likely impact most everybody, one way or
another.
> Long term investments in carbon-haevy equities will suffer serious
> devaluation if the Dingell-Boucher 60-80% GHG reduction requirement
> does become law.
Yes, that's a likely outcome. But, the climate is changing and it
appears to be obvious that we really need to do something about it, so
there are going to be losers, like it or not. The only remaining
question is who will suffer the most.
> Divesting carbon-heavy stocks will be inevitable because, while day
> traders can make stupid pesonal investments, huge multi-billion dollar
> funds are a different breed of investor. They make buy-sell governed
> not by hunches or instict and they answer to their investors who have
> access to judicial remedies for fiduciary irresponsibility.
>
> Wall Street is reading the White Paper very carefully. That is good.
I've only briefly run thru the White Paper, but I think there are
several problems. I don't see how the consumer actually will get the
message, except thru higher prices. When the available energy supply
is set to decline, as predicted by Peak Oil theorist, rationing-by-
price is not a good idea, as there's no limit to the resulting
inflation as supplies are restricted more each year.
Some of the Democratic candidates may be listening as well. Obama gave
a speech with a similar thrust. Here's a link to the background issue
paper:
http://my.barackobama.com/page/-/HQpress/100707%20Fact%20Sheet%20Energy%20Speech%20FINAL.pdf
He says next to nothing about how to implement what we already know
how to do. The "Cap" portion of the program begins with a 100%
auction of the allowances, which would seem to result in ration-by-
price with the richest getting the energy and the poor left out in the
cold (literally). Looks like more of the "technology will save us"
approach to the energy problem. Will we finally have a national
debate on energy and climate policy this election? I surely hope so,
since it's about 20 years overdue, IMHO.
E. S.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated
venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of
global environmental change.
Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the
submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not
gratuitously rude.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
