BrianC wrote: "In a worst-case scenario, people will keep investing in fossil fuels until suddenly the demand they expected does not materialise and they realise that what they own is worthless. Then we could see a financial crisis on the scale of 2008,"
Pops wrote:BrianC wrote: "In a worst-case scenario, people will keep investing in fossil fuels until suddenly the demand they expected does not materialise and they realise that what they own is worthless. Then we could see a financial crisis on the scale of 2008,"
Actually the worst case is people DO stop investing in fossils but governments like the US under the republicans plus Joe Coal Mansion don't go all out on renewables.
The depression we would fall into with a sudden drop in US shale of 5mm/bbls/day in ONE year plus a global decline of 6%-8% per year with zero fossil investment would make those stupid bets back in the oughts look like penny ante poker at the old folks home.
We're out on a limb. Fracking has never turned the profits it promised—or they wouldn't need to continuously borrow— the could simply re-invest a part of their profits. But LTO isn't profitable enough, it is dependent on US subsidizing the low interest rates and low returns everywhere else that causes institutions to throw good money after bad. It isn't necessarily low energy return on energy invested, who knows about that? But it is simple insufficient ROI in regular old dollars.
That tells us we are past the bubble. Our savior was a con-job. Sound familiar?
Generally Rs worry about energy cost more and Ds worry about warming more but 70% of all Americans are some or a lot worried about warming, the highest ever. The result will be more and more pressure to divest from carbon. But lots of people (like Coal Mansion and most elected Rs) are worried about their Sugar Daddy money. They will try to stop RE progress for the very reason posted above, money left on the table.
We need to ramp up diffuse energy collection at an even faster pace, much faster. Not just fast enough to outrun plain old decline, aka, the Red Queen, or to prevent the worst of warming but fast enough to outrun the failure to drill too.
A crazy thing to write
.
https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/p ... le-energy/
https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/p ... te-change/
Alfred Tennyson wrote:We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
evilgenius wrote:Any sort of depression that is indeed global, would open the door for the worst sort of world government options .
Pops wrote:Actually the worst case is people DO stop investing in fossils but governments like the US under the republicans plus Joe Coal Mansion don't go all out on renewables.
Plantagenet wrote:Pops wrote:Actually the worst case is people DO stop investing in fossils but governments like the US under the republicans plus Joe Coal Mansion don't go all out on renewables.
Thats not the worst case.
The worst case is what we have right now.......Biden and the democrats betraying the American people and the entire planet by pretending that they want to stop using fossil fuel, while they secretly entreat the Saudis and OPEC to pump more oil so the US can continue BAU and continue the use of fossil fuels.
Biden secretly begs OPEC to pump more oil
SHEEESH!
Plantagenet wrote:I'm very skeptical of any prediction or forecast that pretends to know what will be happening 10 or 20 years out into the future.
The prediction that half the world's fossil fuel assets will by worthless by 2036 assumes that all the world's governments will take steps to ban the use of fossil fuels to combat climate change.
But thats not what we see happening now......
We've got a UN climate change meeting happening right now in Glasgow, Scotland, and there's a proposal to ban the use of coal.
But the USA under Joe Biden joined with China, India, Russia and other big coal-consuming countries to say no to this idea.....thus ensuring the continued value of Coal Assets.
U.S.-Japan-China-Russia-and-India-missing-from-COP26-coal-pledge
Basically countries that don't use much coal pledged to not use coal, while countries who use coal wouldn't agree to stop using coal.
If a progressive D leader like Joe Biden is unwilling to sign on to phasing out the use of coal now, and instead aligns the USA with China, India and Russia to support continuing to use coal, then how exactly will coal and other fossil fuel assets become worthless when huge amounts of coal consumption are now on track to continue into the future?
Cheers!
gollum wrote:Until there's something that can replace oil and coal at a lower cost
evilgenius wrote:That's why I think the world of robots has to come with at least some fundamental changes to what we consider comprises a corporation. I think we are missing at least one class of stock, which would be the one that the people who used to work would own, and that approximated their old position in the game.
They could sell it, but it could not be taken from them. The dividends are what they would live from. There would have to be rules about not being able to own more than so many otherwise normal shares in corporations, common or preferred, if a person also owned this type.
You want people to be able to invest as individuals, but you don't want the bosses getting that close to the heart of those people. I say this because workers quite naturally have a differing view of risk than management. Workers are workers because they don't want the risk of working for themselves, so to speak. They, therefore, require a deal like this rather than a cold slap in the face. And everybody must be dealt with.
Otherwise, yes, you would think the naturally lower, but more appealing to those who are that risk averse, return would tend to help classify what type of person owned this type of stock.
It's a different approach than UBI. Some sort of UBI might be necessary, but to participate one must own. It simply means that the entire structure must, then, acknowledge you. That other way, of the UBI, doesn't work on that level. It is for beggars.
BrianC wrote:Half World's Fossil Fuel Assets Could Become Worthless by 2036 in Net Zero Transition (theguardian.com) 7
Posted by msmash on Friday November 05, 2021 @02:46PM from the closer-look dept.
About half of the world's fossil fuel assets will be worthless by 2036 under a net zero transition, according to research. From a report:
Countries that are slow to decarbonise will suffer but early movers will profit; the study finds that renewables and freed-up investment will more than make up for the losses to the global economy. It highlights the risk of producing far more oil and gas than required for future demand, which is estimated to leave $11tn-$14tn in so-called stranded assets -- infrastructure, property and investments where the value has fallen so steeply they must be written off. The lead author, Jean-Francois Mercure of the University of Exeter, said the shift to clean energy would benefit the world economy overall, but it would need to be handled carefully to prevent regional pockets of misery and possible global instability. "In a worst-case scenario, people will keep investing in fossil fuels until suddenly the demand they expected does not materialise and they realise that what they own is worthless. Then we could see a financial crisis on the scale of 2008," he said, warning oil capitals such as Houston could suffer the same fate as Detroit after the decline of the US car industry unless the transition is carefully managed.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... transition
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests