In the Rush to Help - Global Warming

[roni]

Climate enters states' investment equation
Treasurers - Oregon's Randall Edwards and others call for the SEC to force companies to disclose global warming risks
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
TED SICKINGER
The Oregonian Staff

Oregon Treasurer Randall Edwards joined environmentalists, institutional investors and financial officers from other states Tuesday in formally petitioning securities regulators to force publicly traded companies to disclose the emerging risks they face from global warming.

The coalition also asked the Securities and Exchange Commission to immediately scrutinize the adequacy of companies' climate change disclosures under existing laws.

The group maintains that most companies haven't been giving investors the full story on their climate change risks, whether it's a bank or insurance company looking at more extreme weather events or a utility facing potentially expensive climate change regulations.

Edwards said climate change has become a basic fiduciary responsibility as his department makes investment decisions.

"This is just the beginning step of better corporate oversight and governance on an issue that is going to have major implications for all of us," Edwards said. "We're not talking about divestiture; we're talking about disclosure so the marketplace can make better decisions."

The coalition of buttoned-down financial types with environmental activists such as the Environmental Defense Fund shows how mainstream global warming is becoming in the investment world.

"None of the state officials or institutional investors are taking this step because they want to be seen as green or politically correct," said Peyton Fleming, a spokesman for Ceres, a Boston-based coalition of environmental organizations and investors. "It's a bottom-line business issue that will affect their portfolios in the years ahead."

[PlayadelSoul]

Originally Posted by james

just, as an example, draw the boundary around your car. that is your closed thermal system. don't over-think it.

and, of course it is true that global warming began when the pendulum swung in the other direction after the last ice age. we are merely adding fuel to the fire, literally.

No argument, there, my Swedish, Mexican-American friend. The fire was going to happen, with or without us. Emissions cannot help. Nor, are they the sole cause of the warming. That is why I, and many others, have a problem with the idea that global warming is manmade. The problem is natural. Man may make it a little worse. So, you have to decide to what extent you want to change your lifestyle, economy and livelihood in response to that part of the problem that is caused by man.

[STOGEY]

Originally Posted by Rissask

Why, I plan on not turning on my furnance this winter and burning wood instead to stay warm...no wait, that won't help will it?
Maybe once the warming kicks in I won't have to use my furnace at all!


oh sorry, my bad, you said serious

Why don't you use just one sheet of tp like what's her name does?

[dartay]

Originally Posted by james

just, as an example, draw the boundary around your car. that is your closed thermal system. don't over-think it.

and, of course it is true that global warming began when the pendulum swung in the other direction after the last ice age. we are merely adding fuel to the fire, literally.

The real question is...."How much fuel?"

And there's the disagreement. The Gorites contend we are Saddam in the oilfields of Kuwait and there are those of us who believe a gallon or two. It's just more chic to be in the man made camp these days.

[PlayadelSoul]

Originally Posted by roni

Climate enters states' investment equation
Treasurers - Oregon's Randall Edwards and others call for the SEC to force companies to disclose global warming risks
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
TED SICKINGER
The Oregonian Staff

Oregon Treasurer Randall Edwards joined environmentalists, institutional investors and financial officers from other states Tuesday in formally petitioning securities regulators to force publicly traded companies to disclose the emerging risks they face from global warming.

The coalition also asked the Securities and Exchange Commission to immediately scrutinize the adequacy of companies' climate change disclosures under existing laws.

The group maintains that most companies haven't been giving investors the full story on their climate change risks, whether it's a bank or insurance company looking at more extreme weather events or a utility facing potentially expensive climate change regulations.

Edwards said climate change has become a basic fiduciary responsibility as his department makes investment decisions.

"This is just the beginning step of better corporate oversight and governance on an issue that is going to have major implications for all of us," Edwards said. "We're not talking about divestiture; we're talking about disclosure so the marketplace can make better decisions."

The coalition of buttoned-down financial types with environmental activists such as the Environmental Defense Fund shows how mainstream global warming is becoming in the investment world.

"None of the state officials or institutional investors are taking this step because they want to be seen as green or politically correct," said Peyton Fleming, a spokesman for Ceres, a Boston-based coalition of environmental organizations and investors. "It's a bottom-line business issue that will affect their portfolios in the years ahead."

Sorry, but this is just plain stupid. How can a company divulge the risks it faces when not even scientists can agree on the risks. Should they advise their investors of a 1cm or 4 meter rise in sea level? Should they claim that hurricanes will now hit further inland? Will there be more hurricanes (not according to Dr. Jeff Masters ) due to global warming? Better chance of being whacked by a tornado? Will food become more plentiful in frozen areas? Should they claim that?

[PlayadelSoul]

Originally Posted by melliedee

Okay. But your continued objections imply that you do not believe the report is legitimate? You've said so about the IPCC report, and here's one from W's top scientist saying the same thing. Do you honestly think these folks are lying?

Sorry, Melliedee. I thought I responded to this.

No, I don't think the IPCC were lying. I think they are a group of policymakers who presented data from honest science in a way that met their preconceived notions and fit their worldview. The IPCC's charter is based on the idea of manmade global warming. Would you expect them to say: Well, we have looked into it and have found that global warming is a naturally occurring event. Pollution is nasty and we think it may be playing a part. However, our science is based on models and is very inexact. One bad piece of data can throw the results off, completely. Our models contain thousands of variables, and some of these we have no clue as to what to input. So, we make the best guess available and hope we are right. Remember, for example, how we told you there were going to be extreme droughts. Never mind. We recently changed that to mean record rainfall. Bear with us. We are 90% sure that we might be 90% right about 90% of what we guessed on.

[melliedee]

Originally Posted by PlayadelSoul

Sorry, Melliedee. I thought I responded to this.

No, I don't think the IPCC were lying. I think they are a group of policymakers who presented data from honest science in a way that met their preconceived notions and fit their worldview. The IPCC's charter is based on the idea of manmade global warming. Would you expect them to say: Well, we have looked into it and have found that global warming is a naturally occurring event. Pollution is nasty and we think it may be playing a part. However, our science is based on models and is very inexact. One bad piece of data can throw the results off, completely. Our models contain thousands of variables, and some of these we have no clue as to what to input. So, we make the best guess available and hope we are right. Remember, for example, how we told you there were going to be extreme droughts. Never mind. We recently changed that to mean record rainfall. Bear with us. We are 90% sure that we might be 90% right about 90% of what we guessed on.

Yet Dr. Marburger came to the same conclusions and serves at the pleasure of the president, not any policymaking group with an agenda. How is he invested in manipulating the data into any preconceived "worldview" that supports manmade global warming? Why would he?

[Jacko]

Originally Posted by PlayadelSoul

No argument, there, my Swedish, Mexican-American friend. The fire was going to happen, with or without us. Emissions cannot help. Nor, are they the sole cause of the warming. That is why I, and many others, have a problem with the idea that global warming is manmade. The problem is natural. Man may make it a little worse. So, you have to decide to what extent you want to change your lifestyle, economy and livelihood in response to that part of the problem that is caused by man.

Sorry, but this is "just plain stupid"....I mean "may"? What if it was 25% worse than it has been in the last 650,000 years as predicted here?

Though natural amounts of CO2 have varied from 180 to 300 parts per million (ppm), today's CO2 levels are around 380 ppm. That's 25% more than the highest natural levels over the past 650,000 years. Increased CO2 levels have contributed to periods of higher average temperatures throughout that long record. (Boden, Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center)

From here regarding Global Warming Myths and Facts....

The only debate in the science community about global warming is about how much and how fast warming will continue as a result of heat-trapping emissions. Scientists have given a clear warning about global warming, and we have more than enough facts — about causes and fixes — to implement solutions right now.

[james]

Originally Posted by dartay

The real question is...."How much fuel?"

unfortunately it's a hell of a lot. we are only now beginning to see, I'm afraid. I fear it may be too late to make a difference even if drastic changes were implemented.

[dartay]

Originally Posted by james

unfortunately it's a hell of a lot. we are only now beginning to see, I'm afraid. I fear it may be too late to make a difference even if drastic changes were implemented.

Really? We are pushing a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere no doubt. But what's the percentage compared to other greenhouse gases? Very small.

[PlayadelSoul]

Originally Posted by melliedee

Yet Dr. Marburger came to the same conclusions and serves at the pleasure of the president, not any policymaking group with an agenda. How is he invested in manipulating the data into any preconceived "worldview" that supports manmade global warming? Why would he?

I have no idea. Maybe he is just agreeing with his boss. Who knows.

The IPCC report stated that it was with 90% certainty that global warming was manmade. That statement, on its face, is ridiculous. We all know that climate change is a naturally occurring event. No dispute there, I hope. So, how can it be that this time (and this time, only), it is 100% manmade. I can see man adding to the problem, but to claim that it is totally manmade flies in the face of basic science.

[Mr Cancun]

Didn't you know Mark that Global Warming is caused by 90% Capitalism? Sheesh

[sctx]

Originally Posted by PlayadelSoul

No argument, there, my Swedish, Mexican-American friend.

Swamex???

[james]

Originally Posted by dartay

Really? We are pushing a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere no doubt. But what's the percentage compared to other greenhouse gases? Very small.

something like 11.2 billion metric tonnes of coal (equivalent) will be consumed this year. That is not an insignificant thermal quantity, directly attributed to man. It hasn't even peaked. I think the forecast is for it to peak sometime around 2020, but who knows for sure? That a small temperature change (and it IS small) results is not hard to understand. Small changes in temperature account for vast changes in sea levels and other cyclical patterns. It's a delicate balance. Ask the frogs!

[ryberg]

I think at this point in the discussion someone has missed their cue to bring up denialism. I mean, that's what happened next before, right? And we're just repeating the whole thing, right?

I dunno, Scott. I think they longer you let this thing run, the more it threatens your credibility!

Steve