If this agreement actually comes to pass, we must never lose sight of the most important thing. That Mono was wrong about something. Never Forget!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/11958713/Fossil-fuel-companies-risk-plague-of-asbestos-lawsuits-as-tide-turns-on-climate-change.html
QuoteFossil fuel companies risk plague of 'asbestos' lawsuits as tide turns on climate change
The UN says the world is poised for a sweeping climate deal in Paris. 'It is unstoppable. No amount of lobbying is going to change the direction'
By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard
6:22PM GMT 27 Oct 2015
Oil, gas and coal companies face the mounting risk of legal damages for alleged climate abuse as global leaders signal an end to business-as-usual and draw up sweeping plans to curb greenhouse gas emissions, Bank of America has warned.
Investors in the City are increasingly concerned that fossil fuel groups and their insurers are on the wrong side of a powerful historical shift and could be swamped with exhorbitant class-action lawsuits along the lines of tobacco and asbestos litigation in the US.
"It is setting off alarm bells that there could be these long tail risks," said Abyd Karmali, Bank of America's head of climate finance.
Mr Karmali said the United Nations' "COP21" climate summit in Paris in December is likely to be a landmark event that starts to shut the door on parts of the fossil industry. "It is a non-exchangeable, one-way ticket to a low-carbon economy," he said.
Christiana Figueres, the UN's top climate official, said 155 countries have already put forward detailed plans covering 88pc of global CO2 emissions, and others are expected to join before the deadline expires.
"It is unstoppable. No amount of lobbying at this point is going to change the direction," she told a Carbon Tracker forum in London.
Mrs Figueres said the mood has changed entirely since the failed summit in Copenhagen in 2009. This time China is fully on board. "China is already spending more on renewables than any other country. It is going to introduce its own emissions trading scheme in 2017," she said.
Mrs Figueres said the pledges are not yet enough to cap the rise in average global temperatures to two degrees Centrigrade above pre-industrial levels by 2100 – the "two degree world" deemed the safe limit.
But the Paris accord does promise to "bend" the trajectory to 2.7 degrees and will almost certainly be followed by a series of deals that brings the ultimate target within sight. "We think most countries will be able to over-achieve," she said.
While the exact contours are still unclear, Paris is likely to sketch a way towards zero net emissions later this century. It implies that most fossil fuel reserves booked by major oil, gas and coal companies can never be burned.
A deal would also send a moral signal with legal ramifications. Mark Carney, the Governor of the Bank England, warned last month that by those who had suffered losses from climate change may try to bring claims on third-party liability insurance.
He specifically mentioned the parallel of asbestos claims in US courts, which have mounted over the years to $85bn and devastated some Lloyd's syndicates.
Mr Carney said it would be "premature to draw too close an analogy with climate risks" and acknowledged that previous carbon lawsuits have failed, but he warned that the risk is "significant, uncertain and non-linear". The UN has already floated ideas on compensation.
It is not hard to imagine who might launch legal claims for climate damage. The leader of the Pacific island of Tuvalu said his nation would be flooded by rising sea levels and would cease to exist by 2050 under current emissions trends, though owners of any low-lying coastal property in the US or the rest of the world might have a claim.
Lord Bourne, Britain's under-secretary for energy, said at Chatham House this week that Tuvalu's plight is an international scandal. "We can't sit back and let it happen," he said.
While it might be grossly unfair to blame the fossil fuel industry for what was in reality a phase of economic development that drove progress and lifted billions out of poverty, individual companies might get into trouble if internal documents and emails come to light showing that they had knowingly distorted climate risks.
The Prince of Wales told the forum that "climate change is becoming an increasing source of risk to the finance community" and asked whether the time had come for investors to divest from fossil fuels and switch to green alternatives.
"Some investors, such as philanthropic trusts and foundations, will also have to consider whether continuing to invest in high-carbon assets represents a significant conflict to their overall mission and objectives."
Carbon Tracker, a think tank of former City bankers, said the fundamental risk for the oil, gas and coal industry is that it continues to project a 30pc-50pc increase in fossil fuel use (and implicitly a four degree world) over the next quarter century as if nothing had changed, when global leaders are calling for a cut of 40pc-70pc by 2050.
The conflict is glaring. Fossil companies are in effect discounting the risk that governments will impose a rising carbon tax that gradually renders their business model obsolete.
Anthony Hobley, the group's founder, said these companies still have time to adapt to the new world order and take the lead in renewable energy, storage technology and carbon capture – and some, such as Shell, are doing so - but they cannot avoid the issue. "They face the potential of massive value destruction if they try to fight the transition," he said.
Mr Hobley said there is a historical graveyard of industries and companies that stuck doggedly to business as usual at key inflexion points. "Incumbents invariably fail to see it coming," he said.
Mono is frequently wrong(especially in matters of taste :sleep:).
I can't believe that I was mentioned in a Tim headline. I almost feel like I have entered a hall of fame or something.
Quote from: Monoriu on October 27, 2015, 10:41:13 PM
I can't believe that I was mentioned in a Tim headline. I almost feel like I have entered a hall of fameshame or something.
:console:
But yeah these international corps could be in real trouble if, say, whole regions get destroyed due to provable manmade global warming.
Quote from: Valmy on October 27, 2015, 11:13:53 PM
:console:
But yeah these international corps could be in real trouble if, say, whole regions get destroyed due to provable manmade global warming.
with tobacco victims, I think all that was needed was:
1) the plaintiff had been a smoker for many years
2) they eventually developped cancer
3) there was a link establish between increased cancer risk and smoking
What was not needed:
- prove that even if the plaintiff had not smoked he/she would have developped a cancer
I'd say we know with a reasonable certainty that global warming is:
a) real
b) mostly man made
the way I see it, if any given State has increase damages due to ocean level rise or increase extreme weather event, they could potentially sue fossil fuel companies.
Quote from: viper37 on October 28, 2015, 02:25:35 PM
with tobacco victims, I think all that was needed was:
1) the plaintiff had been a smoker for many years
2) they eventually developped cancer
3) there was a link establish between increased cancer risk and smoking
What was not needed:
- prove that even if the plaintiff had not smoked he/she would have developped a cancer
I'd say we know with a reasonable certainty that global warming is:
a) real
b) mostly man made
the way I see it, if any given State has increase damages due to ocean level rise or increase extreme weather event, they could potentially sue fossil fuel companies.
Getting to that point on cigarettes required demonstrating that regular cigarette smokers increased their risk of certain cancers by 10-fold to 15-fold. I doubt proving damage would have been so easy if, say, it was only a 50% increase in likelihood.
Further complicating matters is the variety of sources of environmental damage. How do you determine how much an oil company is responsible versus a coal company, or a power company operating coal and oil plants, or an auto manufacturer, or any of the other links in the pollution chain? Cigarettes had the benefit of being a neat, clean "they did it" situation.
Plague lawsuits?
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on October 28, 2015, 02:45:02 PM
Further complicating matters is the variety of sources of environmental damage. How do you determine how much an oil company is responsible versus a coal company, or a power company operating coal and oil plants, or an auto manufacturer, or any of the other links in the pollution chain? Cigarettes had the benefit of being a neat, clean "they did it" situation.
You left out us, the end user.
Quote from: viper37 on October 28, 2015, 02:25:35 PM
Quote from: Valmy on October 27, 2015, 11:13:53 PM
:console:
But yeah these international corps could be in real trouble if, say, whole regions get destroyed due to provable manmade global warming.
with tobacco victims, I think all that was needed was:
1) the plaintiff had been a smoker for many years
2) they eventually developped cancer
3) there was a link establish between increased cancer risk and smoking
What was not needed:
- prove that even if the plaintiff had not smoked he/she would have developped a cancer
I'd say we know with a reasonable certainty that global warming is:
a) real
b) mostly man made
the way I see it, if any given State has increase damages due to ocean level rise or increase extreme weather event, they could potentially sue fossil fuel companies.
Actually there is zero evidence that global warming is either real or man made. Indeed, there has been absolutely no measured increase in global temperatures since 1999. Scientists have been unable to even show a statistical correlation between atmospheric co2 and global temperatures.
Quote from: Valmy on October 27, 2015, 11:13:53 PM
Quote from: Monoriu on October 27, 2015, 10:41:13 PM
I can't believe that I was mentioned in a Tim headline. I almost feel like I have entered a hall of fameshame or something.
:console:
But yeah these international corps could be in real trouble if, say, whole regions get destroyed due to provable manmade global warming.
There are a few complicating things here...global warming is the cumulative result of carbon emissions since the beginning of the industrial revolution. To what extent is a specific oil company responsible for that? Any individual oil company produces only a small percentage of the oil of today, even ignoring other sources. Do you only hold private companies responsible, or also distribute liability to state owned oil companies? Do fossil fuel companies get credit for improvements made to society (for example, should the descendants of Standard Oil get any credit for the improvement fossil fuels brought the world to offset blame for global warming?). Should end users of fossil fuels be subject to any liability, or just the sellers?
If anyone should pay anything it seems reasonable that it's the people who did the actual combusting.
Quote from: Hansmeister on October 28, 2015, 04:10:14 PM
Indeed, there has been absolutely no measured increase in global temperatures since 1999.
That is a blatent lie.
QuoteScientists have been unable to even show a statistical correlation between atmospheric co2 and global temperatures.
Yes I know, it's not written in the Bible and the GOP leadership hasn't admitted it, therefore whatever some thousand scientists have demonstrated time and time again must be a lie.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 28, 2015, 03:20:06 PM
You left out us, the end user.
So did the tobacco settlement.
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on October 28, 2015, 06:41:35 PM
So did the tobacco settlement.
AFAIK oil companies and their friends have not been hiding the fact that carbon emissions cause global warming from us.
We are the ones turning on car engines, turning on electrical appliances, riding planes, etc.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 28, 2015, 06:52:30 PM
AFAIK oil companies and their friends have not been hiding the fact that carbon emissions cause global warming from us.
I assume someone is paying Hans to come here to say global warming is a lie :hmm:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 28, 2015, 03:20:06 PM
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on October 28, 2015, 02:45:02 PM
Further complicating matters is the variety of sources of environmental damage. How do you determine how much an oil company is responsible versus a coal company, or a power company operating coal and oil plants, or an auto manufacturer, or any of the other links in the pollution chain? Cigarettes had the benefit of being a neat, clean "they did it" situation.
You left out us, the end user.
There's a lot to be said for this position.
Yeah, I am not worried about oil companies being sued. They probably will be, but it will be difficult to quantify responsibility.
But there is a possibility that in the future, humans may rely less on oil. Or even not at all. Every time I see a Tesla on the roads, which unfortunately is increasingly often, my desire to buy oil shares has decreased a tiny little bit. Maybe I am looking at Kodak before digital photography became widespread, I don't know.
Quote from: Hansmeister on October 28, 2015, 04:10:14 PMActually there is zero evidence that global warming is either real or man made. Indeed, there has been absolutely no measured increase in global temperatures since 1999. Scientists have been unable to even show a statistical correlation between atmospheric co2 and global temperatures.
If there is no evidence that global warming is real, what do reckon is the cause of the rapidly shrinking Polar ice caps?
You say there's been no change since 1999. Here's the National Geographics maps, reflecting a rather drastic shrinking in the extent of the ice cap since then: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/08/150803-arctic-ice-obama-climate-nation-science/
I think the evidence that shows the reality of rising global temperatures and that human activities are behind the change are now overwhelming. The threshold of beyond reasonable doubt was reached a long time ago.
Indeed, it is a reality within which we are already working.
Quote from: Jacob on October 28, 2015, 10:13:10 PM
Quote from: Hansmeister on October 28, 2015, 04:10:14 PMActually there is zero evidence that global warming is either real or man made. Indeed, there has been absolutely no measured increase in global temperatures since 1999. Scientists have been unable to even show a statistical correlation between atmospheric co2 and global temperatures.
If there is no evidence that global warming is real, what do reckon is the cause of the rapidly shrinking Polar ice caps?
You say there's been no change since 1999. Here's the National Geographics maps, reflecting a rather drastic shrinking in the extent of the ice cap since then: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/08/150803-arctic-ice-obama-climate-nation-science/
Hans generates a lot of hot air.
Enough to melt polar ice caps? Who can really say? Science is uncertain.
But there is a clear correlation between the level of his internet trolling activity and melting polar ice. Just saying.
Quote from: Jacob on October 28, 2015, 10:13:10 PM
Quote from: Hansmeister on October 28, 2015, 04:10:14 PMActually there is zero evidence that global warming is either real or man made. Indeed, there has been absolutely no measured increase in global temperatures since 1999. Scientists have been unable to even show a statistical correlation between atmospheric co2 and global temperatures.
If there is no evidence that global warming is real, what do reckon is the cause of the rapidly shrinking Polar ice caps?
You say there's been no change since 1999. Here's the National Geographics maps, reflecting a rather drastic shrinking in the extent of the ice cap since then: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/08/150803-arctic-ice-obama-climate-nation-science/
Berkut tried to use this against him a few years ago. Obviously it did not take.
Quote from: Jacob on October 28, 2015, 10:13:10 PM
Quote from: Hansmeister on October 28, 2015, 04:10:14 PMActually there is zero evidence that global warming is either real or man made. Indeed, there has been absolutely no measured increase in global temperatures since 1999. Scientists have been unable to even show a statistical correlation between atmospheric co2 and global temperatures.
If there is no evidence that global warming is real, what do reckon is the cause of the rapidly shrinking Polar ice caps?
You say there's been no change since 1999. Here's the National Geographics maps, reflecting a rather drastic shrinking in the extent of the ice cap since then: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/08/150803-arctic-ice-obama-climate-nation-science/
It may not be inconceivable to a skeptic that the cause could be polar warming. I don't think the silver bullet argument is regional.
Quote from: Hansmeister on October 28, 2015, 04:10:14 PM
Actually there is zero evidence that global warming is either real or man made. Indeed, there has been absolutely no measured increase in global temperatures since 1999. Scientists have been unable to even show a statistical correlation between atmospheric co2 and global temperatures.
blah blah blah blah I am an ignorant moron blah blah *Jaron*
Quote from: Hamilcar on October 30, 2015, 10:46:46 AM
blah blah blah blah I am an ignorant moron blah blah *Jaron*
Jaron has actually experienced global cooling over the past decade.
Quote from: Jacob on October 28, 2015, 10:13:10 PM
If there is no evidence that global warming is real, what do reckon is the cause of the rapidly shrinking Polar ice caps?
You say there's been no change since 1999. Here's the National Geographics maps, reflecting a rather drastic shrinking in the extent of the ice cap since then: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/08/150803-arctic-ice-obama-climate-nation-science/
I've seen reports that there has been global warming post 1999, so I'm not taking Hans' side on this. I also think it is unarguable that there has been global warming--and I've seen in a bunch of places that glaciers have massively retreated from where they were in the recent past.
However, just so everyone isn't dogpiling Hans, it is conceivable that if temperatures didn't warm since 1999 we could still see the polar ice caps continue to melt. If in 1999 temperatures reached a point that ice caps would go through a net retreat, it is possible there hasn't been warming since then and the retreat has simply continued over the past 16 years. It is also possible for the process to accelerate during that time with constant temperature because as the ice caps shrink the ratio of their surface area to total mass increases.
"There is zero evidence that global warming is either real or man-made."
Zero evidence. Not reason to question. Not some uncertainty. Zero evidence. That is Hans' claim.
That's nonsense on stilts.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 30, 2015, 11:58:14 AM
"There is zero evidence that global warming is either real or man-made."
Zero evidence. Not reason to question. Not some uncertainty. Zero evidence. That is Hans' claim.
That's nonsense on stilts.
There's zero evidence that god won't fix global warming without mankind being required to make any sacrifices at all.
HansInhofeMeister
Quote from: alfred russel on October 30, 2015, 11:36:04 AM
Quote from: Jacob on October 28, 2015, 10:13:10 PM
If there is no evidence that global warming is real, what do reckon is the cause of the rapidly shrinking Polar ice caps?
You say there's been no change since 1999. Here's the National Geographics maps, reflecting a rather drastic shrinking in the extent of the ice cap since then: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/08/150803-arctic-ice-obama-climate-nation-science/
I've seen reports that there has been global warming post 1999, so I'm not taking Hans' side on this. I also think it is unarguable that there has been global warming--and I've seen in a bunch of places that glaciers have massively retreated from where they were in the recent past.
However, just so everyone isn't dogpiling Hans, it is conceivable that if temperatures didn't warm since 1999 we could still see the polar ice caps continue to melt. If in 1999 temperatures reached a point that ice caps would go through a net retreat, it is possible there hasn't been warming since then and the retreat has simply continued over the past 16 years. It is also possible for the process to accelerate during that time with constant temperature because as the ice caps shrink the ratio of their surface area to total mass increases.
Glaciers and ice caps have been retreating for a very long time as well, so it is a phenomenon that is not only caused by humans.