Arguments about climate change

youngdan wrote:

Which I will gladly do if 2 things happen.

1. If the present cooling trend reverses and it is proven that it is due to CO2 and not say solar activity which would effect all the planets.

2. If the taxes I expect fail to materialise.

Since the argument about cause is likely to continue, I will watch the taxes, they will be obvious to see if they are levied.

You of course say it is not about the money

If governments want to raise taxes, the most popular way of doing it is to say it is for health and education.

We are talking the carbon taxes of hundreds of millions not regular taxes

youngdan wrote:

Which I will gladly do if 2 things happen.

1. If the present cooling trend reverses and it is proven that it is due to CO2 and not say solar activity which would effect all the planets.

2. If the taxes I expect fail to materialise.

Since the argument about cause is likely to continue, I will watch the taxes, they will be obvious to see if they are levied.

You of course say it is not about the money

I certainly hope the taxes will be levied, but equally I hope that they will replace other taxes rather than increasing the total tax burden.

If by this:

Quote :

We are talking the carbon taxes of hundreds of millions not regular taxes

you are referring to Kyoto payments, they are levied on governments, not by them.

We know that, are you of the belief that the government has 200 million of their own.

But seeing that you bring it up again.

Who pays the money and who gets the money.

You always avoid this simple question.

youngdan wrote:

We know that, are you of the belief that the government has 200 million of their own.

But seeing that you bring it up again.

Who pays the money and who gets the money.

You always avoid this simple question.

I've never avoided that simple question - at worst I've pointed out that it has a complicated answer, much like "why is the sky blue, Daddy?".

If Ireland has a Kyoto commitment to keep its emissions under 100 million tonnes, and exceeds that by 20 million tonnes, it must buy 20 mT worth of carbon credits from the market. If, on the other hand, Ireland beat its target by 20 mT, it would have 20 mT of carbon credits to sell.

If nobody had carbon credits to sell, carbon credits must be created by accredited carbon offset programmes - that is, projects that reduce carbon emissions somewhere, and that have been audited as reaching defined standards. Such projects are usually in poor countries, because that's where it's cheapest.

So the answer to "who pays the money and who gets the money?" is that it depends on whether people are reducing carbon emissions below targets - in which case they have surplus to sell - or exceeding them - in which case they need to pay for carbon credits, usually through the carbon market.

The same goes for individual businesses - a business that has been issued 100 tonnes of carbon credits, and which beats that target, has excess to sell. If it exceeds the target, it needs to buy or create carbon credits.

It is a very simple question and you do your best to make it a complicated answer.

The answer is simple as well but you do your best to waffle.

The Irish people will pay and some mystery man will get the cash. You pretend that when Al Gore sells the carbon credit he will give the cash to some lad in Ghana.

Pull the other one Ibis, you swallows this cockadoodledo

youngdan wrote:

It is a very simple question and you do your best to make it a complicated answer.

The answer is simple as well but you do your best to waffle.

The Irish people will pay and some mystery man will get the cash. You pretend that when Al Gore sells the carbon credit he will give the cash to some lad in Ghana.

Pull the other one Ibis, you swallows this cockadoodledo

There we go - that's why you think I haven't answered the question - because I haven't given the simple answer you want. Away off with your "mystery man" for God's sake. Life is complicated - international regulatory arrangements are complicated, and they very rarely wind up with Mr Mickey the Head trousering the cash. Well, outside Russia, obviously.

I've answered the question - you can go and check the answer yourself. Your "answer", on the other hand, is rather muffled by your trouser seat.

Well you are swallowing the cockadoodledo anyway.

The Irish pays and now it goes to some international regulatory people.

Gore and his 5 billion dollar fund are just in it for the fun.

Dream on.

youngdan wrote:

Well you are swallowing the cockadoodledo anyway.

The Irish pays and now it goes to some international regulatory people.

Gore and his 5 billion dollar fund are just in it for the fun.

Dream on.

Al Gore isn't even in Kyoto - courtesy of the US Senate (and hanging chads). If you want to talk about Kyoto, youngdan, get up off your hole and research the fecking thing, instead of just making shite up as you go along.

When the facts turn against you you lose the Christmas spirit.

Does your pal Al Gorelioni have a 5 billion dollar fund to trade carbon credits or not.

Either yes or no and forget the tantrums

youngdan wrote:

When the facts turn against you you lose the Christmas spirit.

Does your pal Al Gorelioni have a 5 billion dollar fund to trade carbon credits or not.

Either yes or no and forget the tantrums

He has a climate change fund, which is nothing to do with Kyoto. What is the relevance of that, exactly, to where the Kyoto money come and goes?

So he has a climate change fund. Is this fund going to trade in carbon credits

A simple yes or no.

Does Don Gorelioni intend to make billions of dollars or is he in it for fun.

Yes or no, take your time

youngdan wrote:

So he has a climate change fund. Is this fund going to trade in carbon credits

A simple yes or no.

Does Don Gorelioni intend to make billions of dollars or is he in it for fun.

Yes or no, take your time

He's not (and can't be) a signatory to Kyoto, so he can't trade in it. As far as I know, he's not running accredited carbon offset projects either. If he were, he could make a profit, if carbon offset prices were favourable. As far as I can see, though, it looks like a PR campaign.

Well anything is possible I guess. However those who put their money into this account expect to make money and even nowadays 5 billion dollars is a lot of cash.

As an aside I frequently note on the names of all those crooks in finance and politics being so apt. I was watching c span on the bailouts one day and one senators name was Crapo(Idaho) and the other was called Corker.

Gore's partner is a lad called Blood in this fund.

The Blood & Gore Fund. What a name.

youngdan wrote:

Well anything is possible I guess. However those who put their money into this account expect to make money and even nowadays 5 billion dollars is a lot of cash.

As an aside I frequently note on the names of all those crooks in finance and politics being so apt. I was watching c span on the bailouts one day and one senators name was Crapo(Idaho) and the other was called Corker.

Gore's partner is a lad called Blood in this fund.

The Blood & Gore Fund. What a name.

I'm sure in the pig meat scandal here one fella was called 'Hogg' and wasn't one of the Fannie Mae lads who declared it all rosy when it wasn't called 'Mudd' - http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2008/08/perilous-pursui.html

youngdan wrote:

Well anything is possible I guess. However those who put their money into this account expect to make money and even nowadays 5 billion dollars is a lot of cash.

Hmm. Where did we go from $300 million to $5 billion? And, amazingly, people do put money into campaigns without expecting a monetary return.

youngdan wrote:

As an aside I frequently note on the names of all those crooks in finance and politics being so apt. I was watching c span on the bailouts one day and one senators name was Crapo(Idaho) and the other was called Corker.

Gore's partner is a lad called Blood in this fund.

The Blood & Gore Fund. What a name.

It's hilarious - but has nothing to do with Kyoto. On an aside, climate change is not dependent on Al Gore - either way.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2008816/posts

The financial times reports that Blood and Gore have more than just one fund. This report has them closing a fund of almost 700 million. This is their 2nd fund.
Blood says that the funds
are to be 5 billion.

Your 300 is another fund.

Who puts money into a fund without expecting a return. That would be a first. These are investment funds they are not charities or philantropic foundations

youngdan wrote:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2008816/posts

The financial times reports that Blood and Gore have more than just one fund. This report has them closing a fund of almost 700 million. This is their 2nd fund.
Blood says that the funds
are to be 5 billion.

Your 300 is another fund.

Who puts money into a fund without expecting a return. That would be a first. These are investment funds they are not charities or philantropic foundations

Are you not failing to distinguish between separate ventures there? Gore runs a fund management firm that's going for environmentally friendly portfolios - by no means a first, and has a ready market, particularly if there's the expected boom (or bubble) in renewables. He also runs a non-profit - Alliance for Climate Protection - with funding of $300m. The two things are rather different.

The Climate Solutions Fund of 683 million is the subject of the article above

Blood and Gores main fund was closed at 5 billion dollars as reported by Bloomberg

.http://www.thedeal.com/dealscape/2008/03/al_gores_generation_investment.php

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3221373
You may not think it is about money but billions of dollars says otherwise.

Now who do we believe

youngdan wrote:

The Climate Solutions Fund of 683 million is the subject of the article above

Blood and Gores main fund was closed at 5 billion dollars as reported by Bloomberg

.http://www.thedeal.com/dealscape/2008/03/al_gores_generation_investment.php

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3221373
You may not think it is about money but billions of dollars says otherwise.

Now who do we believe

Environmentally friendly investment has been around a good while - like ethical portfolios. At the moment everyone is, or rather was, expecting a boom in renewables, driven by peak oil, oil price rises, Russian hegemony over European gas supplies, instability and US bolloxology in the Middle East. With or without climate change, renewable energy is expected to be a major growth sector. If all we had were the Kyoto commitments, it would be a decent long-term bet - it's the rest of the current geostrategic picture plus peak oil that makes it a probable boom sector.

So environmentally friendly investment is certainly somewhere there's money, and you could certainly make the case that the more Al Gore talks it up, the better his managed funds will do. Unfortunately for you, Al Gore has bugger-all to do with the science. The case for climate change rests in no way whatsoever on him - in the real world, that is, of course.

I would have thought so too but anyone that invested in these companies have lost their shirts over the past 12 months. T Boone Pickens is one of the business greats. He decided that he would replace the portion of electricity generated by fossil fuels in the US in 10 years.

This would not do at all at all.

Presto oil is down 110 dollars and poor T Boone is down 2 billion bucks.

Just coincidence of course.

Nobody wants cheap renewable energy except you and me.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=adtevJ0UltfM&refer=home

youngdan wrote:

I would have thought so too but anyone that invested in these companies have lost their shirts over the past 12 months. T Boone Pickens is one of the business greats. He decided that he would replace the portion of electricity generated by fossil fuels in the US in 10 years.

This would not do at all at all.

Presto oil is down 110 dollars and poor T Boone is down 2 billion bucks.

Just coincidence of course.

Nobody wants cheap renewable energy except you and me.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=adtevJ0UltfM&refer=home

Which, if you don't mind me pointing it out, demonstrates my case that the interest in renewables isn't driven by climate change, but by oil prices. That makes a "climate change conspiracy" a scam without a point - even for Al Gore. Governments have no need of climate change as a tool to drive reduction in energy use, or displacement of generation to non-hydrocarbon sources. Nor have they needed to for the whole decade they've actually been on the bandwagon, because peak oil has been on the short-term horizon for that whole time. Friends of mine who stayed in the business, and who are now senior, tell me it's generally accepted in the industry that we're in the plateau phase for oil at least (there may be a little way to go with gas). That means that while prices my bounce about, they're going nowhere but up in the long term, even with new Arctic sources. Bit like global temperature, really.

It is past your bed time as you are going round in circles. The interest in renewables is most definately not driven by climate change. People invest in them to make money.

I just pointed out to you that Pinkins intended to generate enough electricity for the US. However he has lost 2 billion and now has halted work on his big windfarm.

And I hate to be a killjoy but Gore and his investors are in it for the money as well.

You can believe in peak oil but in the meantime, like global tempertures, the price has collapsed.

Believe anything you like but don't bet too much money on it

youngdan wrote:

It is past your bed time as you are going round in circles. The interest in renewables is most definately not driven by climate change. People invest in them to make money.

I just pointed out to you that Pinkins intended to generate enough electricity for the US. However he has lost 2 billion and now has halted work on his big windfarm.

And I hate to be a killjoy but Gore and his investors are in it for the money as well.

I don't think you understand the point. Al Gore is indeed in environmental fund management for the money, and so are his investors. Nobody is arguing that. It's irrelevant, though.

youngdan wrote:

You can believe in peak oil but in the meantime, like global tempertures, the price has collapsed.

Believe anything you like but don't bet too much money on it

Peak oil is accepted by the oil industry and by geologists. It's something of a feature of finite resources that at some point you start to run out. Unless of course you believe there's a magical oil-making fairy somewhere - I'd hardly be surprised at this stage.

Just as well those geoligists keep to looking at stones because if they had put their money where their mouth is they would have been cleaned out.