The Associated Press is reporting that President Barack Obama's science advisor John Holdren has brought up the idea of using geo-engineering as an emergency measure for cooling the planet should man-made global warming get out of hand. The AP says:
One such extreme option includes shooting pollution particles into the upper atmosphere to reflect the sun's rays. Holdren said such an experimental measure would only be used as a last resort.
"It's got to be looked at," he said. "We don't have the luxury of taking any approach off the table." …
…Holdren noted that shooting particles into the air — making an artificial volcano as one Nobel laureate has suggested — could have grave side effects and would not completely solve all the problems from soaring greenhouse gas emissions. So such actions could not be taken lightly, he said.
Still, "we might get desperate enough to want to use it," he added.
Another geoengineering option he mentioned was the use of so-called artificial trees to suck carbon dioxide — the chief human-caused greenhouse gas — out of the air and store it. At first that seemed prohibitively expensive, but a re-examination of the approach shows it might be less costly, he said.
Naturally, Reason was ahead of the curve on the issue of geo-engineering the climate. In his 1997 article "Climate Controls," Gregory Benford outlined a number of possible technical fixes for cooling the planet including putting reflective dust or sulfur particles in the upper atmosphere and growing more trees to soak up carbon dioxide. On upper atmosphere particles, Benford wrote:
Spreading dust in the stratosphere appears workable because at those heights tiny particles stay aloft for several years. This is why volcanoes spewing dust affect weather strongly. The tiny motes that redden our sundowns reflect more sunlight than they trap infrared.
Even better than dust are microscopic droplets of sulfuric acid, which reflects light more effectively. Sulfate aerosols can also raise the number of droplets that make clouds condense, further increasing overall reflectivity. This could then be a local cooling, easier to monitor than carbon dioxide's global warming. We could perform such small, controllable experiments now. The amount of droplets or dust needed is a hundredth of the amount already blown into the atmosphere by natural processes, so we would not be venturing big dislocations. And we would get some spectacular sunsets in the bargain.
Whole prescient Benford article here. My 2008 column on the geo-engineering conference at the American Enterprise Insitute can be found here.
Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com
posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary
period.
Subscribe
here to preserve your ability to comment. Your
Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the
digital
edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do
not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments
do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and
ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
"One such extreme option includes shooting pollution particles into the upper atmosphere to reflect the sun's rays. Holdren said such an experimental measure would only be used as a last resort."
Am I the only one that this sounds a little...bat-shit insane to?
Granted I understand it's feasibility and that's it's use would be in "extreme" scenarios but this still strikes me as worrisome.
Okay Bailey, fact it has been getting cooler every year since 1998. Fact, we have only been measuring temperature since the 1890s, and there questions about how accurately.
In the 1970s the "consensus" was that the earth was cooling, not warming.
...In short there is no fucking man made global warming. It is a crock of utter bullshit.
Why don't you understand that?
If your drinking stop, if your not drinking, start.
We might get good results from a space mirror set at a point in space where it can block or filter sunlight away from a significant portion of the Earth's surface.
Such a mirror would have interesting military potential as well.
Come the Revolution, we really want to have one of those. As well as lots of EMP weapons. They'd make even better Liberation Weapons than big hunks of moon rocks thrown through space.
I like John Barnes's Mother of Storms solution myself, which is a variant on Futurama's: take a comet, slice it up and frisbee the pieces into the atmosphere over the tropics where they break up into ice and snow.
Granted, our space capabilities aren't up to the challenge just yet, but getting them there would have all kinds of benefits.
I support geo-engineering the temperature down to our pre-industrial mean. On the condition that once we do GAIA WORSHIPERS SHUT THE FUCK UP. Even the massive expense of geo-engineering would be a small price to pay to be free of their fucking whining.
Es steht im Kleingedruckten, irgendwo ganz unten auf dem Prospekt: "Das Zertifikat darf nicht in den U.S.A. oder an eine U.S.-Person im Sinne der Regulation S des U.S. Securities Act 1933 verkauft werden."
Nein, das Papier ist vor allem f?r deutsche Anleger gedacht, so wie viele andere Zertifikate auch. Kein Wunder, dass auch von der Pleite der US-Investmentbank Lehman Brothers besonders viele Deutsche betroffen sind - hierzulande wurden besonders viele Papiere der Bank verkauft.
Wer ein Zertifkat kauft, erwirbt damit keinesfalls einen Anteil an einem Wert, also an einer Aktie oder einem Fonds. Stattdessen ist solch ein Papier wie eine Wette. Gewettet wird auf die Entwicklung von Aktien, Rohstoffen, Indizes oder Wechselkursen. Deutschland war in den letzten Jahren das Land der Zertifikate. "Der Markt umfasst hier aktuell knapp 400.000 Produkte, monatlich kommen teilweise bis zu 40.000 neue auf den Markt", sagt Harald Rotter von der Schutzgemeinschaft der Kapitalanleger (SdK). Im Dezember 2004 hatten die Deutschen 47,5 Milliarden Euro in die Papiere investiert, auf dem H?hepunkt im September 2007 waren es fast 140 Milliarden Euro. Ein rasantes Wachstum.
Terry,don't waste you time.The fact they only have 50 or so years of data for a planet 4 billion years old doesn't matter.The 'smart people' are in control.
Es steht im Kleingedruckten, irgendwo ganz unten auf dem Prospekt: "Das Zertifikat darf nicht in den U.S.A. oder an eine U.S.-Person im Sinne der Regulation S des U.S. Securities Act 1933 verkauft werden."
Nein, das Papier ist vor allem f?r deutsche Anleger gedacht, so wie viele andere Zertifikate auch. Kein Wunder, dass auch von der Pleite der US-Investmentbank Lehman Brothers besonders viele Deutsche betroffen sind - hierzulande wurden besonders viele Papiere der Bank verkauft.
Wer ein Zertifkat kauft, erwirbt damit keinesfalls einen Anteil an einem Wert, also an einer Aktie oder einem Fonds. Stattdessen ist solch ein Papier wie eine Wette. Gewettet wird auf die Entwicklung von Aktien, Rohstoffen, Indizes oder Wechselkursen. Deutschland war in den letzten Jahren das Land der Zertifikate. "Der Markt umfasst hier aktuell knapp 400.000 Produkte, monatlich kommen teilweise bis zu 40.000 neue auf den Markt", sagt Harald Rotter von der Schutzgemeinschaft der Kapitalanleger (SdK). Im Dezember 2004 hatten die Deutschen 47,5 Milliarden Euro in die Papiere investiert, auf dem H?hepunkt im September 2007 waren es fast 140 Milliarden Euro. Ein rasantes Wachstum."
Artificially attempting to start an ice age, great. This is a much better idea than having everyone move to the future lush, fertile grounds of northern Canada...
Hmmm. I'd like a cut of that money. I have a process that is a sure fire cure for AGW. I promise. Check back with me in 75 years and we'll see what progress has been made. Oh, but give me the money now...
WHAT THE FUCK! This is insane, am i still living on earth, or did i slip through a wormhole a while ago and end up in an alternate universe on Bizzaro Earth. That idea is BATSHIT CRAZY! Is This the comic books, do we really want to Fuck around with a 4 billion year old planet haphazzardly. for Fucks sake. I am sorry for the language i reserve writing actually swear words for extrem situations, and since this idea is so INANE and crazy, i feel a strong wording set was needed.
This method doesn't require humongous state controls being enacted over large swaths of the economy and the way people live their lives. It also doesn't condemn the third world* to eternal energy poverty.
The lefties will reflexively condemn it.
* Impoverished nations, developing economies, whatever. I like third world as a descriptive term.
If we can just eco-engineer our way out of this, there is no need for any of us to "go-Green." From now on, I am pooping in the yard, leaving all my lights on, and eating endagered animals.
So-called "global warming" is nothing but a fraud and a U.N. plot to institute International Socialism (a massive transfer of wealth from the productive First World to the parasites in the Third World) under the guise of "environmentlaism".
Cool, surely turning our oceans to acid is a minor drawback, compared to correcting a small shift in temperature well within the pre-human range of climate changes.
Speaking of the unmitigated hubris of some environmentalists (I suspect the majority would be horrified by this proposal), I can't wait for some budding Ozymandias to try use weather-control technology to recreate The Day After Tomorrow in real life to get everyone to see the severity of the situation.
Personally, I don't see any problems with the completely intellectually dishonest hacks at Reason and the completely intellectually dishonest hacks in the WH who are completely politicized messing with the climate in ways that could result in life ending on Earth.
Personally, I don't believe in thinking through all the side-effects and having an open debate instead of one that involves bullies of various sorts silencing the opposition through various sleazy means.
Let's just do it NOW, and if anything bad happens I'm sure we'll figure something out!
Yes, Tony. There are no environmentalists who whine constantly about global warming. There are no liberal hacks who call us greedy and evil because we don't want to ride bikes to work and put a sweater on in the winter rather than turn up the heat. There's no one running around like Chicken Little screaming about CO2 emissions at all. No one, Tony. No one. It's was all a fancy daydream that you've snapped me out of.
If you were even modestly informed of the reality of the GW situation instead of being content to have your head firmly wedged up the asses of Sean Hannity and Exxon you'd be running around screaming too.
But you said Gaia worshipers. As if those of us who care about the future of the human species are all just a bunch of spotted owl activists.
Wow this is just like western medicine practices - fix the symptom instead of the sickness. I can't believe they would even toy with the idea of mucking up the atmosphere just to preserve the status quo of the current economy and infrastructure.
Instead of giving a leg amputee a prosthetic, its like John Holdren is prescribing "just cut the other leg down to size."
Another geoengineering option he mentioned was the use of so-called artificial trees to suck carbon dioxide - the chief human-caused greenhouse gas - out of the air and store it.
If you were even modestly informed of the reality of the GW situation instead of being content to have your head firmly wedged up the asses of Sean Hannity and Exxon
Pretty good, but I've seen you do better. Once more, this time with feeling.
What's frightening to me is that ANY country could arbitrarily decide to do this - or at least any country with the technological capabilities. Talk about planet-wide terrorism - what if North Korea decided that they'd bring on an ice age for us in the northern hemisphere by shooting pollution into the upper atmosphere a few times? Some damn fool idiot is power hungry enough to actually try it.
I can't believe they would even toy with the idea of mucking up the atmosphere just to preserve the status quo of the current economy and infrastructure.
What is sick about the current economy and infrastructure?
None of this shit is going to happen. And we are going to keep using oil as fast as we can until it is gone.
I am pretty agnostic about global warming, but I am rooting for it to be real. That way if disaster occurs, I have the satisfaction of having been right. And if it doesn't, that's even better.
Pretty good, but I've seen you do better. Once more, this time with feeling.
It was OK for him. But he really tipped his hand with the Hannity and Exxon schtick. And he, of course, is blissfully oblivious of the hypocrisy of called me a Fox News Republican while whining about me calling him a tree-hugger.
Why would homosexuals care about the future of the human species, considering they won't have any offspring involved? I only care about the future of the world because I will have children, possibly grandchildren, and great-grandchildren living in it.
Yes, you all just slipped into an alternate universe where Ron Bailey not only accepts man-made global warming, and "Reason" proposes massive publicly-funded infrastructure projects to fix same. Do not adjust your interwebs...
Oh, and Nick, I think you're confusing me with another poster with a similar name. TONY consistently argues from a left-liberal perspective. AFAIK, Tony hasn't identified as gay although I really haven't been paying attention.
I consistently argue from a libertarian friendly position on rights, and generally don't engage in discussions about libertarian economics.
The trick is that none of the environmentalists give a shit about the human race. Global cooling, pollution, water shortages, overpopulation, global warming and all the other enviro-panics are just clubs to beat ideological opponents with. Ever notice how the solution to every fucking one of them is for people to stop having so many kids, have smaller houses or live in ant-like urban colonies, ride their bikes to work, and and wear a hairshirt?
It's the same neo-Thoreauean pastoralism the left has been pushing since the 60s. But it's not enough for them to go sleep in a shack on a bed full of dried Lima beans. They want everyone else to share in the misery.
Geo-engineering is a prime example of this. Rather than fix the problem, they want to turn back the clock on modern civilization. Rather than have the 3rd world turn into the 1st, they want us all to settle for some gray, granola version of the 2nd.
Environmentalism is a out-growth of the collectivist desire to control how people live. Instead of boot stamping on a human face forever, it's a Birkenstock.
Tonio, it was a question, not a statement. Why does it mean I am not contributing to the debate and why also would it mean I'm jerking off in public? It was more poorly rephrased than demonstrably false. Let's try again:
Why would anyone who does not have kids care about the future of the human species?
But you said Gaia worshipers. As if those of us who care about the future of the human species are all just a bunch of spotted owl activists.
Tony, you're being a totally passive-aggressive whiny little bitch. If you can't take the occasional "tree-hugger" or "Gaia worshipper" slam you need to find a happier, safer, hate-free place to hang out.
And, yes, I've hung with you people, for much the same reasons as (Tall?)Dave, and some of you are indeed Gaia worshippers.
I won't make up my mind on this til I hear what Popular Mechanics has to say!! Hey---- they've already de-bunked FEMA camps and any 9-11 conspiracy theories!?
"f you were even modestly informed of the reality of the GW situation instead of being content to have your head firmly wedged up the asses of Sean Hannity and Exxon you'd be running around screaming too."
You were pitching this bullshit yesterday, Tony. Until you provide one data point to support what you say (as I did yesterday), please, STFU.
Because you're an idiot. You used a demonstrably false premise "no gay people have children" to launch into an ad-hominem attack "why would you care" and directed your venom at the wrong person.
A real man would suck it up, apologize and move on. A prudent jackal would slink away from the debate, tail between legs.
And is anyone really concerned about the fate of the human species? After making it though ice ages, crossing the Pacific in canoes and surviving for thousands of years in some pretty harsh and uninviting places, the entire species of Homo sapiens is going to die because it gets a little warmer and there is some coastal flooding and changes in weather patterns? Really??
"And is anyone really concerned about the fate of the human species? After making it though ice ages, crossing the Pacific in canoes and surviving for thousands of years in some pretty harsh and uninviting places, the entire species of Homo sapiens is going to die because it gets a little warmer and there is some coastal flooding and changes in weather patterns? Really??"
Know what might be less expensive to this? Adapting to a warmer world, which will happen anyways, as the government won't get off its ass soon enough to solve the problem.
If global warming is allowed to proceed unchecked, your beloved 1st world status quo will be a memory. If there is an evil cabal of environmentalists disguising their powerlust in terms of saving the planet, I've never met any of them. Maybe it's just that you libertarian types can't possibly fathom that there are people who don't see the world in terms of pure self-interest like you guys do?
Maybe it's just that you libertarian types can't possibly fathom that there are people who don't see the world in terms of pure self-interest like you guys do?
Yes, everyone on your side is Polly Pureheart with only the bestest intention ever.
Is there some place where peddling this bullshit works?
Hazel,
I'm fairly certain that Tony is against nuclear power. If you can say "If you knew how bad Global Warming REALLY is rather than being a Fox News Republican you would run around screaming", you probably also believe that every nuclear plant is a Chernobyl waiting to happen.
"Maybe it's just that you libertarian types can't possibly fathom that there are people who don't see the world in terms of pure self-interest like you guys do?"
Tony...you do realize that you don't have to beat the strawman, right? Matches work just as well.
Personally, I think any geoengineering project would be the kiss of death, as Murphy's Law clearly predicts that it would coincide with a natural lowering of temperatures and thus lead to an Ice Age.
I'm pro-nuclear power. I think that figuring out where to store spent fuel rods is much less of a problem than figuring out how to deal with global warming.
Dear Mr. Body,
I'm in a good mood today, so I'll grant you a reprieve, but causing me to think of "The Sickening" is generally a two atomic wedgie offense.
Seroiusly, if we accept that AGW is real, that it is undesirable, and admit that government attempts to eliminate it are going to be fruitless, shouldn't global engineering be considered as a viable solution?
"Seroiusly, if we accept that AGW is real, that it is undesirable, and admit that government attempts to eliminate it are going to be fruitless, shouldn't global engineering be considered as a viable solution?"
Either that or adapt. Man is contributing to global warming, but I don't think it's as serious as Tony thinks. The technology is just not here yet to rely on renewable energy sources. Nuclear power at present is the way to go for electrical generation. This should be our focus in the short term for reducing man's CO2 footprint. Other than that, we're just going to have to adapt and hopefully there will be improved technology to reduce greenhouse gases in the future and reduce the amount of CO2 we put into the atmosphere and methods to offset global warming and climate change.
"If global warming is allowed to proceed unchecked, your beloved 1st world status quo will be a memory."
If we tried to significantly reduce global warming by cutting down on fossil fuel use, our beloved 1st world status quo will be a memory. Any other form of energy is just too expensive or just could not supply all the energy we need.
bookworm
For the crime of failing to ttake seriously the threat of AGW, you must be sent to re-education camp, so you can learn the improtance of environmental awarenssess.
I'm pro-nuclear power. I think that figuring out where to store spent fuel rods is much less of a problem than figuring out how to deal with global warming.
So why aren't you over on the GreenPeace forums, telling them what a bunch of shitheadst hey are?
A series of studies on the impacts of climate change have systematically shown that the older literature overestimated climate damages by failing to allow for adaptation and for climate benefits (see Fankhauser et al 1997; Mendelsohn and Newmann 1999; Tol 1999; Mendelsohn et al 2000; Mendelsohn 2001;Maddison 2001; Tol 2002; Sohngen et al 2002; Pearce 2003; Mendelsohn and Williams 2004). These new studies imply that impacts depend heavily upon initial temperatures (latitude). Countries in the polar region are likely to receive large benefits from warming, countries in the mid-latitudes will at first benefit and only begin to be harmed if temperatures rise above 2.5 ?C (4.50 ?F) (Mendelsohn et al 2000). Only countries in the tropical and subtropical regions are likely to be harmed immediately by warming and be subject to the magnitudes of impacts first thought likely (Mendelsohn et al 2000). Summing these regional impacts across the globe implies that warming benefits and damages will likely offset each other until warming passes 2.5C and even then it will be far smaller on net than originally thought (Mendelsohn and Williams 2004).
I also note that your "knock yourself out" link mentions the $12 per ton of CO2 social cost of carbon that I cited on the last thread as the average cost given in the IPCC AR4.
So that's what you think the cost is? If so, how can you possibly justify statements such as...
The efficiency of greenhouse gas emitting energy production comes at the cost of environmental harm, which isn't priced into the equation. If it were, we would rapidly find these sources quite inefficient.
The year 2030: Humanity makes their annual payment of 100 billion to the High Climatologist so he will send the proper smoke into the air. Someone questions the wisdom of this tradition, because there has never been a controlled experiment to confirm the High Climatologist's claims. The surrounding people quickly hush him, least hurricanes and floods plague the land.
What is with you and your inability to recognize the importance of context in this discussion? Citing every minority report or lone dissenter you can find does not make for a complete examination of the subject.
You made yet another baseless claim about the economics of global warming. I asked you yet again why you think your claims are true. You pointed me to a Wikipedia article. I went to the section of that article pertinent to economics and quoted from it.
If you don't believe the things you cite to support your case, what exactly informs your position on the economics of global warming? It's pretty clear it's not the IPCC. What is it?
The absolutism of the key tenets of neo-liberalism: privatisation, deregulation, balanced budgets have all been rejected by all but the most dogmatic. Apart from one that is: the primacy of free trade.
Its status is basically sacrosanct. While banks are being nationalized, bonuses recalled, and trillions of dollars of debt racked up, while pretty much every other concept, belief or ideal is being interrogated, contorted or just set aside, "Free trade is good" continues to be presented as a totemic truth, ring-fenced from debate or interrogation. Any questioning of this axiom is not even on the G-20's agenda.
In fact the Free Trade brigade, which encompasses most mainstream politicians, business leaders, and thinkers -- outside of France that is -- seems to be on evangelical overdrive. "The solution to the crisis is more free trade," says Brazilian President Luiz In?cio Lula da Silva. China's Commerce Minister Chen Deming announces that Beijing is "firmly opposed to trade protectionism," a sentiment often echoed by Germany's Chancellor Angela Merkel, while British Prime Minister Gordon Brown expressly warns against abandoning "the gospel of free trade."
Gearing up to meet the challenges of next generation mobile services - 3G, the world's largest handset maker, Nokia, today announced a
slew of new services like music online and location based services to be made available on its new phones, to be launched shortly.
"We are moving away from just devices to devices plus services plus solutions. With the 3G mobile services set to make advent by the middle of next year, we feel that revenue from non-voice services is bound to increase significantly," Nokia India Ltd Vice-President and General Manager D Shivakumar told reporters here.
Asked whether Nokia is planning to acquire some of the content providers to enhance services, Shivakumar said "there is no plan for any acquisition but it will be done through a collaboration with the innovators."
He, however, said that there would be significant investment in ramping up the facilities but declined to give details.
In fact, Nokia called upon Indian mobile and web application developers to create innovative consumer applications exclusively for the upcoming handset N97.
confirmed on Monday it was considering selling three of its major office buildings and said it
had received interest from potential buyers.
HSBC, which recently raised nearly $19 billion in a rights issue, said it may sell and lease-back office buildings in New York, Paris and London, including its headquarters at Canary Wharf.
London's Sunday Telegraph reported that HSBC was considering selling three of its biggest office buildings to raise 2.7 billion pounds ($3.98 billion).
"We are taking a look at the market, yes," spokesman David Hall said in Hong Kong.
"There are people interested in buying at an appropriate price," Hall said.
He declined to give further details.
HSBC bought back its building at Canary Wharf for 838 million pounds from ailing Spanish property firm Metrovacesa at the end of last year after the Spanish firm failed to refinance a loan secured on the building.
Globally, banks battered by the financial crisis have been looking to shed non-core assets in order to raise capital and improve their balance sheets.
"HSBC has just raised funds from a rights issue and the possible sale of offices could further boost its cash level and thus benefit the bank in its future acquisitions," said Alex Tang, head of research at Core Pacific-Yamaichi International.
The bank, which planned to shut most of its U.S. consumer lending business, said last month that it was ready for acquisitions in its traditional stronghold of Asia where many banks are pulling out to focus on core markets.
With many new announcement about the wizard of oz movies in the news, you might want to consider starting to obtain Wizard of Oz book series either as collectible or investment at RareOzBooks.com.
Futurama already solved this problem. Next.
Even better than dust are microscopic droplets of sulfuric acid, which reflects light more effectively.
So all this time, acid rain was actually a good thing.
Even if it did turn Kimberly's hair green.
"One such extreme option includes shooting pollution particles into the upper atmosphere to reflect the sun's rays. Holdren said such an experimental measure would only be used as a last resort."
Am I the only one that this sounds a little...bat-shit insane to?
Granted I understand it's feasibility and that's it's use would be in "extreme" scenarios but this still strikes me as worrisome.
Okay Bailey, fact it has been getting cooler every year since 1998. Fact, we have only been measuring temperature since the 1890s, and there questions about how accurately.
In the 1970s the "consensus" was that the earth was cooling, not warming.
...In short there is no fucking man made global warming. It is a crock of utter bullshit.
Why don't you understand that?
If your drinking stop, if your not drinking, start.
We might get good results from a space mirror set at a point in space where it can block or filter sunlight away from a significant portion of the Earth's surface.
Such a mirror would have interesting military potential as well.
Come the Revolution, we really want to have one of those. As well as lots of EMP weapons. They'd make even better Liberation Weapons than big hunks of moon rocks thrown through space.
I like John Barnes's Mother of Storms solution myself, which is a variant on Futurama's: take a comet, slice it up and frisbee the pieces into the atmosphere over the tropics where they break up into ice and snow.
Granted, our space capabilities aren't up to the challenge just yet, but getting them there would have all kinds of benefits.
"Still, "we might get desperate enough to want to use it," he added."
Wow! Now there's change I can get behind.
I support geo-engineering the temperature down to our pre-industrial mean. On the condition that once we do GAIA WORSHIPERS SHUT THE FUCK UP. Even the massive expense of geo-engineering would be a small price to pay to be free of their fucking whining.
raivo pommer-www.google.ee
raimo1@hot.ee
DUMMES GELD
Es steht im Kleingedruckten, irgendwo ganz unten auf dem Prospekt: "Das Zertifikat darf nicht in den U.S.A. oder an eine U.S.-Person im Sinne der Regulation S des U.S. Securities Act 1933 verkauft werden."
Nein, das Papier ist vor allem f?r deutsche Anleger gedacht, so wie viele andere Zertifikate auch. Kein Wunder, dass auch von der Pleite der US-Investmentbank Lehman Brothers besonders viele Deutsche betroffen sind - hierzulande wurden besonders viele Papiere der Bank verkauft.
Wer ein Zertifkat kauft, erwirbt damit keinesfalls einen Anteil an einem Wert, also an einer Aktie oder einem Fonds. Stattdessen ist solch ein Papier wie eine Wette. Gewettet wird auf die Entwicklung von Aktien, Rohstoffen, Indizes oder Wechselkursen. Deutschland war in den letzten Jahren das Land der Zertifikate. "Der Markt umfasst hier aktuell knapp 400.000 Produkte, monatlich kommen teilweise bis zu 40.000 neue auf den Markt", sagt Harald Rotter von der Schutzgemeinschaft der Kapitalanleger (SdK). Im Dezember 2004 hatten die Deutschen 47,5 Milliarden Euro in die Papiere investiert, auf dem H?hepunkt im September 2007 waren es fast 140 Milliarden Euro. Ein rasantes Wachstum.
Terry,don't waste you time.The fact they only have 50 or so years of data for a planet 4 billion years old doesn't matter.The 'smart people' are in control.
I'll geld your dummes, ravio.
"raivo pommer-www.google.ee. | April 8, 2009, 1:10pm | #
raivo pommer-www.google.ee
raimo1@hot.ee
DUMMES GELD
Es steht im Kleingedruckten, irgendwo ganz unten auf dem Prospekt: "Das Zertifikat darf nicht in den U.S.A. oder an eine U.S.-Person im Sinne der Regulation S des U.S. Securities Act 1933 verkauft werden."
Nein, das Papier ist vor allem f?r deutsche Anleger gedacht, so wie viele andere Zertifikate auch. Kein Wunder, dass auch von der Pleite der US-Investmentbank Lehman Brothers besonders viele Deutsche betroffen sind - hierzulande wurden besonders viele Papiere der Bank verkauft.
Wer ein Zertifkat kauft, erwirbt damit keinesfalls einen Anteil an einem Wert, also an einer Aktie oder einem Fonds. Stattdessen ist solch ein Papier wie eine Wette. Gewettet wird auf die Entwicklung von Aktien, Rohstoffen, Indizes oder Wechselkursen. Deutschland war in den letzten Jahren das Land der Zertifikate. "Der Markt umfasst hier aktuell knapp 400.000 Produkte, monatlich kommen teilweise bis zu 40.000 neue auf den Markt", sagt Harald Rotter von der Schutzgemeinschaft der Kapitalanleger (SdK). Im Dezember 2004 hatten die Deutschen 47,5 Milliarden Euro in die Papiere investiert, auf dem H?hepunkt im September 2007 waren es fast 140 Milliarden Euro. Ein rasantes Wachstum."
Up yours, Kraut.
Artificially attempting to start an ice age, great. This is a much better idea than having everyone move to the future lush, fertile grounds of northern Canada...
Two words: Sharks. Frickin' laser beams.
Hmmm. I'd like a cut of that money. I have a process that is a sure fire cure for AGW. I promise. Check back with me in 75 years and we'll see what progress has been made. Oh, but give me the money now...
WHAT THE FUCK! This is insane, am i still living on earth, or did i slip through a wormhole a while ago and end up in an alternate universe on Bizzaro Earth. That idea is BATSHIT CRAZY! Is This the comic books, do we really want to Fuck around with a 4 billion year old planet haphazzardly. for Fucks sake. I am sorry for the language i reserve writing actually swear words for extrem situations, and since this idea is so INANE and crazy, i feel a strong wording set was needed.
This method doesn't require humongous state controls being enacted over large swaths of the economy and the way people live their lives. It also doesn't condemn the third world* to eternal energy poverty.
The lefties will reflexively condemn it.
* Impoverished nations, developing economies, whatever. I like third world as a descriptive term.
The UN shooting particles into the air to control the worlds climate really really sounds like a bad idea.
Just saying...
and yes i did mean INANE, not Insane at the end, its a word, look it up, LOL
If we can just eco-engineer our way out of this, there is no need for any of us to "go-Green." From now on, I am pooping in the yard, leaving all my lights on, and eating endagered animals.
I will poop in your yard as well.
So-called "global warming" is nothing but a fraud and a U.N. plot to institute International Socialism (a massive transfer of wealth from the productive First World to the parasites in the Third World) under the guise of "environmentlaism".
But, it has to work! It's got a bitchin' graphic showing that it does.
"It also doesn't condemn the third world* to eternal energy poverty."
Except for the fact that they're goddam food won't grow. That might be a problem.
Have these people not seen The Matrix?
GAIA WORSHIPERS SHUT THE FUCK UP
Well they only exist inside your skull so you have the power to shut them up.
Cool, surely turning our oceans to acid is a minor drawback, compared to correcting a small shift in temperature well within the pre-human range of climate changes.
Speaking of the unmitigated hubris of some environmentalists (I suspect the majority would be horrified by this proposal), I can't wait for some budding Ozymandias to try use weather-control technology to recreate The Day After Tomorrow in real life to get everyone to see the severity of the situation.
Look at it this way, we might learn a lot about terraforming.... *gets knocked unconscious by beer bottles*
Bigger pipe dream: missile defense or weather machine?
Personally, I don't see any problems with the completely intellectually dishonest hacks at Reason and the completely intellectually dishonest hacks in the WH who are completely politicized messing with the climate in ways that could result in life ending on Earth.
Personally, I don't believe in thinking through all the side-effects and having an open debate instead of one that involves bullies of various sorts silencing the opposition through various sleazy means.
Let's just do it NOW, and if anything bad happens I'm sure we'll figure something out!
Go Reason! Go BHO!
Yes, Tony. There are no environmentalists who whine constantly about global warming. There are no liberal hacks who call us greedy and evil because we don't want to ride bikes to work and put a sweater on in the winter rather than turn up the heat. There's no one running around like Chicken Little screaming about CO2 emissions at all. No one, Tony. No one. It's was all a fancy daydream that you've snapped me out of.
Eco-engineering? I've never met an engineer that liked working on ECOs.
I think Lonewacko may have failed to understand something.
SugarFree,
If you were even modestly informed of the reality of the GW situation instead of being content to have your head firmly wedged up the asses of Sean Hannity and Exxon you'd be running around screaming too.
But you said Gaia worshipers. As if those of us who care about the future of the human species are all just a bunch of spotted owl activists.
Wow this is just like western medicine practices - fix the symptom instead of the sickness. I can't believe they would even toy with the idea of mucking up the atmosphere just to preserve the status quo of the current economy and infrastructure.
Instead of giving a leg amputee a prosthetic, its like John Holdren is prescribing "just cut the other leg down to size."
just to preserve the status quo of the current economy and infrastructure.
Yeah what's so special about the last 600,000 years? We got along just fine before we existed as a civilization.
As I've said before: Nuclear Winter is the solution to AGW.
Just pick your targets wisely.
AHA! the diagram at last solves the conundrum of the melting polar ice cap: apparently the Sun has moved over the North Pole!
Another geoengineering option he mentioned was the use of so-called artificial trees to suck carbon dioxide - the chief human-caused greenhouse gas - out of the air and store it.
You know what else is good for that?
TREES!
If you were even modestly informed of the reality of the GW situation instead of being content to have your head firmly wedged up the asses of Sean Hannity and Exxon
Pretty good, but I've seen you do better. Once more, this time with feeling.
What's frightening to me is that ANY country could arbitrarily decide to do this - or at least any country with the technological capabilities. Talk about planet-wide terrorism - what if North Korea decided that they'd bring on an ice age for us in the northern hemisphere by shooting pollution into the upper atmosphere a few times? Some damn fool idiot is power hungry enough to actually try it.
a massive transfer of wealth from the productive First World to the parasites in the Third World
Ummm....
a massive transfer of wealth from the productive in the First World to the parasites in the First World using the Third world as a poster boy
Fixed
Now I get my REVENGE!
Bwahahahahahahahah!
What is sick about the current economy and infrastructure?
None of this shit is going to happen. And we are going to keep using oil as fast as we can until it is gone.
I am pretty agnostic about global warming, but I am rooting for it to be real. That way if disaster occurs, I have the satisfaction of having been right. And if it doesn't, that's even better.
Warty,
Pretty good, but I've seen you do better. Once more, this time with feeling.
It was OK for him. But he really tipped his hand with the Hannity and Exxon schtick. And he, of course, is blissfully oblivious of the hypocrisy of called me a Fox News Republican while whining about me calling him a tree-hugger.
Why would homosexuals care about the future of the human species, considering they won't have any offspring involved? I only care about the future of the world because I will have children, possibly grandchildren, and great-grandchildren living in it.
Yes, you all just slipped into an alternate universe where Ron Bailey not only accepts man-made global warming, and "Reason" proposes massive publicly-funded infrastructure projects to fix same. Do not adjust your interwebs...
Why would homosexuals care about the future of the human species, considering they won't have any offspring involved?
Demonstrably false statement. I'm gay and I have a kid and a grandkid, and I very much care about the future of the human species.
Now, do you have something to contribute to the debate, or are you just wanking in public?
chemtrails are real people...they mix something with the normal jet-fuel.
they are trying to create an artificial SUNSCREEN
Oh, and Nick, I think you're confusing me with another poster with a similar name. TONY consistently argues from a left-liberal perspective. AFAIK, Tony hasn't identified as gay although I really haven't been paying attention.
I consistently argue from a libertarian friendly position on rights, and generally don't engage in discussions about libertarian economics.
Hope this helps.
Nick,
The trick is that none of the environmentalists give a shit about the human race. Global cooling, pollution, water shortages, overpopulation, global warming and all the other enviro-panics are just clubs to beat ideological opponents with. Ever notice how the solution to every fucking one of them is for people to stop having so many kids, have smaller houses or live in ant-like urban colonies, ride their bikes to work, and and wear a hairshirt?
It's the same neo-Thoreauean pastoralism the left has been pushing since the 60s. But it's not enough for them to go sleep in a shack on a bed full of dried Lima beans. They want everyone else to share in the misery.
Geo-engineering is a prime example of this. Rather than fix the problem, they want to turn back the clock on modern civilization. Rather than have the 3rd world turn into the 1st, they want us all to settle for some gray, granola version of the 2nd.
Environmentalism is a out-growth of the collectivist desire to control how people live. Instead of boot stamping on a human face forever, it's a Birkenstock.
Tonio, it was a question, not a statement. Why does it mean I am not contributing to the debate and why also would it mean I'm jerking off in public? It was more poorly rephrased than demonstrably false. Let's try again:
Why would anyone who does not have kids care about the future of the human species?
This can easily be undone by orgone generators and sylphs.
Yeah, Tonio, I realized that identification error pretty much right after I hit send.
But you said Gaia worshipers. As if those of us who care about the future of the human species are all just a bunch of spotted owl activists.
Tony, you're being a totally passive-aggressive whiny little bitch. If you can't take the occasional "tree-hugger" or "Gaia worshipper" slam you need to find a happier, safer, hate-free place to hang out.
And, yes, I've hung with you people, for much the same reasons as (Tall?)Dave, and some of you are indeed Gaia worshippers.
Bite me very much.
We already have what we need to start a nuclear winter. So what's all this fuss about global warming?
I won't make up my mind on this til I hear what Popular Mechanics has to say!! Hey---- they've already de-bunked FEMA camps and any 9-11 conspiracy theories!?
"f you were even modestly informed of the reality of the GW situation instead of being content to have your head firmly wedged up the asses of Sean Hannity and Exxon you'd be running around screaming too."
You were pitching this bullshit yesterday, Tony. Until you provide one data point to support what you say (as I did yesterday), please, STFU.
Nick,
Because you're an idiot. You used a demonstrably false premise "no gay people have children" to launch into an ad-hominem attack "why would you care" and directed your venom at the wrong person.
A real man would suck it up, apologize and move on. A prudent jackal would slink away from the debate, tail between legs.
You're still here using my air. Begone...
"Why would anyone who does not have kids care about the future of the human species?"
Well, maybe it is possible to care about people who are not your direct offspring?
"Why would anyone who does not have kids care about the future of the human species?"
Altruism, bitch.
And is anyone really concerned about the fate of the human species? After making it though ice ages, crossing the Pacific in canoes and surviving for thousands of years in some pretty harsh and uninviting places, the entire species of Homo sapiens is going to die because it gets a little warmer and there is some coastal flooding and changes in weather patterns? Really??
"Why would anyone who does not have kids care about the future of the human species?"
Because I need the species around for quite awhile yet to develop my anti-aging drugs and support me in my parasitical old age, that's why.
"And is anyone really concerned about the fate of the human species? After making it though ice ages, crossing the Pacific in canoes and surviving for thousands of years in some pretty harsh and uninviting places, the entire species of Homo sapiens is going to die because it gets a little warmer and there is some coastal flooding and changes in weather patterns? Really??"
That's about the long and short of it, Zeb.
Know what might be less expensive to this? Adapting to a warmer world, which will happen anyways, as the government won't get off its ass soon enough to solve the problem.
SugarFree,
If global warming is allowed to proceed unchecked, your beloved 1st world status quo will be a memory. If there is an evil cabal of environmentalists disguising their powerlust in terms of saving the planet, I've never met any of them. Maybe it's just that you libertarian types can't possibly fathom that there are people who don't see the world in terms of pure self-interest like you guys do?
"It's got to be looked at," he said. "We don't have the luxury of taking any approach off the table." ...
Except for Nuclear Power.
Hey Tony,
What's your position on nuclear power?
How do you feel about Yucca Mountain?
Maybe it's just that you libertarian types can't possibly fathom that there are people who don't see the world in terms of pure self-interest like you guys do?
Yes, everyone on your side is Polly Pureheart with only the bestest intention ever.
Is there some place where peddling this bullshit works?
Hazel,
I'm fairly certain that Tony is against nuclear power. If you can say "If you knew how bad Global Warming REALLY is rather than being a Fox News Republican you would run around screaming", you probably also believe that every nuclear plant is a Chernobyl waiting to happen.
"Maybe it's just that you libertarian types can't possibly fathom that there are people who don't see the world in terms of pure self-interest like you guys do?"
Tony...you do realize that you don't have to beat the strawman, right? Matches work just as well.
Personally, I think any geoengineering project would be the kiss of death, as Murphy's Law clearly predicts that it would coincide with a natural lowering of temperatures and thus lead to an Ice Age.
Hazel,
I'm pro-nuclear power. I think that figuring out where to store spent fuel rods is much less of a problem than figuring out how to deal with global warming.
Didn't we already visit this solution in one of the Highlander movies?
No, wait, that was some other crazy scheme.
Dear Mr. Body,
I'm in a good mood today, so I'll grant you a reprieve, but causing me to think of "The Sickening" is generally a two atomic wedgie offense.
Just saying.
Seroiusly, if we accept that AGW is real, that it is undesirable, and admit that government attempts to eliminate it are going to be fruitless, shouldn't global engineering be considered as a viable solution?
If global warming is allowed to proceed unchecked, your beloved 1st world status quo will be a memory.
Any chance you might actually defend this claim against the rebuttals presented on prior threads before you make the same claim on future threads?
Y'know, back in the 70's, Paul Ehrlich recommended melting the polar ice caps to prevent global cooling.
Just sayin', maybe there's a parallel and a lesson.
"Seroiusly, if we accept that AGW is real, that it is undesirable, and admit that government attempts to eliminate it are going to be fruitless, shouldn't global engineering be considered as a viable solution?"
Either that or adapt. Man is contributing to global warming, but I don't think it's as serious as Tony thinks. The technology is just not here yet to rely on renewable energy sources. Nuclear power at present is the way to go for electrical generation. This should be our focus in the short term for reducing man's CO2 footprint. Other than that, we're just going to have to adapt and hopefully there will be improved technology to reduce greenhouse gases in the future and reduce the amount of CO2 we put into the atmosphere and methods to offset global warming and climate change.
"If global warming is allowed to proceed unchecked, your beloved 1st world status quo will be a memory."
If we tried to significantly reduce global warming by cutting down on fossil fuel use, our beloved 1st world status quo will be a memory. Any other form of energy is just too expensive or just could not supply all the energy we need.
bookworm
For the crime of failing to ttake seriously the threat of AGW, you must be sent to re-education camp, so you can learn the improtance of environmental awarenssess.
If we could find some way to convert self-righteous indignation into usable energy, Tony alone could power the world.
I suggest we put a carbon tax of $3 billion per ounce on the breathing of environmental wackos.
Any of them that can't pay up would be summarily executed.
That should take care of the problem - in more ways than one.
I'm pro-nuclear power. I think that figuring out where to store spent fuel rods is much less of a problem than figuring out how to deal with global warming.
So why aren't you over on the GreenPeace forums, telling them what a bunch of shitheadst hey are?
Any chance you might actually defend this claim against the rebuttals presented on prior threads before you make the same claim on future threads?
Here. Knock yourself out.
So why aren't you over on the GreenPeace forums, telling them what a bunch of shitheadst hey are?
How do you know I'm not?
Tony,
You mean this...
..or is there something else that informs you.
I also note that your "knock yourself out" link mentions the $12 per ton of CO2 social cost of carbon that I cited on the last thread as the average cost given in the IPCC AR4.
So that's what you think the cost is? If so, how can you possibly justify statements such as...
The efficiency of greenhouse gas emitting energy production comes at the cost of environmental harm, which isn't priced into the equation. If it were, we would rapidly find these sources quite inefficient.
The year 2030: Humanity makes their annual payment of 100 billion to the High Climatologist so he will send the proper smoke into the air. Someone questions the wisdom of this tradition, because there has never been a controlled experiment to confirm the High Climatologist's claims. The surrounding people quickly hush him, least hurricanes and floods plague the land.
Connie Willis's story "Blued Moon" is looking prescient. Prepare for the unlikely.
Now that the sunspot cycle is at a historic low, maybe the sun will do the cooling for us.
..or is there something else that informs you.
What is with you and your inability to recognize the importance of context in this discussion? Citing every minority report or lone dissenter you can find does not make for a complete examination of the subject.
Tony,
You made yet another baseless claim about the economics of global warming. I asked you yet again why you think your claims are true. You pointed me to a Wikipedia article. I went to the section of that article pertinent to economics and quoted from it.
If you don't believe the things you cite to support your case, what exactly informs your position on the economics of global warming? It's pretty clear it's not the IPCC. What is it?
But missile defense is wacko? At least everybody agrees that nuclear missiles exist.
And failing to cite dissenters leaves one riding on a bandwagon where everyone is singing "everybody agrees...nobody disputes"
kinnath | April 8, 2009, 2:01pm | #
As I've said before: Nuclear Winter is the solution to AGW.
Just pick your targets wisely.
My solution is to nuke a likely volcano every couple of years.
raivo pommer-www.google.ee
raimo1@hot.ee
BLIND MONEY
The absolutism of the key tenets of neo-liberalism: privatisation, deregulation, balanced budgets have all been rejected by all but the most dogmatic. Apart from one that is: the primacy of free trade.
Its status is basically sacrosanct. While banks are being nationalized, bonuses recalled, and trillions of dollars of debt racked up, while pretty much every other concept, belief or ideal is being interrogated, contorted or just set aside, "Free trade is good" continues to be presented as a totemic truth, ring-fenced from debate or interrogation. Any questioning of this axiom is not even on the G-20's agenda.
In fact the Free Trade brigade, which encompasses most mainstream politicians, business leaders, and thinkers -- outside of France that is -- seems to be on evangelical overdrive. "The solution to the crisis is more free trade," says Brazilian President Luiz In?cio Lula da Silva. China's Commerce Minister Chen Deming announces that Beijing is "firmly opposed to trade protectionism," a sentiment often echoed by Germany's Chancellor Angela Merkel, while British Prime Minister Gordon Brown expressly warns against abandoning "the gospel of free trade."
raivo pommer-www.google.ee
raimo1@hot.ee
NOKIA INDIA
Gearing up to meet the challenges of next generation mobile services - 3G, the world's largest handset maker, Nokia, today announced a
slew of new services like music online and location based services to be made available on its new phones, to be launched shortly.
"We are moving away from just devices to devices plus services plus solutions. With the 3G mobile services set to make advent by the middle of next year, we feel that revenue from non-voice services is bound to increase significantly," Nokia India Ltd Vice-President and General Manager D Shivakumar told reporters here.
Asked whether Nokia is planning to acquire some of the content providers to enhance services, Shivakumar said "there is no plan for any acquisition but it will be done through a collaboration with the innovators."
He, however, said that there would be significant investment in ramping up the facilities but declined to give details.
In fact, Nokia called upon Indian mobile and web application developers to create innovative consumer applications exclusively for the upcoming handset N97.
raivo pommer-www.google.ee
raimo1@hot.ee
Europe's largest bank, HSBC Holdings,
confirmed on Monday it was considering selling three of its major office buildings and said it
had received interest from potential buyers.
HSBC, which recently raised nearly $19 billion in a rights issue, said it may sell and lease-back office buildings in New York, Paris and London, including its headquarters at Canary Wharf.
London's Sunday Telegraph reported that HSBC was considering selling three of its biggest office buildings to raise 2.7 billion pounds ($3.98 billion).
"We are taking a look at the market, yes," spokesman David Hall said in Hong Kong.
"There are people interested in buying at an appropriate price," Hall said.
He declined to give further details.
HSBC bought back its building at Canary Wharf for 838 million pounds from ailing Spanish property firm Metrovacesa at the end of last year after the Spanish firm failed to refinance a loan secured on the building.
Globally, banks battered by the financial crisis have been looking to shed non-core assets in order to raise capital and improve their balance sheets.
"HSBC has just raised funds from a rights issue and the possible sale of offices could further boost its cash level and thus benefit the bank in its future acquisitions," said Alex Tang, head of research at Core Pacific-Yamaichi International.
The bank, which planned to shut most of its U.S. consumer lending business, said last month that it was ready for acquisitions in its traditional stronghold of Asia where many banks are pulling out to focus on core markets.
With many new announcement about the wizard of oz movies in the news, you might want to consider starting to obtain Wizard of Oz book series either as collectible or investment at RareOzBooks.com.