MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Paris Climate Warriors in a Good Mood

Second Dispatch: Also they believe that global warming a is huge business opportunity.

CopPhotoBaileyParis, France – I’ve reported from so many U.N. climate change conferences that I’ve lost count (11 or 12, I think), but I have never before experienced what is happening in the slapped-together particle board hallways of the Le Bourget exposition site: Optimism. Even a bit of giddiness on the part of the diplomats, and even among the always dour environmentalist groups. At earlier meetings the set ritual has been for activists during the second week to issue a constant stream of urgent denunciations. Sure, one still hears here that there is only 24 hours to get this or that deal done, but the upbeat tone is nevertheless widespread.

For example, during a press conference John Coequyt, the Sierra Club's Director of Federal and International Climate Campaigns flatly said, “We are very optimistic; we continue to believe that a good deal is possible.” Luxembourg's Minister for the Environment, Carole Dieschbourg, speaking as the European Union’s representative stated, “The new agreement is within reach, a binding global agreement applicable to all parties.”

There is another reason for a feeling of serenity at the conference: the absence of mobs of protestors. The commotion produced by of masses of demonstrators inside and outside the climate conferences contributed significantly to the fraught atmosphere that pervaded previous meetings. The French government has used the terrorist atrocities in November as a justification to ban all public protests and marches. This seems to have taken the heart out of lot of would-be climate agitators. Yes, the occasional campaigner dressed in a polar bear costume does wander by, but participants are not being hectored by throngs of doomsters constantly crying climate calamity from their various soapboxes. The result is that the conference venue is imbued with an unaccustomed sense of orderly calm.

While many of the 40,000 conference participants may believe that the world is facing catastrophic climate change, they now seem confident that the negotiators will be able to conclude the first ever universal climate accord by the end of this week. As U.S. Special Representative for Climate Change Todd Stern noted during a press conference, the Paris Accord would then guide global energy decisions for essentially the rest of this century. “Paris can be a decisive turning point in history,” declared U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon. Noting the presence of hundreds of representatives from business and industry at the meeting, Ban said, “The business community is asking for a clear signal from governments that the low emissions economy is inevitable.”

In fact, a lot of participants at the meeting are proclaiming that global warming is really a huge business opportunity. Among others so saying was Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) Director of Science and Policy, ecologist Peter Frumhoff. “Commitment to a clean energy future is a moral imperative grounded in science and one of the greatest business opportunities of all time,” asserted Frumhoff at a UCS press conference. In the same session, biologist Chris Field who heads up the Carnegie Institution’s Department of Global Ecology, mirrored Frumhoff’s assertion calling the imminently mandated transition away from fossil fuels “the biggest business opportunity of the second half of the 21st century.” For my part, I will just say that people who take investment advice from activist scientists get what they deserve.

But what about investment advice from investment banks? On the eve of the Paris conference, Goldman Sachs released its report, The Low Carbon Economy, as an equity investor’s guide to a low carbon world through 2025. The company sees tightening regulations that force the shift away from fossil fuels as driving a market for low carbon power supplies and energy efficiency. The firm identifies “LEDs, solar photovoltaic, onshore wind, and hybrid and electric vehicles as clear front runners in the emerging low carbon economy.” Even more optimistically, Goldman’s analysts suggest that the adoption of these low carbon technologies “could contribute to an early peak in global carbon dioxide emissions around 2020 – rather than continued steady growth to 2025, as anticipated by mainstream scenarios.”

Very interestingly, a new study published yesterday in the journal Nature Climate Change reports that global carbon dioxide emissions may have actually dropped in the past year. While global carbon dioxide emissions plunged during the financial crisis, this would be the first time that they fell while the overall global economy continued to grow.

Despite the enthusiasm of the Goldman Sachs analysts for the low carbon future, I do note that this is the same company that issued reports that projected that the price of crude oil could ascend to $200 per barrel back in 2008 and later issued another this year saying it might possibly fall to $20 per barrel. Caveat emptor.

Note: I am filing daily dispatches from the Paris climate change conference and will keep readers posted on just how happy the folks here are at the end of the week.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they 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 for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    The French government has used the terrorist atrocities in November as a justification to ban all public protests and marches. This seems to have taken the heart out of lot of would-be climate agitators.

    Lulling the attendees into thinking the world is with them?

  • Entelechy||

    Rounding up the usual suspects hasn't deterred the manifesto writing classes inside the fence :
    http://vvattsupwiththat.blogsp.....weird.html

  • ||

    Construction of a climate system

    Terraforming Terra?

  • Curtisls701||

    That is a level of derp that knows no bounds.

  • pan fried wylie||

    Silly me, thinking this optimism might be in regard to the world not-ending. No, of course it's about the sweet, sweet, lucre.

  • B. Woodrow Chippenhaus||

    Paris, France – I’ve reported from so many U.N. climate change conferences that I’ve lost count (11 or 12, I think),

    They should really number these events UFC style.

    CLIMATE SUMMIT 42; Obama vs. Wreckers

  • ||

    "For my part, I will just say that people who take investment advice from activist scientists get what they deserve."

    You are correct. In the end reality rewards merit, always.

  • CatoTheChipper||

  • BigT||

    Exactly. This moron stepped out of his area of expertise and his companies have gotten hammered. However, he has likely made money since he pays himself out of the capital raised, and does not suffer when the stocks tank. It is criminal, or should be.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    I am a scientist, and I would like you to help me fund my future energy plan, which is based solely upon harnessing the power of unicorn smiles.

  • Unicorn Abattoir||

    It freaks me out when they smile.

  • Win Bear||

    In fact, a lot of participants at the meeting are proclaiming that global warming is really a huge business opportunity.

    The production of Zyklon-B and Sarin gas were two other government-created "business opportunities". Government needs to step in an "create business opportunities" whenever people have decided that some idea is crap and they don't want to pay for it voluntarily.

  • ||

    The production of Zyklon-B [...] gas w[as] government-created "business opportunit[y]".

    Yeah, but the victors hanged the owner and the director.

  • Old.Mexican||

    Very interestingly, a new study published yesterday in the journal Nature Climate Change reports that global carbon dioxide emissions may have actually dropped in the past year.


    Hey, focus! What good would it serve us if carbon emissions are lowered and the goals achieved? This isn't about carbon emissions. This is about socialism.

  • ||

    This isn't about carbon emissions. This is about socialism.......and it's unbridled success! Watermelons whined about the evils of capitalism and, carbon trade schemes were implemented, emissions regulations were reinforced, and crappy 'new' technology was duct taped in place. So, it should be obvious by now that we've turned the corner! What part of 'Mission Accomplished!' do you not understand? You really must be in the pocket of stodgy fossil-fueled corporations if you're still clinging to the old ways at this point.

    /memory hole

    Seriously.

  • CatoTheChipper||

    The only thing that was holding things up was Chinese and Indian insistence that the US and Europe be shaken down for $100 billion per year.

    Fortunately for the greenies, Obama understands that he can borrow the US share (probably around $50 billion per year) from China and then give it back to China and other developing countries.

    The kids say they want action on climate change, so it's only fair that they pay for it. 'And someday that bill is going to come due.

  • Princess Trigger||

    And Leon's getting larger!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-cJmpwkUx4s

  • Old.Mexican||

    Among others so saying [that Global Warming is a huge business opportunity] was Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) Director of Science and Policy, ecologist Peter Frumhoff.


    No! Did he really say that?

    And here I though (silly me!) that scientists were the disinterested bunch! Tony the Marxian (and Joe) told me so.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Screw this nonsense. I'm going to go make my fortune in the asteroid belt. And if they want to cool the Earth for some insane reason, I'll drop some rocks to raise some dust clouds. For a fee.

  • Swiss Servator||

    I thought it was pay a fee and avoid having rocks dropped on us? Was Auric selling me the wrong insurance?!

  • Pro Libertate||

    We're a full-service operation.

  • Old.Mexican||

    Goldman Sachs released its report, The Low Carbon Economy, as an equity investor’s guide to a low carbon world through 2025.


    There's bad capitalism - unbridled, driven by greed, too free to handle, so messy, so... pedestrian! Yuck!

    And then there's good capitalism!

    You know, what we used to call Fascism back in the brown shirts day.

  • Sevo||

    "a binding global agreement applicable to all parties.”

    What's he got in his pocket?

  • DJF||

    """"While many of the 40,000 conference participants"""

    Shouldn't the first step be is to stop having 40,000 carbon spewing people travel to Paris?

    Next step I am sure is to get rid of all the private jets and limos used by the politicians, bureaucrats and various public/private hangers-on. When will Obama, Ban Ki-Moon and Goldman Sachs executives start traveling around on bicycles?

  • Sevo||

    "When will Obama, Ban Ki-Moon and Goldman Sachs executives start traveling around on bicycles?"
    A VERY long time after you're forced to.

  • Sevo||

    BTW,
    “Commitment to a clean energy future is a moral imperative grounded in science and one of the greatest business opportunities of all time,” asserted Frumhoff at a UCS press conference."
    I can tell you this is a flat-out lie. If it were true, there would be no need of a Paris shindig

    And:
    "On the eve of the Paris conference, Goldman Sachs released its report, The Low Carbon Economy, as an equity investor’s guide to a low carbon world through 2025. The company sees tightening regulations that force the shift away from fossil fuels as driving a market for low carbon power supplies and energy efficiency."
    Great! A guide to crony-capitalism for the 21st Century!

  • BigT||

    The company (Goldman Sachs) sees tightening regulations that force the shift away from fossil fuels as driving a market for low carbon power supplies and energy efficiency

    Rent-seekers everywhere celebrate. Governments will steal from the productive and give to the true believers.

  • Jackand Ace||

    The business opportunities that are arising already (not will, are already) have been highlighted for some time now. Over a year ago, PwC was advising their clients to think strategically about not only business opportunities but also future costs. Which any successful business will have to do.

    "For example, PwC has done analysis for British supermarket chain Asda which showed that over 90 percent of its food chain is at risk from climate change. This has prompted the company to start thinking about how it sources food and about building climate resistance for the farmers they buy from."

    "In an annual survey published in February, PwC asked 1,344 chief executives in 68 countries whether climate change was one of their top three concerns and forty six percent said it was."

    And that was nearly 2 years ago. That number will have only grown. And will continue to grow. At least business is listening to science.

  • Jackand Ace||

  • Sevo||

    Great, Jack. Just what the world needs: More crony capitalism!
    Ever hear of the 'broken window fallacy'? Didn't think so.
    What a fucking imbecile.

  • BigT||

    "In an annual survey published in February, PwC asked 1,344 chief executives in 68 countries whether climate change was one of their top three concerns and forty six percent said it was."

    Yes, because tightening regulations that force the shift away from fossil fuels will be a severe burden to all those companies. You have to keep an eye on your enemies - in this case, governments.

  • Jackand Ace||

    The article in fact notes that PwC highlighted the fact that regulations are also costs that need to be avoided, and that has always been the case.

  • BigT||

    Without government coercion almost all of the alternate energy schemes are not competitive with fossil fuels. The bottom line is that the entire Green Fuels movement is simply socialism, or in many cases fascism (no govt ownership). It rewards the connected, the cronies, and the criminals, and penalizes the poor and disenfranchised. It's evil.

  • Jackand Ace||

    And those subsidies that oil has enjoyed for many decades (as well as the Koch's), is that evil as well?

  • Princess Trigger||

    Yes Jack, they are.

  • Jackand Ace||

    Ah, a good truthful answer at last. Thanks.

  • R C Dean||

    What subsidies, Jack?

    This seems to be an article of faith amongst proggies, but I have never seen anyone point to anything other than depreciation deductions, which are a totally normal part of taxes and accounting for everyone, not just oil companies.

  • See Double You||

    I took oil and gas law and we never touched on subsidies for oil companies. Probably 'cause there ain't any.

    Maybe progs think the public land leasing regime is too lax, and therefore amounts to a subsidy?

  • Old.Mexican||

    Re: R C Dean,

    What subsidies, Jack[ass]?


    I've asked that question many times and the Marxians can only point to tax credits which are available to all sorts of business as a matter of law. They're not subsidies in the traditional (or semantic) way at all.

  • Sevo||

    Jackand Ace|12.8.15 @ 10:54AM|#
    "And those subsidies that oil has enjoyed for many decades"

    C'mon, Jack, you're all sciency and full of factness, right?
    WHAT SUBSIDIES?

  • ||

    And those subsidies that oil has enjoyed for many decades (as well as the Koch's), is that evil as well?

    I don't speak progressive double-speak very well, but when you say subsidy, I think you mean excise tax. I'm all in favor of eliminating excise taxes, but I'm not sure how that achieves your end of siphoning money away from oil and squandering it on other, much less useful... ideas.

  • Jackand Ace||

    Uh oh. Late to answer. From the IEA

    "Fossil fuels are reaping $550 billion a year in subsidies and holding back investment in cleaner forms of energy, the International Energy Agency said.
    Oil, coal and gas received more than four times the $120 billion paid out in incentives for renewables including wind, solar and biofuels, the Paris-based institution said today in its annual World Energy Outlook."

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/.....renewables

    And yes, it is through tax breaks that oil enjoys its subsidies, just like renewables. That doesn't mean they don't get more back.

    But it's OK to eliminate them all. But oil will NEVER go for that, and the GOP will never go for that. So in the meantime, alternative energy sources play on the same field. But they get less.

  • Sevo||

    Hey, Jack, did you read your own link?
    Citing someone else making the same unsubstantiated claim is about as 'sciency' as I expect from an ignoramus of you caliber, right up there with the 'study' showing fracking causes earthquakes (that no one can feel).
    Now, Jack, one more time: WHAT SUBSIDIES?

  • MokFarin||

    Jackand doesn't even use the right incorrect numbers. He's using an outdated report because he only relies on reporters and politicians he feels he can trust and never actually looks at the data.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    And you know damn well virtually all of those subsidies are outisde the developed world in the form of fuel subsidies in socialiat paradises like your Venezuela. In the developed world subsidies for greed (my sic) energy are orders of magnitude higher than depletion allowances for fossil fuel on a per kWh basis which is what actually matters.

  • See Double You||

    That was the most uninformative article I have read in a long time. Full of conclusory statements such as "oil gets so many subsidies it's not fair!"

    Again, WHAT are these subsidies?

  • Sevo||

    Hey, Jack found it on the innerwebz, so it's full of factiness and it must be sciency!

  • Glide||

    https://www.treasury.gov/open/Documents/USA FFSR progress report to G20 2014 Final.pdf

    Obviously a bit Obama-administration-slanted, but I think this is more or less on point as to what actually exists.

    That's less than $5 billion (not counting the low-income family subsidy with very tenuous relation to fossil fuels), certainly not $550bil. I'm no lawyer or bureaucrat so I won't pontificate on which of these is good or bad. Bottom line, yes, like most things in our messy tax system, specific O&G subsidies do exist.

  • Glide||

    Or, if the squirrels were to consume my link,
    http://1.usa.gov/1NEIFGu
    ^

  • MokFarin||

    I'm pretty sure the IEA report's $490 Billion (Since Jackand doesn't deal with real links, here: http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/ ) uses a calculation from state-owned oil companies (e.g. in Saudi Arabia, et al) to prop that number up, but it is a global number.

    It's about $135 for that report so I'm so not pulling it right now. But usually about six months after the IEA releases I have a free copy floating around that I can snag from my peers. I'll make sure to grab a copy of the outlook for posterity this year.

  • Jackand Ace||

    Exactly right, Glide, although some think that doesn't include all the benefits given to oil from the government. The IEA link is worldwide, applicable because its global warming, not America warming. But I am glad you could educate all the apologists for oil here.

  • Sevo||

    Jackand Ace|12.8.15 @ 6:40PM|#
    "Exactly right, Glide, although some think that doesn't include all the benefits given to oil from the government."
    So there are no subsidies? Well, I'm glad you admit to being a lying piece of shit.

    "The IEA link is worldwide, applicable because its global warming, not America warming. But I am glad you could educate all the apologists for oil here."
    Move that goal post, Jack.

  • Sevo||

    Oh, and Jack, let's see how those supposed "subsidies" stack up against the nearly worthless wind and solar efforts. Why, look there!

    "Allocation of subsidies in the United States

    On March 13, 2013, Terry M. Dinan, senior advisor at the Congressional Budget Office, testified before the Subcommittee on Energy of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology in the U.S. House of Representatives that federal energy tax subsidies would cost $16.4 billion that fiscal year, broken down as follows:

    Renewable energy: $7.3 billion (45 percent)
    Energy efficiency: $4.8 billion (29 percent)
    Fossil fuels: $3.2 billion (20 percent)
    Nuclear energy: $1.1 billion (7 percent)

    In addition, Dinan testified that the U.S. Department of Energy would spend an additional $3.4 billion on financial Support for energy technologies and energy efficiency, broken down as follows:

    Energy efficiency and renewable energy: $1.7 billion (51 percent)
    Nuclear energy: $0.7 billion (22 percent)
    Fossil energy research & development: $0.5 billion (15 percent)
    Advanced Research Projects Agency—Energy: $0.3 billion (8 percent)
    Electricity delivery and energy reliability: $0.1 billion (4 percent)[27]
    Cont'd.

  • Sevo||

    Cont'd
    [...]
    However, many of the "subsidies" available to the oil and gas industries are general business opportunity credits, available to all US businesses (particularly, the foreign tax credit mentioned above). The value of industry-specific (oil, gas, and coal) subsidies in 2006 was estimated by the Texas State Comptroller to be $6.25 billion - about 60% of the amount calculated by the Environmental Law Institute.[31] The balance of federal subsides, which the comptroller valued at $7.4 billion, came from shared credits and deductions, and oil defense (spending on the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, energy infrastructure security, etc.).
    wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidies#United_States

    See that Jack? The tax credits you claim as "subsidies' to oil companies are plain business tax deductions, taken by your fave crony company too, I'm sure.

  • MokFarin||

    Not even a statement of correction for giving incorrect numbers?

    Well, that's par for the course, really.

  • Sevo||

    "That's less than $5 billion (not counting the low-income family subsidy with very tenuous relation to fossil fuels), certainly not $550bil. I'm no lawyer or bureaucrat so I won't pontificate on which of these is good or bad. Bottom line, yes, like most things in our messy tax system, specific O&G subsidies do exist."

    Further, none of those are subsidies; every one is a tax-exemption, which, by dint competition, is passed along to the consumer/taxpayer in the form of lower cost energy, resulting in generally lower costs.
    Electric cars, by comparison, receive a subsidy, as do solar panels and I'm pretty sure windmills, *along* with various tax exemptions and preferences.
    Those subsidies amount to taking money from the taxpayers in general (increasing taxes) and re-distributing it to favored consumers.

  • Sevo||

    Jackand Ace|12.8.15 @ 10:46AM|#
    "The article in fact notes that PwC highlighted the fact that regulations are also costs that need to be avoided, and that has always been the case"

    And the article offers no way of doing so.
    Rather, it touts 'electric cars' as 'efficient' and a business opportunity, ignoring that you can't sell the things without the gov't tossing in $5K/car.
    Way to avoid those 'regulations', Jack

  • See Double You||

    So Jack, was there any reason for all these politicos and their acolytes to burn so much jet fuel to attend a conference in Paris when they could have set a good example by teleconferencing?

  • Jackand Ace||

    Let me know when you have anything salient to say about business recognizing the need to grapple with the reality of climate change. You belong on another thread.

  • Sevo||

    Jackand Ace|12.8.15 @ 11:51AM|#
    "Let me know when you have anything salient to say about business recognizing the need to grapple with the reality of climate change."

    Let us know when you learn to read:
    "US Carbon Dioxide Emissions Drop 3.8 Percent "
    http://www.livescience.com/406.....-drop.html
    Seems business is doing quite well in spite of ignoramuses like you.

  • See Double You||

    My question is totally relevant to any discussion of climate change. You realize that if those promoting AGW theory and its so-called solutions don't follow their own advice, something may be remiss? C'mon, at least advertise your pet cause better.

  • Old.Mexican||

    Re: Jackass Ass,

    The business opportunities that are arising already (not will, are already) have been highlighted for some time now.


    Of course. It treads alongside the hysteria. Imagine that.

    PwC was advising their clients to think strategically about not only business opportunities but also future costs.


    Don't delay! That Eiffel Tower is not going to stay there forever! Let's get there first!

  • R C Dean||

    Hell, if I was in Paris on an unlimited expense account, I'd probably be in a good mood, too.

  • R C Dean||

    Welp, if its such a red-hot business opportunity, then it will take care of itself. No government needed, amirite?

  • See Double You||

    There is money to be made in protection rackets.

  • ||

    The only hope I can find in this is that the deal they do won't be as bad as the deal they'd have done if the activists were there. It will still be a terrible, bad, horrible, no-good, expensive deal.

  • See Double You||

    I'm not too worried. At most the deal will simply enhance the status quo - "green energy" subsidies, encouraging U.S. states to incorporate renewables into their energy portfolios, nonbinding commitments from developing countries to lower their emissions, politicians bloviating, etc., etc.

  • commodious spittoon||

    We're better off solving 22nd-century problems with 22nd-century solutions than 22nd-century problems with 21st-century solutions.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Nice.

  • Entelechy||

    The absence of protestors is exceeded by the absence of attendees- check the video coverage- all sessions are webcast, and you'll see speaker panels that oftenoutnumber their audience.

    Seconded by the President of Greenpeace, Sir Richard Branson was able to draw a crowd of seven

    http://vvattsupwiththat.blogsp.....cture.html

  • Stevecsd||

    I wonder how long it will take household energy consumers to howl about the inevitable and ever increasing price increases.

    In Germany the price of energy for households has gone up 70% since 1998, up to 28.72 cents per KWH. My recent bill was around 9 cents per KWH.

    I also read an article about a year ago that reported that many large industrial companies are abandoning Germany because their energy costs had more than doubled in about 5 years. These policies will lead everyone to the poorhouse.

  • Jackand Ace||

    Don't be so quick to dismiss what is occurring in Germany. This is a recent article in Forbes as to the large scale change occurring there.

    "The answer was unambiguous: electricity markets rather than government subsidies are the best way to synchronize the supply and demand of electric power in a post-baseload power grid. There is evidence that the shift away from subsidies and toward electricity markets is unleashing a tidal wave of innovation."

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/wi.....rgiewende/

  • Sevo||

    Jack, you REALLY need to read your links before you post them.
    That article says Germany is going to ration power, and then rely on 'markets' to distribute it. Uh, is that like your fave country relying on the market to distribute toilet tissue?
    After that, it's nothing other than pie-in-the-sky hopes regarding the outcome, and given history, the guy's as full of it as you are.
    BTW, Jack, WHAT OIL SUBSIDIES?

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Themal plants are going bankrupt because greed energy forces them to operate inefficiently. They will and do require even more subsidy, and you can't get rid of them because you have to keep the lights on at night when the wind isn't blowing. Energiewende is just going to keep snowballing into a bigger and bigger disaster. But hey, it's a great opportunity to move more German capital and manufacturing to the US.

  • MokFarin||

    Yeah. Do you know how they are going to get rid of base load generation? Reserve capacity. Know what that's going to be setup with? Batteries.

    The "innovation" if you go and read your sources' own source, the BMWI white paper, is merely people talking about what existing technologies will be installed. That's not "innovation," that's "government mandated change." Since the government is forcing all of this, it's not really the buzzword that the BMWI repeats every chance it gets of "electricity market 2.0!" If they actually left it to the market, the nuclear power, natural gas, and coal plants would be online tomorrow and all of the solar and wind projects would be ignored.

    So, show some math skills, for once: Their current wind and solar installations generate roughly 8-20% of their base load reliably (even though in perfect conditions, they can hit around 80% of base load...for a couple of hours in the summer months). The base load is roughly what Germans use, even though demand can spike up and down depending on conditions. How are they going to charge their batteries (or other "innovative" current technologies they install) if they can't even supply the demanded energy?

    Hm. They can't. Their base load of lignite coal isn't going anywhere unless Germany actually follows through with it's "market 2.0" nonsense - which will drive away a lot more industry - who have already started opening plants elsewhere and scaling down German manufacturing.

  • Jackand Ace||

    Tell you what, Steve. The doom and gloomers are here...read the answers to me. I'm sure they haven't read Ronald's The End of Doom.

    Keep in touch with Pentland at business friendly Forbes. Note he says

    "Over the next few weeks, I will be writing a series of posts on this blog about some of the innovations emerging in Germany’s electric power industry and why they matter for the United States."

    He will let you know of all the innovation coming that the above posters don't think are available in an energy market. By the way, who is Brookside Partners? A consulting firm pushing free markets as the only solution to climate change. Yes, they believe climate change is real (so does Exxon), but they encourage innovation through technology. It's why they seem bullish on Germany. From their site:

    "Free markets and big-knuckled capitalism may not be perfect, but they are the only solution for responding successfully to the energy and environmental challenges threatening the future welfare of the United States. The key word is “successfully.”

  • MokFarin||

    Tell you what, Steve. Take a long look at Jackand and his posting. Notice how he never actually backs up anything he says with facts. It's always someone's opinion. He never even looks at the data, should you provide it to him. And, when you point him to information that contradicts him, which is plentiful (and can even be found in or as linked sources to half of the links he posts himself) he degenerates into name calling and cherry picking his favored quotes from those links.

    You will also note that he links to the Forbes contributor section (aka the Blog) with a disclaimer that says "Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own." and then presents it as if Forbes supports whatever is contained therein. He will also say things like "free markets" and "capitalism" and then point you to links that are government mandates.

    He is either woefully and stubbornly misinformed or he is being intentionally duplicitous in his presentation. I haven't decided, yet. I can surmise others decisions on this question based on their responses to him, but I'll let them speak for themselves.

  • Sevo||

    "He is either woefully and stubbornly misinformed or he is being intentionally duplicitous in his presentation."

    He is and always has been a lying sack of shit.
    Notice his response to a question regarding 'subsidies'; he links to a suppsoed source who makes exactly the same claim and has no proof of the claim either.
    Now Jack has been beck here and read the repeated requests for confirmation, and has offered none.
    He is a lying sack of shit.

  • TimothyLane||

    If they're giddy, it's because they think they're on the verge of establishing the global totalitarianism of their dreams. IngSoc lives! Oceania forever! Soon those will be real, not bitter jokes.

  • Entropy Drehmaschine Void||

    Paris, France – I’ve reported from so many U.N. climate change conferences that I’ve lost count (11 or 12, I think), but I have never before experienced what is happening in the slapped-together particle board hallways of the Le Bourget exposition site: Optimism. Even a bit of giddiness on the part of the diplomats, and even among the always dour environmentalist groups. At earlier meetings the set ritual has been for activists during the second week to issue a constant stream of urgent denunciations. Sure, one still hears here that there is only 24 hours to get this or that deal done, but the upbeat tone is nevertheless widespread.

    You frighten me, Ronald.

    Anytime Progtards are happy, it frightens me.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online