Climate change policies are going
to be costly, says U.N.-backed report
Reuters,
by
Staff
Original Article
Posted By: NorthernDog,
12/9/2019 3:26:15 PM
LONDON — Tighter government climate regulations by 2025 could wipe up to $2.3 trillion off the value of companies in industries ranging from fossil fuel producers to agriculture and car makers, an investor group warned in a report. Rules aimed at lowering carbon emissions are expected to accelerate in the coming years as countries scramble to meet obligations under the 2015 Paris climate agreement limiting global warming. (SNIP) Coal firms could lose as much as 44% in value, while the world's top oil and gas companies risk losing up to 31% of their current market share, according the report which
Reply 1 - Posted by:
Strike3 12/9/2019 3:30:25 PM (No. 257326)
Climate change policies aren't going to cost us a cent, at least until 2024, sooner in Leftist Utopias like California.
11 people like this.
Reply 2 - Posted by:
Quigley 12/9/2019 3:48:15 PM (No. 257342)
But don’t worry the costs will be more than offset with ill gotten gains received by certain deserving politicians.
9 people like this.
Reply 3 - Posted by:
belwhatter 12/9/2019 4:14:42 PM (No. 257359)
If these dopey countries that signed on to the great hoax of the Paris accords realize in time what they have done, they could withdraw just as the US has done, and forget all about it. But I doubt they have anyone with as much foresight and 'smarts' as our President Trump to lead them back to sanity.
11 people like this.
Reply 4 - Posted by:
Lawsy0 12/9/2019 4:18:37 PM (No. 257366)
Please read The Paradigm by Jonathan Cahn. This is the plan of the enemy for 3000 years.
2 people like this.
Reply 5 - Posted by:
JunkYardDog 12/9/2019 4:20:40 PM (No. 257369)
U.N. colcudes that climate change policies will be costly-but NOT for the U.N.! Only countries with vibrant economies can contribute to this charade.
9 people like this.
Reply 6 - Posted by:
JimBob 12/9/2019 4:29:53 PM (No. 257376)
Yap,Yap,Yap.
Let's see if ANY of these countries actually meet the 'requirements' of the 'agreement'.
My understanding is that the US, although it has withdrawn from the 'agreement' has reduced it's carbon output by more than any other nation, the reason being that,in the USA, it is now cheaper to use natural gas than it is to use coal to fire the steam boilers to generate electricity.
China has not committed to ANY reduction..... they claim to be a 'developing nation' (even though they produce TEN TIMES THE AMOUNT OF STEEL as any other country. They mumbled something about "setting initial amounts in 2030" ..... figuring that kicks the can down the road far enough that they could achieve so much political power that no nation could oppose them (they did not figure on Donald Trump being elected US President, and throwing a wrench into their plans.)
Still..... I think most, if not ALL of the 'signatories' to the 'agreement' will insist on some type of 'Waiver' when the Big DEADLINE draws near.
This is all a farce, folks.
7 people like this.
Reply 7 - Posted by:
mc squared 12/9/2019 4:48:28 PM (No. 257383)
Companies won't absorb these outrageous regulation costs - we, at the bottom of the totem pole pay it. (along with those who have lost their jobs)
6 people like this.
Reply 8 - Posted by:
Tennman 12/9/2019 6:07:07 PM (No. 257415)
And useless.
4 people like this.
FTA:
Rules aimed at lowering carbon emissions are expected to accelerate in the coming years as countries scramble to meet obligations under the 2015 Paris climate agreement limiting global warming.
Sure, they're going to institute rules on a non-binding agreement that is not being followed, or adhered to by nearly every country who signed on, except the United States has reduced her emissions without installing the draconian changes prescribed by the accord, which Greenpeace even declared a fraud.
The only binding element to the Paris Accord was on the United States and how much they were required to pay to countries around the globe.
Seemed more like a global slush fund considering no one was actually obligated to meet the goals, and the goal was to be met by 2100.
4 people like this.
Reply 10 - Posted by:
cor-vet 12/9/2019 7:22:51 PM (No. 257462)
A lot of the hysteria and the sky is falling rhetoric would go away if we just shut down the UN.
4 people like this.
Reply 11 - Posted by:
JimBob 12/9/2019 10:37:09 PM (No. 257566)
Neue Zürcher Zeitung, 14 November 2010
Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental protection, says the German economist and IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer. The next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world’s resources will be negotiated. – Ottmar Edenhofer
My source for the quote:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/11/18/ipcc-official-climate-policy-is-redistributing-the-worlds-wealth/
1 person likes this.
Reply 12 - Posted by:
kono 12/10/2019 10:26:02 AM (No. 257934)
In order to get on the global-warming-climate-change bandwagon one must sacrifice reason and truth. To me, that is the biggest cost. It's not about dollars and cents, so much as about integrity and sense.
1 person likes this.
Below, you will find ...
Most Recent Articles posted by "NorthernDog"
and
Most Active Articles (last 48 hours)
Comments:
Whole industries are going to be wiped out by this left-wing fantasy.