Share this newsletter:
HOME     WHO WE ARE     LATEST POSTINGS     GWPF NEWSLETTER     CONTACT

05/10/15

Why That UN Climate Deal Is Already A Dead Duck 

China Busy Buying Up Mark Carney’s ‘Stranded’ Assets



What Mark Carney, the Pope and all the others are shutting their eyes to is that the binding climate treaty they all want simply isn’t going to happen. This is not just because all the horrors the BBC and the Met Office keep warning us about are failing to appear. The crucial reason why there will be no treaty (other than a meaningless fudge) is that those developing countries, led by India and China, are not going to have it. Even the EU, which has long boasted that it is leading the drive to secure that new treaty, has lately dramatically changed its stance. As pointed out by Dr Benny Peiser of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, the EU is now prepared to pledge a 40 per cent cut in emissions by 2030, but only on condition that any Paris agreement is legally binding on all countries. --Christopher Booker, The Sunday Telegraph, 4 October 2015
 
 
 
1) Christopher Booker: Why That UN Climate Deal Is Already A Dead Duck - The Sunday Telegraph, 4 October 2015
 
2) Mark Carney Under Attack From Investors - Financial Times, 5 October 2015
 
3) China Busy Buying Up Mark Carney’s ‘Stranded’ Assets - Not A Lot Of People Know That, 4 October 2015
 
4) Low Oil Prices Here To Stay As US Shale Revolution Goes Global - The Conversation, 5 October 2015
 
5) Rod Liddle: Oh Goody — It’s The Haranguing Halfwits’ Guide To Climate Change - The Sunday Times, 4 October 2015
 
6) US Congress Investigates Scientists Wanting To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics - Daily Caller News Foundation, 2 October 2015

 
 
Mark Carney’s warning that investors face “potentially huge” losses from their “stranded” coal, oil and gas assets has riled many in the investment community who believe the Bank of England governor has spoken out of turn. The chief investment officer of a large UK pension fund, who requested anonymity, agreed: “Mr Carney should stick to his mandate. Carbon policy is a matter for politics and government legislation, not the Bank of England.” Other investors also expressed scepticism about the stranded-assets theory, as well as the extent and the immediacy of the risks underlined by Mr Carney. --Madison Marriage and Richard Stovin-Bradford, Financial Times, 5 October 2015
 
 
 
Mark Carney believes that fossil fuels will soon become stranded assets, as the world will fall for the global warming scam and stop using them. Apparently, nobody told the Chinese! According to the IEA, they have been busy buying up all the global oil and gas assets they can get their hands on, and, as of last November, control 7% of worldwide crude oil output. --Paul Homewood, Not A Lot Of People Know That, 4 October 2015
 
 
 
Mark Carney, with wind turbine nailed to his forehead, has decided he doesn’t like hydrocarbons. Coal, gas and oil. He thinks we should probably leave one third of the world’s reserves of hydrocarbons right there where they are, in the ground. Leave it where it is and invest in what are euphemistically called renewables, which contribute 1% of the world’s energy needs. Right-ho, Mark — that’s the entire basis of the western economic system well and truly buggered, then. Hell, who’d have thought it: a banker doing his best to wreck the economy as a consequence of a latterly acquired arrogance. Nah. That’s never happened before, has it. --Rod Liddle, The Sunday Times, 4 October 2015
 
  
 
Geologically, the United States does not stand out in terms of shale resources. A very incomplete global mapping suggests a US shale oil share of no more than 17% of a huge geological wealth, widely geographically spread. Given the mainly non-proprietary shale technology and the many advantages accruing to the producing nations, it is inevitable that the revolution will spread beyond the United States. The global spread of these revolutions and the ensuing price weakness that we envisage for the coming two decades will, on balance, provide a great advantage both to the oil industry and to the world economy at large. The efforts to develop renewables for the purpose of climate stabilisation will become more costly, requiring greater subsidies, in consequence of lower oil prices. --Roberto F. Aguilera and Marian Radetzki, The Conversation, 5 October 2015
 
 
 
The 20 climate scientists and academics who sent a letter to President Barack Obama asking him to prosecute global warming skeptics may be in big trouble. A congressional committee is now looking into the government-backed nonprofit that circulated the letter, demanding they turn over “all e-mail, electronic documents, and data created since January 1, 2009.” The group has one week to respond in writing to the committee’s request. It seems like IGES’s effort to get Obama to prosecute global warming skeptics has completely backfired in the two weeks since their letter to the administration was published online. IGES has since taken down the letter and put up a message claiming the letter was “inadvertently posted” online. --Michael Bastasch, Daily Caller News Foundation, 2 October 2015
 
 
  
 
 
1) Christopher Booker: Why That UN Climate Deal Is Already A Dead Duck
The Sunday Telegraph, 4 October 2015
 
The binding global treaty Mark Carney, the Pope and others all want simply isn’t going to happen. 



 
Last week a steady drone rising all year finally swelled to a crescendo. Talking up what Mark Carney, the Governor of the Bank of England, described to the City’s leading insurers as the “catastrophic impacts of climate change”, the world’s great and good were piling in on all sides. The Pope was supposed to be at it in his addresses to the UN and the US Congress. Presidents Obama and Hollande were at it, as was David Cameron with his offer of £5.8 million of UK aid money to support the cause. And the Prince of Wales wrote a letter to Britain’s top judges pleading with them to do all they can to bring about what he called “a Magna Carta for the Earth”.
 
What they are all after, of course, is that global treaty they hope to see signed at the UN’s mammoth climate conference in Paris in December, legally committing the world’s 193 nations to phasing out fossil fuels, to prevent the Earth’s temperature rising by any more than 2 degrees C (35.6F).
 
This was why Mr Carney was warning insurers that they stand to lose billions as fossil fuels are banned and shares in coal and gas become worthless. This was why Mr Cameron upped the UK’s contribution to the UN’s “Green Climate Fund” to just under £6 million, to help countries such as India and China to build solar farms and “roll out mobile banking”.
 
And this was what the Pope was widely billed to be calling for in America, except that, when he got there, he didn’t once mention “climate change” in his speech to Congress, and at the UN included only one sentence on the Paris treaty.
 
What they are all shutting their eyes to is that the binding treaty they all want simply isn’t going to happen. This is not just because all the horrors the BBC and the Met Office keep warning us about are failing to appear. Global temperatures and sea levels are not rising as their computer models predicted. There is no increase in droughts, floods, hurricanes or killer heat waves. As for that “vanishing” Arctic ice, its refreezing in September was the largest and fastest for more than a decade.
 
The crucial reason why there will be no treaty (other than a meaningless fudge) is that those developing countries, led by India and China, are not going to have it. They may be happy to accept the Western world’s promise of a $100 billion (£66 billion) a year Green Climate Fund by 2020, except that, despite Mr Cameron chipping in a one-off payment of £6 million, the richer countries are just not coming up with the money.
 
But India, already the world’s third largest CO2 emitter, is now planning to double its coal production by 2020. China, easily the world’s largest CO2 emitter, is planning to build 363 new coal-fired power stations, adding 50 per cent to the world’s coal-powered electricity. The International Energy Agency tells us that these two countries alone plan to build more than 1,000 gigawatts (GW) of coal-fired capacity, compared with the mere 11GW which is all we shall soon have left in the UK.
 
In India last month, these two countries and 11 others declared that, while they will be pleased to share in that (non-existent) $100 billion from the West to help them build windmills and solar farms, there is no way they will hold back on their CO2 emissions.
 
Even the EU, which has long boasted that it is leading the drive to secure that new treaty, has lately dramatically changed its stance. As pointed out by Dr Benny Peiser of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, the EU is now prepared to pledge a 40 per cent cut in emissions by 2030, but only on condition that any Paris agreement is legally binding on all countries.
 
So their failure to get that hoped-for treaty will mark a further very significant shift in the balance of global power between West and East (including Russia). But the good news is that this will not have the slightest effect on the world’s climate, which changes for reasons none of the world’s great and good begin to understand.
 
 
 
2) Mark Carney Under Attack From Investors
Financial Times, 5 October 2015
 
Madison Marriage and Richard Stovin-Bradford
 
Mark Carney’s warning that investors face “potentially huge” losses from their “stranded” coal, oil and gas assets has riled many in the investment community who believe the Bank of England governor has spoken out of turn.

 
The former Goldman Sachs banker’s speech to insurers in London last week has made him the most prominent financial policymaker to endorse the contentious idea that fossil fuel assets could be stranded as governments try to curb global warming.
 
“The exposure of UK investors to these shifts is potentially huge. Once climate change becomes a defining issue for financial stability, it may already be too late,” Mr Carney said.
 
Although the governor did not suggest the BoE would attempt to enforce stricter climate-risk regulations for financial institutions, many senior investors have criticised his comments as going beyond his scope.
 
An asset management executive at a large Dutch fund house, who requested anonymity, said: “It is pretty weird that a central banker is taking this position. [He should] stick to his [neck] of the woods.
 
“Whether he is right or wrong is a debate that has been going on for a couple of decades. What are his new insights on this matter to start rocking the boat like this? And what are his solutions?”
 
The chief investment officer of a large UK pension fund, who requested anonymity, agreed: “Mr Carney should stick to his mandate. Carbon policy is a matter for politics and government legislation, not the Bank of England.”
 
A spokesperson for the BoE said: “The suggestion that the governor’s speech was somehow outside the bank’s and [Financial Stability Board’s] remit is nonsense. The speech focused on financial stability risks and that is a major part of the bank’s remit.
 
“The governor made clear that we are not scientists or climate experts and simply referred to external evidence on this matter while also calling for greater transparency so investors can make up their own minds.”
 
Other investors also expressed scepticism about the stranded-assets theory, as well as the extent and the immediacy of the risks underlined by Mr Carney.
 
Roberto Cominotto, manager of the Julius Baer Energy Transition fund at Gam, the Swiss fund house, said: “Coal looks like it is going to become stranded in some parts of the world, such as the US.
 
“[But] oil is used primarily for transportation and petrochemicals — there is no renewable substitute yet. I am a bit surprised at that kind of speech from a central banker, to be honest.”
 
Thomas Deser, a portfolio manager who specialises in energy companies at Germany’s Union Investment, said it will take decades before climate change rules are agreed and affect company valuations.
 
“It is early days to price in worst-case assumptions in terms of regulation,” he said.
 
Craig Pennington, oil and gas investment analyst at T Rowe Price, the US fund house, agreed: “You cannot deny the connection between fossil fuels and climate change. Where we would disagree is on the practical timeframe.

“If you were to turn today to companies producing hydrocarbons and say, ‘Stop producing’, the shortfall in primary supply would be massive. Alternatives are not big enough to plug the gap left by hydrocarbons.”
 
Several oil and gas companies, including Royal Dutch Shell, have similarly argued that the stranded-assets concept overlooks projected demand for energy, especially in fast-growing developing countries.
 
 
 
3) China Busy Buying Up Mark Carney’s ‘Stranded’ Assets
Not A Lot Of People Know That, 4 October 2015
 
Paul Homewood
 
Mark Carney believes that fossil fuels will soon become stranded assets, as the world will fall for the global warming scam and stop using them. Apparently, nobody told the Chinese!
 
According to the IEA, they have been busy buying up all the global oil and gas assets they can get their hands on, and, as of last November, control 7% of worldwide crude oil output.


image_thumb96image_thumb96
 
Full post
 
 
 

4) Low Oil Prices Here To Stay As US Shale Revolution Goes Global
The Conversation, 5 October 2015
 
Roberto F. Aguilera and Marian Radetzki
 
Oil price rises over the past 40 years have been truly spectacular, but the recent fall is probably here to stay, thanks to increasing production. We discuss these trends in our new book, The Price of Oil, published this month.
 
In constant money, prices rose by almost 900% between 1970-72 and 2011-13. This can be compared with a 68% real increase for a metals and minerals price index, comprising a commodity group that, like oil, is exhaustible.


Oil has increased in price unlike any other commodity.

In our view, it is political rather than economic forces that have shaped the inadequate growth of upstream oil production capacity, the dominant factor behind the sustained upward price push.
 
But we believe the period of excessively high oil prices has now come to an end. The international spread of two revolutions will assure much more ample oil supplies, and will deliver prices far below those experienced over the past decade.
 
The new oil revolutions

Beginning less than a decade ago, the shale oil revolution has turned the long run declining oil production trends in the United States into rises of 73% between 2008 and 2014. An exceedingly high rate of productivity improvements in this relatively new industry promises to strengthen the competitiveness of shale output even further.


The US shale oil revolution has triggered a dramatic increase in output. 

A series of environmental problems related to shale exploitation have been identified, most of which are likely to be successfully handled as the infant, “wild west” industry matures and as environmental regulation is introduced and sharpened.

Geologically, the United States does not stand out in terms of shale resources. A very incomplete global mapping suggests a US shale oil share of no more than 17% of a huge geological wealth, widely geographically spread. Given the mainly non-proprietary shale technology and the many advantages accruing to the producing nations, it is inevitable that the revolution will spread beyond the United States.

We have assessed the prospects of non-US shale oil output in 2035, positing that the rest of the world will by then exploit its shale resources as successfully as the United States has done in the revolution’s first ten years. This would yield rest of world an output of 19.5 million barrels per day in 2035, which is similar to the global rise of all oil production in the preceding 20 years – a stunning increase with far-reaching implications in many fields.

Another related revolution is beginning to see the light of the day, but news about it has barely reached the media. It is being gradually realised that the advancements in horizontal drilling and fracking can also be applied to conventional oil extraction.

If the rest of the world applies these techniques to conventional oil, as the United State has done, this would yield a further addition of conventional oil amounting to 19.7 million barrels per day by 2035.

The oil output increases are bound put downward pressure on prices, either by preventing price rises from the first-half 2015 levels, averaging some US$57 per barrel (Brent spot), or by pushing them back to these levels if an early upward reaction takes place.

Our optimistic scenario, which appears increasingly likely, sees a price of US$40 by 2035.

Global implications

The global spread of these revolutions and the ensuing price weakness that we envisage for the coming two decades will, on balance, provide a great advantage both to the oil industry and to the world economy at large.

Not surprisingly, public income from oil in producing nations may fall if they fail to compensate for falling prices by expanding output. We also suspect that the effects of the resource curse - where, paradoxically, nations with large resources don’t experience economic growth – will ease as prices decline.

The two revolutions will apparently cement and prolong the global oil dependence, with implications for climate policy. The efforts to develop renewables for the purpose of climate stabilisation will become more costly, requiring greater subsidies, in consequence of lower oil prices.

The abundance caused by the revolutions will lead to hard to fathom changes in international political relations. Much of the oil importers’ urge for political intervention and control will dissipate as access to oil becomes less urgent.

Full post



5) Rod Liddle: Oh Goody — It’s The Haranguing Halfwits’ Guide To Climate Change
The Sunday Times, 4 October 2015

Like you, I suspect, I often worry that we are insufficiently harangued about global warming by people who do not have the remotest clue what they are talking about. Oh, the experts harangue just fine. But I find it impossible to make up my mind on an issue unless someone I’ve always considered a halfwit has opined on the matter with a most cheerfully becoming pig-ignorance. When that happens, I listen carefully, snigger — and know that I must vote the other way.

This isn’t a foolproof method of finding one’s way in the world — it is surely the case that Bono’n’Bob, Stephen Fry, Russell Brand, Emma Thompson, the Met Office, the United Nations and so on must be right on some issues, if only by accident. But as a guide on how to think, it is at least 80% successful, I find. [...]

A couple of days earlier, it was Mark Carney, the governor of the Bank of England. Or his well-connected missus — one of the two. On Tuesday evening, Carney delivered a homily about global warming to those notorious sentimentalists, Lloyd’s of London. He made the stirring assertion that if action is not taken soon then “longer-term risks could have severe impact upon you and your policyholders”. Venceremos — man the barricades!

Some have suspected it is his wife who has nudged him into territory about which he has no training or expertise. Diana Fox Carney, sister of Lady Rotherwick, works for a “progressive Canadian think tank” and is therefore almost certainly every bit as tiresome as you might suppose. Her previous forays into policy have included a sort of vague support for the infantile Occupy movement, berating inequality in society and the iniquities of the City of London — an interesting position to take when your husband earns £624,000 a year as governor of the Bank of England.

Oh — and climate change. She’s very concerned about that. Especially teabags. She thinks we shouldn’t have them any more, because of the impact on those polar bears. And teabags are a little bit oiky, no, like antimacassars? Her views were described by The Guardian as “pleasingly edgy”. To normal people, outside The Guardian’s tiny readership, “pleasingly edgy” is synonymous with “fatuous”.

Carney, with wind turbine nailed to his forehead, has decided he doesn’t like hydrocarbons. Coal, gas and oil. He thinks we should probably leave one third of the world’s reserves of hydrocarbons right there where they are, in the ground. Leave it where it is and invest in what are euphemistically called renewables, which contribute 1% of the world’s energy needs. Right-ho, Mark — that’s the entire basis of the western economic system well and truly buggered, then.

Hell, who’d have thought it: a banker doing his best to wreck the economy as a consequence of a latterly acquired arrogance. Nah. That’s never happened before, has it.


6) US Congress Investigates Scientists Wanting To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics
Daily Caller News Foundation, 2 October 2015

Michael Bastasch

The 20 climate scientists and academics who sent a letter to President Barack Obama asking him to prosecute global warming skeptics may be in big trouble.

A congressional committee is now looking into the government-backed nonprofit that circulated the letter, demanding they turn over “all e-mail, electronic documents, and data created since January 1, 2009.” The group has one week to respond in writing to the committee’s request.

The Institute of Global Environment and Society (IGES) “appears to be almost fully funded by taxpayer money while simultaneously participating in partisan political activity by requesting a RICO investigation of companies and organizations that disagree with the Obama administration on climate change,” Texas Republican Rep. Lamar Smith, chairman of the House science committee, wrote in a letter to IGES.

It seems like IGES’s effort to get Obama to prosecute global warming skeptics has completely backfired in the two weeks since their letter to the administration was published online. IGES has since taken down the letter and put up a message claiming the letter was “inadvertently posted” online.

“It was decided more than two years ago that [IGES] would be dissolved when the projects then undertaken by IGES would be completed,” according to the group’s website. “All research projects by IGES were completed in July 2015, and the IGES website is in the process of being decommissioned.”

IGES’ claim it had “inadvertently posted” the letter urging the president to prosecute those who don’t agree with them on global warming comes after investigations revealed the group was getting millions from taxpayers, and that its founder was getting paid huge salaries for part-time work.

Soon after the letter was reported on by news outlets, independent investigations revealed that IGES had gotten $3.8 million in government grants in 2014 — virtually all of the group’s funding came from NOAA, NASA and the National Science Foundation. But that was only the tip of the funding iceberg.

“In fact, IGES has reportedly received $63 million from taxpayers since 2001, comprising over 98 percent of its total revenue during that time,” Smith noted in his letter, citing figures dug up by The Washington Free Beacon’s Lachlan Markay.

It didn’t stop there. It turns out IGES’s founder and president Jagadish Shukla was making more than $333,000 in annual compensation for part-time work. This is on top of his $314,000 salary from George Mason University, according to Climate Audit’s Steve McIntyre. IGES joined GMU’s College of Science in 2013.

Full story
Follow on Twitter    Forward to Friend 
Copyright © 2015 The Global Warming Policy Forum, All rights reserved.
unsubscribe from this list    update subscription preferences