mrk
Posts: 807
Likes: 753
|
Post by mrk on Jan 17, 2020 16:56:11 GMT
What are these green technologies you are investing in? I have most of my money in funds, and picked e.g. the BGF Sustainable Energy, and M&G Positive Impact that have a good "sustainability rating" on Morningstar. Also took a punt on a couple of startups on Seedrs, tidal energy and zero emission vehicles. Only started looking for greener options recently really. But - like that BlackRock letter says - it stands to reason that more sustainable companies should perform better in the long term. Can't be worse than investing in Lendy or Collateral for sure.
|
|
pip
Posts: 542
Likes: 725
|
Post by pip on Jan 17, 2020 16:57:39 GMT
Most of them? Give us a list of them.. I've made good money out of solar panels house insulation, led lighting and high efficiency petrol engines along with wind power and biodigesters ( though green is less clear here ). I've worked as well as invested in some of these industries and am just bemused by some of the views here. I've taken part in MOOCs to understand CC and frankly The Daily Mail or Telegraph is not a good place to research much. The science is clear. All the, "but I know better", is amusing but please stop bailing in. If nothing else do a MOOC the one from Illinois-Champagne is a good one. I don't think i said I know better. You are trying to imply I said things which I didn't. Which is where seeing the world in good/bad, black/white, supporter/heretic normally ends up. Frankly I am all very confused as to what the end goal is. If I knew this then I could answer if I support it or not. Is it using more GM to reduce demand on agricultural land, mandate use of lower emitting modes of transport and power, increase protection of forests and seas, fine people more heavily for litter/fly tipping, teach children far more about the seasons, farming, gardening etc. I am in favour of all of this. If it is stopping people getting to work without providing alternatives, increasing taxation by stealth, increasing foreign aid by stealth, ignoring democratic votes to implement policies which are green etc. Then no I don't support this. I haven't somebody write a book 'A world where we are carbon neutral'. I am not convinced that this world is a dystopian one and until I am more clear my healthy scepticism will remain. All this while I continue to be a poster boy for living a low carbon lifestyle.
|
|
pip
Posts: 542
Likes: 725
|
Post by pip on Jan 17, 2020 17:09:11 GMT
What are these green technologies you are investing in? I have most of my money in funds, and picked e.g. the BGF Sustainable Energy, and M&G Positive Impact that have a good "sustainability rating" on Morningstar. Also took a punt on a couple of startups on Seedrs, tidal energy and zero emission vehicles. Only started looking for greener options recently really. But - like that BlackRock letter says - it stands to reason that more sustainable companies should perform better in the long term. Can't be worse than investing in Lendy or Collateral for sure. OK well hope they work out for you. Potentially they may out-perform but I stopped thinking that I had any talent for identifying which companies would be winners on the stock market about 10 years ago when I realised I had no talent in this area. This is the reason why my only stock market investments now are my pension and VCTs which I choose for no other reason that both start with a big tax boost which may just overcome my hopelessly bad record at picking stocks. And definitely I would have preferred throwing my money into the wind than some p2p sites, we can all agree here!
|
|
jj
Member of DD Central
Jolly Jammy
Posts: 320
Likes: 357
|
Post by jj on Jan 17, 2020 18:05:50 GMT
Investing in "green funds/ technology" doesn't mean you're green, it means you're greedy. They are all subsidised, without which they wouldn't work.
To be green you should be investing and taking a loss because the technology is more expensive. Prime example is electric cars which are roughly twice as expensive.
Part of the problem with capitalism is the focus on GDP figures. Increase in GDP figures is directly correlated to increase consumption/production, which in turn leads to an increase in Co2.
Until governments focus away from GDP figures and have a neutral population policy I can't take the government seriously about climate change.
|
|
Greenwood2
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,214
Likes: 2,667
Member is Online
|
Post by Greenwood2 on Jan 17, 2020 20:38:47 GMT
The quasi-science for climate change I find really difficult to understand, does c02 correlate with temperature, or correlate with some sort of lag, or as other people say it doesn't correlate at all. No end of graphs etc, then there are the sun spot people that expect more like a cooling earth, maybe a combination of both?
As a scientist I would really like to see some empirical information to make my own decision, mind you in the mean time doing what we can to reduce global warming seems like a good thing.
|
|
mrk
Posts: 807
Likes: 753
|
Post by mrk on Jan 17, 2020 20:42:32 GMT
Investing in "green funds/ technology" doesn't mean you're green, it means you're greedy. They are all subsidised, without which they wouldn't work.
To be green you should be investing and taking a loss because the technology is more expensive. Prime example is electric cars which are roughly twice as expensive. Glad I managed to get criticised by both sides of the argument now. Renewable energy can be cheaper than fossil fuels these days. If anything fossil fuels receive more subsidies. Surely not all investments have the same impact. (As for cars, I actually have none myself.) Part of the problem with capitalism is the focus on GDP figures. Increase in GDP figures is directly correlated to increase consumption/production, which in turn leads to an increase in Co2.
Until governments focus away from GDP figures and have a neutral population policy I can't take the government seriously about climate change. Capitalism is the system we have and I don't see a better one being established any time soon, so that's what I work with. After all, despite all the great issues we face, life so far has generally improved. And population growth is slowing down even without government policies. Correcting capitalism to properly account for externalities like CO2 emissions seems our best hope to me.
|
|
mrk
Posts: 807
Likes: 753
|
Post by mrk on Jan 17, 2020 20:50:44 GMT
The quasi-science for climate change I find really difficult to understand, does c02 correlate with temperature, or correlate with some sort of lag, or as other people say it doesn't correlate at all. No end of graphs etc, then there are the sun spot people that expect more like a cooling earth, maybe a combination of both? As a scientist I would really like to see some empirical information to make my own decision, mind you in the mean time doing what we can to reduce global warming seems like a good thing. "When the carbon dioxide concentration goes up, temperature goes up. When the carbon dioxide concentration goes down, temperature goes down." - Temperature Change and Carbon Dioxide Change
|
|
|
Post by brianac on Jan 17, 2020 21:53:51 GMT
Investing in "green funds/ technology" doesn't mean you're green, it means you're greedy. They are all subsidised, without which they wouldn't work.
To be green you should be investing and taking a loss because the technology is more expensive. Prime example is electric cars which are roughly twice as expensive.
Part of the problem with capitalism is the focus on GDP figures. Increase in GDP figures is directly correlated to increase consumption/production, which in turn leads to an increase in Co2.
Until governments focus away from GDP figures and have a neutral population policy I can't take the government seriously about climate change.
Erm, excuse me, I've got an electric car, and it's very economical to run, despite the fact that, unfortunatley for me, my electric is probably a lot dearer than yours. slightly dearer to buy the car initially (I bought second hand so not too much of a premium), but more than compensated by the low running costs Oh, and it is a real joy to drive too, makes you realise the real shortcomings of the infernal combustion engine. Brian
|
|
michaelc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,785
Likes: 2,733
|
Post by michaelc on Jan 17, 2020 23:12:18 GMT
Investing in "green funds/ technology" doesn't mean you're green, it means you're greedy. They are all subsidised, without which they wouldn't work.
To be green you should be investing and taking a loss because the technology is more expensive. Prime example is electric cars which are roughly twice as expensive.
Part of the problem with capitalism is the focus on GDP figures. Increase in GDP figures is directly correlated to increase consumption/production, which in turn leads to an increase in Co2.
Until governments focus away from GDP figures and have a neutral population policy I can't take the government seriously about climate change.
Erm, excuse me, I've got an electric car, and it's very economical to run, despite the fact that, unfortunatley for me, my electric is probably a lot dearer than yours. slightly dearer to buy the car initially (I bought second hand so not too much of a premium), but more than compensated by the low running costs Oh, and it is a real joy to drive too, makes you realise the real shortcomings of the infernal combustion engine. Brian
What car is it ?
|
|
Godanubis
Member of DD Central
Anubis is known as the god of death and is the oldest and most popular of ancient Egyptian deities.
Posts: 2,011
Likes: 1,013
|
Post by Godanubis on Jan 17, 2020 23:27:57 GMT
Investing in "green funds/ technology" doesn't mean you're green, it means you're greedy. They are all subsidised, without which they wouldn't work.
To be green you should be investing and taking a loss because the technology is more expensive. Prime example is electric cars which are roughly twice as expensive.
Part of the problem with capitalism is the focus on GDP figures. Increase in GDP figures is directly correlated to increase consumption/production, which in turn leads to an increase in Co2.
Until governments focus away from GDP figures and have a neutral population policy I can't take the government seriously about climate change.
Erm, excuse me, I've got an electric car, and it's very economical to run, despite the fact that, unfortunatley for me, my electric is probably a lot dearer than yours. slightly dearer to buy the car initially (I bought second hand so not too much of a premium), but more than compensated by the low running costs Oh, and it is a real joy to drive too, makes you realise the real shortcomings of the infernal combustion engine. Brian
I drive a 3l diesel my third of the same model. CO2 reduces on latest but still higher . I like luxury at a great price 70% of new price in 7 years. I drive about 6000 miles a year and use slightly less than 200 gals of fuel. EV is ok for me as I have solar panels and use 100% of electric produced however price of an EV equivalent the specs of my Phaeton new is something like a X10 Tesla is at least £82000. Ten times the price of my current car . I never had any children that must add 10s of thousands of tons in the bank to offset for my comfort. From build to recycling the CO2 for EVs is not that much less than Hybrids or efficient conventional unless mileage is high. Again it is more of make yourself feel good and that’s ok. I won’t be around long enough for it make much difference either way. As soon as it benefits people in their pockets they will then change their habits. Until then apart from the few most will say “that’s ok but not for me”
|
|
jj
Member of DD Central
Jolly Jammy
Posts: 320
Likes: 357
|
Post by jj on Jan 18, 2020 8:56:18 GMT
N.B. I was not refering to myself in the electric car example. I drive a 18 year old petrol car and only do 5000 miles a year.
But since we are here. I am pretty sure my driving habits produce lower Co2 than even a electric car owner, which would be on its third set of batteries by now.
The point I was ultimately making is comsuming of any type usually produces Co2. AND the GDP economic model we use is geared up the producing Co2.
I think its a bad idea to suggest "My one is bigger than yours" which seems to be the rule of the day but in reverse.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 8,871
Likes: 4,752
|
Post by adrianc on Jan 18, 2020 9:31:51 GMT
I don’t see a year of programming on the laws of thermodynamics? There aren't people trying to deny them.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 8,871
Likes: 4,752
|
Post by adrianc on Jan 18, 2020 9:41:51 GMT
Or may be all developed countries to copy the India's model, it's CO2 per capita ranked 20th, about 28% of what the Brits produce There's only about a third of the Indian population still living in poverty of a kind totally unknown here... Nearly 30% of the rural population with no access to toilets, up to 50% in some provinces... 15% of the rural population without access to clean water... So, no, I don't think we do need to copy India's model... Nigeria or Laos emit about 1/10th of the UK's CO2 per capita. Why not copy them? Somalia's even lower... It's easy to not emit much CO2 when you're living in abject poverty with none of the fripperies of what we take for granted in the developed world. The problem is that the whole world wants to have access to those, as well. And why shouldn't they? The UK is fairly good - we're amongst the lowest CO2 emitters in the developed world. Sweden and Switzerland are about the lowest - only about 15-20% lower than us. The US is about 3x the UK. Doesn't mean we can't be better...
|
|
cb25
Posts: 3,520
Likes: 2,665
|
Post by cb25 on Jan 18, 2020 14:36:00 GMT
Impact of population growth might be covered in "Chris Packham: 7.7 Billion People and Counting", BBC2 Tues 21 Jan @ 9pm
|
|
Greenwood2
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,214
Likes: 2,667
Member is Online
|
Post by Greenwood2 on Jan 19, 2020 15:33:17 GMT
The quasi-science for climate change I find really difficult to understand, does c02 correlate with temperature, or correlate with some sort of lag, or as other people say it doesn't correlate at all. No end of graphs etc, then there are the sun spot people that expect more like a cooling earth, maybe a combination of both? As a scientist I would really like to see some empirical information to make my own decision, mind you in the mean time doing what we can to reduce global warming seems like a good thing. "When the carbon dioxide concentration goes up, temperature goes up. When the carbon dioxide concentration goes down, temperature goes down." - Temperature Change and Carbon Dioxide Change One of the most remarkable aspects of the paleoclimate record is the strong correspondence between temperature and the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere observed during the glacial cycles of the past several hundred thousand years. When the carbon dioxide concentration goes up, temperature goes up. When the carbon dioxide concentration goes down, temperature goes down. A small part of the correspondence is due to the relationship between temperature and the solubility of carbon dioxide in the surface ocean, but the majority of the correspondence is consistent with a feedback between carbon dioxide and climate. These changes are expected if Earth is in radiative balance, and they are consistent with the role of greenhouse gases in climate change. While it might seem simple to determine cause and effect between carbon dioxide and climate from which change occurs first, or from some other means, the determination of cause and effect remains exceedingly difficult. Furthermore, other changes are involved in the glacial climate, including altered vegetation, land surface characteristics, and ice sheet extent.
Quote from your link, not to mention how did they measure temperature and carbon dioxide concentration? I assume inferred from other data since no one was there to measure them at the time, how accurate is this data? Did temperature go up and down with carbon dioxide or the other way around or did they both vary with something else? The recent data, which no one seems to put on the same graph or the same scale as the historic data seems to me to be quite a different correlation (less than 2 degrees for 100 bits change?). But we may also be in a global cooling due to variations in the sun (low sunspot activity?), which may be protecting us from the worst effects of global warming. Hope the Beeb cover all of this.
|
|