1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Climate Change? Nahhh ...

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by Riptide, Oct 23, 2015.

  1. Spartan Squad

    Spartan Squad Well-Known Member

    And yes it will cost us a lot of money to update our infrastructure to adapt to carbon neutral or carbon zero energy. You know what else cost a bunch of money to do? Put that infrastructure in place to begin with, yet we did it because it benefited us. And you know what will cost even more than what it will take to install an maintain new energy systems? Not doing anything. To the tune of $2T per year or more depending on which study you follow. It could cost is more than $100T total by at best century’s end and at worse by 2050.


    https://www.cnbc.com/2022/04/04/climate-change-could-cost-us-2-trillion-each-year-by-2100-omb.html

    https://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/pag...tte-launches-unlimited-reality-services1.html
     
    Mngwa likes this.
  2. Azrael

    Azrael Well-Known Member

    Sounds like a compelling argument for energy diversity.

    And for a more forceful response to Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
     
    Last edited: Sep 8, 2022
    Mngwa likes this.
  3. Azrael

    Azrael Well-Known Member

    Last edited: Sep 8, 2022
  4. Azrael

    Azrael Well-Known Member

    Speaking of which . . .

    Oil and gas firms’ green investments fail to match promise of publicity – study
     
  5. Alma

    Alma Well-Known Member

    Europe is pretty energy diverse. Because of the war it’s lost its fossil fuel component, and the US is currently in its own reverie its nose at fossil fuel development.

    This story is good, but it takes its time to reach the crux of the matter:

    Shock Waves Hit the Global Economy, Posing Grave Risk to Europe

    That puzzle is complicated by the need to produce energy that not only is quickly available and affordable, but also won’t aggravate the calamitous climate change already endangering the planet.
     
  6. dixiehack

    dixiehack Well-Known Member

    If it feels like everything (and not just energy production and environmental measures) is changing all at once, consider it like a dam bursting after the baby boom generation kept everything stopped up for so long because of its outsized influence and resistance to change.

    This Gen X’er won’t see his generation take total control for very long if ever … and that’s OK by me. Progress is messy and we need to help those affected as best we can. But nothing is sadder than people who pick out a year between when they were 16-25 and want that world frozen in amber forever.
     
    Driftwood and I Should Coco like this.
  7. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    What made me a little suspicious when I read that is that whoever is behind that put the communications expenditures into a dollar amount ($750 million), but put the CapEx spending into percentage terms (to make it sound like a low number). ... The thing is, I know how much those companies invest in CapEx, and if you add up all of the companies it was talking about, their CapEx expenditures are in the hundreds of billions of dollars a year. If 12 percent of Chevron's CapEx spending this year is on low-carbon initiatives, it would have amounted to something like a $2.25 billion investment this year. 12 percent of BP's CapEx would be more than $1.5 billion. ExxonMobil, more than $2.8 billion. Shell, more than $3.3 billion. Total, $1.8 billion (and they actually announced that 25 percent of their CapEx spending is going to be related to renewables this year, not 12 percent).

    I actually find what that "study" suggests incredibly dishonest because those 5 companies spent $750 million on communications (if the number is correct) compared to somewhere between $10 and $20 billion on low-carbon energy initiatives (if that 12 percent number is correct). But that wouldn't have sounded as boogity, boogity , so they went with the "percentage" tack to try to create a false impression that they are spending nothing.

    Put into the terms of say $15 billion of investment versus $750 million in communications to try to generate some positive PR, are those companies really not living up to their "promise"?

    Also, what exactly is their promise? Those are companies that are not in the low-carbon energy business. They are experts in, and make money, doing exploration and pulling oil and nat gas out of the ground. The reason they are investing anything in other types of energy has less to do with a promise to anyone than it has to do with the fact that the handwriting is on the wall for their businesses to not be viable in the future. The thing is, they are not experts in say, renewables. So the expectation that they would take the money they earn and turn around and plow it all into something speculative and that is different from the core of what they do is really ridiculous. Nobody prudent runs a business that way. Most CapEx relates to trying to grow your actual business, not trying to create a whole new business. The guy who used to make horse buggies didn't seamslessly transition and start a successful automobile company. And those oil and gas companies know that. So while they have an eye on the future of their businesses, of course only a portion of their CapEx spending is going to go into what are pretty speculative activities. They'd put zero into that, except for the fact that they need to hedge their bets at this point.

    Even criticizing them for their communications efforts (i.e. -- trying to generate positive PR) is unfair, IMO. Their businesses get endlessly maligned (even as people demand what they are selling). If they are spending tens of billions of dollars on low-carbon energy activities -- money the companies earned that could be paying a dividend to their owners -- why is it bad for them to try to generate better PR from it if it's possible?
     
  8. maumann

    maumann Well-Known Member

    Fisher Body would like a word.

    Fisher Body - Wikipedia

    "Fisher Body's beginnings trace back to a horse-drawn carriage shop in Norwalk, Ohio, in the late 1800s. Lawrence P. Fisher (1852 Peru, Ohio – 1921, Norwalk, Ohio) and his wife Margaret Theisen (1857 Baden, Germany – 1936 Detroit, Michigan) had a large family of eleven children; seven were sons who would become part of the Fisher Body Company in Detroit. Lawrence and Margaret were married in Sandusky, Ohio, in 1876. Margaret Theisen Fisher lived in Detroit after her husband died.

    "In 1904 and 1905, the two eldest brothers, Fred and Charles, came to Detroit where their uncle Albert Fisher had established Standard Wagon Works during the latter part of the 1880s. The brothers found work at the C. R. Wilson Company, a manufacturer of horse-drawn carriage bodies that was beginning to make bodies for automobile manufacturers. With financing from their uncle, on July 22, 1908, Fred and Charles Fisher established the Fisher Body Company. Their uncle soon wanted out, and the brothers obtained the needed funds from businessman Louis Mendelssohn who became a shareholder and director. Soon Charles and Fred Fisher brought their five younger brothers into the business.

    Prior to forming the company, Fred Fisher had built the first closed-body coupe, the 1905 Cadillac Osceola at the C. R. Wilson Company. The Osceola was requested by Mr. Leland to determine the feasibility of a car body that was closed to the elements. It was built on the chassis of the 1905 Cadillac Model E.[3] Starting in 1910, Fisher became the supplier of all closed bodies for Cadillac, Buick, Oakland and Oldsmobile.

    In the early years of the company, the Fisher Brothers had to develop new body designs because the "horseless carriage" bodies lacked the strength to withstand the vibration of the new motorcars. By 1913, the Fisher Body Company had the capacity to produce 100,000 cars per year and customers included: Ford, Krit, Chalmers, General Motors, and Studebaker. Highly successful, they expanded into Canada, establishing a plant in Walkerville, Ontario. By 1914 their operations had grown to become the world's largest manufacturer of auto bodies. One reason for their success was the development of interchangeable wooden body parts that did not require hand-fitting, as was the case in the construction of carriages. This required the design of new precision woodworking tools."
     
    TigerVols likes this.
  9. goalmouth

    goalmouth Well-Known Member

  10. Azrael

    Azrael Well-Known Member

  11. Azrael

    Azrael Well-Known Member

  12. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    Inky_Wretch likes this.
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page