The effect of a decade of starving O&G industry of capital, shutting down pipelines, activists shifting majors from exploring towards alternatives, Biden talking about profit tax on O&G companies, etc. All designed to de-incentivize E&Ps from taking on new projects.
Producers stop exploring and eventually go offline -> draw down on supply -> price spike (see Europe) -> "Wind and solar are so cheap relative to fossil fuels". Sure, higher oil and natural gas prices make alternatives seem relatively cheap. Side note: assuming we can miraculously build an infrastructure that essentially doubles US electric grid and energy production. If coal mines go offline bc we no longer need thermal, how will we produce coking coal for steel production to replace infrastructure in ~30 years. I digress that's too far into the future. Back to Natty Gas. Natural Gas is used to produce Ammonia (up almost 100% YoY). Ammonia is used for not only fertilizer but most Diesel trucks thanks to EPA (Ammonia -> DEF Fluid for trucks). Without DEF, Diesel trucks cannot drive. All leading to:
-
Higher Input costs -> higher Food Prices
-
supply chain essentially unusable if no DEF
-
No availability to replace energy infrastructure -> power failure (Nuclear)
If we continue down our current trajectory of punishing O&G producers it seems like anarchy is inevitable, making the empty shelves in March 2020 look like child's play. A few questions for either energy experts or someone just more knowledgeable (Im just a dumb analyst not even in the energy space).
1: Where is my logic wrong? Where in that chain of events are there viable substitutes? Or what is a reasonable time frame to undo green initiatives and get O&G back to level of production that can sustain modern supply chains and infra?
2: What was sentiment around these issues in 2006/2008?
Interesting points you bring up here. I don't think it's a great idea to "punish" O&G companies, but I think the general idea is to create incentives for these companies and investors to throw their money at renewable energy. I think renewable energy is great but the infrastructure and interconnection to grids in the United States is nowhere near where it needs to be for renewables to be a realistic replacement to O&G. I think the clean energy transition is going to be very slow. We're seeing an increase in electric vehicles, but obviously these require more electricity, which requires more renewable energy development, which requires more infrastructure and interconnection development, and also energy storage technology is not where it needs to be to fully support a renewable grid in the US. Steering away from O&G is definitely the right thing to do but it's going to take a long time, policy makers can't expect to stop O&G cold-turkey.
"Green Energy Policy" will lead to neo-feudalism, an energy tax is an EVERYTHING tax.
Look up Technocracy in Europe, this is where we are heading.
Our unelected bureaucrats, where the majority of policy is driven nowadays, are quite similar to the EU government. Unelected and powerful.
I view it as a planned ultra long term transition from oil to renewables.. but I’m not all in the weeds like some of you are. Theoretically and at a high level, it is a good thing but devil is in the details.
I don’t view it any differently than transitioning away from coal or whatever
There's definitely a lot of grey areas in renewables. For example: the labor and materials required to produce solar panels isn't always environmentally friendly or ethical. Lots of child labor in mines is involved to create solar panels, especially in China where most of them are made. Developing solar farms isn't always straight forward either. There was a project my firm funded in Japan, but the solar farm had to be built pretty far away from the community, which means a lot of forest land had to be flattened out to make room for the solar panels. Then we had to demolish a lot more forest to make space for all the interconnection infrastructure required to connect the solar farm to the grid. Then after that since there were no trees to absorb rainfall, we had to dig this huge artificial pond to collect water in order to prevent potential flooding. So renewable energy isn't always "clean."
Just wait until those "ESG" guys find out that the unbeatable prices of solar panels made in china are caused by the use of forced labor of political prisoners....Oh wait they know but just give 2 shits about it because their delusional audience wouldn't even notice if they were being pissed on and someone told them on tv that's raining, that's the level we reached
Don't forget that the size of the solar farm and associated accessories had to be made bigger than needed on purpose just to make sure it generated enough to compensate for the transmission losses incurred by moving it away from the end user and their kw/h target.
Ironically the so called green energy is a source of unrecyclable and toxic waste that in countries like Germany added up to 1.35 Million Tons as per Nov 2020 only in wind turbines that must be changed after 20 yrs., solar panels poison the land when their useful cycle ends. Apart of the fact that natural environments and arable land are destroyed with their installation but hey a rabid swedish brat and her cult, some useless parasit political leeches ( kind of redundant terms btw) and some hollywood millionaires can convince a world full of retardeds without any sort of independent critical skills and observation of practically anything.... Without mentioning that the levels of energy available will be the ones of Albania at the beginning of the 80's... Is official, we really live in a world full of retardeds
In the past 10 years we've had a Democrat president with a Republican congress who wouldn't allow any fossil fuel regulations, a climate change denier, and another Democrat who is again being blocked because mUH wEST vIRGINIA cOAL. Sounds like you're blaming the 'libruls' for the free market. The fact is, during that period we've had:
1. The development of fracking which made competing over oil reserves and all pretty much obsolete and made prices steeply decline
2. Overproduction by Saudi Arabia, Russia, and the US which is basically a race to the bottom
3. Extreme sensitivity to changes in commodity prices. A dollar change in oil prices leads to 3000 workers hired or fired.
And this has had predictably bad results:
So in the end it seems like a risky, unwise decision to throw money at oil and gas whether it's through private investment or government subsidies. We don't want to end up like Venezuela.
https://www.ewg.org/news-insights/news/oil-and-gas-industry-decline
Coal still makes up 20% of electricity production and is an important business in West Virginia. Manchin is literally doing what is best for his constituents, which is what an elected senator should do. No doubt he has holdings in coal companies which would influence the decision, but it's something that impacts his state greatly as well.
West Virginians pay crazy amounts for electricity though, which makes up 90% of the state's grid, more than their neighbors who have slowly gone off coal.
It's an interesting point, but also a shortsighted one. Joe Manchin should be doing what is best for his constituents, but you can make a strong argument that doubling down on what is obviously a dying industry (in the US, at least) is bad planning. Moreover, the coal industry is well known for producing horror stories about public health crises - not saying anecdotal evidence should drive policy discussions, but it very much seems that "best for his constituents" means "best for coal companies" and not necessarily the people voting for him. It's all well and good to have a decent paying job, but if you're also gutting the kinds of regulation and social services that prevent those employees from getting black lung and living out their older years in agony, then it's hard to argue that you're acting with the best interests of your constituents at heart. Someone acting in that manner might support a policy that would cost them personally (the politician, I mean) in the short term, but benefit constituents in the long term. Job retraining isn't super easy and is often unsuccessful, and just saying "teach all these miners how to code" is silly and simplistic, but certainly there is a middle ground between "let everyone get laid off" and "protect an industry that cannot survive on it's own".
After all, for every time some coal company uses public waterways as their private sewer, there is an impact on all West Virginians, not the tiny minority employed in the coal industry.
it amazes me that every comment of yours I find is littered with monkey shit. At some point I would have to think you'd stop commenting, especially since this is a finance forum and you self-admittedly don't work in finance, but i digress...
1) Nowhere in this post did anyone mention political leanings or parties. You decided to insert yourself and your political beliefs then deflect and point the finger elsewhere, per the liberal handbook of how to handle everyday life. This is especially evident with your username, and the fact that even though we're approaching a year with Trump out of office, liberal simpletons like yourself have to make every conversation or discussion about Trump or bad bad very bad conservative ideologies. The best part is that you then get upset when users like myself respond, despite you gaslighting people in the first place with incredibly obtuse generalizations.
2) Climate change is objectively real. Anyone who ever took a 5th grade science class knows basically the entire northern hemisphere used to be a block of ice and no longer is. The part for many, myself included, that draws criticism is when the same fucks screaming climate change is going to kill us all, are the same people dumping metric tons of carbon emissions in the atmosphere via private jets, yachts the size of a small town, and V10 combustion engines getting 4 MPG. If the elites actually acted on the shit they consistently spew, myself, and presumably others, would be inclined to take it seriously.
3) Per your last sentence, and further referencing point 1 above, no one mentioned throwing money at O&G... it was skepticism regarding the perception around "clean energy" and subsequent consequences on us tapering from use of said product. Solar power is the biggest feel good bullshit story of all time, and I know you love data so here we go. Estimated that 80% of solar panels are made by Uyghur muslims in concentration camps (hoooray! slavery and green energy!!!!), solar farms take up ~300 times more land than nuclear facilities leading to deforestation and decimation of natural habitats (but we LOVE the environment!!), and last but not least... the so called savior to our troubles isn't recyclable and will create so much waste, the cost of electricity will increase 4 fold (but god forbid the price swings in O&G) per HBR.
In summary, no O&G isn't perfect, no one claimed it was. But neither are any of these renewable sources all of you parade around as the best thing since sliced bread. This is also the problem with the current political climate, where everyone who deviates from or questions the group think is crucified, as you accurately represented with your post. You are being lied to, and I know most liberals can't formulate critical thoughts anymore because they're too busy dying their hair 48 colors or being offended at the wrong use of their pronouns, but call me insane for not taking world renown scholar Brad Pitt at his word when he says "climate change is bad". Take a look in the mirror, you might discover some makeup, a red wig, a puffy red nose, and some oversized bowling shoes because you sir are a CLOWN.
1) His post mentioned Biden by name, as well as environmental activists who are a liberal leaning bunch. He claimed that those groups were choking off fossil fuels in this country while I refuted that point. Not sure why I'm being called the one bringing politics into this.
2) I never even mentioned climate change I just stated my point from a financial perspective instead of from an environmental one
3) The very first sentence of his post began with "The effect of a decade of starving O&G industry of capital". I just said that it would be foolish to invest more money in this industry.
>2) Climate change is objectively real. Anyone who ever took a 5th grade science class knows basically the entire northern hemisphere used to be a block of ice and no longer is. The part for many, myself included, that draws criticism is when the same fucks screaming climate change is going to kill us all, are the same people dumping metric tons of carbon emissions in the atmosphere via private jets, yachts the size of a small town, and V10 combustion engines getting 4 MPG. If the elites actually acted on the shit they consistently spew, myself, and presumably others, would be inclined to take it seriously.
Great post and I 100% agree. Anytime anyone dares to question "Climate Change Policy" you get labelled and smeared as a "DENIER". "Climate" is the new religion. You can't question it, and if you do, you'll be cast out and labelled as a heretic.
Natural gas production levels are almost at all time highs and predicted to rise next year. Oil production levels have rebounded post covid, not as much as gas but still rising. Rig counts are increasing. Coal plants are shutting down at a pace that is slower than renewable builds so electric generating capacity is fine. The ERCOT debacle of Feb 2021 was caused by thermal plant issues and natural gas pipelines freezing because Texas pulled its grid from federal regulations, nothing to do with wind power despite what some said. The Keystone pipeline permit being pulled will not stop oil from being transported into the US, its already being sent here by truck and rail.
Expand the circle of what you read and don't give in to fear mongering. We will be just fine.
"Coal plants are shutting down at a pace that is slower than renewable builds so electric generating capacity is fine."
Way off...replacing a MWh of coal capacity with a MWh of renewable capacity is completely different - that's how you get 10k power prices. You're looking at it from a macro level...total gen is "fine", but what is that gen made up of?
"The ERCOT debacle of Feb 2021 was caused by thermal plant issues and natural gas pipelines freezing because Texas pulled its grid from federal regulations, nothing to do with wind power despite what some said."
Massive oversimplification of a very, very complex chain of events that unfolded in Feb. I understand that some (esp in the media) blamed the whole debacle on wind or wtv... but to suggest the existence of intermittent resources had "nothing to do" with what happened is just wrong, there is a ton at play here
If you want the long technical answer micro answer to the bullshit that was originally written I will give it to you but that doesn't seem appropriate for a message board.
You really think that the ERCOT debacle had nothing to do with wind or solar? Absolutely zero to do with it?
Absolutely zero, no. If I were forced to spread blame its probably 90% gas/coal and 10% renewables. Bottom line though, for all the crap wind got for causing the issue, the significant majority (70% + on average with some monthly shaping) of electricity is supplier by coal and gas in ERCOT. If every MW of coal/gas was available with the actual renewable outage level, ERCOT would not have had significant load outages. I'm not gonna do any modeling to determine how the transmission system would have held up in that scenario to determine the exact demand loss but on a generation capacity/estimated loads the system would have done ok. Prices would have been screaming because that's the economics of power generation and distribution but at least power would be on for people in the middle of a deep freeze. If every single MW of wind was available with the actual level of gas/coal outages, there would still have been significant demand loss.
"decade of starving O&G industry of capital"
We must be watching different movies because every line chart of upstream O&G investment in North America tells me otherwise. This capital starvation narrative is a brand new one and to suggest this has been the case for a long time is wrong. Arguably, for a very long time up until COVID, the opposite was true. Way, way too much cheap capital being drilled into the ground which never saw a return on capital - hence the dogshit energy share price performances in the years leading up to covid.
"If coal mines go offline bc we no longer need thermal, how will we produce coking coal for steel production to replace infrastructure in ~30 years."
Thermal and coking coal are 2 different commodities (though geological origins are similar), and the fundamentals/economics dont really interplay much. The companies, producing countries, end markets, etc are very different
Capital discipline was an industry-wide theme for about a year before COVID hit.
agreed
It's been a pretty big theme since after COVID too, there's been tons of articles about how surprising it is that shale production hasn't rebounded alongside oil prices the way it used to do. Most capex is being done by the private producers now
I saw a documentary about this once. It was called Mad Max?
electric trucks and organic food
In the long run renewables will take over faster you jump on board and find a way to make money the better off. We will hit peak demand in crude and natty within the next 5 years.
Will there be volatility? Yes ofcourse that is the whole concept of transition.
Euro energy crisis (100+ TTF), ERCOT feb deep freeze. Are all things that come with a transition. Energy has always been subsidized but if you want zero volatility it needs to be massively subsidized no other choice.
Good, either use green energy or civilization gets fuk'd.
Very well thought out post and the only part that I disagree w/ is the thesis. These policies are specifically aimed at further centralizing power in the federal government and the panoply of regulatory agencies who are already able to pass laws that never see a legislature. This has always been evident, but the mask completely slipped when the GND was proposed (which was written like a C- HS civics paper) that proposed a bunch of stringent measures that didn't even have to do w/ climate change. The environmentalists in the Democrat party simply view and use climate change as a means by which to institute a higher degree of central planning. After all, it's an "emergency" and that's what they do w/ emergencies. The effects of these policies are much more likely to result in a higher degree of totalitarianism than anarchism.
Here it is simplified.
There is no green energy without nuclear. Define green how you like, but I imagine it would be fewer CO2 emissions. Wind, solar, etc are funded by the government and will not EVER operate at a profit. The government will increase expenditures and deficit to make this happen(it is happening). As much as we want to think we can print money and it will not have any effect on the economy, that is wrong. There is not infinite amount of money. Every year we have to choose what we can afford to pay for.
Oil and gas, work. Oil is the most efficient transport of energy per unit of energy by 50,000,000 times, and by that I mean by stored unit of energy, comparison for wind, and solar. For Electric cars to work, we need completely new infrastructure. The amount of energy that will be consumed on the grid will be higher, and it will come from coal and oil power plants. Your electric vehicles will be powered by coal and oil. The batteries, or components, and mined in areas in such not a "green" process.
To young people here, there is climate change, whether the US a main contributor, or even major contributor remains to be seen. It is mostly China and India accounting for global pollution. Whether is is man made, and to the extent is still in debate. People have been saying there that there has been climate change for over 40 years, each decade a new prediction. It went from global warming, to global cooling in this time, which is why we now have "climate change". Nobody has been able to make accurate predictions, so we make it as vague as possible to not be wrong. Al Gore's "Inconvenient Truth", was been discredited.
We are spending money we don't have, on a global problem that we can't solve, and might not exist to as great a degree as in the headlines. Try getting China and India to switch to solar or wind...you can't. Therefore if it is going to happen, we can't stop it.
Not only are governments spending money they don't have on an unsolvable problem, they're barely hiding the fact that they're using the green mania to justify one of the biggest thefts of taxpayer dollars in history. They're literally paying billions of dollars to the some of the most profitable companies in the world to create carbon capture systems and wind farms, and it's all coming out of our pockets. The worst part is people can't get mad about it because it's green, and that means they have to love it.
The economic costs of climate change are far, far higher than the research and development of carbon capture and clean energy. Climate change could reduce world GPD by 18%.
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/06/impact-climate-change-global-gdp/
Nuclear is the real solution. I am baffled by why society is so afraid of it. I spent some time working with Los Alamos labs on a project. It was fascinating…nuclear waste is also not the problem that we’ve been led to believe. It’s recyclable.
It is, which is why Bill Gates's Terra Power is funded a $4Bn plant in Wyoming.
Recycle/re-use it, glassify it, or do what the Finns did and create Unkalo
Green energy is the cheapest type of energy, and the most economically viable at the moment. Solar producers can sell their energy for 37$ to pay back the costs of building a solar plant, while even the most efficient natural gas plants must get paid 59$. Fossil fuels also get billions in subsidies as well, so this is a moot point. 95% of the growth in power plant capacity will be from renewables.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/dec/01/renewable-energy-ha…
The consensus among scientists that humans cause climate change is something like 97%. This is not debatable.
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/isnt-there-lot-disagre…
I say it over and over again: conservatives have no solutions to any of the problems facing America today, from the pandemic, education, housing, healthcare, to climate change. This is a prime example, "just let your grandkids choke on smog happen because China/Winnie the Pooh is scary." We can apply international pressure on them to clean up their act with funding coal plants and mining rare earths, improve renewable technology so the free market will force them to adopt green energy, and of course improve our own power grid which is still mostly fossil fuels.
I am optimistic that we will be able to work with those countries. Personally, I lived in a very heavily polluted country in Europe for a few months and when you have to deal with shitty air quality every day, it really makes you care about the environment. Unfortunately that's the reality for many Chinese and Indians.
Solar and wind are profitable without subsidies, in fact they are LESS expensive than oil, gas or coal electricity production. The subsidies were to get them started since thats how all governments work with technological change.
Stick to real estate cause you suck at energy.
AMEN $URNM
$SPUT brother
Silly response to simpletons who see things unilaterally like, carbon dioxied bad!. The follow on issues are not real concerns because like "man the world is litteraly on fire!". The "elites" want depopulation they are just too chickenshit to say it. The real problem is the media, there is zero discussion about the actual impacts of current policy decisions. The only thing that is discussed is the global temp, which is a concern point but is a relatively minor one if we kill half of the worlds population because everyone starves to death from lack of food production.
There are a huge number of influential people alive today who feel guilt from their own success and the success of their cultures, it is almost like they want to tear it all down to suit their own self punishmnet. These people are fucking insane.
I can't find it, but I remember a quote from the CEO of TotalEnergies along the lines of "soon we'll be getting paid by governments to be green." It becomes pretty clear when you realize that Big Oil funds more climate research than anybody else, like literally hundreds of millions of dollars per year. They do it so that governments enforce carbon taxes, increase the barriers to entry, and then Big Oil gets to monopolize the market as the last men standing. That will lead to high oil prices and possibly anarchy as you described, but they don't care because they get all the money and power.
Big Oil is definitely funding climate change research, but the idea that they are pushing the Green New Deal is completely false. The difference is, they keep the investigation results internal while throwing millions at organizations who spread climate denial.
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/cmsdata/162144/Presentation%20Geoffrey%2…
Renewables are already >20% of US energy production. This is just going to increase as regulation raises the cost of dirty energy. Willing too bet energy prices (as a CPI component) look more like 2010-2019 than 2002-2008 over the next 5-10 years.
What will happen:
Given the fact that renewables were cheaper than fossil fuels even before the prices surged, won't this just hasten the move away from fossil fuels?
I think we agree on this point: ultimately we’re going to need fossil fuels to power the transition to green energy so it is shortsighted to starve O&G before we’ve made much of a dent in the transition.
Across needs for addressing climate change, realizing energy independence, and ending unsustainable consumption of finite resources, we definitely need to transition to clean energy. However, we need to do so strategically. Solar panels & wind turbines are produced, transported, and constructed using fossil fuels. Some find this ironic, I find this realistic - we are not going to transition overnight. During this transition, we’ll attack the lowest hanging fruit first (renewable electricity generation) then move on to transforming more difficult industries (steel production). Along the way, we need to be fully supportive of the fossil fuels that are providing the energy today to make fully sustainable infrastructure possible tomorrow.
On certain misconceptions in the original post and across the thread:
- Renewables do not rely on abnormally high oil prices or government subsidies to survive. To understand the first point, look at the California duck curve. Wholesale prices are relatively low during the day because they are driven by solar. So, during the day, solar defines the energy prices, not oil. At night, energy prices spike as solar goes offline - this is where energy storage technologies like batteries seek to enter the market to replace fossil fuel generation. To understand the second point, think about the lifespan of a solar project vs that of ITC. There are always talks of ITC being winded down and you really can’t rely on it for the full 20/30 year lifespan of a solar field. Due to that dynamic along with the dramatic fall in solar panel prices, most plants that get financed today are economical without the ITC, and just use it as a boost to economics, not a necessity.
-China and India do contribute a great deal to pollution, but that is primarily because they are making products for US consumers so it is everyone’s problem. Furthermore, China is making great advancements in sustainability, with a far more advanced EV infrastructure than the US.
-Yes, there are unsustainable aspects to current approaches to green energy (ex: mining). Again, this is why it is called a transition - it doesn’t happen overnight. We are making progress with our current technology (lithium ion), while developing more sustainable technology (flow batteries, solid state batteries). The imperfection of the current technology in no way precludes the need to move forward with the transition - it highlights the need to continue to innovate. Simultaneously, battery recycling technology is gaining a lot of traction as an alternative to mining and the future will likely feature a combination of the two.
Your last point is crucial for every one else to pay attention to! Yes, the energy source isn't perfect rn. But that isn't a reason to not continue working on it because in the long-run it is more sustainable. Hence the idea of a transition versus an instant 180
For starters, E&Ps haven't been capital starved for the past decade as you put it. The reality is many were unprofitable. They over estimated their reserves, underestimated decline curves and had cost structures too bloated to breakeven above 60+ oil. The sector has become leaner no doubt, which is a positive, and break evens have decline...but the capital starvation thesis is just flat out wrong. Outside the US many countries have even higher break evens. If anything, over the past decade too much money was given to producers, especially in the high yield markets.
Edit: while some pipelines have shut down, notably the XL (taking oil out of Canada - probably bad for US producers) and Atlantic Coast - the reality is over the past decade thousands of miles of pipe have been built, and are still being built.
Serious question to the OP, do you follow oil/gas at all bc you sound like you don't really know anything more than a cnn/fox news headline.
I'm not OP or defending OP, but they say in the...OP..."A few questions for either energy experts or someone just more knowledgeable (Im just a dumb analyst not even in the energy space)..."
Speaking of the XL pipeline, there is a reasonable flipside against stopping/shutting it down: the spate of trainwrecks and overturned trucks we saw of tar-sands oil being transported down to the US for processing (as far as I'm aware, there just isn't sufficient refining capacity in Canada so that's why it was being shipped out en masse. Feel free to correct me if I'm missing something). I know that safety concerns like those were one of the pros cited for building the pipeline in the first place.
Edit: And further to your point about not hitting the break-even point vs straight up capital strangulation, the tarsands oil I just mentioned were a direct byproduct of those high oil prices. The breakeven point for Athabasca oil needed to be like ~$80bbl or something if I'm remembering correctly. So when it came back down to the $60's, it literally just wasn't worth it anymore. And if it's not worth production capital, then that XL pipeline just isn't necessary either, and another positive side effect is no more shipping accidents because there's nothing being shipped!
Yea I'm not saying it was a good or bad decision - just saying that there has been plenty of pipe built and continuing to be built that citing a few major headlines isn't necessarily indicative of the entire market.
I dont work anywhere close to energy space but follow it when I can. But like I said above in post, Im not smart about the space but I follow it recreationally.
And about I mean yeah, most juniors are shit and unprofitable but thats the case with almost any exploration company, not just O&G. Can you list sources or data sources about excess capital into the space and pipelines? My take on fossil fuels is there has been less Capex and banks are more reluctant to lend to energy producers (can reference if you need but mainly based on work from 3Fourteen, Bison Interests, and Kyle Bass from Hayman Capital). Not to mention companies like Exxon and others are under threat from activist investors, and are being told basically to allocate less into exploration and more into renewables. Finding workers for the space is difficult. Just seems there will be a lot more convexity this bull mkt and am wondering what 2 and 3 order effects will be.
Rebecca Elliot, Bradley Olson and Chris Matthews at the WSJ have been writing great articles for years that cover many of these topics.
Let me present an alternative anarchy situation OP. 
We do nothing to reduce our green house gas emissions and slow the effects of climate climate change. The planet increase in temperature by 4+ degrees Celsius. Global water levels rise causing huge parts of southeast Asia to flood or be semi flooded, and hundreds of millions of people are displaced. People living in hot regions can no longer grow food and millions more are also displaced. Look at the political reaction in Europe of a few thousands africans coming into spain and italy (now imagine millions). The political consequences cause mass chaos.
Lets continue…
Due to higher temperatures there are increased number of fires and hurricanes cause tens of billions of dollars a year in damage (talk about a real tax in our economy). There are water shortages in many parts of the planet.
80%+ of animal species are wiped out. All coral reefs and most marine species are destroyed.
Op, which scenario is more likely to lead to anarchy? Transitioning to a clean energy economy or doing nothing?
Just to play devil's advocate because I haven't seen anything mentioned regarding my question in all of these projections (you can ELI5 me here. I'm into economics, not meteorology): wouldn't higher temperatures result in higher evaporation rates of water, which would lead to more rainfall which might help mitigate certain things? Of course, I understand that more rainfall would also bring about it's own issues such as run-off, flooding (maybe the Aral sea can come back at least? lol), disrupting the pH balance of the oceans some more and then what extended effects would that have?
The overly simple answer is probably not. Warmer air would be able to hold the higher level of moisture and stop additional precipitation from forming.
Regardless, would be interested to see if someone actually modeled it and did experiments to see if anything really would change.
Let me ask you a question: if all of this was true, then why doesn't the rest of the world give a shit about it? Why isn't China doing anything about it? And they could curb their emissions enough to prevent such scenario or to the very least slow it down radically? Same India. Same most of Africa.
How is it that the only people who believe such thing are wh*te liberals who somehow care only about thing where they can present themselves as saviours?
Nobody in the Chinese or Indian governments are denying climate change. The problem is they rely too much on coal and are not proactive enough about switching off. Climate denial is much more common in the US.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/cp/climate/2015-paris-clim…
That's the perpetual tale ofbthe wolf that ends up used endlessly to scare and coerce the masses. Those same apocalíptical scenarios were being predicted for 2000-2005 since the late 80's and 90's and guess what, never happened but some billion USD changed of hands in the way and new taxes and restrictive regulations appeared from nothing. There's more to reality than mathematical models of interested parties like the obnoxious fraudulent ICCP and "expert committees" that haven't even finished their studies while veteran and proven researchers are silenced. But hey celebrities and politicians can't be wrong I guess amd those 10T USD of brand new climate taxes only in US aren't going to pay themselves alone...
Quidem ab est voluptates ut dolor velit ut. Reiciendis dolores nesciunt ut consectetur corrupti fuga. Et id aut consectetur voluptatibus possimus et. Aliquam ad id magni consectetur est itaque reiciendis delectus. Sunt molestiae sit minima odit numquam odio. Id rerum asperiores eum.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Debitis praesentium vitae beatae et. Rem incidunt suscipit sed soluta architecto exercitationem autem ducimus. Tempore et veritatis possimus est.
Impedit sit nobis ea recusandae aut reiciendis. Et temporibus nostrum laboriosam quibusdam suscipit culpa.
Eveniet possimus dolore vel. Sunt itaque dolores laudantium atque. Ea dolorem quod quo debitis rerum.
Suscipit nobis et vitae odio explicabo et. Et cupiditate autem id pariatur libero velit reiciendis. Iste non perspiciatis et omnis id. Ullam eos corrupti laboriosam possimus. Omnis nihil est soluta architecto molestiae aliquid. Sint perferendis velit ut perspiciatis et perferendis illo doloribus.
Veniam nobis sit nesciunt et quidem quia omnis. Magni officiis et sed voluptates placeat similique. Quasi sunt animi est quis dolor dolores. Eos quos voluptas dolorem excepturi distinctio veniam vitae quaerat. Nihil ad ducimus quam.
Enim dolor nisi repudiandae libero in voluptas. Cum unde dolorem voluptatem a voluptatibus impedit. Non rerum illo et voluptatem enim.
Tempora quas inventore autem eaque quos animi. Eos sed quia id dignissimos architecto ipsa.