…Ominous Climate Change Costs…
Barron’s, a well known financial publication, published a five-page spread, Calculating the Costs of Climate Change, stating unequivocally, “More frequent strong storms, like the hurricanes in 2017 and 2018, are among the signs of global warming or climate change,” scientists say.
The PG&E bankruptcy has brought this question to the forefront of investor concern.
See, Will Climate Destroy the Utility Industry?
The Barron’s article mentioned organizations that are already predicting which companies are most susceptible to climate change.
Barron’s doesn’t question whether climate change, i.e., anthropogenic global warming (AGW), is caused by CO2 since this is the consensus touted in the media. Facts, however, contradict the assertion that severe storms are more frequent today.
Hurricanes, for example, are no more frequent today than they were over 100 years ago. See, Hurricane History Phony Myth Tornadoes are also no more frequent than in the past.
The media regurgitates the false claim of stronger storms despite the facts establishing that storms are no more frequent today than in the past.
The Barron’s article listed fifteen companies with the greatest exposure to climate change. They quoted the CEO of Four Twenty Seven, a consulting firm, as saying:
“In the new normal, billion-dollar disasters are regular occurrences.”
These disasters may be occurring, but are they due to CO2 induced climate change?
One of the companies cited by Barron’s as being in jeopardy from climate change is T. Rowe Price Group (TROW), whose headquarters sit by Baltimore’s Inner Harbor that’s exposed to damage from hurricanes. Quoting Barron’s, “Two-thirds of the big money manager’s facilities are exposed to sea-level rise, and more than half are exposed to flooding.”
Barron’s also listed Consolidated Edison (ED) as being threatened by climate change and said: “Consolidated Edison has a quarter of its facilities exposed to sea-level rise, particularly around New York City.”
But sea level rise, beyond the average eight-inches per century that have been happening for a thousand or more years, is not happening due to climate change.
It’s more likely that areas along the eastern seaboard are sinking, or subsiding: In some cases because of withdrawals from acquirers, and in other cases, such as New York City, because of glacial isostatic adjustment.
If climate change is found to be responsible for these weather-induced disasters, ordinary investors could see their life’s savings washed away as companies are held responsible for weather events and forced into bankruptcy, such as is happening to PG&E.
Summary
If severe weather is attributable to climate change, every utility and many other companies will be liable for direct and indirect damages caused by natural events.
Those are the facts we all must face as the AGW extremists pursue litigation of the California wildfires and threaten all Americans with financial losses attributed to disasters supposedly caused by climate change.
. . .
(7)
There are a lot of people making money on Climate Change. The old saving, “tell a lie enough times and people will believe it to be true.” Keep up the good work in keeping us informed.
Thanks.
“Global warming” has associated costs and benefits. Barron’s, like nearly all other articles like it, stress the damage assessments only.
There are also costs for implementing programs to ostensibly stop global warming. Several recent articles attempt to calculate such costs with the most recent here: https://www.americanactionforum.org/research/what-it-costs-go-100-percent-renewable/
Most of these underestimate costs.and admit it.
I wrote on that attempts to portray more of a worst case scenario here:
https://www.masterresource.org/intergovernmental-panel-on-climate-change-ipcc/ipcc-alarmism-1-5c/
The truth is nobody really knows because it depends upon unknowable forecasts regarding numerous variables. and attitudes (that may also be influenced by vested interests).
In a month or 2, I am hoping that a project based on a spreadsheet-based “what if” tool will be publicly available that allows users to conduct their own cost projections based on their own perceptions.
Maybe then, it will become evident that economic costs to mitigate CAGW matter at least as much as the ostensible benefits.
I expect but am not certain that most people will find that cost to prevent global warming will significantly outweigh supposed benefits.
I suspect the costs will be outrageously high.
However, is it even possible to prevent warming if it is natural, such as caused by the sun? It’s highly likely all the money spent on cutting CO2 emissions will be wasted, so that makes such efforts very wasteful and actually damaging since the money could have been spent on efforts to increase the economy.