back to article Guardian: 'Oil reserves will soon be worth NOTHING!' (A bit like their stock tips, really)

It's not going to come as all that much of a surprise that those who worry excessively about climate change aren't really all that up to speed with economics as a subject in general. But it should produce a little amazement (or a chortle or two perhaps) when said usual suspects launch a new campaign that deliberately ignores a …

  1. Steve Davies 3 Silver badge

    There will be a need for Carbon stuff in the Economy

    Even if we stop using all forms of Petrol and Diesel/Fule Oil tomorrow.

    We will still have machinery in all those leccy thingies.

    That machinery will need lubricants most of which will be derrived from a carbon based resource.

    Sure it will be a lot less than now but we can't totally elimiate Carbon use from our lives.

    Plastic 'stuff' will mostly be a thing of the past because that comes directly from Oil.

    any analyst who preticts that we will be able to survive using no carbon originated stuff at all is a total idion IMHO. Even the most fervent Greens I have met accept that for some things we will have to use some oil in our lives but this is the Grauniad so all bets are off as to the sanity of the writer (joking!)

    1. John Sager

      Re: There will be a need for Carbon stuff in the Economy

      If we're talking about keeping all the carbon in the ground, then the energy we use has to come from somewhere. This - http://www.withouthotair.com - is a very good analysis of the options. Worstall's slim volume, 'Chasing Rainbows' is worth a read too. Unless we all go back to pre-industrial-revolution energy use with all that entails in terms of reduced population, disease, starvation et al.

      Personally I don't see certain forms of carbon use disappearing at all. If we carry on flying then kerosene is going to be very hard to replace. I don't see the energy density of hydrogen or electrical energy storage approaching kero any time soon if ever. Same thing for container ships & bunker oil/diesel. Plenty of people have tried to build upscaled sailing ships but we don't see them around in more than prototypes.

      Of course we could make kero/diesel from atmospheric CO2 but that needs a lot of hectares of sunshine, even if we have an optimised natural or artificial photosynthesis process - see the ref above.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: There will be a need for Carbon stuff in the Economy

      Pre-cooked hydrocarbons will indeed be in use for a long while; the future world where it's cheaper to synthesise all molecules from scratch feels closer to Banks' "Culture" than to us. But the Guardian's argument that a big price correction could result isn't on those grounds daffy: a rapid halving of demand would be very bad news for OPEC & friends.

      But of course it won't be that rapid and betting on this as an investment strategy is betting that you the newspaper reader are smarter & better-informed than the oil companies, who of course are already spreading their bets into other energy products, etc.

      It's almost mythic to believe that BP & co are so wedded to their dark satanic wells that they won't aggressively reorient their businesses with the winds of change, be those winds economic, technical, or regulatory. It makes for a nice morality play to regard them as Mordor but really they're more like the firm in "Point Blank": thoroughly amoral but also pragmatic.

      1. Steve Davies 3 Silver badge

        Re: There will be a need for Carbon stuff in the Economy

        Didn't BP change all their advertising so that BP meant 'Beyond Petroleum?'

        1. DiViDeD

          Re: BP Rebranding

          Indeed they did. And they changed their logo to the current Flora Margarine lookalike. In fact, in that year they spend £116 million changing logos, mission statements and stressing to the public that they were about alternative energy and sustainability.

          That £116 million was, of course, completely overshadowed by the £2.57 million they spent in research on all alternative energy sources.

          1. Danny 14

            Re: BP Rebranding

            aha but the 2.57m was spent on hushing up the tin foil hat brigade, afterall, big oil already has the tech for fusion etc.... :)

    3. JeffyPoooh
      Pint

      The 80/20 rule, common sense vice religion

      All that's required is a significant reduction in CO2 emissions. It doesn't need to hit zero.

      Anyone that uses vocabulary that contains an assumption of Zero Carbon should have their forehead tattooed with the words 'Dangerous Moron'.

      1. PNGuinn
        Flame

        Re: The 80/20 rule, common sense vice religion

        Or publicly branded on the butt. Not nearly so visible later, but much more fun for the rest of us at the time.

        Might even replace Clarkson as a tv spectator sport.

        1. Dodgy Geezer Silver badge

          Re: The 80/20 rule, common sense vice religion

          "Might even replace Clarkson as a tv spectator sport."

          NOTHING can replace Clarkson as a TV spectator sport.

          And at the moment the BBC are indeed trying very hard to ensure that nothing IS going to replace Clarkson...

      2. Dodgy Geezer Silver badge

        Re: The 80/20 rule, common sense vice religion

        "All that's required is a significant reduction in CO2 emissions..."

        Er...no, it's not.

        For the last 20 years our CO2 has gone up, but the temperature has stayed the same. The CO2-warming hypothesis is PLAIN WRONG.

    4. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Plastic 'stuff'

      Fortunately, we've discovered ways to produce some plastics from plants. Not carbon free still, but at least it doesn't require oil. Recycling is also likely to become more valuable if it turns out to be hard to manufacture some types of plastics with low/no oil consumption.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Plastic 'stuff'

        The problem with all the alternatives is that no one is keeping track of all the inputs and their requirements compared to all the alternatives. One reputable analyst that I came across performed the econometric analysis of ethanol and it came out negative when you factor costs & especially CO2 in the inputs. Biggest change was factoring in fertilizers (manufacture, transport to site), transporting crop to ethanol plant, and distributing ethanol product.

        We absolutely must do detailed breakdowns, including ranges, before we commit to a process if we are serious about energy reduction and especially CO2 reduction. Politically driven feel good solutions are exactly what is not needed.

        1. Tim Worstal

          Re: Plastic 'stuff'

          That's why you just change one price. The carbon price. Once that is done you can leave the market to do all that calculating for you.

    5. Dodgy Geezer Silver badge

      Re: There will be a need for Carbon stuff in the Economy

      ...Even the most fervent Greens I have met accept that for some things we will have to use some oil in our lives...

      ..but it should all be 'natural', of course...!

      Votes to bring back Whale Oil?

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    You seem to be the one who doesn't know any economics

    Just because Shell has assets it MIGHT eventually pump out and sell in the future doesn't mean that the company's value today should be equal to those assets theoretical value today. It would be like valuing Toyota based on the value of cars that its factories are capable of producing 5 years from now. Sure future earnings (whether through manufacturing or resource extraction) do figure into how much a company is valued at today, but they are always discounted. If Shell was to attempt to extract all of those assets and sell them today, it would suddenly find they were worth alot less then their book value because the price of oil would crash down close to the cost of production. So no extra profits and no benefit to the companies stock valuation. Those oil reserves do, however, figure into making it clear that Shell is a going concern that can maintain its current levels of productions and sales well past any time horizon that investors normally consider. So the above is why current company value != book value of oil reserves. As for whether those reserves figure into the value of the company at all, try a little thought experiment. What if Shell was to suddenly announce that its math was wrong? It didn't have decades worth of proven reserves. It only had six months. People would bail out of the stock immediately.

    No profits in 6 months, no (potential) dividends. So those reserves do matter to the current valuation, but it isn't a one to one thing. This next part gets tricky. What if instead Shell was told that it wouldn't be allowed to sell oil to be burned in 6 months? How is that any different from the math on reserves not being right? Most sales end in six months, no profits, no (potential) dividends. Stock price tanks. So IF at some point the world changes its mind about whether burning oil should be legal (the same way it has changed its mind about burning household/industrial garbage in many places) that would drastically change the value of those assets and Shell's valuation. Now while I think climate change is real and we need to do something about it, I think that it is unlikely that world wide we will ban burning oil. There is enough uncertainty there, however, that a prudent investor would at least monitor the politics of this and be prepared to bail if things look problematic. Even if only a few industrialized nations were to move towards those kinds of bans (or even just restrictions), it could change valuations significantly.

    1. DaveDaveDave

      Re: You seem to be the one who doesn't know any economics

      Silly. Go read some basic definitions.

      "Just because Shell has assets it MIGHT eventually pump out and sell in the future doesn't mean that the company's value today should be equal to those assets theoretical value today"

      Yes, yes it does. Because those values are discounted by various factors like the ones you mention, the discount rate, and so-on.

    2. Mike Street

      Re: You seem to be the one who doesn't know any economics

      "Even if only a few industrialized nations were to move towards those kinds of bans (or even just restrictions), it could change valuations significantly."

      And if they did, they wouldn't be industrialized nations for much longer, so would very quickly be irrelevant.

      The only thing that would make any difference is a world-wide ban of fossil fuel use. Since that ain't going to happen in any foreseeable timescale, the point is moot.

      1. dan1980

        Re: You seem to be the one who doesn't know any economics

        @Mike Street.

        "The only thing that would make any difference is a world-wide ban of fossil fuel use. Since that ain't going to happen in any foreseeable timescale, the point is moot."

        What?

        At the further ends of this argument, the same ridiculous extreme is claimed - that only total cessation will achieve anything. On the one side, this is used to try an say how catastrophic and urgent this all is and on the other side, it's to say how bad it will be for society if we do cut down.

        Would our environment suffer if we stopped burning fossil fuels? No. Would we enjoy cleaner air and water if the whole world moved completely to renewable energy? Yes.

        But is such wholesale change actually necessary to make a difference? No. And no reasonable person would claim that. To do so is like saying that just because one person in your street does not recycle, that no one should.

        I think once we do make the transition to real renewable power, it will be a great boon for society as a modern standard of life does require high power usage and the cheaper the energy, the better. Sure, renewable energy is not cheap at the moment but one day it WILL be much cheaper than burning what is left of our fossil fuels.

        The fact that it is difficult to see air-travel survive in the near medium-term without fossil fuels does not mean that driving an electric car is pointless. The aim of most reasonable people here is to reduce the usage that we feasibly can so that what reserves we have can be used where there really aren't viable alternatives.

        If these reserves are not infinite - and they are certainly not - then one can almost discount the environmental angle: when something becomes scarce, uses that are most critical must be attended to first. If you can predict this scarcity then it is prudent to transition what you can to alternate sources before you reach that point and things like air travel become prohibitively expensive.

        1. Danny 14

          Re: You seem to be the one who doesn't know any economics

          publically traded companies "worth" is based on the price of its shares. Most shared are set on a price based on an expected future performance. In a parallel to big oil, some mining companies have had shares decline not due to lack of demand or lack of reserves but because the countries that have the existing mines and reserves are looking to "go green" etc. The future of those mining companies looks bleaker as it will cost more to operate; workers safety, local pollution, swathes of land disappearing etc will all have to be taken into account and paid for - it wont be viable to dig in some countries.

          1. dan1980

            Re: You seem to be the one who doesn't know any economics

            I don't know why someone down-voted this - it mirrors the truth of what the author was saying. 'Reserves' are proven viable with current practices in current conditions. In other words, there is an assessment of how much it will cost to access the reserves. If that cost increases, things change.

            If you have reserves of shale gas and the country in question bans fracking, that changes things.

        2. Dodgy Geezer Silver badge

          Re: You seem to be the one who doesn't know any economics

          "Would our environment suffer if we stopped burning fossil fuels? No. Would we enjoy cleaner air and water if the whole world moved completely to renewable energy? Yes"

          Would our environment suffer if we stopped burning fossil fuels? Of course it would. CO2 is plant food, silly!

          Would we enjoy cleaner air and water if the whole world moved completely to renewable energy? Of course not! The only way that could happen is if the world dropped technologically back to the 1800s. Guess how clean things were then...

  3. js1975

    The main point of the petition isn't economics, it's ethical

    This is a lazy and misleading piece of journalism. The point of the petition is to call on two science funding organizations to divest from fossil fuels, because continued investment would be against their core principles. The Wellcome Trust, and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, both exist for the betterment of humanity, so they should either divest from fossil fuels, or say why they think continued investment is in line with their remit.

    1. Mike Street

      Re: The main point of the petition isn't economics, it's ethical

      "The point of the petition is to call on two science funding organizations to divest from fossil fuels, because continued investment would be against their core principles"

      Presumably, their core principles are to do good by spending money on worthy projects.

      If they fail to get the maximum return on their investments, by taking investment advice from numpties with an axe to grind, then they can do less 'good' in their chosen areas of operations, thus violating their core principles.

      It would really help if people were introduced to the concept of 'Opportunity Cost' early in their education. Most people who regard themselves as educated seem never to have heard of it.

      1. Steve Knox

        Re: The main point of the petition isn't economics, it's ethical

        Presumably, their core principles are to do good by spending money on worthy projects.

        If they fail to get the maximum return on their investments, by taking investment advice from numpties with an axe to grind, then they can do less 'good' in their chosen areas of operations, thus violating their core principles.

        So pharmaceutical companies should pursue their core principles by ensuring they get maximum return on their R&D investments?

        Because all of these initial animal tests really cost a lot and slow the process down. It would be much more efficient to start tests on humans to begin with.

        Yes, this is an extreme example, but it comes down to the same principle: the idea that ends alwats justify the means.

        There are negative ethical consequences to pursuing even an ethical goal with disregard for the ethics of your other actions. A reasonable individual or organization understands this, and accepts less than perfect performance on core principles for benefits elsewhere.

      2. js1975

        Re: The main point of the petition isn't economics, it's ethical

        Would you encourage the Wellcome Trust to invest heavily in big tobacco, if you thought it was a good investment?

        1. DaveDaveDave

          Re: The main point of the petition isn't economics, it's ethical

          As you point out, the question is whether it's a good investment.As here, the ethical argument depends on an economic one.

        2. Tom 13

          Re: Wellcome Trust to invest heavily in big tobacco

          If it were a good investment, yes. But the ethical nazi's have turned it into a bad one, so no.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: The main point of the petition isn't economics, it's ethical

      Then don't attempt to underpin the ethical argument with economics, since that certainly risks the argument being fought (as in these comments) and possibly there lost on the minor grounds of economics.

      This is analogous to the common point that it is false and dangerous to defend homosexuality on grounds of it being an involuntary orientation rather than a choice: because this admits the possibility that it might be "cured" (gene manipulation, etc). If there is a moral point then don't stand it upon an unrelated base.

      1. js1975

        Re: The main point of the petition isn't economics, it's ethical

        I completely agree. The point I was making was that this article makes no mention of the core purpose of the petition, and is thus misleading.

        Whatever your opinions on climate change or associated economics, it's dishonest to represent the guardian's petition as about making money, because it's not: it's about whether it is right for these trusts to invest in fossil fuels because - the argument goes - doing so runs counter to their core purpose.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: The main point of the petition isn't economics, it's ethical

      Only if they stop using products that were produced from, or by the use of, petroleum. For example, pens, cars, planes, electronics, and most basically, food.

      Once they do that (and perhaps you'd like to do it as well,) then I'll listen to what they have to say.

      1. bep

        Re: The main point of the petition isn't economics, it's ethical

        "Only if they stop using products that were produced from, or by the use of, petroleum. For example, pens, cars, planes, electronics, and most basically, food.

        Once they do that (and perhaps you'd like to do it as well,) then I'll listen to what they have to say."

        Pardon? The point is to stop burning oil. I've heard plenty of oil men say things like: "You know in the future people won't believe we actually burned all this irreplaceable stuff." One of the reasons not to burn oil is that its by-products are too useful. Coal has somewhat fewer other uses I'll admit, which is why it's value is likely to collapse before oil does if we decide to not burn so much stuff to make energy.

    4. Matt Bryant Silver badge
      Facepalm

      Re: js1975 Re: The main point of the petition isn't economics, it's ethical

      ".....The point of the petition is to call on two science funding organizations to divest from fossil fuels....." Well, if they have smart fund managers they probably have already (unless they're taking a long bet on an oil rebound in a few years). The current low price of oil is the Saudi's trying to kill off competition and hurt Iran, and they have the reserves to keep oil's price below the Sauid cost of production for years (some say for four years possibly). So oil companies are not going to be making as much of a return for a while and smart fund managers have already re-invested their money in other less volatile short-term bets (such as the bonds mentioned in the article). You can see this in the stock price of Royal Dutch Shell (stock ticker RDSA), which was at a high last summer but has deteriorated since (though I'm told their decline is also partially to do with some bad shale oil investments). Exxon Mobil (XOM) has also shown a similar decline from last year. All of which indicates the "advice" from The Guardian is totally irrelevant unless it is driven by the AGW creed.

  4. hutneab

    Furiously agreeing?

    Is the author and the Grauniad not furiously agreeing?

    The author is saying that the market value of any of these companies pretty much does not reflect the value of today's reserves in 50 years time (i.e. the reserves currently contribute next to nothing to the current market price). The Guardian is saying that in 50 years time, there's no way we can allow those reserves to be used so by then they'll have to be worth nothing.

    So, as time passes, the value of *today's* reserves will make up a bigger proportion of the actual market value of these companies, and it should still be next to nothing because we can't allow them to be burnt. Therefore, the value of these companies is going to collapse, and you probably don't want to be caught out when it does happen. If *today's* reserves will never have any substantial monetary value, then why would reserves discovered tomorrow? Thus the absurdity of these companies continuing to spend billions in discovering new sources of fossil fuels.

    So despite all the bluster at the start of this article, I don't really see the contradiction.

    1. DaveDaveDave

      Re: Furiously agreeing?

      You've missed the point. The Graun thinks (entirely wrongly) that the companies' valuations _today_ include all that future oil at full prices. But the valuations do not include any such thing. That oil is already regarded as worthless by the markets, so there's no need to have some kind of market correction to a point where it's regarded as worthless.

      1. hutneab

        Re: Furiously agreeing?

        Ok, I'll agree that with the economics arguments made here, the use of "massively too high" appears to be wrong. Having read much of the Guardian's output on this issue though, I'm hardly left with the sense that the (incorrect) idea that oil companies are massively-overvalued-based-on-reserves is an especially critical part of their argument; nor does being wrong on that issue substantially weaken their campaign.

        1. DaveDaveDave

          Re: Furiously agreeing?

          It's fundamental to their argument. If there aren't immensely valuable reserves which will lose their value if left in the ground, there's no need to campaign to leave them in the ground.

  5. Graham Marsden
    Holmes

    Oh look...

    ... another piece of TW "journalism" that relies on cherry-picking bits of a story for one more round of Lefty-Bashing.

    We start off with a classic "if you don't know what I (claim to) know, then you're not allowed to have an opinion" and assertions of "ignorance" there and then throw in a bit of name-calling and ad hominem attacks ("dunderheads"? "Crayon eating", Tim? Really, is that the best you can come up with?) and we get a classic piece of Worstall trolling.

    Naturally TW ignores where the piece says "The intention is not to bankrupt the companies, nor to promote overnight withdrawal from fossil fuels – that would not be possible or desirable" and "Divestment serves to delegitimise the business models of companies that are using investors’ money to search for yet more coal, oil and gas that can’t safely be burned. It is a small but crucial step in the economic transition away from a global economy run on fossil fuels" because they don't fit in with his agenda of telling us how wonderful the Market is for solving all the world's problems (as if it hadn't got us into them in the first place...)

    1. DaveDaveDave

      Re: Oh look...

      You appear to be accusing the Graun of deliberate (and illegal) price manipulation. Of course the GMG pension fund has always been as ruthlessly exploitative as you'd expect from the bunch of hypocrites over there, but I'm not aware they've begun leveraging their media platform to move into organised crime. Frankly, I think your assertion is ludicrous. They're just idiots, not very clever crooks.

      1. Graham Marsden
        WTF?

        Re: Oh look...

        > You appear to be accusing the Graun of deliberate (and illegal) price manipulation.

        I do? Please can you point out the part of my post which caused you to draw this fantastic conclusion?

        1. DaveDaveDave

          Re: Oh look...

          "Please can you point out the part of my post which caused you to draw this fantastic conclusion?"

          The part where you claimed the Graun is deliberately and flagrantly lying in an attempt to shift the market price.

          1. Graham Marsden
            WTF?

            @DaveDaveDave- Re: Oh look...

            > The part where you claimed the Graun is deliberately and flagrantly lying in an attempt to shift the market price.

            Are you sure you're talking to the right person here?

    2. Tim Worstal

      Re: Oh look...

      ""Crayon eating", Tim? Really, is that the best you can come up with?)"

      Not in my opinion, no. I can do better than that. The original line was truly insulting and most rude. Toned down by the subs (probably wisely) on the grounds that it was truly insulting and most rude.

      And you really have missed what I've said about climate change around the place, haven't you? That it's not actually a problem that the market unadorned can solve, there will have to be intervention in order to solve it? Hell, I even recommend exactly the same thing the Stern Review does (also, all the other economists who have studied the problem, Tol, Nordhaus, Weizman etc), a carbon tax at the social cost of carbon.

      Using, of course, the appropriate discount rate.

      1. Graham Marsden
        Boffin

        Re: Oh look...

        > Toned down by the subs (probably wisely) on the grounds that it was truly insulting and most rude.

        Right, thanks for making it clear that you can't put together a good argument *without* calling people names.

        > you really have missed what I've said about climate change around the place, haven't you? [...] That it's not actually a problem that the market unadorned can solve

        Well, you're right that "markets place very little value on things beyond the near future", but when someone suggests actually *using* market forces to influence that behaviour, somehow you don't like that because they use an "inappropriate discount rate", not whether it's a good idea or not.

        1. Tim Worstal

          Re: Oh look...

          "Well, you're right that "markets place very little value on things beyond the near future", but when someone suggests actually *using* market forces to influence that behaviour, somehow you don't like that because they use an "inappropriate discount rate", not whether it's a good idea or not."

          Well missed, the point being made that is. The G's argument is: oil companies have too high a value because they will not be able to pump up all their reserves. They should have a lower value therefore.

          I am pointing out that they already have a lower value because we discount the value of those reserves. This isn't an argument about whether we should be doing something about climate change (see my support for a carbon tax). It's an argument about whether these campaigners have understood the economics of the thing they're trying to campaign upon. They don't.

          1. Graham Marsden
            Facepalm

            Re: Oh look...

            > This isn't an argument about whether we should be doing something about climate change (see my support for a carbon tax). It's an argument about whether these campaigners have understood the economics of the thing they're trying to campaign upon.

            Congratulations, Tim, you have pointed out that they have incorrectly re-arranged the deckchairs on the Titanic! I'm sure that makes you feel *so* much better and will keep you warm(!) as the ship sinks...

            1. dogged

              Re: Oh look...

              I thought being warm wasn't going to be the problem?

              1. mrjobby
                Coffee/keyboard

                Re: Oh look...

                "I thought being warm wasn't going to be the problem?"

                That brightened up my otherwise quiet afternoon!

              2. Graham Marsden
                Facepalm

                @dogged - Re: Oh look...

                > I thought being warm wasn't going to be the problem?

                Note the bracketted (!) after warm, implying irony...

            2. fandom

              Re: Oh look...

              "You have pointed out that they have incorrectly re-arranged the deckchairs on the Titanic!"

              Unlike endlessly nitpicking an argument in these forums which, as we all know, is earth-shattering important.

              1. Ossi

                Re: Oh look...

                "You have pointed out that they have incorrectly re-arranged the deckchairs on the Titanic!"

                No, I think he's pointing out that the Guardian is claiming that rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic will help stop it sinking.

    3. Ossi

      Re: Oh look...

      Companies are valued according to expected returns. It's important to note that buying a company's stock does not change the balance sheet of that company nor it's profit and loss, so they'll still make the same profits. Therefore, if a large enough group of investors decide not to invest in a business so that its stock value falls, that raises the rate of return (since you would have to invest less to get the same dividend). Should there be enough 'ethical' investors around to actually affect the market, they'll face lower returns than the rest of the market. The bottom limit to those returns would only be what the ethical investors' would/could tolerate.

      Now that level of toleration might turn out to be not very low at all, thus placing a limit on the amount of ethical investment that could be done - in all probability the limit would be one that would put no pressure on any of these companies at all, and even causing those small changes would require enormous financial firepower. You're basically talking about trying to 'outvote' all the invested assets in the world.

      Of course, these are the technical economic aspects. The ethical investors might also find themselves pretty uncomfortable when they realise that they're increasing returns for people they possible aren't too keen on.

      Invest ethically by all means - there are, well, ethical reasons to do so. But do it in the knowledge that it won't be able to change the world, and even if it was it might be simply reinforcing the position of those who you might not consider ethical.

  6. Boris the Cockroach Silver badge

    All this long

    term stuff forgets one thing in the British economy.

    Long term to british investors is 7 days

    Channel 4 did a rather excellent documentry yesterday on how rampant short termism in the city is destroying british companies (and anyone else dumb enough to base themselves here)

    Something that may happpen in 50 yrs time does not cross their minds as they will have already gotten their share of the cash and retired by then

    1. DaveDaveDave

      Re: All this long

      That's just tired old antisemitic propaganda being dressed up as bash-the-bankers and trotted out all over again. The reality is that the vast, overwhelming majority of investment is long-term. Even if everyone was ignoring long-term opportunities, those opportunities would be underpriced, there would be excess profits to be made, and the market would chase those: the whole idea is so much nonsense, designed as propaganda to sway the ignorant. Evidently successfully.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: All this long -"That's just tired old antisemitic propaganda"

        I missed the antisemitic propaganda, perhaps because it never occurred to me until I tried to parse your post that "The City" is any kind of expression for "Jewish". That rather died as a result of events in the 1940s, I think. I believe that the biggest religious grouping in Wall Street is now the Mormons, for what that matters, and given the chemical that apparently infests all our banknotes, the biggest religious grouping in the City of London would appear to be Freudians - he was that guy who told everybody that cocaine was good for you.

        1. DaveDaveDave

          Re: All this long -"That's just tired old antisemitic propaganda"

          Eh? Firstly, antisemitism categorically did not die out in the forties, but that's by-the-by. The point is that this is old 20s propaganda in new clothes. It's total nonsense, whether you believe it's genuinely aimed at bankers, or is used as a proxy.

    2. Tim Worstal

      Re: All this long

      "Channel 4 did a rather excellent documentry yesterday on how rampant short termism in the city is destroying british companies (and anyone else dumb enough to base themselves here)

      Something that may happpen in 50 yrs time does not cross their minds"

      This is equal to stating that market interest rates are too high, therefore we discount profits in the far future by too much.

      OK....maybe that's true. But if it is then the implication is that we're valuing those future reserves at spit....which is rather what I'm saying, isn't it?

    3. dogged

      Re: All this long

      If there's no long-term investment, what's a mortgage?

      1. Tom 13
        Joke

        Re: If there's no long-term investment, what's a mortgage?

        Just one more scam to fleece taxpayers our of their hard earned money.

  7. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    100-year discount rate

    What would have been the valuations of Google or Sun Microsystems back in 1912? And which discount rate should have been used to value Google or Sun Microsystems, back in 1912?

    What about 1985?

    Yes the two example companies above were carefully chosen.

    Please do enlighten us. Your 100-year discount rate bootstrap models - as not really published here, because boostrapping a discount rate is nothing more than an aggregation of opinions - might prove invaluable to mankind in general. Not to mention, they will make you filthy rich, which is the sole point of this exercise.

    1. dogged

      Re: 100-year discount rate

      Those companies didn't exist in 1912 or 1985, you bell end.

      We're talking about market valuations, not astrology. The difference is that market valuations sometimes reflect reality.

  8. Francis Vaughan

    Critical point missed.

    Oil companies (and mining companies for that matter) do not throw effort at keeping their book value up with reserves. In fact they do the opposite. (Somehow. perhaps the idea that modern CEOs are best served by a high share price is translated into companies keeping the value of reserves high - but this is a thin argument).

    Resources are subject to the three Ps - not two. proven, probable, possible (with a fourth as producing).

    Not only do you need to be able to show that the oil or gas is there, but that you have a viable way of getting it. Actually currently producing is even better.

    But, the economics of how oil and gas (and minerals) does not favour aggressive exploration for probable reserves. The way the system works is geared to effectively limit exploration to provide for just about the right speed of exploration to meet projected needs.

    Oil companies do not get to explore for oil for free. Countries auction off exploration rights, and they do this is a highly controlled manner, in order to maximise the amount paid for these rights. Rights to explore time out. There is no value in buying them if you don't intend exploring. Indeed, usually you will forfeit the rights if you don't actively explore. Exploration isn't cheap. This is especially true now that the easy oil and gas has been found. 3D seismic can be astoundingly expensive. Many millions. Sometime a great many millions. Exploratory wells, especially in deep water are silly money. A deep sea exploration rig costs about $1million a day to run. The moment you purchase an exploration lease you are committed to your exploration programme.

    Now, what if you find oil or gas? Well then you need to buy a production lease. And these are not going to be cheap. Secondly, the lease will involve a percentage cut for the country you are working in. Since this is a serious money making effort for the country, they are not interested in you sitting on your production lease. Once you have bought it you must start producing, or you may forfeit the lease.

    The bottom line is that it is a significant liability to a company to have leases that they are not currently in the process of exploiting. The industries (both oil and gas, and minerals) have always operated this way. All the other economic arguments are a waste of oxygen. The bottom line is that the proven reserves that a company controls via its leases and the prospective reserves that are controlled via its exploration leases are balanced to address the expected demand within the lifetime of those reserves. To add new reserves that will not be added to this pipeline, but are somehow just a book asset is a significant and unwelcome cost, and all companies avoid it.

    1. Tim Worstal

      Re: Critical point missed.

      Thanks for that, most interesting. Now it's explained it's obvious.....but then so much is once it's explained, isn't it?

      This makes The G's argument even worse of course....

    2. thames

      Re: Critical point missed.

      An even more critical point is that the bulk of the world's oil and gas resources are not owned by the well known major oil multi-nationals. They're owned by governments who are more concerned about long term revenue streams than they are about stock market valuations. These are Saudi Arabia, Iran, Russia, Qatar, the UAE, etc. Most of these countries also have national oil companies who finance their investment out of cash flow, not the stock market.

      The big western oil multi-nationals operate around the fringes of that. What those well known multi-nationals do or don't do won't make much difference on a global scale.

  9. phil dude
    Boffin

    noise and mathematics...

    A lot of the coverage is predicated on the assertion there is some correlation between a company's mission statement and the future state of the world.

    For example, let's say total oil in ground at initial time is $X(0) and the cost to extract a barrel is $Y.

    So long as you think $X(T)>0 and you can sell a barrel of oil for >$Y the companies are worth *something*.

    The problem is $Y is a complex function as it depends a great deal on the technology to extract as well as the location of the resources. Especially d$X/dT...

    The recent drop in petroleum prices in the US is a good example of this. OPEC upped production to piss off Russia, and in conjunction the US is pumping a lot more oil. The reality of global energy, is that it is just that - global demand for a non-linear resource. But very few people get to choose the price they pay at the pump.

    Economics is as close to voodoo as you can get with a straight face and without a billowing cape.

    The necessary descriptive differential equations rarely make it onto the Grauniad pages....

    P.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: noise and mathematics...

      > The necessary descriptive differential equations rarely make it onto the Grauniad pages...

      Or in Worstall's articles, for that matter.

      1. Tim Worstal

        Re: noise and mathematics...

        "Or in Worstall's articles, for that matter."

        Good reason for that. I don't understand differential equations.

        I get the concepts, rates of change and all that, see the use and am just damn glad that there's other people out there who know how to work through them. The moment I start to see the algebra I'm afraid that the brain switches off.

        One of the reasons I'm not an economist....

    2. Ossi

      Re: noise and mathematics...

      @Phil Dude

      "The problem is $Y is a complex function as it depends a great deal on the technology to extract as well as the location of the resources. Especially d$X/dT"

      You've mixed up your 2 functions. "Y" does not depend on dX/dT. You've already clearly defined them as independent of each other. In fact, your Y function, the cost of production, can be known with some accuracy, especially after you start pumping...

      "The reality of global energy, is that it is just that - global demand for a non-linear resource. But very few people get to choose the price they pay at the pump."

      What is a "non-linear resource"? Do you mean a product whose price changes? That seems to more or less cover everything.

      "Economics is as close to voodoo as you can get with a straight face and without a billowing cape."

      Even ignoring my comments above, you've said nothing to justify this conclusion.

      "The necessary descriptive differential equations rarely make it onto the Grauniad pages...."

      The equations to describe what exactly? You talk as if something's being kept secret. Tim's argument only depends on the discount rate being applied. Feel free to Google the equation for 'Net Present Value'.

      1. phil dude
        Happy

        Re: noise and mathematics...

        @Ossi: You mean this link?

        If you scroll down you will see the Integral Symbol. This means differential equations are almost inevitable for real work.

        To further the point in the original post the value of $Y (how much it can be sold for) is highly dependent on $X(T) "How do we think there is in the ground?", but also $Z. If you pump eleventy squinty (!) barrels, the simple existence of this product changes the price. Unlike iPhones...

        Let Z=all the other sources of energy available. What fraction is Y of Z? (assuming some nice agreed upon conversion).

        The concern over the lack differential equations is that complex phenomena have complex answers and in generally in the physical sciences there is an expectation of "show your working".

        In economics it seems that general lack of understanding of the calculus makes many politicians nervous about asking the right questions, especially if they are on TV or being interviewed by the media.

        In general, the media makes this worse by presenting pointlessly simplified pieces, which therefore lack any useful precision. And this is so much worse then "averages without variance" problem that is so common.

        These are predictions based upon guesses from other predictions that are simply made up.

        I'm not saying I know the answer (if there is one). I am asserting the point that much of the media churn distracts the average viewer from the complete lack of data available.

        Other than that, a nice article...

        P.

  10. Mark 85

    Oil stock prices

    I find it interesting that they want those two organizations to divest themselves of oil stocks at this point in time. Given the current market, oil reserves, etc. the oil companies stock prices are dropping simply because there's a glut on the market and thus the price per barrel has dropped. The smart money has moved out and is waiting for the share prices to bottom. Once those supplies (currently in tanks, etc.) have drawn down and production resumes (and the associated price climb), they'll move back into oil stocks.

    I'm not talking about us mom-and-pop investors or even the pension fund investors but those that are aggressive in their portfolio management. So it's quite possible that they've already dumped a butt-load of oil company shares and this campaign is pointless. Maybe in a year or so when the glut disappears, they'll be buying back as the stock prices rise.

  11. BobRocket
    Coat

    The oil tide is ebbing

    If you still have money in oil then I feel for you but it is only going to get worse.

    Demand for oil (along with demand for everything) is cratering and this is spurring massive oversupply, these oil co.s are leveraged to the hilt, they have to pump to produce the cash flow to service their debt.

    As the price falls (bizzarely) they will pump faster, oil in the ground is no good, cash in hand (to meet the next payment) is king.

    The US oil lake will be full by the end of May and without anywhere else to store it, it will be dumped on the market, $10 for WTI is starting to look optimistic.

    If you have to pump 10 times as much oil to make the payment then that is what you will do.

    It appears that the industry is cashing out, last ones through the door will be employees and their pensions (someone has to pay in the end).

    Coat cuz we will all need one.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: The oil tide is ebbing

      They can't pump 10x as much oil, or even close to it, so the ones that can't meet their debt obligations will go under. Their assets will be purchased at a steep discount, and the new owners will have no trouble making money on $40/bbl oil, and shut in the fields that cost more than the current price to produce.

      There's a limit to how cheap oil can become due to the cost of transport if nothing else. You seem to be assuming the price can drop without limit because those who need money can pump it without limit, they won't lose more money pumping more oil no matter how much it becomes, and transport is free.

      1. BobRocket

        Re: The oil tide is ebbing

        'Their assets will be purchased at a steep discount'

        No they won't, big energy like big banks are TBTF, the banks have financed them and the Fed will print to keep them afloat and they will pump.

        They need revenue not illiquid assets, everyone has illiquid assets but nobody (least of all the banks) can accept the true value, oil in the ground is worth shit but the future notional value of that oil (>$80) has already been spent.

        If you can make this months payment then when the price turns you will be in clover, even if you have to sell this months production at a small loss, you are still in business and the price must rise eventually.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: The oil tide is ebbing

          Big energy like BP or Exxon are too big to fail, but there are many many small and medium sized producers that governments will not lift a finger to bailout. You know, the ones doing most of the fracking.

      2. BobRocket

        Re: The oil tide is ebbing

        'There's a limit to how cheap oil can become'

        yes, and there used to be a limit as to how cheap money could become, and then we got ZIRP, and now we have NIRP.

        Apparently commodities can also have negative value, it costs me less to grow 1000 acres of rape than not growing anything at all (I still make a loss, I just decide upon the lesser loss)

        If you lose money at a slower rate than your competitors are you winning or losing ?

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: The oil tide is ebbing

          "If you lose money at a slower rate than your competitors are you winning or losing ?"

          As long as the Board continue to get their bonuses, regardless of the state of the rest of the company, it's a win for them isn't it?

          2015 03 23 08 32

      3. Tom 13

        Re: There's a limit to how cheap oil can become

        Long term yes, short term no. While he's overdone the rhetoric, what he's describing is the classic collapse of an oligarchy once the government controlled market is freed from control. And he is correct about the near term storage problems. At the moment we're still producing oil faster than we're using it, and we're running out of places to store it. This will all sort itself out in the next couple of months.

    2. Mark 85

      Re: The oil tide is ebbing

      Not only are they over-producing, it's also being under-used. The shale oil fields and the fracking bandwagon that everyone jumped on has contributed a lot to the glut. The under-used is now coming from the power generation plants and there's some drop in demand due to more efficient autos. As folks have moved to CFL and LED bulbs, the demands for power have dropped.

      As some point, the oil companies will stop pumping the stuff from the ground, the stock in the tanks will drop and price per barrel will rise. There will be a shakeout which appears to have started just by the amount of layoffs going on. I don't see demand going up too much as a large base of power needs have been cut by the new light bulbs but we'll see.

      Dumping of oil on the market is already starting mostly by the Sauds. I think part of the problem right now is them. Whether they wanted the US oil companies to stop drilling in the States and buy from them or to punish someone (Russia? Certain Middle-Eastern countries?) is one of those things we'll never know on why they did drop the price in the first place. If the prices go too far down, they'll be screaming and cut back their production to force the market back up.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: The oil tide is ebbing

        "As folks have moved to CFL and LED bulbs, the demands for power have dropped."

        ?

        Any evidence for that?

        From a simple observational point of view, the reduction in energy-intensive industries (by moving production to China or whereever) seems far more likely to account for reduced energy usage than the adoption of nice but not really relevant stuff like CFLs. LEDs are somewhat better but also somewhat expensive, consequently I don't see them having much penetration yet in most of the commercial or residential lighting markets.

        Happy to be corrected.

        2015 03 23 08 38

        1. dogged

          Re: The oil tide is ebbing

          the worst thing about energy-saving lightbulbs is how long it takes to have an idea.

      2. Tom 13

        Re: The oil tide is ebbing

        CFLs and LEDs despite all the rhetoric to the contrary, don't really affect oil consumption all that much. Most non-fixed electricity is either coal or natural gas, not oil. (Fixed electric is along the lines of nukes and dams). So no noticeable effect on oil. Efficiency of autos is also a non starter. What experience has shown is that more efficient cars simply result in longer trips.

        The current glut is a result of the collapsed world economy and temporarily increased oil production.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: The oil tide is ebbing

      So this page ...

      http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/steo/report/global_oil.cfm

      has a completely made up consumption graph then?

      And the current pricing issue is absolutely not because of a glut in production that's happened because producers have to guess what demand would be and they guessed higher than it turned out to be?

      1. BobRocket

        Re: The oil tide is ebbing

        The bit on the right hand side of the graph is 'made up', the reality once we get there may or may not look like that.

        I don't know how they predict future consumption but I believe they will use economic forecasts from the World Bank, IMF, Fed etc., these forecasts have been somewhat over optimistic in the recent past and there is no reason not to believe that they are still projecting future growth that will not occur.

        The big oil co.s can hemorrhage money for much longer than anyone but it hurts, they know that some small fry will fall by the wayside cutting overall production and thus allowing the price to rise (demand will never fall to zero), the problem they have is that as soon as the price starts to rise the frackers will be back.

        There is a price point that frackers currently can't make money at but big oil can, this price is falling.

        1. BobRocket

          Re: The oil tide is ebbing...made up graphs

          March 2014

          EIA expects global consumption to grow 1.2 million bbl/d in 2014

          EIA expects non-OPEC liquids production to grow by 1.8 million bbl/d in 2014

          EIA expects OPEC crude oil production to fall by 0.5 million bbl/d in 2014

          http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/steo/archives/mar14.pdf

          March 2015

          EIA estimates that global consumption grew by 0.9 million bbl/d in 2014

          EIA estimates that non-OPEC production grew by 2.2 million bbl/d in 2014

          EIA estimates that OPEC crude oil production averaged 30.1 million bbl/d in 2014, unchanged from the previous year.

          http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/steo/pdf/steo_full.pdf

          So they overestimated consumption and underestimated production. (rose tinted outlook)

  12. ecofeco Silver badge

    The map is NOT the terrain

    The map is NOT the terrain.

  13. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Great predictions by the Guardian

    This is the newspaper that was telling its readers to buy Icelandic bonds at 6% a few weeks before the Icelandic collapse, apparently failing to notice the old principle that if something looks too good to be true, it is.

    Because I am (a) a suspicious bastard and (b) trained in basic economics I didn't fall for this one. But we had some neighbours who did, and fell heavily. Not long after they were trying to sell their house in Turkey, which also turned out to be a bit of a dubious investment, in order to get some money.

    I would say that it is sad that the anti-capitalist press seems to be more easily taken in by the capitalists than not, but the G is hardly anti-capitalist; a quick look through its Saturday magazine shows that the target reader lives in a fashionable part of London and has the sort of income that thinks that £1300 on a dress or £500 on shoes is an average standard of living. I can't really even afford to look at the pictures.

  14. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

    Simple rule

    Anything the Guardian tells you about economics is about as reliable as anything the Daily Mail tells you about immigration or the Express about the death of Diane (or Independant about Kim Kardashian's arse)

  15. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    I'd have more patience with the anti-CO2 brigade if they weren't also anti-nuclear.

    Because personally I'm NOT anti-civilisation...

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      @AC

      "I'd have more patience with the anti-CO2 brigade if they weren't also anti-nuclear. Because personally I'm NOT anti-civilisation..."

      Who are "they"? I'm pretty anti more CO2 in the atmosphere and if I held up a placard at Hinkley Point it would read "Get a move on, lads". And I think a lot of people agree with me.

  16. cgg

    Ah well, since I chose (three years ago) to move my investments to a climate advocacy fund (no fossil fuels, investment in alternative energy) I've been getting 15-20% per year capital gain. Compared to about, what, zero for the general share market?

    I just checked and found my fund was up over 7% just since jan 1 this year.

    So, I listened to those who said "disinvest from fossil fuels, your wallet will thank you" and I'm way ahead. You want to continue to own shares in fossil fuel companies? Go ahead, throw money away.

    1. fandom

      " Compared to about, what, zero for the general share market?"

      In the last three years the S&P 500 is up somewhat over 50%.

      But please, don't let that stop you from gloating about you amazing stock picks

  17. LucreLout

    I chose (three years ago) to move my investments to a climate advocacy fund (no fossil fuels, investment in alternative energy) I've been getting 15-20% per year capital gain. Compared to about, what, zero for the general share market?

    The FTSE 100 is up between 1000 and 1800 points over that period, depending on which date in 2012 you choose. So between 18% and 35% gain over that period, plus dividends averaging about 4.5% per annum so brining us to between 33% and 50% gains for the period. This is not exactly zero, and comes during the biggest oil price crash in generations....

    I just checked and found my fund was up over 7% just since jan 1 this year.

    Which is only slightly behind the FTSE 100 for the YTD.

    Your investments seem not to be out performing the way you appear to think they are.

  18. tony2heads

    obviously absurd conclusion

    The trouble is that the greenies think that such a high level of spending for the future is NOT absurd.

  19. disgruntled yank

    excessive

    "It's not going to come as all that much of a surprise that those who worry excessively about climate change aren't really all that up to speed with economics as a subject in general."

    It would be useful to know what "excessively" means. Perhaps The Register should introduce a measurement for degree of concern, where 1 would be just right, The Guardian something large, and the American Petroleum Institute something very small. Since Mr. Worstall seems confident of his judgment in the matter, could we call it The Worstall? Since it would be our own arbitrary scale, nothing prevents us from damning the API with "milliWorstalls" or mocking The Guardian with "kiloWorstalls".

    1. Tim Worstal

      Re: excessive

      My ego's large enough to go for that, yes.

  20. FutureShock999

    TW - thanks for the brilliant ONE-dimensional analysis...

    Sorry, but you are trying to impute straight economic discounting into what is really a political and psychological game. The world, and most importantly THE STOCK MARKET, does not work that way.

    Firstly, let us say that I accept your theory on discount rates and the future values of reserves out in 2050 and further. But then that means that the incredibly valuations of the petro companies must be based upon consumption of resources in the near to medium term...and that no real effect of climate change regulation will occur before 2050 to impact that.

    But in the political world, for substantial rules changes to go into effect in, let's say, 2050, the discussions and alignments around them would have to start in 2030. And the mere discussion of those would impact the pricing and future discounting at that point in a non-linear way. This totally upsets the imputed value in your straight-line discounting calculations, which is really a time value of money issue. But if in 2030 the politics begin to swing quickly towards regulation (due to natural effects that are no longer deniable), then the political situation will change rapidly, and psychologically, people will quickly begin to heavily discount what is then near-term revenues and production possibilities. In short, even though the regulations might not come into play until 2050, we can expect them to play havoc with oil pricing and Wall St. valuations in a non-linear manner well before they are in effect.

    This, then, shoots your nice, linear, discount rate calculations out of the water. The market IS non-linear, and subject to as much psychological effects as beta calculations. And something as emotional as this will have a major impact on the market pricing, quite possibly in a very non-linear manner. It has happened before on Wall St., and this is an obvious case where it can happen again.

    From that perspective, The Guardian is probably right...especially if the gross effects of climate change become harder and harder to deny...such as the coming, irrefutable mega-draught in California and the loss the entire state's agricultural output.

    1. Tim Worstal

      Re: TW - thanks for the brilliant ONE-dimensional analysis...

      Well, yes, except Shells reserves currently account for some 11 years of Shells production. So we're currently up to 2026. See anything serious happening by then?

      1. FutureShock999

        Re: TW - thanks for the brilliant ONE-dimensional analysis...

        Depends upon California. Right now they are about one to two years from severely impacting agricultural output as the wells run dry. Snowpack is only 12% of what it should be this time of year, so there will be no replenishment worth speaking of. It has all the hallmarks of a disaster in the making, and it is only being delayed via tapping into deep groundwater wells which contain non-replentishable water, some of it millions of years old. When it is gone, it is GONE. And the first casualty will be almonds...much of the production of which has become held by investment firms, not family farmers. There will be an outcry.

        In short, once California's ag economy is hit badly, there is no way for climate change to be swept under the rug...so once that happens, and if it is as bad as it COULD be - then yes, rules might be changed in the next 5 to 10 years.

  21. Mr. Flibble

    Shell's Reserves

    "Before we all march off to laugh at the dunderheads eating their crayons over at the Guardian let's just do a check on this idea. Shell's reserves (just reserves, not resources) in 2013 were some 14 billion barrels of oil equivalent."

    So shell says....

    Both reserves and resources have been overstated in the past by oil companies, and it seems difficult to verify (on purpose, I expect).

    From the Shell disclaimer on their report:

    "Neither the Company nor any of its subsidiaries undertake any obligation to publicly update or revise any forward-looking statement as a result of new information, future events or other information. In light of these risks, results could differ materially from those stated, implied or inferred from the forward-looking statements contained in this Report."

    So it could all be BS anyway.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Shell's Reserves - So it could all be BS anyway.

      14 billion barrels of BS would run quite a big methane generator for quite a long time.

  22. Rik Myslewski
    FAIL

    C'mon, let's play fair, 'kay?

    Timmy, my man, it appears that you're not up-to-date on the state of the fiscally prudent when you say "It's not going to come as all that much of a surprise that those who worry excessively about climate change aren't really all that up to speed with economics as a subject in general."

    You might want to take a look — just for a start, mind you — at this, that, these, or them.

    You might also want to occasionally pull your head out of the click-bait echo chamber, you silly, silly man.

  23. Mike VandeVelde
    Go

    "ignorant... dumb... egregious buffoon... dunderheads eating their crayons..."

    Nothing freaks out a capitalist more than the idea that anyone might do anything for any reason other than maximum glory to the almighty dollar. This is worth supporting for that entertainment value alone :)

    http://thetyee.ca/News/2015/02/20/Fossil-Fuel-Divestment-True-Aim/

    http://gofossilfree.org/commitments/

    http://www.arabellaadvisors.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Measuring-the-Global-Divestment-Movement.pdf

    1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
      FAIL

      Re: Mike Yawndeyawn Re: "ignorant... dumb... egregious buffoon... dunderheads..."

      ".....he studied political science at the University of Calgary, and in 2009 he moved to Vancouver to earn a master's in urban studies...." So a professional hot-air generator and grant wasting watermelon. Please do point to any bit of his accreditations that in any way qualifies him as either an economist or climate scientist. Would you accept brain surgery from a twonk who had studied Medieval History? Well, then again it seems you probably would if he wore a Greenpeace T-shirt to your consultation.

      1. Mike VandeVelde
        Holmes

        "Yawndeyawn... professional hot-air generator... grant wasting watermelon... twonk"

        Climate scientists tell us that burning fossil fuels is leading to catastrophic climate change. Economists tell us about things like goodwill and support levels and market impact. A person is not "a twonk" if they listen to the experts and put 2 and 2 together. Thank you for your contribution :)

        1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
          FAIL

          Re: "Yawndeyawn... professional hot-air generator... grant wasting watermelon... twonk"

          "Climate scientists tell us that burning fossil fuels is leading to catastrophic climate change...." No, they have not. Oh, but I do like how you and the rest of the flock have moved onto AGW2.0 - "catastrophic climate change" - now that your global warming claptrap has ben thoroughly debunked.

          ".....Economists tell us about things like goodwill and support levels and market impact....." You mean the crayon-eaters at The Guardian? They're not economists either.

          ".....A person is not "a twonk" if they listen to the experts and put 2 and 2 together...." Your problem is you have zero interest in actually looking for either two, nor in doing the sums for yourself, as you have been spoonfed an "answer" and now you are desperately looking for any justification for it. Newsflash - there will be no revolution, get over it.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: "qualified economist"

        "Please do point to any bit of his accreditations that in any way qualifies him as either an economist "

        What, exactly, is a qualified economist qualified to do anyway, other than talk about the dismal (and largely discredited) science?

  24. briesmith

    What's It Mean to Us Though?

    I see all these projections for the catastrophe that global warming will bring to the world but no one, so far, has told me what it would mean for Hertfordshire.

    Intuition, logic, common sense, all say a warmer world just north of London would be every nice.

    Less heating expense, more arable productivity, fewer winter deaths as Grannies stop dying from the cold, greater health/less obesity through outdoor activity, and so on.

    Isn't that worth something? Shouldn't we be paying the Chinese to get on with heating everything up a little bit that bit quicker?

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon