DuckSouth.com

"I hope to make a dollar or two in it myself "

BINGO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Hammer wrote:...I hope to make a dollar or two in it myself.

thank you for your time mr. gore.

gator

Okay you socialists, let me make sure I understand your position correctly...A guy sees a business opportnity based on scientific fact and that somehow renders the scientific fact invalid?

That means that because 20% more corn will be planted in the US this year than last year in response to ethanol as an oxygenate in gasoline which is in response to the federal mandate of switching from MTBE as an oxygenate because it causes cancer, that because those farmers (and me as a landowner) will make more money, that MTBE does not in fact cause cancer? That means that because there is money made in pharmaceutical drugs that the science behind how those drugs work is not legit?

Big, big, big companies are betting billions that GHG induced GW is real...I am betting with them...Dont bet with them if you so choose but keep it to yourself when your food plots dont grow because it hasnt rained in a month durign the wettest time of the year, when the ducks dont migrate past St. Louis or when your stock portfolio tanks because the companies you hve invested in get smacked with serious GHG emissions related expenses...

Darn right, if the NRCS wants to pay me a carbon payment to no-till rather than conventional till, I'll take their money...If not building conventional coal plants is good enough for KKR, then that's good enough for me to find companies to invest in that are GHG neutral or at least heading in that direction....If the 16 states, the US Senate, 190 companies, etc around the world want mandatory GHG emissions standards, that's good enough for me to figure out ways to take advantage of it...

Alternatively, I could take yalls advice and not worry about it. Of course, since 70% of US households have NO NET WORTH, meanign that their liabilities exceed their assets, then there is a better than even chance that yall's balance sheet dont look so hot so I wont take any investment advice from anybody until I see their financial statements.

Al Gore has a lot of money. He is free to do with that money what he chooses to do. He chose to make a movie. It could have tanked as so many movies do. Instead it made him a lot more money. None of that is relevant to the scientific fact that the Earth is getting hotter due to manmade concentrations of GHG. Dupont, Alcoa, GE, BP, Shell, etc dont invest based on BS. Neither do I.

Yall are still arguin about this junk

Not to stir the pot but how do you account for the ice caps on Mars , as well as, Saturn melting. They also are experiening global warming.

As I said before, we are getting closer to the sun. Could it be that simple?

What is wrong with wanting to get in on a huge economic opportunity?

A bunch of us made buck or two off the internet boom, many Americans came out ahead on the real estate boom, so why can't we bank-roll the forecoming energy crisis? The demand is obviously there, and I don't see anything unethical about it. Its just business.

Im just sayin...

this very well could be the best thread i've never read!!!

bigwater wrote:this very well could be the best thread i've never read!!!

JDgator wrote:What is wrong with wanting to get in on a huge economic opportunity?

A bunch of us made buck or two off the internet boom, many Americans came out ahead on the real estate boom, so why can't we bank-roll the forecoming energy crisis? The demand is obviously there, and I don't see anything unethical about it. Its just business.

Im just sayin...

There's nothing wrong with it at all.

snake oil salesman comes to mind

Bankermane wrote:Not to stir the pot but how do you account for the ice caps on Mars , as well as, Saturn melting. They also are experiening global warming.

As I said before, we are getting closer to the sun. Could it be that simple?

Cow flatulence leaking through the hole in the ozone layer.

If Mars is warming simultaneously with the earth, and all of this warming is caused by something other than the sun (eg humans, aliens, etc.), then surely this must mean that there is life on Mars that is polluting that planet.

I say we send Al Gore to Mars to spread the gospel of GW and staighten their booty out as well. There is money to be made on Mars.

Mars needs guitars.

READ CAREFULLY: THAT IS $4 TRILLION IN ASSETS (AS OPPOSED TO
$4 BILLION)...THAT IS PRETTY BIG MONEY BUT PML, BR&GH AND THE OTHER NAYSAYERS WOULD HAVE US BELIEVE THAT AL GORE AND HIS MANY DISCIPLES (INCLUDING HAMMER ACCORDING TO THOSE STINKING GENUISES) HAVE DUPED THESE GUYS. IF ONLY I WERE THAT GOOD A SALESMAN!


Investors call for government to take on climate change
By Riva Froymovich
March 26, 2007

NEW YORK — Clean energy is increasingly gaining the attention of institutional investors. Last Monday, dozens of top investors managing a total of $4 trillion in assets asked Congress, the Securities and Exchange Commission and the White House to approve stronger climate control policies. The coalition said in a statement that the competitiveness of U.S. businesses hinges on developing the clean-technology industry.

“There’s nothing surprising about these types of calls,” said Ron Pernick, co-founder and principal of Clean Edge Inc., a clean-technology research firm in Oakland, Calif.

Revenue from clean-energy companies worldwide increased nearly 39% to a collective $55.4 billion last year, according to a research report released this month by Clean Edge. By 2016, the collective revenue of such companies could reach $226.5 billion, the report said.

Among the 65 companies that were part of the coalition were Allianz AG in Munich, Germany, the California Public Employees Retirement System in Sacramento, Domini Social Investments LLC in New York, F&C Asset Management PLC in London, Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc. in New York, The Calvert Group Ltd. in Bethesda, Md. and Walden Asset Management in Boston.

“Through their actions, they are demonstrating that preventing climate change isn’t just good for the planet; it is an opportunity to bolster the bottom line,” Timothy E. Wirth, president of the United Nations Foundation in Washington, said at a press conference announcing the coalition.

The coalition called for three specific steps from the government:

• A market-based national policy that will achieve a 60% to 90% long-term decrease of greenhouse gas emissions.

• A realignment of national incentives to stimulate new clean technologies.

• A clarification of company disclosure requirements from the SEC.

“In the face of mounting evidence demonstrating the economic implications of climate change, we strongly urge the SEC to acknowledge it as a material consideration and require all companies to disclose its impact to shareholders,” Connecticut State Treasurer Denise L. Nappier said at the press conference. “Too many companies [are] still leaving shareholders in the dark.”

Furthermore, speakers said, by creating caps on the amount of carbon that companies can emit and turning those limits into a system where companies and traders can trade those carbon credits — as practiced in Europe now — clean incentives can turn a profit.

“When we put caps on carbon, that’s what will drive the market,” said Mindy S. Lubber, president of Ceres Inc., a Boston-based coalition of investors and environmental groups that has done extensive work on global-warming issues.

Financial firms such as Merrill Lynch call the carbon market an opportunity to do “both well and good,” said Mark Goldfus, a senior vice president at Merrill Lynch, one of the top carbon traders in the world and a primary sponsor of the Carbon Disclosure Project, a London-based group of institutional investors trying to push companies to recognize their impact on climate change.

“We’re seeing more and more of this type of activity,” said Mr. Pernick of Clean Edge.

Fund managers are always looking for future areas of opportunity and this is it, he said. “One of the greatest areas of innovation right now is occurring within clean energy.”

In particular, growth rates for solar and wind, which are greater than 30%, are parallel to the rise of the personal computer industry, Mr. Pernick said.

“If you aren’t taking a leadership role on climate, you risk the ramifications of not being involved,” he said. For example, reinsurance companies saw that they should be in the lead of climate change policy because of the cost of insuring against natural disasters, Mr. Pernick said.

In the United States, venture capitalist investment in clean technologies nearly tripled to $2.4 billion last year, from $917 million in 2005, representing nearly 10% of total VC activity, compared with less than 1% of total activity in 1999, according to the Clean Edge report.

Biofuels received the most investment, at $813 million, up from $20.5 million in 2005 and $800,000 in 2004, according to the report. Companies that focus on energy efficiency received $476 million last year, up from $272 million in 2005 and $192 million 2004; and solar energy received $264 million, versus $156 million and $68 million in 2005 and 2004, respectively.

Po Monkey Lounger wrote:snake oil salesman comes to mind

I think you are missing my point.

When gas breaches the $3.30 mark, guess who makes alot of money? - Archer Daniels Midland. They own a half dozen ethanol plants throughout the US, and are looking to expand. I can envision a time in the not too distant future when gas stays ago 3 bucks a gallon, and this expanding firm lowers costs such that ehtanol is permanantly cheaper than gas.

I just think it makes good business sense to start investing in these operations now.

You can argue the science of global warming all you want, but I plan on going long on ADM for the summer driving season.