Net zero emissions by 2050? | Rupert Darwall & Erwin Jackson

Поділитися
Вставка
  • Опубліковано 1 гру 2024

КОМЕНТАРІ • 23

  • @larryhardee1914
    @larryhardee1914 3 роки тому +1

    The price of U.S. natural gas is now above the price of coal. It is not going to be an easy transition.

  • @adhithyasodhi3203
    @adhithyasodhi3203 3 роки тому +2

    Investors can posture all they like about rejecting fossil fuel investment. Irrelevant until some realistic alternative energy forms are innovated that can reliably supply the vast power needs of entire countries without sending everyone broke

  • @jacknicky9785
    @jacknicky9785 3 роки тому +1

    I am more concerned about Australia on coming Recession!

  • @doughall1678
    @doughall1678 3 роки тому +1

    Firstly excellent debate CIS.
    Highlights how financial investors and the financial industry have replaced actual customers of products and services as the primary market signal for entrepreneurs to respond to! Also highlights how successfully the financial sector has captured governments and regulators around the world in order to maximise their profits. Maximum profits for financial sector does not necessarily align with what is best for customers or the planet.

  • @mals5008
    @mals5008 3 роки тому +6

    The underlying scientific premise is wrong. There is no (significant) AGW

  • @chriskshaw7601
    @chriskshaw7601 3 роки тому

    CIS, super conversation, many thanks!

  • @wakey1974
    @wakey1974 3 роки тому

    IPCC may have been warning since 1995 but they have been wrong with every singe warning they have made

  • @chriskshaw7601
    @chriskshaw7601 3 роки тому

    Seems like investors are following policy. Without subsidies where would the investors go? How can the addition of storage allow the intermittents to be affordable? The greens are driving us in to China’s arms. Recommend you Learn Mandarin as soon as you can.

  • @unclejj13er75
    @unclejj13er75 2 роки тому

    Don't worry, if multi-nationals invest in carbon credits that go belly up, central banks will bail them out with endless streams of freshly printed dollars, euros, yen and pounds!! Of course, the true cost will be passed on to hapless consumers who will enjoy years of hyper inflation and chaos in the streets. Don't worry though!! All that turmoil won't affect the billionaire boys club one bit!!

  • @isee7668
    @isee7668 3 роки тому

    Geez Rupert has swallowed the kool aid.

  • @nottenvironmental6208
    @nottenvironmental6208 3 роки тому +1

    Solar wind and batteries create cheaper power with less pollution. Supporting opposition will delay the growth in jobs and manufacturing.
    Creation an independent system not reliant on other countries decreases the risk to national security. All arguments against seem ridiculous in a capitalist society.

  • @chriskshaw7601
    @chriskshaw7601 3 роки тому

    Result: Irvin 0 Rupert 3

  • @jdg9999
    @jdg9999 3 роки тому

    The climate change guy's arguments were basically all "the elites have agreed, so it's settled" when any questions were asked about if policies were a good idea. "The capital markets won't invest in that", "the car makers have agreed", "the governments have decided".
    Guess what you smug twat, these people don't necessarily have it right, especially since they've shown that they are primarily self serving and willing to kneel before any left wing social trend, even when it directly harms their material interests.
    The "ESG" he mentions at the end is basically a huge grift where people are conned into making bad investment choices under the premise that "doing exactly what leftist ideologues tell you to is GREAT for profits" is true.