I’m inspired by a report I heard on the radio this morning about the projected negative effect on world GDP by global warming. I thought, every time there’s an (economic) loser, there’s always a winner.
Let’s say I want to be one of the winners of global warming, or at least make sure my grandkids are. So, assuming that the median projections of global warming from the UN and mainstream scientists are accurate, where should I invest my pitiful savings to ensure my or my offspring’s continued prosperity as the rest of you are wailing and gnashing your teeth in the bread lines?
Initial thoughts include farmland in central and northern Canada and Siberia. Any others?
Beech front property in Arizona and Nevada? Assuming the predictions are right, my thought would be…invest heavily in nuclear power. Its really the only way to reduce emmissions and yet provide the power needs of a nation like the US on the scales we are talking about. If you could crystal ball it, invest in whatever is going to be the next transport energy source…hydrogen fuel cells, electric/battery hybrids using exotic biofuels, methane hydrates (prolly not as its a GHG itself), whatever. If all the dire predictions I’ve seen concerning GW happen, it probably won’t matter…there most likely won’t be a lot of winners economically speaking if the planets weather goes wild, not to mention if all our coastal cities are under water.
A number of uranium mining companies are publicly traded; however, many are minnows that are looking for the stuff, as opposed to actually digging it out of the ground, and they tend to be listed in countries other than the U.S.
Cameco Corp., whose stock now sells for more than six times the price at which it traded at the end of 2002, is the world’s biggest uranium miner. Diversified mining groups that dig up uranium and also other stuff include Rio Tinto Group and Anglogold Ashanti Ltd.Areva SA, in addition to being the world’s biggest maker of nuclear reactors, mines uranium.
I think the single biggest growth industry (heh) will be food production. All those people living on the coastlines will have to move inland, and we’ll be losing a lot of farmland. Also, if the predictions are correct, the farmlands which aren’t affected by the rising sea levels will have a harder time getting enough water for irrigation. And don’t forget- with the rising sea levels, existing ports will be screwed- so foodstuffs will be harder to import.
I think any sort of cheap water desalination technology will be the big winner, followed by grain production. A lot of rice is produced right around sea level.
Pick the best non-fossil fuel source and you’re golden. I’d tell you what it is, but then everyone would know, and it would no longer be a good investment.
Short term, sell short insurance companies that have a fair amount of their overall gross sold coverage in catastrophic coverage.
Likewise, invest in companies that manufacture things commonly used in getting through and recovering from natural disasters. (Gas-powered generators, for example.)
Study carefully the actual potential scenarios produced by people other than Chicken Little and his supporters as to the effects of global warming. (For example, more blizzards is a counterintuitive effect – places that still have snowy winters will get more precipitation and more windy weather, net result blizzards.)
People being people, they will tend to move to places where they feel safe. Where are those places? Which of them have land still relatively undervalued? What established businesses there will grow as there’s an influx of people?
If coastal areas are flooded, that means there will be new coasts. Where will they be? What will happen on them that is potentially profitable? (Also add the idea of resource recovery from drowned areas.)
http://md1.csa.com/partners/viewrec...2&setcookie=yes
Global mean sea level is a potentially sensitive indicator of climate change. Global warming will contribute to worldwide sea-level rise (SLR) from thermal expansion of ocean water, melting of mountain glaciers and polar ice sheets. A number of studies, mostly using tide-gauge data from the Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level, Bidston Observatory, England, have obtained rates of global SLR within the last 100 years that range between 0.3 and 3mm/yr, with most values concentrated between 1 and 2 mm/yr. However, the reliability of these results has been questioned because of problems with data quality and physical processes that introduce a high level of spatial and temporal variability. Sources of uncertainty in the sea-level data include variations in winds, ocean currents, river runoff, vertical earth movements, and geographically uneven distribution of long-term records. Crustal motions introduce a major source of error. … … Furthermore, not all climate models are in agreement. Opposite conclusions may be drawn from the results of other GCMs. In addition, the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is potentially subject to dynamic and volcanic instabilities that are difficult to predict. Because of the great uncertainty in SLR projections, careful monitoring of future sea-level trends by upgraded tide-gauge networks and satellite geodesy will become essential. Finally, because of the high spatial variability in crustal subsidence rates, wave climates and tidal regimes, it will be the set of local conditions (especially the relative sea-level rise), rather than a single global mean sea-level trend, that will determine each locality’s vulnerability to future SLR. "
So, if the rate is 0.3mm/year, it’d take nearly 100 years to raise one inch. At the highest current estimate, it’d take 8 years to increase one inch.
Coastal areas will not flood- not in the time most dudes would consider a normal investment period.
Now, if you were going to invest for your Grandkids, then maybe. Assuming then a 25 year investment period- sea levels will rise 3 inches.
Don’t get me wrong- Global Warming is a serious problem. But the sea level part of it is mostly extremely long term and extremely speculative.
Wrong. As climate researcher John Wallace of the University of Washington pointed out in a recent interview, the global-cooling flap of the 1970’s was mostly a popular-press phenomenon, not a serious scientific consensus of the sort that has now formed concerning global warming:
Do you have any more substantive or convincing evidence to back up your assertion that “there is no global warming”, in the face of an overwhelming amount of peer-reviewed scientific research to the contrary?
Cameco just suffered a major, major setback in one of their uranium mines in northern Saskatchewan. A mine scheduled to open in a couple years has completely flooded, and the project is set back several years. I believe Cameco stock has taken a pretty substantial hit over it. Was hearing about it on the radio all last week.
So, in other words, by the mid-1970s, the various effects on climate had been identified and roughly understood (at least in terms of their direction of cooling or warming) but it was not understood which would be the dominant effect. So, the National Academy of Sciences [NAS] study in the mid 1970s correctly concluded that this issue of future climate was an important issue that merited further research but that it was too early to draw definitive conclusions or to take any sort of mitigating actions. Contrast this to the joint statement released last year by the NAS along with the scientific societies of 10 other major nations (Great Britain, France, Germany, Japan, Russia, China, …) that says in part
So, in other words, a careful review of the scientific history shows that (while a few individual scientists may have been more alarmist), the scientific community as a whole was careful not to make predictions when they felt they didn’t have enough knowledge…and now they feel that they do have enough knowledge.
Actually I think the term is morphing to global climatic change. What is the sticking part is if man has anything to do with it, or is it just natural solar cycles. A recent thread here: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=392591&highlight=Mars
Shows that not only the earth is going through a period of heating, but Mars and perhaps other planets.
Your second sentence was my impression too, k’bird, and I was disabused of it a few months back by a GQ thread. As I understand it, so far as there’s any means of producing a consensus statement of the best current view in climatology:
[ul][li]The phenomenon itself is occurring.[/li][li]“Anthropogenic” (human-caused) phenomena are demonstrably a significant component of the complex of factors that it can be attributed to.[/li][li]The degree to which natural (including both solar and terrestrial cycles, and non-cyclical terrestrial events like vulcanism) versus anthropogenic factors are causing GW is still subject to ongoing analysis. First cuts seem to show anthropogenic factors having a heavy influence, but that is not fully confirmed.[/li][li]As Dr Deth points out, at current rates, the rise in sea level becomes a decades-long phenomenon easily dealt with over the years. The issue then becomes, is that rate constant or increasing, and to what extent does global temperature change and consequent feeding of energy into the planetary heat engine accelerate or retard that rate of rate of change.[/li][li]The issue of what impact the overall changes will have on climate generally, on severe weather, and on other aspects, from icecaps to reservoirs, remains still very much up in the air. My own personal take after reading some of the material is, there will be a significant impact, and in less than multiple decades, but nothing so severe as the “Chicken Little” Florida-will-flood-and-Iowa-become-a-desert alarmists.[/ul][/li] code fix --G
Certainly deterministic/anthropogenic factors (man) has something to do with it, but *how significant * is the real question. Honestly- we just don’t know.
Here’s what I think wil be the main change- crops. A few degrees will mean that many areas will have to stop growing their traditional crops and change to something else- unless of course the dudes at Monsato etc come up with new strains that are heat resisitant.
Note that this doesn’t mean a food shortage at all- it could mean more food (or not). It just means that in areas where they can now grow crop A, they may have to switch to crop B. Some few areas may become unable to be farmed, but new areas will open up.
Thus, my long term investment suggestion is companies that sell seeds. Especially those companies that develop new varieties of crops.
Next, I’d invest in companies that make eco-friendly air-conditioning. Although farmers can switch crops, people won’t move. Thus, they’ll want air-cooling.
[QUOTE=Polycarp]
[li]“Anthropogenic” (human-caused) phenomena are demonstrably a significant component of the complex of factors that it can be attributed to.[/li][/QUOTE]
Unfortunately, Global Warming is the new religion. There’s a lot of good stuff out there, but a lot of zealots too.
I think that it has yet to be demonstrated that human influence is significant. Equally, it has yet to be shown - or perhaps even investigated - whether human influence is a net good influence or a net bad influence. That the Little Ice Age ended when the Industrial Revolution started is a bit of a coincidence.
I think you’ll be seeing a widespread transition of automobiles to clean diesel and hybrid drivetrains over the next ten years, and perhaps even a convergence of those two. Add to that plug-in capability, potentially. In any event, those cars need batteries, and there’s considerable demand for lighter-weight and longer-lasting battery packs for hybrids. Check out those companies trying to push next-generation battery technology, for a high-risk but potentially high-return investment.
Actually, as was discussed in that thread, the jury is still out on whether any of them are actually undergoing anything at all comparable to the sort of climate change that Earth is.
Assuming the predictions are right, my thought would be…invest heavily in nuclear power. Its really the only way to reduce emmissions and yet provide the power needs of a nation like the US on the scales we are talking about. If you could crystal ball it, invest in whatever is going to be the next transport energy source…hydrogen fuel cells, electric/battery hybrids using exotic biofuels, methane hydrates (prolly not as its a GHG itself), whatever. If all the dire predictions I’ve seen concerning GW happen, it probably won’t matter…there most likely won’t be a lot of winners economically speaking if the planets weather goes wild, not to mention if all our coastal cities are under water.