Look who just joined the climate change hoaxers

[homersapien 11,352]

https://www.ceres.or...-climate-policy

In Support of Prosperity and Growth: Financial Segment Sector Statement on Climate Change

Scientific research finds that an increasing concentration of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere is warming the planet, posing significant risks to the prosperity and growth of the global economy. As major financial institutions, working with clients and customers around the globe, we have the business opportunity to build a more sustainable, low-carbon economy and the ability to help manage and mitigate these climate-related risks.

Our institutions are committing significant resources toward financing climate solutions. These actions alone, however, are not sufficient to meet global climate challenges. Expanded deployment of capital is critical, and clear, stable and long-term policy frameworks are needed to accelerate and further scale investments.

We call for leadership and cooperation among governments for commitments leading to a strong global climate agreement. Policy frameworks that recognize the costs of carbon are among many important instruments needed to provide greater market certainty, accelerate investment, drive innovation in low carbon energy, and create jobs. Over the next 15 years, an estimated $90 trillion will need to be invested in urban infrastructure and energy. The right policy frameworks can help unlock the incremental public and private capital needed to ensure this infrastructure is sustainable and resilient.

While we may compete in the marketplace, we are aligned on the importance of policies to address the climate challenge. In partnership with our clients and customers, we will provide the financing required for value creation and the vision necessary for a strong and prosperous economy for generations to come.

Bank of America

JPMorgan Chase

Citi

Morgan Stanley

Goldman Sachs

Wells Fargo

[AURaptor 1,121]

It's great P.R. and as long as govts are passing out bags of $ to " believers ", why not ?

[homersapien 11,352]

It's great P.R. and as long as govts are passing out bags of $ to " believers ", why not ?

That's an ironic - if not stupid - response to the news the six largest banks are pledging to provide financing to companies developing solutions.

Once they perceive the wind has changed and there's money to be made, Republicans will be criticizing Obama for dragging his feet.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

Wouldn't these institutions plan on profiting mightily if cap and trade were introduced?

[AUcivE09 582]

So banks jump on board and you are cool with that, but question me?

[homersapien 11,352]

Wouldn't these institutions plan on profiting mightily if cap and trade were introduced?

These institutions are going to profit mightily no matter what.

[AURaptor 1,121]

It's great P.R. and as long as govts are passing out bags of $ to " believers ", why not ?

That's an ironic - if not stupid - response to the news the six largest banks are pledging to provide financing to companies developing solutions.

Once they perceive the wind has changed and there's money to be made, Republicans will be criticizing Obama for dragging his feet. :rolleyes:/>

Now that interest rates are poised to being raised, golly! Banks want to start financing !

Just imagine.

[autigeremt 6,569]

[icanthearyou 4,462]

Wouldn't these institutions plan on profiting mightily if cap and trade were introduced?

These institutions are going to profit mightily no matter what.

That sounds a lot like dodging the question.

[homersapien 11,352]

Wouldn't these institutions plan on profiting mightily if cap and trade were introduced?

These institutions are going to profit mightily no matter what.

That sounds a lot like dodging the question.

Not really.

Are they not profitable now?

Will they not remain profitable with no action on Cimate change (at least until the system breaks down from the consequences)?

Will they profit by financing a fundamental transition to new primary energy sources?

I'd say the answer to all of the above is "yes".

[homersapien 11,352]

It's great P.R. and as long as govts are passing out bags of $ to " believers ", why not ?

That's an ironic - if not stupid - response to the news the six largest banks are pledging to provide financing to companies developing solutions.

Once they perceive the wind has changed and there's money to be made, Republicans will be criticizing Obama for dragging his feet. :rolleyes:/>

Now that interest rates are poised to being raised, golly! Banks want to start financing !

Just imagine.

But the point is they are recommending we react to the science of climate change (AGW) by investing in that.

Kind of hard to "imagine" they would be eager to finance a hoax.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

Wouldn't these institutions plan on profiting mightily if cap and trade were introduced?

These institutions are going to profit mightily no matter what.

That sounds a lot like dodging the question.

Not really.

Are they not profitable now?

Will they not remain profitable with no action on Cimate change (at least until the system breaks down from the consequences)?

Will they profit by financing a fundamental transition to new primary energy sources?

I'd say the answer to all of the above is "yes".

Well then, I would be cautious when being critical of "big energy" funding the deniers. It will be hard to criticize a group with a vested interest by introducing a counter-group with a vested interest.

I still think you have dodged my question. Will these Wall Street firms profit directly from "cap and trade" or a "carbon exchange"? Are they not planning to be a key participant?

[homersapien 11,352]

Wouldn't these institutions plan on profiting mightily if cap and trade were introduced?

These institutions are going to profit mightily no matter what.

That sounds a lot like dodging the question.

Not really.

Are they not profitable now?

Will they not remain profitable with no action on Cimate change (at least until the system breaks down from the consequences)?

Will they profit by financing a fundamental transition to new primary energy sources?

I'd say the answer to all of the above is "yes".

Well then, I would be cautious when being critical of "big energy" funding the deniers. It will be hard to criticize a group with a vested interest by introducing a counter-group with a vested interest.

I don't understand your point here. There is no doubt that vested interest groups are funding the deniers.

Are you saying that these banks are funneling money to AGW "political activists" or into the research? I don't think that is the case.

While it's obvious that these banks stand to profit (or not) from investments into new technologies, it doesn't seem rational to me that they are being motivated by the prospect of a windfall. Considering the risks of action vs. inaction it seems far more likely they are responding to the science and the prospect of inaction as a threat to their financial future.

I still think you have dodged my question. Will these Wall Street firms profit directly from "cap and trade" or a "carbon exchange"? Are they not planning to be a key participant?

No I have not dodged your question. I don't know if these banks will profit specifically from any given remediation plan, but my assumption is - being large banks - they will profit regardless, as they finance the economy as a whole.

Again, the increasing threat to our economic system by inaction on AGW is a far greater threat to the economic future of all of us, including them.

I am sure that when we finally start to act, they most certainly want to "participate". But that's true of any company who accepts the reality of AGW. Even some of the large oil and coal companies recognize this and are planning for alternative business strategies. It's just that most of them undoubtedly want to delay it as long as possible for obvious reasons.

For any hope of addressing this problem successfully the transition will ultimately need to be seen as opportunities than mere problems. I think these banks recognize that. But they are probably being motivated by the risks of inaction.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

Wouldn't these institutions plan on profiting mightily if cap and trade were introduced?

These institutions are going to profit mightily no matter what.

That sounds a lot like dodging the question.

Not really.

Are they not profitable now?

Will they not remain profitable with no action on Cimate change (at least until the system breaks down from the consequences)?

Will they profit by financing a fundamental transition to new primary energy sources?

I'd say the answer to all of the above is "yes".

Well then, I would be cautious when being critical of "big energy" funding the deniers. It will be hard to criticize a group with a vested interest by introducing a counter-group with a vested interest.

I don't understand your point here. There is no doubt that vested interest groups are funding the deniers.

Are you saying that these banks are funneling money to AGW "political activists" or into the research? I don't think that is the case.

While it's obvious that these banks stand to profit (or not) from investments into new technologies, it doesn't seem rational to me that they are being motivated by the prospect of a windfall. Considering the risks of action vs. inaction it seems far more likely they are responding to the science and the prospect of inaction as a threat to their financial future.

I still think you have dodged my question. Will these Wall Street firms profit directly from "cap and trade" or a "carbon exchange"? Are they not planning to be a key participant?

No I have not dodged your question. I don't know if these banks will profit specifically from any given remediation plan, but my assumption is - being large banks - they will profit regardless, as they finance the economy as a whole.

Again, the increasing threat to our economic system by inaction on AGW is a far greater threat to the economic future of all of us, including them.

I am sure that when we finally start to act, they most certainly want to "participate". But that's true of any company who accepts the reality of AGW. Even some of the large oil and coal companies recognize this and are planning for alternative business strategies. It's just that most of them undoubtedly want to delay it as long as possible for obvious reasons.

For any hope of addressing this problem successfully the transition will ultimately need to be seen as opportunities than mere problems. I think these banks recognize that. But they are probably being motivated by the risks of inaction.

No and, I don't believe that matters. I am merely saying that, if supporting GW policy serves their interests, they are biased and, there true intent is not so clear, perhaps not so genuine.

Then why didn't you just say so. I'm not trying to argue or, win an argument. I'm just looking for facts and objectivity. Is there any information in regard to Wall St. being a clearinghouse for "carbon exchange"?

[homersapien 11,352]

Wouldn't these institutions plan on profiting mightily if cap and trade were introduced?

These institutions are going to profit mightily no matter what.

That sounds a lot like dodging the question.

Not really.

Are they not profitable now?

Will they not remain profitable with no action on Cimate change (at least until the system breaks down from the consequences)?

Will they profit by financing a fundamental transition to new primary energy sources?

I'd say the answer to all of the above is "yes".

Well then, I would be cautious when being critical of "big energy" funding the deniers. It will be hard to criticize a group with a vested interest by introducing a counter-group with a vested interest.

I don't understand your point here. There is no doubt that vested interest groups are funding the deniers.

Are you saying that these banks are funneling money to AGW "political activists" or into the research? I don't think that is the case.

While it's obvious that these banks stand to profit (or not) from investments into new technologies, it doesn't seem rational to me that they are being motivated by the prospect of a windfall. Considering the risks of action vs. inaction it seems far more likely they are responding to the science and the prospect of inaction as a threat to their financial future.

I still think you have dodged my question. Will these Wall Street firms profit directly from "cap and trade" or a "carbon exchange"? Are they not planning to be a key participant?

No I have not dodged your question. I don't know if these banks will profit specifically from any given remediation plan, but my assumption is - being large banks - they will profit regardless, as they finance the economy as a whole.

Again, the increasing threat to our economic system by inaction on AGW is a far greater threat to the economic future of all of us, including them.

I am sure that when we finally start to act, they most certainly want to "participate". But that's true of any company who accepts the reality of AGW. Even some of the large oil and coal companies recognize this and are planning for alternative business strategies. It's just that most of them undoubtedly want to delay it as long as possible for obvious reasons.

For any hope of addressing this problem successfully the transition will ultimately need to be seen as opportunities than mere problems. I think these banks recognize that. But they are probably being motivated by the risks of inaction.

No and, I don't believe that matters. I am merely saying that, if supporting GW policy serves there interests, they are biased and, there true intent is not so clear, perhaps not so genuine.

Then why didn't you just say so. I'm not trying to argue or, win an argument. I'm just looking for facts and objectivity. Is there any information in regard to Wall St. being a clearinghouse for "carbon exchange"?

I don't understand your skepticism about their motivation. They state it up front:

Scientific research finds that an increasing concentration of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere is warming the planet, posing significant risks to the prosperity and growth of the global economy. As major financial institutions, working with clients and customers around the globe, we have the business opportunity to build a more sustainable, low-carbon economy and the ability to help manage and mitigate these climate-related risks.

The point is they agree with the science and it's implications as expressed in the very first sentence.

I suppose you can assume they have a nefarious or cynical reason for their statement but, IMO, that would put you firmly in the camp of the 'hoaxers'. It's irrational.

[AURaptor 1,121]

Kind of hard to "imagine" they would be eager to finance a hoax.

Insurance companies did exactly that with ObamaCare.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

Wouldn't these institutions plan on profiting mightily if cap and trade were introduced?

These institutions are going to profit mightily no matter what.

That sounds a lot like dodging the question.

Not really.

Are they not profitable now?

Will they not remain profitable with no action on Cimate change (at least until the system breaks down from the consequences)?

Will they profit by financing a fundamental transition to new primary energy sources?

I'd say the answer to all of the above is "yes".

Well then, I would be cautious when being critical of "big energy" funding the deniers. It will be hard to criticize a group with a vested interest by introducing a counter-group with a vested interest.

I don't understand your point here. There is no doubt that vested interest groups are funding the deniers.

Are you saying that these banks are funneling money to AGW "political activists" or into the research? I don't think that is the case.

While it's obvious that these banks stand to profit (or not) from investments into new technologies, it doesn't seem rational to me that they are being motivated by the prospect of a windfall. Considering the risks of action vs. inaction it seems far more likely they are responding to the science and the prospect of inaction as a threat to their financial future.

I still think you have dodged my question. Will these Wall Street firms profit directly from "cap and trade" or a "carbon exchange"? Are they not planning to be a key participant?

No I have not dodged your question. I don't know if these banks will profit specifically from any given remediation plan, but my assumption is - being large banks - they will profit regardless, as they finance the economy as a whole.

Again, the increasing threat to our economic system by inaction on AGW is a far greater threat to the economic future of all of us, including them.

I am sure that when we finally start to act, they most certainly want to "participate". But that's true of any company who accepts the reality of AGW. Even some of the large oil and coal companies recognize this and are planning for alternative business strategies. It's just that most of them undoubtedly want to delay it as long as possible for obvious reasons.

For any hope of addressing this problem successfully the transition will ultimately need to be seen as opportunities than mere problems. I think these banks recognize that. But they are probably being motivated by the risks of inaction.

No and, I don't believe that matters. I am merely saying that, if supporting GW policy serves there interests, they are biased and, there true intent is not so clear, perhaps not so genuine.

Then why didn't you just say so. I'm not trying to argue or, win an argument. I'm just looking for facts and objectivity. Is there any information in regard to Wall St. being a clearinghouse for "carbon exchange"?

I don't understand your skepticism about their motivation. They state it up front:

Scientific research finds that an increasing concentration of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere is warming the planet, posing significant risks to the prosperity and growth of the global economy. As major financial institutions, working with clients and customers around the globe, we have the business opportunity to build a more sustainable, low-carbon economy and the ability to help manage and mitigate these climate-related risks.

The point is they agree with the science and it's implications as expressed in the very first sentence.

I suppose you can assume they have a nefarious or cynical reason for their statement but, IMO, that would put you firmly in the camp of the 'hoaxers'. It's irrational.

If you say so but, I was asking a question. I was not claiming any position. To dismiss that question so easily without addressing it, to attempt to "address" it in the manner you chose, does not seem objective to me.

The question is specifically about cap and trade and the associated "carbon credits"/"carbon exchange".

[homersapien 11,352]

Kind of hard to "imagine" they would be eager to finance a hoax.

Insurance companies did exactly that with ObamaCare.

Last I checked, Obamacare is quite real.

[homersapien 11,352]

Wouldn't these institutions plan on profiting mightily if cap and trade were introduced?

These institutions are going to profit mightily no matter what.

That sounds a lot like dodging the question.

Not really.

Are they not profitable now?

Will they not remain profitable with no action on Cimate change (at least until the system breaks down from the consequences)?

Will they profit by financing a fundamental transition to new primary energy sources?

I'd say the answer to all of the above is "yes".

Well then, I would be cautious when being critical of "big energy" funding the deniers. It will be hard to criticize a group with a vested interest by introducing a counter-group with a vested interest.

I don't understand your point here. There is no doubt that vested interest groups are funding the deniers.

Are you saying that these banks are funneling money to AGW "political activists" or into the research? I don't think that is the case.

While it's obvious that these banks stand to profit (or not) from investments into new technologies, it doesn't seem rational to me that they are being motivated by the prospect of a windfall. Considering the risks of action vs. inaction it seems far more likely they are responding to the science and the prospect of inaction as a threat to their financial future.

I still think you have dodged my question. Will these Wall Street firms profit directly from "cap and trade" or a "carbon exchange"? Are they not planning to be a key participant?

No I have not dodged your question. I don't know if these banks will profit specifically from any given remediation plan, but my assumption is - being large banks - they will profit regardless, as they finance the economy as a whole.

Again, the increasing threat to our economic system by inaction on AGW is a far greater threat to the economic future of all of us, including them.

I am sure that when we finally start to act, they most certainly want to "participate". But that's true of any company who accepts the reality of AGW. Even some of the large oil and coal companies recognize this and are planning for alternative business strategies. It's just that most of them undoubtedly want to delay it as long as possible for obvious reasons.

For any hope of addressing this problem successfully the transition will ultimately need to be seen as opportunities than mere problems. I think these banks recognize that. But they are probably being motivated by the risks of inaction.

No and, I don't believe that matters. I am merely saying that, if supporting GW policy serves there interests, they are biased and, there true intent is not so clear, perhaps not so genuine.

Then why didn't you just say so. I'm not trying to argue or, win an argument. I'm just looking for facts and objectivity. Is there any information in regard to Wall St. being a clearinghouse for "carbon exchange"?

I don't understand your skepticism about their motivation. They state it up front:

Scientific research finds that an increasing concentration of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere is warming the planet, posing significant risks to the prosperity and growth of the global economy. As major financial institutions, working with clients and customers around the globe, we have the business opportunity to build a more sustainable, low-carbon economy and the ability to help manage and mitigate these climate-related risks.

The point is they agree with the science and it's implications as expressed in the very first sentence.

I suppose you can assume they have a nefarious or cynical reason for their statement but, IMO, that would put you firmly in the camp of the 'hoaxers'. It's irrational.

If you say so but, I was asking a question. I was not claiming any position. To dismiss that question so easily without addressing it, to attempt to "address" it in the manner you chose, does not seem objective to me.

The question is specifically about cap and trade and the associated "carbon credits"/"carbon exchange".

Well, did I provide a sufficient answer to your question?

[homersapien 11,352]

So banks jump on board and you are cool with that, but question me?

Was that addressed to me?

[icanthearyou 4,462]

Wouldn't these institutions plan on profiting mightily if cap and trade were introduced?

These institutions are going to profit mightily no matter what.

That sounds a lot like dodging the question.

Not really.

Are they not profitable now?

Will they not remain profitable with no action on Cimate change (at least until the system breaks down from the consequences)?

Will they profit by financing a fundamental transition to new primary energy sources?

I'd say the answer to all of the above is "yes".

Well then, I would be cautious when being critical of "big energy" funding the deniers. It will be hard to criticize a group with a vested interest by introducing a counter-group with a vested interest.

I don't understand your point here. There is no doubt that vested interest groups are funding the deniers.

Are you saying that these banks are funneling money to AGW "political activists" or into the research? I don't think that is the case.

While it's obvious that these banks stand to profit (or not) from investments into new technologies, it doesn't seem rational to me that they are being motivated by the prospect of a windfall. Considering the risks of action vs. inaction it seems far more likely they are responding to the science and the prospect of inaction as a threat to their financial future.

I still think you have dodged my question. Will these Wall Street firms profit directly from "cap and trade" or a "carbon exchange"? Are they not planning to be a key participant?

No I have not dodged your question. I don't know if these banks will profit specifically from any given remediation plan, but my assumption is - being large banks - they will profit regardless, as they finance the economy as a whole.

Again, the increasing threat to our economic system by inaction on AGW is a far greater threat to the economic future of all of us, including them.

I am sure that when we finally start to act, they most certainly want to "participate". But that's true of any company who accepts the reality of AGW. Even some of the large oil and coal companies recognize this and are planning for alternative business strategies. It's just that most of them undoubtedly want to delay it as long as possible for obvious reasons.

For any hope of addressing this problem successfully the transition will ultimately need to be seen as opportunities than mere problems. I think these banks recognize that. But they are probably being motivated by the risks of inaction.

No and, I don't believe that matters. I am merely saying that, if supporting GW policy serves there interests, they are biased and, there true intent is not so clear, perhaps not so genuine.

Then why didn't you just say so. I'm not trying to argue or, win an argument. I'm just looking for facts and objectivity. Is there any information in regard to Wall St. being a clearinghouse for "carbon exchange"?

I don't understand your skepticism about their motivation. They state it up front:

Scientific research finds that an increasing concentration of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere is warming the planet, posing significant risks to the prosperity and growth of the global economy. As major financial institutions, working with clients and customers around the globe, we have the business opportunity to build a more sustainable, low-carbon economy and the ability to help manage and mitigate these climate-related risks.

The point is they agree with the science and it's implications as expressed in the very first sentence.

I suppose you can assume they have a nefarious or cynical reason for their statement but, IMO, that would put you firmly in the camp of the 'hoaxers'. It's irrational.

If you say so but, I was asking a question. I was not claiming any position. To dismiss that question so easily without addressing it, to attempt to "address" it in the manner you chose, does not seem objective to me.

The question is specifically about cap and trade and the associated "carbon credits"/"carbon exchange".

Did I provide a sufficient answer to your question?

NO. I will do my own research (thanks for nothing) and, in my frustration, I will resort to calling you names, you ignurint liberal.

[homersapien 11,352]

Wouldn't these institutions plan on profiting mightily if cap and trade were introduced?

These institutions are going to profit mightily no matter what.

That sounds a lot like dodging the question.

Not really.

Are they not profitable now?

Will they not remain profitable with no action on Cimate change (at least until the system breaks down from the consequences)?

Will they profit by financing a fundamental transition to new primary energy sources?

I'd say the answer to all of the above is "yes".

Well then, I would be cautious when being critical of "big energy" funding the deniers. It will be hard to criticize a group with a vested interest by introducing a counter-group with a vested interest.

I don't understand your point here. There is no doubt that vested interest groups are funding the deniers.

Are you saying that these banks are funneling money to AGW "political activists" or into the research? I don't think that is the case.

While it's obvious that these banks stand to profit (or not) from investments into new technologies, it doesn't seem rational to me that they are being motivated by the prospect of a windfall. Considering the risks of action vs. inaction it seems far more likely they are responding to the science and the prospect of inaction as a threat to their financial future.

I still think you have dodged my question. Will these Wall Street firms profit directly from "cap and trade" or a "carbon exchange"? Are they not planning to be a key participant?

No I have not dodged your question. I don't know if these banks will profit specifically from any given remediation plan, but my assumption is - being large banks - they will profit regardless, as they finance the economy as a whole.

Again, the increasing threat to our economic system by inaction on AGW is a far greater threat to the economic future of all of us, including them.

I am sure that when we finally start to act, they most certainly want to "participate". But that's true of any company who accepts the reality of AGW. Even some of the large oil and coal companies recognize this and are planning for alternative business strategies. It's just that most of them undoubtedly want to delay it as long as possible for obvious reasons.

For any hope of addressing this problem successfully the transition will ultimately need to be seen as opportunities than mere problems. I think these banks recognize that. But they are probably being motivated by the risks of inaction.

No and, I don't believe that matters. I am merely saying that, if supporting GW policy serves there interests, they are biased and, there true intent is not so clear, perhaps not so genuine.

Then why didn't you just say so. I'm not trying to argue or, win an argument. I'm just looking for facts and objectivity. Is there any information in regard to Wall St. being a clearinghouse for "carbon exchange"?

I don't understand your skepticism about their motivation. They state it up front:

Scientific research finds that an increasing concentration of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere is warming the planet, posing significant risks to the prosperity and growth of the global economy. As major financial institutions, working with clients and customers around the globe, we have the business opportunity to build a more sustainable, low-carbon economy and the ability to help manage and mitigate these climate-related risks.

The point is they agree with the science and it's implications as expressed in the very first sentence.

I suppose you can assume they have a nefarious or cynical reason for their statement but, IMO, that would put you firmly in the camp of the 'hoaxers'. It's irrational.

If you say so but, I was asking a question. I was not claiming any position. To dismiss that question so easily without addressing it, to attempt to "address" it in the manner you chose, does not seem objective to me.

The question is specifically about cap and trade and the associated "carbon credits"/"carbon exchange".

Did I provide a sufficient answer to your question?

NO. I will do my own research (thanks for nothing) and, in my frustration, I will resort to calling you names, you ignurint liberal.