Technology, Science and the Environment.

[leicsmac]

55 minutes ago, grobyfox1990 said:

No, because it’s not the long-term yet. But there are many examples of the market uncovering bluster from companies and ensuring they disclose accurate and achievable aims, see the example of BP. And then punishing them for it. They haven’t reneged on a deal because the target could well change by next year. 
 

Governments cannot intervene on these issues, because they don’t understand them. 

Given that the facts regarding the situation, what needs to be done and the consequences of not doing it haven't really changed in the past year, I see no good reason for the target to change as a result.

 

If there *is* a good reason I've missed, I'd be happy to have it pointed out. Until then, the above null hypothesis stands.

 

NB. I still see no reason why the "market" would pursue sustainable long term goals in the first place when the rule is more, more, more and a bigger material prize can be netted short term anyway.

[Jon the Hat]

16 hours ago, grobyfox1990 said:

So they’ve reported a loss in this period due to that previous money printing Rosneft JV and STILL reported overall bumper profits. Jesus…. Not sure why governments should have to share the bad times, when bad times arrive overwhelmingly due to poor management. Shell should look after their stakeholders, not expect the govt to, moral hazard that’s presumably got us into this mess. The example of how well JP Morgan is run during all the volatility dismisses the ‘there’s nothing I can do about it’ argument

No, they made a loss in the period due to being forced by Govt sanctions to take a loss on the Rosneft JV but it was NOT an allowable tax deduction, so they paid more in tax than they made in profit.

Edited 9 February 2023 by Jon the Hat

[ozleicester]

My home payments, fuel costs, food needs, clothing, cooling, repair and general costs exceed my income currently... so i assume i can not bother paying tax this year?

[Jon the Hat]

44 minutes ago, ozleicester said:

My home payments, fuel costs, food needs, clothing, cooling, repair and general costs exceed my income currently... so i assume i can not bother paying tax this year?

As an individual no, but you do have a tax free threshold which companies generally do not.

[grobyfox1990]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

Given that the facts regarding the situation, what needs to be done and the consequences of not doing it haven't really changed in the past year, I see no good reason for the target to change as a result.

 

If there *is* a good reason I've missed, I'd be happy to have it pointed out. Until then, the above null hypothesis stands.

 

NB. I still see no reason why the "market" would pursue sustainable long term goals in the first place when the rule is more, more, more and a bigger material prize can be netted short term anyway.

That’s what I mean, you’ve missed the point. The target has changed because things have changed in the past year with regards to accurate measurement and assurance of SBTs. Don’t be surprised if a dept has been fired today, and a more robust SBT next year. This is a net good, there’s no point in corporates disclosing unrealistic targets.

 

Again your second point is wrong, the market alone is pushing long term goals. The TCFD framework was developed by the market, for the market, for this reason alone. And global regulators see this as the benchmark standard. The ‘rule’ you mention above is probably true of 2015, but certainly not real money in 2023. 

 

Edit - apologies got distracted and pressed send too quickly.... If you do not see the market making a difference, and Govt/policymakers certainly are not, what do you think could be the answer? Because we are way past shouty teenage girls screaming at people to separate waste and take the train

Edited 9 February 2023 by grobyfox1990

[leicsmac]

21 minutes ago, grobyfox1990 said:

That’s what I mean, you’ve missed the point. The target has changed because things have changed in the past year with regards to accurate measurement and assurance of SBTs. Don’t be surprised if a dept has been fired today, and a more robust SBT next year. This is a net good, there’s no point in corporates disclosing unrealistic targets.

Thank you for the clarification. So the point is that they believe they can do the same thing with this SBT as they can with the last one?

 

Sounds like they needed to communicate that a bit better, then, as well as explaining why the change.

 

24 minutes ago, grobyfox1990 said:

Again your second point is wrong, the market alone is pushing long term goals. The TCFD framework was developed by the market, for the market, for this reason alone. And global regulators see this as the benchmark standard. The ‘rule’ you mention above is probably true of 2015, but certainly not real money in 2023. 

 

I'm going to take this at face value then, and make the observation that it's unproven and untested mechanisms and the stakes are very, very high. Permit me a little worry about that, even if all of this is correct. If things play out as they are, then I just hope you're right.

 

32 minutes ago, grobyfox1990 said:

Edit - apologies got distracted and pressed send too quickly.... If you do not see the market making a difference, and Govt/policymakers certainly are not, what do you think could be the answer? Because we are way past shouty teenage girls screaming at people to separate waste and take the train

A more robust policybased government response is what I would advocate for as I think it's the only thing that might generate enough of a unified response (heavy on the *might* there). Of course, one would be right to be sceptical of that working, either.

 

Perhaps it might be a combination of both that could work. All I know that both unity of action and long term thinking are going to be heavily required.

[grobyfox1990]

49 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Thank you for the clarification. So the point is that they believe they can do the same thing with this SBT as they can with the last one?

 

Sounds like they needed to communicate that a bit better, then, as well as explaining why the change.

 

I'm going to take this at face value then, and make the observation that it's unproven and untested mechanisms and the stakes are very, very high. Permit me a little worry about that, even if all of this is correct. If things play out as they are, then I just hope you're right.

 

A more robust policybased government response is what I would advocate for as I think it's the only thing that might generate enough of a unified response (heavy on the *might* there). Of course, one would be right to be sceptical of that working, either.

 

Perhaps it might be a combination of both that could work. All I know that both unity of action and long term thinking are going to be heavily required.

1 - No this is a bad move today, as the SBT has gotten worse, but a 'net good' because they will be punished for having to downgrade, and do not be surprised if this particular SBT increases in the future.  Think of it like a profit expectation, if you committed to, and communicated externally, a target range of $4-5bn, then things go wrong and you think you can only deliver $2bn, you get punished.

 

2 - Yes worry for sure, but the market is taking real action because long-term sustainable profits are best. And a company that's underwater by 2030 won't produce that. $26tn (and counting..) worth of corporates report against TCFD, this is a framework literally designed to save the world.

 

3 - Totally agree, but Governments (other than the excellent Chris Skidmore) are largely incompetent and reactionary. Markets, most of the time (!) are not.

[leicsmac]

8 minutes ago, grobyfox1990 said:

1 - No this is a bad move today, as the SBT has gotten worse, but a 'net good' because they will be punished for having to downgrade, and do not be surprised if this particular SBT increases in the future.  Think of it like a profit expectation, if you committed to, and communicated externally, a target range of $4-5bn, then things go wrong and you think you can only deliver $2bn, you get punished.

 

2 - Yes worry for sure, but the market is taking real action because long-term sustainable profits are best. And a company that's underwater by 2030 won't produce that. $26tn (and counting..) worth of corporates report against TCFD, this is a framework literally designed to save the world.

 

3 - Totally agree, but Governments (other than the excellent Chris Skidmore) are largely incompetent and reactionary. Markets, most of the time (!) are not.

I appreciate the impromptu economics infodump being given here, learned a few things.

 

I'm still most unconvinced that the market is any less reactionary (if perhaps more competent in the short term) than governmental responses on this particular matter, but I guess we shall see. As per above, I just hope that you're right with your viewpoint on this. If we do rely on market mechanisms to supply and apply the solutions we really need for this, there's an awful lot riding on it. And by awful lot I mean the biggest global change in the last few tens of millennia.

[Zear0]

Can't wait to see the entire assembly launch in the near future. 

[leicsmac]

2 hours ago, Zear0 said:

Can't wait to see the entire assembly launch in the near future. 

Considering the last time any human agency tried that many engines in one go it blew apart on the launchpad in one of the biggest non-nuclear explosions in history (Soviet N1), that they got 31 out of 33 to fire safely and successfully is an achievement in itself.

 

Very much looking forward to the test flight too.

[leicsmac]

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-64597981

 

I like the arguments being made here, sensible and logical. Of course, they neglect to mention one key argument, which is the fact that this cost isn't going to go away and will keep on going up until in becomes truly massive - or perhaps even absolute. So the UK and the rest of the world have the choice of paying now or later - either way, they will have to pay.

 

NB. I'm currently undertaking a dissertation on public attitudes and government policymaking towards climate change in the UK and elsewhere and sadly what I'm finding from the data matches what the BBC say in the last few paragraphs here.

[Jon the Hat]

Honestly the only way the Uk has a significant impact on climate change is by helping develop the technology which helps Asia and South America achieve the growth and standards of living improvements we’ve already had without burning coal and gas.

[leicsmac]

9 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

Honestly the only way the Uk has a significant impact on climate change is by helping develop the technology which helps Asia and South America achieve the growth and standards of living improvements we’ve already had without burning coal and gas.

...being a small part of a global solution that stops hundreds of millions of people (minimum) from suffering and dying in the near future is significant in of itself no matter how small the part IMO. Of course, one's mileage may vary on the word usage.

[grobyfox1990]

21 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

Honestly the only way the Uk has a significant impact on climate change is by helping develop the technology which helps Asia and South America achieve the growth and standards of living improvements we’ve already had without burning coal and gas.

Also leading the way. From a corporate side the UK are market leaders, others are followers. Look at the net zero review and Dasgupta review, proper world-leading stuff. In relation to the BBC article, so many issues... It's not an 'extra tax' - it's an investment into a likely highly profitable area. And if that is unpalatable to the public (fair enough, they are not sophisticated investors and have other immediate worries) go to market and find the investment privately.

[leicsmac]

34 minutes ago, grobyfox1990 said:

Also leading the way. From a corporate side the UK are market leaders, others are followers. Look at the net zero review and Dasgupta review, proper world-leading stuff. In relation to the BBC article, so many issues... It's not an 'extra tax' - it's an investment into a likely highly profitable area. And if that is unpalatable to the public (fair enough, they are not sophisticated investors and have other immediate worries) go to market and find the investment privately.

Yeah, let's do it for both reasons - actually guarantee a future for a significant portion of the human race and make some bank while so doing.

[SpacedX]

On 13/02/2023 at 12:58, leicsmac said:

NB. I'm currently undertaking a dissertation on public attitudes and government policymaking towards climate change in the UK and elsewhere and sadly what I'm finding from the data matches what the BBC say in the last few paragraphs here.

I would be fascinated to read it upon completion. 

[leicsmac]

https://www.independent.co.uk/tech/chatgpt-ai-messages-microsoft-bing-b2282491.html

 

Humans make such intelligence in their own image. Is it really a surprise that it then begins to act depressingly human?

[samlcfc]

22 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

https://www.independent.co.uk/tech/chatgpt-ai-messages-microsoft-bing-b2282491.html

 

Humans make such intelligence in their own image. Is it really a surprise that it then begins to act depressingly human?

Did you see the AI Seinfield that was playing on Twitch?

 

I remember hearing that it got banned recently because it generated content where the characters were doing transphobic stand-up.

 

I should probably try to get up to speed on AI, considering it appears it's going to be very relevant to our future. I've enjoyed listening to podcasts about theoretical uses and pitfalls etc, but my level of understanding about how they work isn't worth mentioning.

[leicsmac]

3 minutes ago, samlcfc said:

Did you see the AI Seinfield that was playing on Twitch?

 

I remember hearing that it got banned recently because it generated content where the characters were doing transphobic stand-up.

 

I should probably try to get up to speed on AI, considering it appears it's going to be very relevant to our future. I've enjoyed listening to podcasts about theoretical uses and pitfalls etc, but my level of understanding about how they work isn't worth mentioning.

Yeah, I'm thinking similarly. The advances rather suddenly being made after a certain amount of time of no progress on the matter certainly merits attention. 

 

That being said, I think the more it comes along, the more technical knowledge will have to be paired with the moral sense of dealing with another human - especially if the uses of this AI become more widespread and critical to human infrastructure.

[reporterpenguin]

On 14/02/2023 at 17:26, Line-X said:

I would be fascinated to read it upon completion. 

I'd second that if you wouldn't mind @leicsmac

[leicsmac]

On 15/02/2023 at 02:26, Line-X said:

I would be fascinated to read it upon completion. 

 

24 minutes ago, reporterpenguin said:

I'd second that if you wouldn't mind @leicsmac

Well, it should be completed around June/July, so when it's done and published I'll be happy to oblige.

[Wymsey]

Will be interesting to see how the UK's/wider world action will be to combat climate change over the coming years.

 

Things like wind turbines etc, to create electricity and reducing meat consumption et al will be enough personally.

 

 

[leicsmac]

3 hours ago, Wymsey said:

Will be interesting to see how the UK's/wider world action will be to combat climate change over the coming years.

 

Things like wind turbines etc, to create electricity and reducing meat consumption et al will be enough personally.

 

 

I've written a bit on this before and I think it still applies:

 

- Begin phasing out of any and all coal and oil burning energy generation facilities. No new ones built, those that remain designate for staged decommission. Keep gas-based ones for the time being as they are the best of a poor bunch.

- To compensate for this, immediately begin work on Gen III/IV/fast breeder fission reactors to fill the gap at large grid level and bespoke renewable infrastructure (solar for Aus, tidal/wind etc for other places like the UK) at a smaller level

- Aim to have the above completed within the next 15 years, 20 at the outside

- Seek to make single-person transportation vehicles no longer reliant on the internal combustion engine within the same timeframe. Ditto for cargo shipping vehicles, as much as is possible.

- Overall goal being reducing carbon emissions to cap average global temperature increase at less than 2 degree C overall (compared to 1850) by three decades time. 1.5 would be preferable, but I think that ship has sailed.

- Invest in infrastructure - flood defences, more durable crops and the like - to defend against changes that will come no matter what we do, because there will be some. The UK might well avoid the worst of it - other places won't.

[grobyfox1990]

10 hours ago, Wymsey said:

Will be interesting to see how the UK's/wider world action will be to combat climate change over the coming years.

 

Things like wind turbines etc, to create electricity and reducing meat consumption et al will be enough personally.

 

 

There is lots of action being put in place, follow jurisdictions’ net zero plans and pathways to assess that. The problem being it’s 2023 and climate change is only one of the 17 SDGs to achieve by 2030. Yes it’s the sexy one and makes people look really switched on at the pub after work, but it’s only one 

[grobyfox1990]

6 hours ago, leicsmac said:

I've written a bit on this before and I think it still applies:

 

- Begin phasing out of any and all coal and oil burning energy generation facilities. No new ones built, those that remain designate for staged decommission. Keep gas-based ones for the time being as they are the best of a poor bunch.

- To compensate for this, immediately begin work on Gen III/IV/fast breeder fission reactors to fill the gap at large grid level and bespoke renewable infrastructure (solar for Aus, tidal/wind etc for other places like the UK) at a smaller level

- Aim to have the above completed within the next 15 years, 20 at the outside

- Seek to make single-person transportation vehicles no longer reliant on the internal combustion engine within the same timeframe. Ditto for cargo shipping vehicles, as much as is possible.

- Overall goal being reducing carbon emissions to cap average global temperature increase at less than 2 degree C overall (compared to 1850) by three decades time. 1.5 would be preferable, but I think that ship has sailed.

- Invest in infrastructure - flood defences, more durable crops and the like - to defend against changes that will come no matter what we do, because there will be some. The UK might well avoid the worst of it - other places won't.

As stated above a lot of what you mention has been baked into transition plans for many years now. As well as climate resilience scenarios. I know foxes talk does not equal international policy, but concentration has to be applied to the other 16 SDGs as well