Blackstone CEO warns aggressive climate policies will cause energy crisis and social unrest

Blackstone CEO Stephen Schwarzman warned Tuesday that high energy prices will likely set off social unrest around the world.

"We're going to end up with a real shortage of energy. And when you have a shortage, it's going to cost more. And it's probably going to cost a lot more," the private-equity billionaire told CNN International's Richard Quest at a conference in Saudi Arabia.
---
"You're going to get very unhappy people around the world in the emerging markets in particular but in the developed world," Schwarzman said at the Future Investment Initiative. "What happens then, Richard, is you've got real unrest. This challenges the political system and it's all utterly unnecessary."
---
BlackRock (BLK) CEO Larry Fink said one of the problems is that policymakers are moving more aggressively to curb fossil fuels supply than demand.

edition.cnn.com...

So we have the CEO's of both Blackstone and BlackRock warning of an energy crisis. I wouldn't normally trust anything from CNN, and I wouldn't normally trust these types of billionaires because their investment firms control the most powerful corporations on Earth. However, in this particular case I take their words very seriously because I can see it happening myself.

Considering the massive economic problems caused by Covid-19, now is really not the time to go all out on the green agenda, yet that's exactly what governments around the world seem to be doing recently. We are constantly told how replacing all fossil fuels with green technology will create abundant cheap energy, but I have yet to actually see it work in practice.

Last year there was no energy crisis.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

He is speaking from a place of self interest.

"We need to ramp up traditional source of energy production, that is were all my money is invested!".

"I would never bet against technology or manipulate markets to get away with stealing retail investors money".

We are approaching a paradigm shift in the power space within the next 10 years. In fact, the shift has already begun.

a reply to: MDDoxs

Yep, it's the same reason why people like Rupert Murdoch use their media empires to discredit climate change. To protect their own investments! These people should be locked up.

a reply to: MDDoxs

Apparently we are reaching the paradigm shift now. Reality meets political bull# and we won't have enough energy to meet everyone's needs because liberals live in a fantasy world and now reality bites them in the ass

But don't worry they will blame everyone else for the problem and our glorious politicians will print more money to handout to appease their dumbass supporters.

a reply to: MDDoxs

Of course it's self-interest, but that doesn't mean they are wrong. This zero emissions agenda will cause energy prices to massively increase unless we have a real plan to shift away from fossil fuels. They didn't say we need to ramp up traditional energy production, they said our aggressive plan will lead to sky rocketing prices and civil unrest, and it can all be avoided if we use some common sense instead of hyperbolic virtue signalling. Plus these guys own green energy, they profit either way. But they also understand the complex economics involved with the energy market, and their warning should not be taken in vein.

"What happens then, Richard, is you've got real unrest. This challenges the political system and it's all utterly unnecessary."

Utterly unnecessary! Truer words have ne’er been spoke. ( I do recall something orange had a plan of self reliance.)

Yet here we are. GardaWorld alert this morning that Massachusetts is experiencing a blackout, true due to a Nor’Easter but that’s just a taste, and winter hasn’t even started.

I do hope as we embark upon an expected Dark Winter, people remember who the REAL ENEMY is. Hint: it’s not your neighbor!


www.bostonherald.com...


Winter’s Coming (the lone wolf dies but the pack survives)
a reply to: ChaoticOrder

a reply to: MDDoxs

You think so, but you're wrong. The green energy is just not there yet and the storage of non-fossil fuel energy is just not there yet, and the infrastructure for non-fossil fuel energy is just not there yet.

Everyone seems to think that the innovation will come for green energy. It won't, not yet. It's also funny that the people pushing for green energy are a lot of the times the same people who have said that the oil industry has bought up all of the patents that would create hyper efficient ICE motors. Well guess what? If that's true do you think that as the innovation in the green energy sector starts to catch up that the oil industry will just roll over and die or will they release some of this efficiency technology to keep up with green energy.

It just isn't good business sense to release the tech before it's necessary.

Believe me, people are constantly innovating toward ICE technology as well. They will keep up for at LEAST the next 50 years. Oil and coal isn't going anywhere anytime soon.



Jaden

Ultimately, I think my biggest problem with this zero emissions agenda, is that it doesn't even help the planet at the end of the day. Obviously we can cause mass extinction via global warming, but we only need to lower CO2 emissions, not eliminate all emissions. The Earth is perfectly capable of handling some level of CO2 emissions, and in fact some CO2 emissions actually help make the planet greener because CO2 is food for plants. By reducing our CO2 emissions to zero we will literally be starving the plants and trees which have become accustomed to the higher concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere, and the Earth will de-green.

From a quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change on April 25.

An international team of 32 authors from 24 institutions in eight countries led the effort, which involved using satellite data from NASA’s Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectrometer and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer instruments to help determine the leaf area index, or amount of leaf cover, over the planet’s vegetated regions. The greening represents an increase in leaves on plants and trees equivalent in area to two times the continental United States.
---
Results showed that carbon dioxide fertilization explains 70 percent of the greening effect, said co-author Ranga Myneni, a professor in the Department of Earth and Environment at Boston University. “The second most important driver is nitrogen, at 9 percent. So we see what an outsized role CO2 plays in this process.”

www.nasa.gov...

There's nothing I love more than the amazing and diverse life on this planet, and I would never put economic growth above the health of the planet. But we have totally thrown science and common sense out the window when it comes to the issue of global warming. It makes complete sense to replace outdated and unclean technology with cleaner and more cost effective technology like hydro, solar, wind, geo-thermal, nuclear, etc. Even if the energy does cost a bit more one could argue it's still a fair price to pay for a clean planet, and I would tend to agree. However I can not agree with this hysterical agenda to enforce green technology regardless of how cost effective and how clean it really is.

I also see zero logic in attempting to eliminate all CO2 emissions when some emissions might even help the planet. The aim should be to achieve a robust energy mix using many different technologies, and different locations on the planet require different solutions. We will obviously never eliminate all emissions, it's simply not possible when you consider all the places we use fossil fuels. Over time the best technology will ultimately win, and if we really believe green tech is so good, then we should have faith it will win by its own merit, not because we mandated it. In reality most green tech is neither clean or renewable, they are built from mostly plastic and need to be replaced often.

Lithium batteries in particular require large mining operations and aren't exactly easy to dispose of. If the goal is to protect nature, then I really don't understand why we would want fields full of solar panels or wind mills as far the eye can see, especially when a small nuclear power plant could achieve the same thing and generate far less pollution and waste. I'd argue that even a small coal plant could be better for the environment, especially if it used carbon capture technology. There is so much more I could say on this topic... I wrote a thread back in 2019 which goes into more detail. I considered it my magnum opus on the topic of global warming but it didn't get much attention, probably because of the length.

To summarize I just want to say I love this planet and all the life on it, but that also includes human beings. Of course we need to be mindful of how we treat the planet, especially when it comes to actual pollution in our environment and other tangible issues like deforestation. But when it comes to more intangible concepts like global warming people are far too willing to use it as a political tool, and suddenly every weather event is caused by it and the end of times are upon us.

If we can create green technology which is capable of reliably powering our modern world then I'm all for it, and I think many of these technologies already exist we just need to start using them in the right places. However I don't think it's healthy to be demonizing fossil fuel industries which are already declining in Australia. When you say nonsensical things like all energy must be 100% green and coal miners should find new jobs you ostracize people and quite frankly sound a bit insane.

Threatening things like combustion engine cars will be made illegal in a few decades is not at all productive, it's clear society is moving towards a more electric future as the technology improves, however some people may have their life and soul invested in combustion engine cars. Maybe it's the way they sound or feel when driving, how should I know, but I surely wouldn't want to take that away from them. There is always some room for the "old ways" and it's not moral to forcefully take that away, and clearly some CO2 output is sustainable.

Dissecting the Global Warming and Energy Issues in Australia

In 2020 I also created a follow-up to that thread:

More to the point, there is a clear link between nations with aggressive renewable energy initiatives and high energy prices. South Australia is a clear example, Germany and Italy also invested heavily in renewables such as solar, this chart and this chart show Germany and Italy right along side South Australia as having the highest energy prices in the world. In the U.S. a similar trend can be seen, California has invested heavily in renewables but these charts show prices rose 3 times more than they did in the rest of the U.S. between 2016 and 2017.

Lets just assume solar and wind is cheaper, not everywhere is sunny and not everywhere is windy all of the time. I also have serious issues with calling solar and wind renewable because the materials required to build complex electronics is not renewable. In the 60 Minutes report with Elon they also interview the director of a Lithium mine and he allows the host to detonate a series of high explosives, which gives them a chuckle. The mine is also surrounded by trees so it's clear they had to destroy a large patch of forest in order to excavate.

There are many other materials mined from the Earth to produce solar panels and batteries, they also contain a lot of plastic which means they require oil. At one point in the interview Elon says "if it's not renewable that means it's going to run out at some point". Non-renewable materials are required to build electronics and they don't last forever so they are not renewable. It's also extremely important to acknowledge that massive fields of solar panels and wind turbines have an impact on the environment.

Elon Musk on Australia's energy crisis

So we have the CEO's of both Blackstone and BlackRock warning of an energy crisis.

If they really believed the snip they're shoveling.

The would divest from Exxon and Chevron.



finance.yahoo.com...

finance.yahoo.com...

The more expensive fossil fuel gets. The more money they make.

originally posted by: neo96

The more expensive fossil fuel gets. The more money they make.

Not necessarily, the increased prices are caused by scarcity and higher taxes on fossil fuels. If they are selling less and paying more taxes they will be forced to increase prices to make up for the loss. Over time they will lose money unless they increase prices on fossil fuels dramatically. Eventually they want to eliminate all fossil fuels, at which point the industry will be making no profits. But Blackstone and BlackRock will still be raking in the green sector profits, that's why so many of the most powerful companies promote the green agenda. Now it seems those companies are starting to understand the fact there are dangers involved when we carry out the transition to green technology too rapidly.

originally posted by: MDDoxs
a reply to: ChaoticOrder

He is speaking from a place of self interest.

"We need to ramp up traditional source of energy production, that is were all my money is invested!".

"I would never bet against technology or manipulate markets to get away with stealing retail investors money".

We are approaching a paradigm shift in the power space within the next 10 years. In fact, the shift has already begun.

No we're not, not the way you think it's going to shift. We can make all the plans in the world for alternative energy sources, but when they don't pull much of a punch, they don't pull much of a punch. As it stands, we're in Alt Energy INFANCY. Nothing better yet, and it's not a fast process. I wager we have at least two more generations (FULL lifespans, not in 30 years when Junior spawns a spawn of his own) before it's remotely feasible as a replacement for fossil fuels.

I'm big on the green research and implementation, but we're NOWHERE close yet to it being Every Day Energy. Baby steps, learn patience, and understand it took more than one generation to go from wood burning for heat, to an HVAC or plain furnace system (be it electric, or gas like mine) for heat. And not everyone has switched to THAT yet, either. Progress isn't fast. We'll get there, but not today, not tomorrow, not next year, not next decade, and quite likely not in our lifetimes either.

Instant gratification is at fault for people believing otherwise. People have zero logistical understanding, zero patience and want XYZ NOWNOWNOW. Ain't how it works.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

So we have the CEO's of both Blackstone and BlackRock warning of an energy crisis.

Yea, and here's the irony, CEO Larry Fink of BlackRock is helping to create the energy crises.
www.wsj.com... ebshare_facebook&fbclid=IwAR34aAnmjnao4B9uiYAL_McFaTkyAwRsbYTRVpRevU8EiQNi2j7QLBl7dyE

All behind global warming. The result of ESG compliance has been that Exxon and Chevron has slashed their capital investments in exploration and production by 50%.........they worry they will be cut off from future credit funding by the likes of the Big Banks and BlackRock.

www.wsj.com... 6y6ht&reflink=desktopwebshare_facebook&fbclid=IwAR1RAdQMdXvJsPXUO4YPqrK6INwbTkNZy2GGbYe_1R7rTOl07NDX7cOQwTA

So yea, the situation will get orders of magnitude worse. As production is cut in the US, Biden is begging the Saudi's to ramp up production.

You see, we aren't in Kansas anymore. By way of signing onto the Paris Climate Accords, all these corporations are required to report on their ESG scores by the Big Banks and BlackRock and others. You thought that you were at least partially in control of your destiny because........elections. But now it is more the case that unelected, super wealthy people at the very top of the food chain decide who gets funding and for what projects and that's going to truly influence and control your future destiny. Elections anymore are just feel-good window dressing.

Use all the cheap energy we can and use our technology to colonize other planets and space.

Use all the cheap energy we can and use our technology to colonize other planets and space.

We aren't on a paradigm shift until they admit Hydrogen does work in combustion and in electric production. It simply doesn't have to be ignored and we solve a ton of problems. WE can use the windmills and Solar to crack water into O2 and H2 for home use. But that would not have a meter that pays "the man" a dime.

I do wish people would shut up about this energy crisis. The only crisis we've got is the energy suppliers ramping up their prices. This covid thing has shown them how people are so gullible. For a start there aint no shortages, they can supply the exact same amount as they supplied before Covid. NOW, after Covid, we are using the exact amount of fossil fuels we used before Covid, so why with this "energy panic".
They used this technique, I think it was in the 1970s, OPEC "leaked" they were reaching peak oil. Whoops, oil going rare heh, well we've got to pay more for the bit that's left. BS.
I've said before, NASA has stated, in the 2020s the Earths going to get a lot colder and I can guarantee you if it does people will be shouting for the so called dirty fuels to be used.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

Theyz playaz in the game.
You know : the game of Stakeholder-Capitalism™.

Same old recipe : a little truth, and a whole bunch of lies.

What's being omitted, is that those companies are full-on-board with the current moving of the chess-pieces.

Creates fear ? --- Check !
Pretending to be concerned, and making themselves out as the supposed Good-Guys™ ? --- Check !
Still raking-in billions in profits skimming and scalping the small-guys ? --- Check !

Not my pals ? --- Check !