What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

The IPCC's Latest Report Deliberately Excludes And Misrepresents I (1 Viewer)

Jumping into a meeting so can't get into specifics, but I think you all are really missing my point.

Its near impossible to know what "facts" are "facts" or what political slant a post or a study or an opinion piece may have. How am I, some lay person who is not reading the root reports and vetting which study is legit, where it may be flawed etc.

So, with the lefty alarmists pushing their agenda, the righty deniers vehemently discounting science (this goes beyond just this issue, and I hope folks who are Conservative by nature realize this... between not teaching evolution and the discounting of science, that is a mark against much of the rhetoric on this issue, as well), how can I really get to the root of the matter?

To me, the money talks. Especially when an industry that typically leans right and has strong financial ties to the right makes repeated claims (that I've heard in person) to the contrary of the right in general.

That's a heck of a tie-breaker in my book of admittedly not being able to really know what's what on this subject.
I don't think I've missed your point at all. To paraphrase what I wrote before...You're suggesting that we "follow the money". To that end, you say (anecdotally) that you're seeing investments that are banking on climate change occurring, but not seeing investments that are banking on climate change not occurring. What would an investment that banks on climate change not occurring look like? If we're not sure what such an investment might look like, how can we say it's not happening, even anecdotally?

As for whether the "follow the money" strategy can lead us to the right answers to our questions, that's certainly possible. The problem here is that the questions are different for different groups of people.

As you note, people making these investments wouldn't particularly care WHY climate change is occurring, just whether or not it is. For them, the question is "Is climate change occurring and/or likely to occur?" Assuming that your anecdotal observations are accurate, we could conclude that it is more likely than not that yes, climate change is occurring and/or likely to occur.

For policymakers, there are a lot more separate questions than just "Is climate change occurring and/or likely to occur?" Policymakers should also be asking and answering questions such as: "What are the causes of climate change?", "Is climate change necessarily bad?", "What policies could we implement that might reduce future climate change?", and "What are the likely costs of those policies?"

IMO, "follow the money" as you've outlined it doesn't really answer any of those other questions in any useful way, and therefore doesn't lead us to any useful policy recommendations.
All fair points. I was not discussing this in the context of policy as much as addressing some who seem blind to the fact that there is at least a real climatic change occuring.If you want to extend that to policy then we can suggest that if you refuse to recognize that change is even happening why would you both to consider policy changes to address a non existent change?
I'd suggest you're getting caught up in a common political trap, trying to debate with the idiots on the other side rather than with the educated and reasonable people on the other side. Ignore the idiots and debate with the reasonable people, and don't attribute the claims of the idiots to the reasonable.
Asking someone to be more specific about a largely anecdotal claim is in no way unreasonable.
I never claimed you nor that request to be unreasonable. I did say that I was too busy (doing, well, you know real estate development work) to get into specifics.

What specifically do you wish to hear? I don't recall the specific conferences (it's been a good number of them) or speakers (a good number of them). I do know they specifically stated that we need to address, as an industry, the reality of climate change. That all politics aside, it's coming and with the RE Sector accounting for 1/3 of U.S. assets, much of which is concentrated in areas that are vulnerable to more intense storms and/or rising sea levels and/or wild weather swings and events, we must take notice.

From there, its discussion about building specific technology to regional infrastructure investments (i.e. to protect lower Manhattan which even in Sandy got destroyed) to looking beyond the gov't flood maps to know where an investment for a large project may be a bad idea (since the maps by gov and/or insurers suck much of the time) and/or what resiliency measures must be put into place when developing land that is either more vulnerable today, or could be more vulnerable in the relatively near future.

Hope that's specific enough cause that's what I got - and again, as I have said all along, my anecdotes are not put forth to convince anyone else. But to me, it's a clear arbiter that clears away a good amount of bs denying.

 
Jumping into a meeting so can't get into specifics, but I think you all are really missing my point.

Its near impossible to know what "facts" are "facts" or what political slant a post or a study or an opinion piece may have. How am I, some lay person who is not reading the root reports and vetting which study is legit, where it may be flawed etc.

So, with the lefty alarmists pushing their agenda, the righty deniers vehemently discounting science (this goes beyond just this issue, and I hope folks who are Conservative by nature realize this... between not teaching evolution and the discounting of science, that is a mark against much of the rhetoric on this issue, as well), how can I really get to the root of the matter?

To me, the money talks. Especially when an industry that typically leans right and has strong financial ties to the right makes repeated claims (that I've heard in person) to the contrary of the right in general.

That's a heck of a tie-breaker in my book of admittedly not being able to really know what's what on this subject.
I don't think I've missed your point at all. To paraphrase what I wrote before...You're suggesting that we "follow the money". To that end, you say (anecdotally) that you're seeing investments that are banking on climate change occurring, but not seeing investments that are banking on climate change not occurring. What would an investment that banks on climate change not occurring look like? If we're not sure what such an investment might look like, how can we say it's not happening, even anecdotally?

As for whether the "follow the money" strategy can lead us to the right answers to our questions, that's certainly possible. The problem here is that the questions are different for different groups of people.

As you note, people making these investments wouldn't particularly care WHY climate change is occurring, just whether or not it is. For them, the question is "Is climate change occurring and/or likely to occur?" Assuming that your anecdotal observations are accurate, we could conclude that it is more likely than not that yes, climate change is occurring and/or likely to occur.

For policymakers, there are a lot more separate questions than just "Is climate change occurring and/or likely to occur?" Policymakers should also be asking and answering questions such as: "What are the causes of climate change?", "Is climate change necessarily bad?", "What policies could we implement that might reduce future climate change?", and "What are the likely costs of those policies?"

IMO, "follow the money" as you've outlined it doesn't really answer any of those other questions in any useful way, and therefore doesn't lead us to any useful policy recommendations.
All fair points. I was not discussing this in the context of policy as much as addressing some who seem blind to the fact that there is at least a real climatic change occuring.If you want to extend that to policy then we can suggest that if you refuse to recognize that change is even happening why would you both to consider policy changes to address a non existent change?
I'd suggest you're getting caught up in a common political trap, trying to debate with the idiots on the other side rather than with the educated and reasonable people on the other side. Ignore the idiots and debate with the reasonable people, and don't attribute the claims of the idiots to the reasonable.
Asking someone to be more specific about a largely anecdotal claim is in no way unreasonable.
Look, I'll say it. Anyone who makes the argument that the climate isn't changing is an idiot. The climate has changed for billions of years; why would it all of a sudden stop now?

Anyone who makes the argument that the earth isn't currently in a warming trend is probably pretty damn misinformed too, although less of an idiot than someone who flat out says the climate isn't changing at all. It's probably not worth arguing with either group, though, as data likely won't change their mind.

In Koya's case, he's trying to find more data to "prove" to these groups that the climate is changing. I'm suggesting it's not worth his time, and that he should instead focus on debating the more reasonable and informed opponents.
Can't disagree with any of this. Especially where I spend my rhetorically driven time.

I type fast, at least.

 
lakerstan said:
Regardless of what you believe about climate change, can we all agree that putting a bunch of smoke into the air probably isn't a good thing?
You do realize CO2 is a clear, odorless gas which is essential to life on this planet? :oldunsure:

 
lakerstan said:
Regardless of what you believe about climate change, can we all agree that putting a bunch of smoke into the air probably isn't a good thing?
Ummm, sure...

So regardless of what you believe about climate change, can't we all agree that we should just blindly support our guv'mint in making a whole bunch of expensive policy mandates that internationally may or may not have any impact whatsoever on the changing climate, because it will feel like we are trying hard, that way, everyone can feel better about themselves?

 
This whole rich people not buying real estate is interesting. I've never heard anyone suggest that we should invest in more fault tolerant IT systems because global warming is going to make weather more severe or water levels rise, which could jeopardize their availability. So, what sort of probability are these rich people assigning to global warming? How do they go about estimating its severity - for instance, how do they know they've moved their properties off of the ocean enough, or that the measures they're taking to strengthen buildings will be adequate? It seems you'd really want to quantify this information somehow to know if your investment was sound. If it's just a subjective "we really know global warming is certain and water levels are going to rise and stuff..." that's really bizarre.

If it's more along the lines of "let me slap a bunch of 'global warming proofing' onto this building and then get some weirdo hippie to pay a lot of money for these 'features'..." then I can get that though.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Once again, let me point you to what I know to be the best determining factor in this and one angle that cuts through the political BS from both sides:

I know of NO private sector investments on an institutional scale that are banking on climate change NOT occurring.

I know of quite a number of private sector investments on an institutional scale that ARE banking on climate change occuring.

So go ahead, argue foolishly for some ideological cause, even at the risk of doing true harm to the next generations - and potentially our own. The money, including much (most?) of it controlled by rich folk (re: Republican) is banking, quite literally, on climate change occurring, sea levels rising. Real estate and tech are seeing dollars go into this expected outcome.

While it may be difficult to wade through some manure on both sides, but a tremendous amount from some on the right side of the aisle in regard to this issue, and therefore at times difficult to understand the base facts, and while yes, admittedly, there is much we do not know, the money - and a lot of it - is on climate change occurring.

Perhaps that's why the Republican party as a whole wants to so deny it - their backers know the more and the quicker sea levels rise, the sooner and better their investments will pay off. Pretty ingenious if you ask me.
There is a good deal of "rich folk (re: Democratic)" money banking on climate change, but the difference is they are seeking to leverage regulatory changes to give them advantages in getting there first.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You won't find a hotter real estate market than New Orleans, nor any place allegedly more vulnerable to GW (and that's been the case since 1702 actually).

 
You won't find a hotter real estate market than New Orleans
Yeah, you actually will.
Well I have a friend who bought property in Bywater for 67K before Kat and it's over 400K now.

That's not untypical, don't have the numbers but in much of Orleans it's been excellent. What's the top 5 growth % for any county in USA since 2005 or last 10 years?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
This whole rich people not buying real estate is interesting. I've never heard anyone suggest that we should invest in more fault tolerant IT systems because global warming is going to make weather more severe or water levels rise, which could jeopardize their availability. So, what sort of probability are these rich people assigning to global warming? How do they go about estimating its severity - for instance, how do they know they've moved their properties off of the ocean enough, or that the measures they're taking to strengthen buildings will be adequate? It seems you'd really want to quantify this information somehow to know if your investment was sound. If it's just a subjective "we really know global warming is certain and water levels are going to rise and stuff..." that's really bizarre.

If it's more along the lines of "let me slap a bunch of 'global warming proofing' onto this building and then get some weirdo hippie to pay a lot of money for these 'features'..." then I can get that though.
I never claimed rich people are not buying real estate - not sure where that comes from.

My claim is that institutional investment firms and development companies expect there to be some degree of climate change, big money infrastructure folks as well, and are acting accordingly. They aren't storm proofing buildings to get "hippies" to pay more, they are engineering buildings and looking at urban planning and development with an expectation that the future will be warmer, wetter and wilder. At least that is the sentiment I have heard echoed, numerous times, at national conferences etc.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Once again, let me point you to what I know to be the best determining factor in this and one angle that cuts through the political BS from both sides:

I know of NO private sector investments on an institutional scale that are banking on climate change NOT occurring.

I know of quite a number of private sector investments on an institutional scale that ARE banking on climate change occuring.

So go ahead, argue foolishly for some ideological cause, even at the risk of doing true harm to the next generations - and potentially our own. The money, including much (most?) of it controlled by rich folk (re: Republican) is banking, quite literally, on climate change occurring, sea levels rising. Real estate and tech are seeing dollars go into this expected outcome.

While it may be difficult to wade through some manure on both sides, but a tremendous amount from some on the right side of the aisle in regard to this issue, and therefore at times difficult to understand the base facts, and while yes, admittedly, there is much we do not know, the money - and a lot of it - is on climate change occurring.

Perhaps that's why the Republican party as a whole wants to so deny it - their backers know the more and the quicker sea levels rise, the sooner and better their investments will pay off. Pretty ingenious if you ask me.
There is a good deal of "rich folk (re: Democratic)" money banking on climate change, but the difference is they are seeking to leverage regulatory changes to give them advantages in getting there first.
I'm sure of it. I can only speak of what I have heard from c-level execs in my industry (real estate).

And this doesn't mean that investments are not being made in vulnerable areas.. those areas (i.e. near water) are usually the most valuable. However, on a very local level there may be sites that are not as attractive as before, and more importantly, measures are being taken from the engineering side on both a building by building level and urban planning/regional level because of an expectation of climate change and warming. That's all.

 
Koya said:
DrJ said:
This whole rich people not buying real estate is interesting. I've never heard anyone suggest that we should invest in more fault tolerant IT systems because global warming is going to make weather more severe or water levels rise, which could jeopardize their availability. So, what sort of probability are these rich people assigning to global warming? How do they go about estimating its severity - for instance, how do they know they've moved their properties off of the ocean enough, or that the measures they're taking to strengthen buildings will be adequate? It seems you'd really want to quantify this information somehow to know if your investment was sound. If it's just a subjective "we really know global warming is certain and water levels are going to rise and stuff..." that's really bizarre.

If it's more along the lines of "let me slap a bunch of 'global warming proofing' onto this building and then get some weirdo hippie to pay a lot of money for these 'features'..." then I can get that though.
I never claimed rich people are not buying real estate - not sure where that comes from.

My claim is that institutional investment firms and development companies expect there to be some degree of climate change, big money infrastructure folks as well, and are acting accordingly. They aren't storm proofing buildings to get "hippies" to pay more, they are engineering buildings and looking at urban planning and development with an expectation that the future will be warmer, wetter and wilder. At least that is the sentiment I have heard echoed, numerous times, at national conferences etc.
I guess that's true - you haven't given anything specific regarding what they're actually doing. Just some generic "I've heard it mentioned" deal.

 
Koya said:
DrJ said:
This whole rich people not buying real estate is interesting. I've never heard anyone suggest that we should invest in more fault tolerant IT systems because global warming is going to make weather more severe or water levels rise, which could jeopardize their availability. So, what sort of probability are these rich people assigning to global warming? How do they go about estimating its severity - for instance, how do they know they've moved their properties off of the ocean enough, or that the measures they're taking to strengthen buildings will be adequate? It seems you'd really want to quantify this information somehow to know if your investment was sound. If it's just a subjective "we really know global warming is certain and water levels are going to rise and stuff..." that's really bizarre.

If it's more along the lines of "let me slap a bunch of 'global warming proofing' onto this building and then get some weirdo hippie to pay a lot of money for these 'features'..." then I can get that though.
I never claimed rich people are not buying real estate - not sure where that comes from.

My claim is that institutional investment firms and development companies expect there to be some degree of climate change, big money infrastructure folks as well, and are acting accordingly. They aren't storm proofing buildings to get "hippies" to pay more, they are engineering buildings and looking at urban planning and development with an expectation that the future will be warmer, wetter and wilder. At least that is the sentiment I have heard echoed, numerous times, at national conferences etc.
I guess that's true - you haven't given anything specific regarding what they're actually doing. Just some generic "I've heard it mentioned" deal.
Cause that's what I've heard. These are top execs talking more globally in terms of new building technologies and need for certain infrastructure initiatives while being cognizant when investing in vulnerable areas. Tried to set that expectation as it's been a repeated theme that is discussed.

Now engineers and planners talk more specific but that's the rich generally republican audience that made me realize ####, if these guys are expecting climate change that tells me something .

 
I've actually been buying up huge tracts of land in Minnesota. Yeah, nobody wants to live there now. But just wait.

 
Regardless of what you believe about climate change, can we all agree that putting a bunch of smoke into the air probably isn't a good thing?
Ummm, sure...So regardless of what you believe about climate change, can't we all agree that we should just blindly support our guv'mint in making a whole bunch of expensive policy mandates that internationally may or may not have any impact whatsoever on the changing climate, because it will feel like we are trying hard, that way, everyone can feel better about themselves?
I don't think we should blindly do anything, but i also don't need a scientist to tell me polluting the air is a bad thing. I lived in the smog of Los Angeles long enough to learn that. You don't need a scientist to tell you to not throw garbage out your car window, but there is a law against that. Are you saying we should allow people to throw garbage out their window?

Sometimes it's not about politics or money. It's about being responsible and doing the right thing. And if we have enough idiots who choose to put smoke into the air so they can make a buck, or throw garbage on the side of the road, then yes - laws should be made to protect the health and safety of our citizens.

 
Once again..... CO2 is an odorless and colorless gas that is an essential part of the air we breath. It is not a pollutant that contributes to smog, but a gas essential for life.

 
Regardless of what you believe about climate change, can we all agree that putting a bunch of smoke into the air probably isn't a good thing?
Ummm, sure...So regardless of what you believe about climate change, can't we all agree that we should just blindly support our guv'mint in making a whole bunch of expensive policy mandates that internationally may or may not have any impact whatsoever on the changing climate, because it will feel like we are trying hard, that way, everyone can feel better about themselves?
I don't think we should blindly do anything, but i also don't need a scientist to tell me polluting the air is a bad thing. I lived in the smog of Los Angeles long enough to learn that. You don't need a scientist to tell you to not throw garbage out your car window, but there is a law against that. Are you saying we should allow people to throw garbage out their window? Sometimes it's not about politics or money. It's about being responsible and doing the right thing. And if we have enough idiots who choose to put smoke into the air so they can make a buck, or throw garbage on the side of the road, then yes - laws should be made to protect the health and safety of our citizens.
Or idiots who have no understanding what CO2 is.

 
Regardless of what you believe about climate change, can we all agree that putting a bunch of smoke into the air probably isn't a good thing?
You do realize CO2 is a clear, odorless gas which is essential to life on this planet? :oldunsure:
CO is a clear, odorless gas which is essential to human life. Too much of it would be a bad thing though.
He was talking about pollutants in the air we breath? Are you suggesting we have too much CO2 in the air and there is some kind of health risk from that as the poster has alluded too?

 
Regardless of what you believe about climate change, can we all agree that putting a bunch of smoke into the air probably isn't a good thing?
You do realize CO2 is a clear, odorless gas which is essential to life on this planet? :oldunsure:
CO is a clear, odorless gas which is essential to human life. Too much of it would be a bad thing though.
He was talking about pollutants in the air we breath? Are you suggesting we have too much CO2 in the air and there is some kind of health risk from that as the poster has alluded too?
He didn't say anything about health risk. He said "putting a bunch of smoke into the air probably isn't a good thing." "Smoke" isn't necessarily CO2. A "bad thing" isn't necessarily about health risks, could be an environmental risk.

 
Regardless of what you believe about climate change, can we all agree that putting a bunch of smoke into the air probably isn't a good thing?
You do realize CO2 is a clear, odorless gas which is essential to life on this planet? :oldunsure:
CO is a clear, odorless gas which is essential to human life. Too much of it would be a bad thing though.
He was talking about pollutants in the air we breath? Are you suggesting we have too much CO2 in the air and there is some kind of health risk from that as the poster has alluded too?
He didn't say anything about health risk. He said "putting a bunch of smoke into the air probably isn't a good thing." "Smoke" isn't necessarily CO2. A "bad thing" isn't necessarily about health risks, could be an environmental risk.
He made multiple posts in this thread. Yes he has talked about health. To be fair he has been very vague on what exactly he is talking about. But considering the context of this thread is global warming, he seems very confused.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Regardless of what you believe about climate change, can we all agree that putting a bunch of smoke into the air probably isn't a good thing?
You do realize CO2 is a clear, odorless gas which is essential to life on this planet? :oldunsure:
CO is a clear, odorless gas which is essential to human life. Too much of it would be a bad thing though.
He was talking about pollutants in the air we breath? Are you suggesting we have too much CO2 in the air and there is some kind of health risk from that as the poster has alluded too?
He didn't say anything about health risk. He said "putting a bunch of smoke into the air probably isn't a good thing." "Smoke" isn't necessarily CO2. A "bad thing" isn't necessarily about health risks, could be an environmental risk.
He made multiple posts in this thread. Yes he has talked about health. To be fair he has been very vague on what exactly he is talking about. But considering the context of this thread is global warming, he seems very confused.
Considering the context of your post, CO2 is essential to life, CO is essential to life. Too much of either could be harmful.

 
Regardless of what you believe about climate change, can we all agree that putting a bunch of smoke into the air probably isn't a good thing?
You do realize CO2 is a clear, odorless gas which is essential to life on this planet? :oldunsure:
CO is a clear, odorless gas which is essential to human life. Too much of it would be a bad thing though.
He was talking about pollutants in the air we breath? Are you suggesting we have too much CO2 in the air and there is some kind of health risk from that as the poster has alluded too?
He didn't say anything about health risk. He said "putting a bunch of smoke into the air probably isn't a good thing." "Smoke" isn't necessarily CO2. A "bad thing" isn't necessarily about health risks, could be an environmental risk.
He made multiple posts in this thread. Yes he has talked about health. To be fair he has been very vague on what exactly he is talking about. But considering the context of this thread is global warming, he seems very confused.
Considering the context of your post, CO2 is essential to life, CO is essential to life. Too much of either could be harmful.
You seem hellbent on defending ignorance.

 
Regardless of what you believe about climate change, can we all agree that putting a bunch of smoke into the air probably isn't a good thing?
You do realize CO2 is a clear, odorless gas which is essential to life on this planet? :oldunsure:
CO is a clear, odorless gas which is essential to human life. Too much of it would be a bad thing though.
He was talking about pollutants in the air we breath? Are you suggesting we have too much CO2 in the air and there is some kind of health risk from that as the poster has alluded too?
He didn't say anything about health risk. He said "putting a bunch of smoke into the air probably isn't a good thing." "Smoke" isn't necessarily CO2. A "bad thing" isn't necessarily about health risks, could be an environmental risk.
He made multiple posts in this thread. Yes he has talked about health. To be fair he has been very vague on what exactly he is talking about. But considering the context of this thread is global warming, he seems very confused.
Considering the context of your post, CO2 is essential to life, CO is essential to life. Too much of either could be harmful.
You seem hellbent on defending ignorance.
I am hellbent on accuracy in your statement.

 
Accuracy my ###. You are ignoring the context of an ignorant statement by a poster and turning this into a pointless discussion concerning semantics. If the poster wants to clarify his position, fine. But there is no point into continuing this discussion of you trying to rationalize it.

 
FWIW, I was on a panel last week at the Urban Land Institute - the godfather of the development industry (don't let the name fool you, this is where all major developers are, suburban, entertainment, resort, multifamily, everything).

On my panel ALONE, two people discussed the need to address global climate change / warming. Even the staunchest republicans in the audience didn't flinch. Of course, when tax policy came up and gov't subsidies of public transit, these guys jumped all over it.

Again, just my anecdotal experience, but it's a lot from a right-driven industry.

 
FWIW, I was on a panel last week at the Urban Land Institute - the godfather of the development industry (don't let the name fool you, this is where all major developers are, suburban, entertainment, resort, multifamily, everything).

On my panel ALONE, two people discussed the need to address global climate change / warming. Even the staunchest republicans in the audience didn't flinch. Of course, when tax policy came up and gov't subsidies of public transit, these guys jumped all over it.

Again, just my anecdotal experience, but it's a lot from a right-driven industry.
You think they didn't flinch and say anything because of the toxic climate the pro gbw crowd has created for those who don't conform?

 
FWIW, I was on a panel last week at the Urban Land Institute - the godfather of the development industry (don't let the name fool you, this is where all major developers are, suburban, entertainment, resort, multifamily, everything).

On my panel ALONE, two people discussed the need to address global climate change / warming. Even the staunchest republicans in the audience didn't flinch. Of course, when tax policy came up and gov't subsidies of public transit, these guys jumped all over it.

Again, just my anecdotal experience, but it's a lot from a right-driven industry.
You think they didn't flinch and say anything because of the toxic climate the pro gbw crowd has created for those who don't conform?
Um, you don't seem to understand this audience.

If there's any "toxic environment" or "group think" within this group it's anti-regulation, anti-taxation republicans. These are real estate developers, and a number of whom were from texas - they ripped some speakers to shreds re: gov't subsidies for transit and increasing the gas tax, they either nodded or had no comment when the concept of global warming / climate change was brought up - including being brought up and discussed by some who are those republican developers.

If theres a conformation push at this conference, its for free market, no (low) taxes, not for pro liberal ideals - at all.

 
So folks don't have to rely upon my anecdotal comments, since folks prefer to just look right through whatever point I try to make:

Link to Report by Grosvenor, Institutional Bastion of Liberal Group Think

Real estate investors often worry that their portfolios might be pummeled by economic factors such as rising interest rates. But there are plenty of other concerns—rising sea levels, earthquakes, overpopulation, social inequity, pollution, crime, and poorly functioning government. Globalization, climate change, and aging populations are creating dramatic changes at the country, city, and neighborhood level. These changes, in turn, are likely to have a profound impact on the built environment.

Related: Resilient Cities Research Report

The traditional methods of assessing real estate investment risk—such as standard deviation of returns, projected vacancy rate, and forecast rental growth—fall short in a world in which the basic patterns of the last two centuries are undergoing drastic transformation.

Global property group Grosvenor has long realized that its future success is tied to the sustainable growth of the cities where it has a presence. The company, like other long-term global investors, has a vested interest in helping create and manage vibrant, viable cities. At the same time, the firm and its investors seek to preserve real estate capital values and generate sustainable rental income.

In order to better plan and manage its global portfolio, Grosvenor undertook a three-year study, titled Resilient Cities, seeking new ways of measuring cities’ long-term resilience and identifying the world’s most resilient cities. “Resilience” is defined as the ability of cities to continue to function as centers of production, human habitation, and cultural development despite the challenges posed by climate change, population growth, declining resource supply, and other paradigm shifts.

The study examined and ranked 50 of the world’s most important cities. Although these cities account for only 7 percent of the world’s population, they represent the major focus of most global real estate investment and consume the lion’s share of the world’s resources. Thus, the fact that so many struggle to meet basic levels of resilience indicates how unprepared the rest of the world is to face the next century’s major challenges.

In the context of this study, vulnerability is not the same as susceptibility. Some societies are better prepared for adverse events and are more adept at bouncing back: witness New York City’s rapid recovery from the impacts of 9/11 and, more recently, Hurricane Sandy. At the opposite end of the spectrum is the devastation wrought in the Philippines by Typhoon Haiyan this past November.

To recognize this ability, the study weighs “adaptive capacity” equally with vulnerability in order to assess overall resilience. A city’s resilience is a negative function of its vulnerability and a positive function of its adaptive capacity. The results can be counterintuitive. For example, investors tend to shun cities with high taxes and regulatory burdens; however, cities that invest tax revenue in public infrastructure, planning systems, and support for employment growth can increase their resilience significantly, thus improving long-term investment prospects.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
FWIW, I was on a panel last week at the Urban Land Institute - the godfather of the development industry (don't let the name fool you, this is where all major developers are, suburban, entertainment, resort, multifamily, everything).

On my panel ALONE, two people discussed the need to address global climate change / warming. Even the staunchest republicans in the audience didn't flinch. Of course, when tax policy came up and gov't subsidies of public transit, these guys jumped all over it.

Again, just my anecdotal experience, but it's a lot from a right-driven industry.
Playing Devil's Advocate, this would seem to argue belief that the climate is changing, but say nothing about the percentage that is human-caused or say nothing about policy preferences.

Why are we trying to convince people that the climate is changing? Anyone who can't figure out that the climate has changed for millions of years isn't worth the effort.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
FWIW, I was on a panel last week at the Urban Land Institute - the godfather of the development industry (don't let the name fool you, this is where all major developers are, suburban, entertainment, resort, multifamily, everything).

On my panel ALONE, two people discussed the need to address global climate change / warming. Even the staunchest republicans in the audience didn't flinch. Of course, when tax policy came up and gov't subsidies of public transit, these guys jumped all over it.

Again, just my anecdotal experience, but it's a lot from a right-driven industry.
Playing Devil's Advocate, this would seem to argue belief that the climate is changing, but say nothing about the percentage that is human-caused or say nothing about policy preferences.

Why are we trying to convince people that the climate is changing? Anyone who can't figure out that the climate has changed for millions of years isn't worth the effort.
I have repeatedly stated that the specific cause is up for debate. While it's not MUCH up to debate that humanity is a contributing factor, and probably a strong contributor, it's certainly up for debate as to the real cause and how to address.

But there are those that just ignore that change is even happening.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top