climatechangedispatch--2020-05-21--Why Is The Australian Govt Leaving A Carbon-Tax Back Door Open?

Written by Alan Moran on .
Posted in Latest news As part of the ABC ’ s climate conspiracy agenda , Four Corners this week highlighted the “ anger ” at the government from the senior mandarins from its failure to deliver their goal of a carbon tax .
Their preferred approach was notwithstanding the tax rate would today have to be $ US100 per tonne , a staggering $ 80 billion a year impost .
Also unmentioned was government action on the chimera of climate change that presently costs over $ 4 billion a year in regulatory and direct @ @ @ @ @ @ @ requirements to support wind and large-scale solar ( at a cost this year of $ 1.1 billion ) and rooftop solar which this year is costing $ 1.7 billion .
There are two components of the Commonwealth ’ s Climate Solutions Package of direct spending budget on emission reductions .
The first is a “ $ 2 billion Climate Solutions Fund to support Australian farmers , businesses , and communities to adopt new technologies that reduce emissions and increase efficiency and productivity.
” The second is $ 1.5 billion , partly to finance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shore up an electricity grid that subsidized renewable supplies have degraded , and partly to teach people how to reduce their emissions and for a network of electric vehicle chargers .
In addition , other government funding vehicles include the Australian Renewable Energy Agency and the Clean Energy Finance Corporation both of which Energy Minister Angus Taylor is encouraging to fund hydrogen , the latest tech will o ’ the-wisp .
To provide carbon emission reduction advice , Taylor last year appointed a panel , chaired by former energy business leader , Grant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ warriors and subsidy supporters : Susie Smith , of the Australian Industry Greenhouse Network ; David Parker , the Clean Energy Regulator ; and academic Andrew Macintosh .
The review was staffed by the same environment department officials that gave us the Turnbull carbon tax proposals .
Unfortunately , the Grant report ’ s 26 recommendations , none of which the government opposed , are the springboard for a new set of policies .
The main policy extensions from the King review are twofold .
The first involves pouring further funding into carbon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a dozen years of experience demonstrate can not possibly work at anything other than exorbitant costs .
Australian taxpayers have already sunk a billion dollars on this policy , largely by bankrolling an international propaganda program through the “ Global CCS Institute ” , that refuses to publish its accounts .
The minister unconvincingly says this policy is not really new but , at the very least , it is an extension of the existing provisions whereby firms have a cap on their emissions and can trade the emissions they are recorded as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the savings to the government .
The King review describes the SMC as a “ low-emissions technology deployment incentive scheme , not unlike the Renewable Energy Target.
” A new bureaucracy is to be established to examine proposed investments to rule on the emission savings they claim to make .
The SMC would extend the existing pathway into a cap-and-trade emissions program , which is a form of a carbon tax .
Instead of addressing rejecting the fallacy of a carbon tax and the pointlessness of emission reduction programs , the Coalition is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dwarfed by a prospective carbon tax sought by activists , Greens , the ALP , and former mandarins , these are both costly and bring an augmentation of bureaucratic oversight and “ winner picking ” ostensibly opposed by the Liberals .
They both build upon existing carbon abatement policies and create a pathway to the economy-destructive carbon tax or cap-and-trade policies .
Taylor appeared to endorse such interventionism in a 19 May tweet extolling the International Energy Agency ( whose head , Fatih Birol , claims COVID-19 gives us a great chance to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The government , in trying to avoid the economic freeze that a carbon tax would bring and the diplomatic fires of Trumpian rejection of the Paris Agreement , falls between two stools .
The confused outcome of present policies is epitomized by the $ 1.7 billion subsidy that Commonwealth regulations force electricity consumers to provide for roof-top solar installations .
In order to protect the grid , the market manager ( AEMO ) is proposing new standards for these very volatile energy supplies as a prelude to being able to remotely disconnect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ proposals but this begs the question : why , if such electricity supplies create costs to the system as a whole , does the government insist on continuing to force other consumers to subsidize them ?

Written by Alan Moran on May 21, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
As part of the ABC’s climate conspiracy agenda, Four Corners this week highlighted the “anger” at the government from the senior mandarins from its failure to deliver their goal of a carbon tax.
Their preferred approach was notwithstanding the tax rate would today have to be $US100 per tonne, a staggering $80 billion a year impost.
Also unmentioned was government action on the chimera of climate change that presently costs over $4 billion a year in regulatory and direct funding.
Included in this are regulatory requirements to support wind and large-scale solar (at a cost this year of $1.1 billion) and rooftop solar which this year is costing $1.7 billion.
There are two components of the Commonwealth’s Climate Solutions Package of direct spending budget on emission reductions.
The first is a “$2 billion Climate Solutions Fund to support Australian farmers, businesses, and communities to adopt new technologies that reduce emissions and increase efficiency and productivity.”
The second is $1.5 billion, partly to finance measures for Snowy and TasHydro links to shore up an electricity grid that subsidized renewable supplies have degraded, and partly to teach people how to reduce their emissions and for a network of electric vehicle chargers.
In addition, other government funding vehicles include the Australian Renewable Energy Agency and the Clean Energy Finance Corporation both of which Energy Minister Angus Taylor is encouraging to fund hydrogen, the latest tech will o’ the-wisp.
To provide carbon emission reduction advice, Taylor last year appointed a panel, chaired by former energy business leader, Grant King, and comprising three other greenhouse warriors and subsidy supporters: Susie Smith, of the Australian Industry Greenhouse Network; David Parker, the Clean Energy Regulator; and academic Andrew Macintosh.
The review was staffed by the same environment department officials that gave us the Turnbull carbon tax proposals.
Unfortunately, the Grant report’s 26 recommendations, none of which the government opposed, are the springboard for a new set of policies.
The main policy extensions from the King review are twofold. The first involves pouring further funding into carbon capture and storage, a technology that a dozen years of experience demonstrate cannot possibly work at anything other than exorbitant costs.
Australian taxpayers have already sunk a billion dollars on this policy, largely by bankrolling an international propaganda program through the “Global CCS Institute”, that refuses to publish its accounts.
Secondly, the program involves “Safeguard Mechanism Credits” (SMC).
The minister unconvincingly says this policy is not really new but, at the very least, it is an extension of the existing provisions whereby firms have a cap on their emissions and can trade the emissions they are recorded as having saved with other firms or sell the savings to the government.
The King review describes the SMC as a “low-emissions technology deployment incentive scheme, not unlike the Renewable Energy Target.”
A new bureaucracy is to be established to examine proposed investments to rule on the emission savings they claim to make. The SMC would extend the existing pathway into a cap-and-trade emissions program, which is a form of a carbon tax.
Instead of addressing rejecting the fallacy of a carbon tax and the pointlessness of emission reduction programs, the Coalition is pursuing a system of subsidies.
While dwarfed by a prospective carbon tax sought by activists, Greens, the ALP, and former mandarins, these are both costly and bring an augmentation of bureaucratic oversight and “winner picking” ostensibly opposed by the Liberals.
They both build upon existing carbon abatement policies and create a pathway to the economy-destructive carbon tax or cap-and-trade policies.
Taylor appeared to endorse such interventionism in a 19 May tweet extolling the International Energy Agency(whose head, Fatih Birol, claims COVID-19 gives us a great chance to rid the world of fossil fuels).
The government, in trying to avoid the economic freeze that a carbon tax would bring and the diplomatic fires of Trumpian rejection of the Paris Agreement, falls between two stools.
The confused outcome of present policies is epitomized by the $1.7 billion subsidy that Commonwealth regulations force electricity consumers to provide for roof-top solar installations.
In order to protect the grid, the market manager (AEMO) is proposing new standards for these very volatile energy supplies as a prelude to being able to remotely disconnect them.
Mr. Taylor has endorsed these proposals but this begs the question: why, if such electricity supplies create costs to the system as a whole, does the government insist on continuing to force other consumers to subsidize them?
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-05-21--Newly Woke BlackRock Ripped Over Climate Activism, China Ties

Written by Valerie Richardson on .
Posted in Latest news BlackRock , the world ’ s largest asset manager that endured years of pressure and protests from the left , announced in January that it would embrace a climate change and social justice agenda — and then the COVID-19 pandemic hit .
Now BlackRock is on the hot seat .
Entering its annual shareholder meeting Thursday , it is caught between activists demanding that the firm walk the talk and conservatives condemning the emphasis on politics over profits — as well as crying hypocrisy over BlackRock ’ s enormous holdings @ @ @ @ @ @ @ biggest greenhouse gas emitter .
BlackRock CEO Larry Fink is “ doing two things ” with his embrace of the environmental , social , and governance ( ESG ) investment model pushed by activists , said Justin Danhof , general counsel of the free market National Center for Public Policy Research .
“ He ’ s pushing for ESG initiatives on American companies at a time when we ’ re in the greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression , ” Mr. Danhof said .
“ And what do these left-wing ESG initiatives @ @ @ @ @ @ @ regulatory cost of doing business on American companies .
At the same time , he ’ s pushing Chinese investments through his funds that have horrible ESG records .
How does he square those two ?
” Fueling the unease is BlackRock ’ s newly designated role as a bond-purchasing administrator of the CARES Act , prompting 17 Republican senators to send a letter asking Treasury Secretary Steven T. Mnuchin and other administration officials to keep such financial assistance “ neutral and free of bias.
” “ That ’ s when we became @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Enterprise Institute ’ s Myron Ebell .
“ If they ’ re going to play this key middleman role , we need to make sure that they ’ re not flogging their own ESG agenda .
They ’ re going to have to be watched very closely.
” A who ’ s who of top conservatives fired off a plea last month to Mr. Fink asking him to “ reconsider ” his Jan. 14 letter to investors signaling his intention to move from a “ shareholder ” to the more politically charged “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ best of times , the purpose of any business is to return a profit for shareholders by providing goods and services that consumers want and need , ” said the letter , led by Mr. Danhof .
“ But especially during times of grave threat to the economic health of the nation , that purpose — and not a political agenda — should be top of mind for businesses and for investors.
” He plans to submit a question at Thursday ’ s remote meeting about how BlackRock squares its climate advocacy , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , in light of its China business .
“ The most stark example I ’ m giving is , should Marriott spend its finite resources to put solar panels on their hotels , or maybe keep their furloughed employees on their health plans for now ?
” said Mr. Danhof .
“ I mean , which one ’ s most important ?
The answer seems obvious to me , but I ’ m not sure it ’ s obvious to others.
” Meanwhile , activists have no intention of letting up the pressure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ liberal shareholder advocacy group , plans to introduce a resolution calling for BlackRock to incorporate its “ new purpose ” into governance documents despite the firm ’ s efforts to block it .
[ … ] BlackRock has been hit with hypocrisy charges from both sides .
Climate change activists point out that the $ 7 trillion fund is also the largest U.S. investor in fossil fuels , while free-market advocates ask how BlackRock ’ s climate agenda jibes with its role in promoting Chinese investments .
At a Senate Banking Committee hearing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , mocked what she called BlackRock ’ s “ ridiculous ” defense of China on its website , called “ Five myths and realities about investing in China , ” and asked Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell about the firm ’ s role as a CARES Act financial agent .
“ I would just say this : All large asset managers buy Chinese securities , ” Mr. Powell said at Tuesday ’ s hearing .
“ These are global asset managers .
I ’ m not here to defend or criticize them for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ really relevant to the work that we want them to do.
” Ms. McSally was undeterred .
“ I really think BlackRock and others need to also wake up and do their patriotic duty , see what ’ s going on here : Communist China should not be profiting off of unleashing this calamity on the world , and that is something that should unite all Americans , even if they work at BlackRock , ” she said .
BlackRock did not respond to requests for comment .
The pandemic and subsequent economic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s decision to focus on “ managing climate-related risks , ” Mr. Danhof said .

Written by Valerie Richardson on May 21, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
BlackRock, the world’s largest asset manager that endured years of pressure and protests from the left, announced in January that it would embrace a climate change and social justice agenda — and then the COVID-19 pandemic hit.
Now BlackRock is on the hot seat. Entering its annual shareholder meeting Thursday, it is caught between activists demanding that the firm walk the talk and conservatives condemning the emphasis on politics over profits — as well as crying hypocrisy over BlackRock’s enormous holdings in China, the world’s biggest greenhouse gas emitter.
BlackRock CEO Larry Fink is “doing two things” with his embrace of the environmental, social, and governance (ESG) investment model pushed by activists, said Justin Danhof, general counsel of the free market National Center for Public Policy Research.
“He’s pushing for ESG initiatives on American companies at a time when we’re in the greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression,” Mr. Danhof said.
“And what do these left-wing ESG initiatives do? They just add an extra regulatory cost of doing business on American companies. At the same time, he’s pushing Chinese investments through his funds that have horrible ESG records. How does he square those two?”
Fueling the unease is BlackRock’s newly designated role as a bond-purchasing administrator of the CARES Act, prompting 17 Republican senators to send a letter asking Treasury Secretary Steven T. Mnuchin and other administration officials to keep such financial assistance “neutral and free of bias.”
“That’s when we became really concerned,” said the Competitive Enterprise Institute’s Myron Ebell. “If they’re going to play this key middleman role, we need to make sure that they’re not flogging their own ESG agenda. They’re going to have to be watched very closely.”
A who’s who of top conservatives fired off a plea last month to Mr. Fink asking him to “reconsider” his Jan. 14 letter to investors signaling his intention to move from a “shareholder” to the more politically charged “stakeholder” model.
“During the best of times, the purpose of any business is to return a profit for shareholders by providing goods and services that consumers want and need,” said the letter, led by Mr. Danhof. “But especially during times of grave threat to the economic health of the nation, that purpose — and not a political agenda — should be top of mind for businesses and for investors.”
He plans to submit a question at Thursday’s remote meeting about how BlackRock squares its climate advocacy, which has real costs for U.S. companies, in light of its China business.
“The most stark example I’m giving is, should Marriott spend its finite resources to put solar panels on their hotels, or maybe keep their furloughed employees on their health plans for now?” said Mr. Danhof. “I mean, which one’s most important? The answer seems obvious to me, but I’m not sure it’s obvious to others.”
Meanwhile, activists have no intention of letting up the pressure. As You Sow, the leading liberal shareholder advocacy group, plans to introduce a resolution calling for BlackRock to incorporate its “new purpose” into governance documents despite the firm’s efforts to block it. […]
BlackRock has been hit with hypocrisy charges from both sides. Climate change activists point out that the $7 trillion fund is also the largest U.S. investor in fossil fuels, while free-market advocates ask how BlackRock’s climate agenda jibes with its role in promoting Chinese investments.
At a Senate Banking Committee hearing, Sen. Martha McSally, Arizona Republican, mocked what she called BlackRock’s “ridiculous” defense of China on its website, called “Five myths and realities about investing in China,” and asked Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell about the firm’s role as a CARES Act financial agent.
“I would just say this: All large asset managers buy Chinese securities,” Mr. Powell said at Tuesday’s hearing. “These are global asset managers. I’m not here to defend or criticize them for that. It’s just not really relevant to the work that we want them to do.”
Ms. McSally was undeterred. “I really think BlackRock and others need to also wake up and do their patriotic duty, see what’s going on here: Communist China should not be profiting off of unleashing this calamity on the world, and that is something that should unite all Americans, even if they work at BlackRock,” she said.
BlackRock did not respond to requests for comment.
The pandemic and subsequent economic downturn have heightened criticism of BlackRock’s decision to focus on “managing climate-related risks,” Mr. Danhof said.
Read rest at Washington Times
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-05-21--Media-Touted Hurricane ‘Study’ Is A Deceptive, Cherry-Picked Mess

Written by James Taylor on .
Posted in Latest news The media are breathlessly touting a cheap new “ study ” falsely asserting climate change is causing an increase in strong hurricanes .
In reality , the study relies on deception , unethical data manipulation , and aggressive misrepresentation of quite normal short-term trends to support its false claim .
The study , published by government-employed and government-funded researchers whose jobs and income depend on the perpetuation of the alarmist Climate Delusion , has been reported – without any critical examination – by the New York Times , Washington Post @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The Environmental Defense Fund is even using the new study to raise money for itself .
The headline for the Washington Post article tells us what the alarmists are peddling in this new study : “ The strongest , most dangerous hurricanes are now far more likely because of climate change , study shows.
” The truth , as shown by objective scientific facts , is quite different .
The study ’ s authors report that an examination of tropical storms that formed between 1979 and 2017 indicates that after the first @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the chance of a given tropical storm growing to become a major hurricane ( category 3 or higher ) rose by 8 percent in each of the latter two decades .
As an initial matter , the authors are dubiously claiming that merely 20 years of a minor variation in hurricane numbers is sufficient to prove a substantial long-term trend and a definitive link to climate change as the causal factor .
This is a preposterous claim to make for such a short time period .
For example , objective data – as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that over a 25-year period from 1992 through 2014 , the frequency of hurricanes declined significantly and the frequency of major hurricanes did not increase at all .
This was also during a period of global warming .
Why is that 25-year period irrelevant when it is so similar in time and length to the authors ’ cherry-picked 29-year period ?
The fact is , there will always be natural and largely random variation in the frequency of hurricanes , tornadoes , floods , droughts , etc.
, within periods of just a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ show essentially no change in the frequency of major hurricanes since the early 1990s .
Any claim of more frequent recent hurricanes requires cherry-picking the abnormally quiet 1980s as the baseline for comparison rather than the past 30 years , during which there has been no trend .
The fact that the 1980s were quieter than the 1990s is largely relevant to the assertion that global warming is currently causing an increase in strong hurricanes .
On the contrary , the lack of any increase during the past 30 years is much more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ importantly , the authors and their media sock-puppets bury the fact that the authors are reporting on the percentage of tropical storms that become major hurricanes rather than the raw number of major hurricanes .
Objective data – as shown in the chart below – show that the number of tropical storms has been declining throughout the time period of the authors ’ study .
So , the authors and the media can technically claim that the percentage of tropical storms that become major hurricanes is growing , even while there is no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hurricanes .
The percentage of tropical storms that become major hurricanes is largely irrelevant if the overall number of major hurricanes stays the same .
If anything , the new study simply illustrates that fewer tropical storms are forming , which would largely be seen as a beneficial climate development .
Fourth and finally , media outlets like the Washington Post even misrepresent the misleading and cherry-picked conclusions of the authors ’ study .
As noted , the authors note a very minor increase in the percentage of tropical storms that become hurricanes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ major hurricanes has not increased during the past 30 years .
Compare that to the Washington Post ’ s headline assertion that “ The strongest , most dangerous hurricanes are now far more likely.
” Strong hurricanes are not more likely at all , let alone “ far ” more likely .
The new study , and its accompanying media coverage , represent a perfect example of the horse-dung sensationalism that climate alarmists tell us is “ settled science.
” The only settled science is that alarmists will go to incredible lengths to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the cause of promoting their alarmist Climate Delusion .

Written by James Taylor on May 21, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
The media are breathlessly touting a cheap new “study” falsely asserting climate change is causing an increase in strong hurricanes.
In reality, the study relies on deception, unethical data manipulation, and aggressive misrepresentation of quite normal short-term trends to support its false claim.
The study, published by government-employed and government-funded researchers whose jobs and income depend on the perpetuation of the alarmist Climate Delusion, has been reported – without any critical examination – by the New York Times, Washington Post, The Weather Channel, and others.
The Environmental Defense Fund is even using the new study to raise money for itself.
The headline for the Washington Post article tells us what the alarmists are peddling in this new study: “The strongest, most dangerous hurricanes are now far more likely because of climate change, study shows.”
The truth, as shown by objective scientific facts, is quite different.
The study’s authors report that an examination of tropical storms that formed between 1979 and 2017 indicates that after the first half of the 39-year time period, the chance of a given tropical storm growing to become a major hurricane (category 3 or higher) rose by 8 percent in each of the latter two decades.
As an initial matter, the authors are dubiously claiming that merely 20 years of a minor variation in hurricane numbers is sufficient to prove a substantial long-term trend and a definitive link to climate change as the causal factor.
This is a preposterous claim to make for such a short time period.
For example, objective data – as shown in the graph below – show that over a 25-year period from 1992 through 2014, the frequency of hurricanes declined significantly and the frequency of major hurricanes did not increase at all.
This was also during a period of global warming. Why is that 25-year period irrelevant when it is so similar in time and length to the authors’ cherry-picked 29-year period?
The fact is, there will always be natural and largely random variation in the frequency of hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, droughts, etc., within periods of just a few decades.
Second, the data show essentially no change in the frequency of major hurricanes since the early 1990s.
Any claim of more frequent recent hurricanes requires cherry-picking the abnormally quiet 1980s as the baseline for comparison rather than the past 30 years, during which there has been no trend.
The fact that the 1980s were quieter than the 1990s is largely relevant to the assertion that global warming is currently causing an increase in strong hurricanes.
On the contrary, the lack of any increase during the past 30 years is much more relevant.
Third, and perhaps most importantly, the authors and their media sock-puppets bury the fact that the authors are reporting on the percentage of tropical storms that become major hurricanes rather than the raw number of major hurricanes.
Objective data – as shown in the chart below – show that the number of tropical storms has been declining throughout the time period of the authors’ study.
So, the authors and the media can technically claim that the percentage of tropical storms that become major hurricanes is growing, even while there is no increase in the overall number of major hurricanes.
The percentage of tropical storms that become major hurricanes is largely irrelevant if the overall number of major hurricanes stays the same.
If anything, the new study simply illustrates that fewer tropical storms are forming, which would largely be seen as a beneficial climate development.
Fourth and finally, media outlets like the Washington Post even misrepresent the misleading and cherry-picked conclusions of the authors’ study.
As noted, the authors note a very minor increase in the percentage of tropical storms that become hurricanes, even while the overall frequency of major hurricanes has not increased during the past 30 years.
Compare that to the Washington Post’s headline assertion that “The strongest, most dangerous hurricanes are now far more likely.”
Strong hurricanes are not more likely at all, let alone “far” more likely.
The new study, and its accompanying media coverage, represent a perfect example of the horse-dung sensationalism that climate alarmists tell us is “settled science.”
The only settled science is that alarmists will go to incredible lengths to manipulate and misrepresent objective scientific facts for the cause of promoting their alarmist Climate Delusion.
Read more at Climate Realism
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-05-21--Insider Reveals Fridays For Future Run By ‘Privileged Eco-Hipsters’

Written by Pierre Gosselin on .
Posted in Latest news Emerging dissidence : Twenty-two-year-old student Clemens Traub used to be a regular Fridays For Future demonstrator until he woke up and realized the whole thing was run by what he now calls “ big-city arrogance ” and “ socially privileged eco-hipsters.
” The political science student , member of the German SPD socialist party , in fact , says the movement is so radical and divisive that it even risks “ civil war.
” Traub has just written a book bearing the title in English : “ Future for Fridays @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ‘ Fridays for Future ’ critic ( Amazon U.S. ) .
( German Amazon ) Deviating from the sheer alarmism that is typical of his fellow socialist and green comrades , in his book Traub writes he has become worried that the movement will “ divide society ” instead of rescuing the climate .
He went from being a regular FFF activist to an open critic of the movement .
Though Traub believes the climate is a serious problem that demands immediate attention , he feels that the radical FFF movement will make @ @ @ @ @ @ @ He accuses the movement of ignoring the concerns of the larger German working class .
Traub starts by accusing the Fridays for Future movement of being elitist , one marked by “ big-city arrogance ” and exploited by narcissistic individuals – such as “ Longhaul ” Luisa Neubauer – as “ career springboard ” .
Fridays for Future , Traub writes , does not represent the average worker : “ Instead of listening to the concerns of hard-working people , they are reproached for their anti-environmental diesel car , which they need for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only is the movement elitist and out-of-touch , but Traub also claims that the FFF movement is “ too radical ” , writing : “ In view of their fanatical climatic zeal , it is clear that there is no place for humanity and compassion in their thinking.
” Such “ climate fanaticism ” is met with rejection by the majority of the population , says Traub .
The movement , he claims , rejects the very system that made the “ privileged eco-hipsters ” : capitalism .
Traub also accuses the Fridays @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the end of the world ” instead of engaging in an “ innovative discussion of the future.
” “ We need a down-to-earth and lifelike climate movement , ” Traub told Business Insider .
“ The movement thinks far too apocalyptically for me .
I miss the innovative and future-oriented discussion on the topic.
” What the movement needs , he writes , are more middle-class activists “ who see a car not just as a climate monster , but as an important part of life for many people.
” Unless the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Traub thinks the movement in Germany could unleash a “ revolt by the unheard and low-income earners , ” similar to the yellow vests in France .
In this regard , the COVID-19 protests against government social and economic restrictions seen across Germany can be considered a preview .
Traub may be among the first of a new generation who are beginning to realize that “ going green ” is the saw that is cutting the lofty branch on which they are sitting .
Read more at No Tricks Zone

Written by Pierre Gosselin on May 21, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Emerging dissidence: Twenty-two-year-old student Clemens Traub used to be a regular Fridays For Future demonstrator until he woke up and realized the whole thing was run by what he now calls “big-city arrogance” and “socially privileged eco-hipsters.”
The political science student, member of the German SPD socialist party, in fact, says the movement is so radical and divisive that it even risks “civil war.”
Traub has just written a book bearing the title in English: “Future for Fridays?: an essay by a young ‘Fridays for Future’ critic (Amazon U.S.). (German Amazon)
Deviating from the sheer alarmism that is typical of his fellow socialist and green comrades, in his book Traub writes he has become worried that the movement will “divide society” instead of rescuing the climate.
He went from being a regular FFF activist to an open critic of the movement.
Though Traub believes the climate is a serious problem that demands immediate attention, he feels that the radical FFF movement will make matters far worse instead of better.
He accuses the movement of ignoring the concerns of the larger German working class.
“Career springboard” for “elitist eco-hipsters”
Traub starts by accusing the Fridays for Future movement of being elitist, one marked by “big-city arrogance” and exploited by narcissistic individuals – such as “Longhaul” Luisa Neubauer – as “career springboard”.
Fridays for Future, Traub writes, does not represent the average worker: “Instead of listening to the concerns of hard-working people, they are reproached for their anti-environmental diesel car, which they need for their daily commute to work.”
FFF is “no place for humanity”
Not only is the movement elitist and out-of-touch, but Traub also claims that the FFF movement is “too radical”, writing: “In view of their fanatical climatic zeal, it is clear that there is no place for humanity and compassion in their thinking.”
Such “climate fanaticism” is met with rejection by the majority of the population, says Traub. The movement, he claims, rejects the very system that made the “privileged eco-hipsters”: capitalism.
Traub also accuses the Fridays for Future of misusing “hysterical images of the end of the world” instead of engaging in an “innovative discussion of the future.”
Extreme, apocalyptic movement
“We need a down-to-earth and lifelike climate movement,” Traub told Business Insider. “The movement thinks far too apocalyptically for me. I miss the innovative and future-oriented discussion on the topic.”
What the movement needs, he writes, are more middle-class activists “who see a car not just as a climate monster, but as an important part of life for many people.”
Possible revolt
Unless the movement tones the radicalism and hysteria down, Traub thinks the movement in Germany could unleash a “revolt by the unheard and low-income earners,” similar to the yellow vests in France.
In this regard, the COVID-19 protests against government social and economic restrictions seen across Germany can be considered a preview.
Traub may be among the first of a new generation who are beginning to realize that “going green” is the saw that is cutting the lofty branch on which they are sitting.
Read more at No Tricks Zone
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-05-21--Reckless Fearmongering Causing Growing Climate Anxiety Among Kids

Written by Dr. Benny Peiser , guest post on .
Posted in Latest news , Videos The Global Warming Policy Forum ( GWPF ) has called on responsible educators and journalists to stop terrifying children with exaggerated claims and worst-case predictions about the impact of global warming .
As part of Mental Health Awareness Week , the GWPF has released a short video today to raise awareness of the growing mental health crisis among young children as a result of irresponsible climate scare-mongering .
According to a recent UK survey , 20 % of British children are suffering from nightmares @ @ @ @ @ @ @ main reasons for this deplorable development is scare tactics adopted by green campaigners , educators , commentators , and broadcasters to exaggerate the impact of global warming by emphasizing worst-case catastrophizing .
Relentless attempts to link every extreme weather event to climate change , and dire warnings about looming mass extinctions and the end of civilization are highly contentious but are presented to even very young children as facts .
In their enthusiasm to advance their political agenda , green campaigners have deliberately and cynically used children ’ s fears as a political @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and their well-being .
“ Anyone who cares about the mental health of children should demand that they are protected from apocalyptic doom-mongers and their political agenda , ” GWPF Director Benny Peiser said .

Written by Dr. Benny Peiser, guest post on May 21, 2020 . Posted in Latest news, Videos
The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF) has called on responsible educators and journalists to stop terrifying children with exaggerated claims and worst-case predictions about the impact of global warming.
As part of Mental Health Awareness Week, the GWPF has released a short video today to raise awareness of the growing mental health crisis among young children as a result of irresponsible climate scare-mongering.
According to a recent UK survey, 20% of British children are suffering from nightmares about global warming.
One of the main reasons for this deplorable development is scare tactics adopted by green campaigners, educators, commentators, and broadcasters to exaggerate the impact of global warming by emphasizing worst-case catastrophizing.
Relentless attempts to link every extreme weather event to climate change, and dire warnings about looming mass extinctions and the end of civilization are highly contentious but are presented to even very young children as facts.
In their enthusiasm to advance their political agenda, green campaigners have deliberately and cynically used children’s fears as a political weapon that has been turned against them and their well-being.
“Anyone who cares about the mental health of children should demand that they are protected from apocalyptic doom-mongers and their political agenda,” GWPF Director Benny Peiser said.
Video: The Real Climate Health Crisis
Contact
Dr. Benny Peiser
Director, Global Warming Policy Forum
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-05-22--Michael Mann Hails Crushing Lockdown Because CO2 Emissions Dropped

Written by Kyle Drennen on .
Posted in Latest news , Videos On Wednesday afternoon , MSNBC anchor Katy Tur touted the “ drop in pollution ” as a “ positive consequence of the pandemic ” that has killed hundreds of thousands of people around the world and left tens of millions unemployed .
Talking to Penn State University professor and climate activist Michael Mann , she hoped Americans would seize on this “ unique ” “ opportunity ” to “ change our habits.
” Late in the 2:00 p.m .
ET hour , Tur proclaimed : “ An unexpected @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been a drop in pollution , specifically carbon pollution , which fell 17 % worldwide at the peak of the global stay-at-home orders .
“ That ’ s mostly the result of fewer vehicles on the road , but also fewer planes in the sky and factories being closed as well.
” SEE ALSO : No , The Coronavirus Lockdown Hasn ’ t Made The Air Cleaner However , she then warned : “ My next guest argues that that is , though , a drop in the bucket when it comes to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” After introducing Mann , she marveled : “ I ’ m sure everybody online saw those images of a smog-free Los Angeles almost looking like a painting , it was so clear .
And wow , oh , my God , if we all stopped getting on the road , then this is what the air could look like… ” Mann hailed the development : “ When you slow the economy , you reduce transportation…you decrease carbon emissions .
Because right now we have a global economy that is driven by the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ long as that ’ s true when you reduce economic output , you ’ re going to reduce carbon emissions.
” SEE ALSO : Why The Economic Slowdown Won ’ t Affect Atmospheric CO2 Levels NewsBusters has documented the lengthy list of journalists that have similarly cheered the supposed environmental “ silver lining ” of the devastating global health crisis .
Despite joining Tur in her enthusiasm , Mann cautioned that far more must be done to stop humans from ruining the Earth with economic activity : Now , here ’ s the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that ’ s only going to give us maybe a 4 to 7 % decrease in carbon emissions for the year .
And what we actually need is a 10 % decrease in carbon emissions every year for the next ten years if we are to avert crossing the threshold of dangerous influence with our climate .
So we need to cut carbon emissions far more than that .
And we ’ d like to do that without slowing down the economy .
The way to do that is to decarbonize our economy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we don ’ t have to burn fossil fuels to generate economic activity , goods , services , and transport .
Tur lamented : “ So what we ’ re seeing here was even in the months of this lockdown , we ’ re not getting to the number – the percentage that we need to really cut down on climate change and it ’ s going to climb right back up once everybody is let out.
” She then implored : “ It seems like , Michael , we are in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ change , to change our habits since we ’ re all locked down.
” Mann agreed : “ Yeah , and that ’ s the good news , right ?
What this shows us is that we can have a positive impact on our environment.
” The climate crusader then repeated his demand that “ We need to literally decarbonize our economy.
” After prompting by Tur to explain his declaration , Mann argued : “ …it literally means moving away from the burning of fossil fuels for transport and power generation and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ He quickly made the transition to the 2020 election : “ We need politicians who support those policies , we ’ ve got an election coming up in a matter of months where we can choose to vote on this issue and make the right decisions.
” Tur wondered : “ Michael , just quickly , if there was one single thing that we could change tomorrow , what would it be ?
” Mann reiterated : “ It would be the leadership that we have in Washington , D.C. ” Tur appreciated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the segment , Tur turned to co-anchor Chuck Todd and concluded : “ And if we go back to our normal ways , the opportunity that we have in front of us to cut down on carbon , to really make an impact on climate change , will have gone to waste.
” Todd seized on Mann ’ s recommendation that the government force people and businesses to reduce their carbon emissions : “ He ’ s making the argument that if you ’ re going to get the innovation that you need @ @ @ @ @ @ @ innovation .
That ’ s why you see some governments raise mileage standards….that you have to make structural change.
” [ … ] Early in the pandemic , on March 31 , Tur dreamed of the crisis bringing “ permanent change ” to American society with “ universal health care ” and a “ greener economy.
” She and many of her liberal media colleagues have been pushing the socialist agenda relentlessly throughout the shutdown .

Written by Kyle Drennen on May 22, 2020 . Posted in Latest news, Videos
On Wednesday afternoon, MSNBC anchor Katy Tur touted the “drop in pollution” as a “positive consequence of the pandemic” that has killed hundreds of thousands of people around the world and left tens of millions unemployed.
Talking to Penn State University professor and climate activist Michael Mann, she hoped Americans would seize on this “unique” “opportunity” to “change our habits.”
Late in the 2:00 p.m. ET hour, Tur proclaimed:
“An unexpected yet positive consequence of the pandemic has been a drop in pollution, specifically carbon pollution, which fell 17% worldwide at the peak of the global stay-at-home orders. “That’s mostly the result of fewer vehicles on the road, but also fewer planes in the sky and factories being closed as well.”
SEE ALSO: No, The Coronavirus Lockdown Hasn’t Made The Air Cleaner
However, she then warned: “My next guest argues that that is, though, a drop in the bucket when it comes to what is needed to address climate change.”
After introducing Mann, she marveled: “I’m sure everybody online saw those images of a smog-free Los Angeles almost looking like a painting, it was so clear. And wow, oh, my God, if we all stopped getting on the road, then this is what the air could look like…”
Mann hailed the development: “When you slow the economy, you reduce transportation…you decrease carbon emissions. Because right now we have a global economy that is driven by the burning of fossil fuels. And as long as that’s true when you reduce economic output, you’re going to reduce carbon emissions.”
SEE ALSO: Why The Economic Slowdown Won’t Affect Atmospheric CO2 Levels
NewsBusters has documented the lengthy list of journalists that have similarly cheered the supposed environmental “silver lining” of the devastating global health crisis.
Despite joining Tur in her enthusiasm, Mann cautioned that far more must be done to stop humans from ruining the Earth with economic activity:
Now, here’s the bad news, in the end, that’s only going to give us maybe a 4 to 7% decrease in carbon emissions for the year. And what we actually need is a 10% decrease in carbon emissions every year for the next ten years if we are to avert crossing the threshold of dangerous influence with our climate. So we need to cut carbon emissions far more than that. And we’d like to do that without slowing down the economy. The way to do that is to decarbonize our economy, to remake our economy so that we don’t have to burn fossil fuels to generate economic activity, goods, services, and transport.
Tur lamented: “So what we’re seeing here was even in the months of this lockdown, we’re not getting to the number – the percentage that we need to really cut down on climate change and it’s going to climb right back up once everybody is let out.”
She then implored: “It seems like, Michael, we are in a really unique position right to effect that change, to change our habits since we’re all locked down.”
Mann agreed: “Yeah, and that’s the good news, right? What this shows us is that we can have a positive impact on our environment.”
The climate crusader then repeated his demand that “We need to literally decarbonize our economy.”
After prompting by Tur to explain his declaration, Mann argued: “…it literally means moving away from the burning of fossil fuels for transport and power generation and everything else, to renewable energy.”
He quickly made the transition to the 2020 election: “We need politicians who support those policies, we’ve got an election coming up in a matter of months where we can choose to vote on this issue and make the right decisions.”
Tur wondered: “Michael, just quickly, if there was one single thing that we could change tomorrow, what would it be?”
Mann reiterated: “It would be the leadership that we have in Washington, D.C.” Tur appreciated his “blunt answer.”
Wrapping up the segment, Tur turned to co-anchor Chuck Todd and concluded: “And if we go back to our normal ways, the opportunity that we have in front of us to cut down on carbon, to really make an impact on climate change, will have gone to waste.”
Todd seized on Mann’s recommendation that the government force people and businesses to reduce their carbon emissions: “He’s making the argument that if you’re going to get the innovation that you need, you almost have to force the innovation. That’s why you see some governments raise mileage standards….that you have to make structural change.” […]
Early in the pandemic, on March 31, Tur dreamed of the crisis bringing “permanent change” to American society with “universal health care” and a “greener economy.”
She and many of her liberal media colleagues have been pushing the socialist agenda relentlessly throughout the shutdown.
Read rest at NewsBusters
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-05-22--Reefs’ Neon Colors A Defense Against Coral Bleaching

Written by Bianca Bruno on .
Posted in Latest news Some coral reefs are adapting to warming ocean temperatures by making their own sunscreen in the form of bright neon colors — a strategy that invites coral animals to return to reefs and is seen as a critical adaptation to maintain healthy coral reefs around the world .
In a study published Thursday in the journal Current Biology , researchers at the University of Southampton detail a series of controlled laboratory experiments they conducted at their coral aquarium facility .
In the experiments , “ colorful ” coral bleaching events @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vibrant sunscreen which encourages the coral animals vital to a mutually beneficial “ symbiosis ” relationship to return to coral habitats they abandon due to the effects of warming oceans .
Many coral animals live with tiny algae embedded in their cells — it ’ s a fragile symbiotic relationship where the algae gain shelter , carbon dioxide , and nutrients while the coral receives photosynthetic products to fulfill their energy needs .
When the ocean ’ s temperature rises , the symbiosis breaks down and the algae are lost , causing the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shine through and be damaged via coral bleaching .
The condition can be fatal to coral — when its live tissue is gone and its skeleton is exposed to erosion , an entire coral reef can break down in a few years , causing the biodiversity that relies on its complex structure to fall apart in the process .
But some coral undergoes colorful coral bleaching — emitting a range of different bright neon colors — derived from photoprotective green fluorescent protein-like pigments produced by the coral host .
The colorful adaptation could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bleaching incidents that have threatened coral reefs worldwide .
But the colorful coral bleaching – rather than the white skeleton exposure of common coral bleaching events – is believed to take place due to mild ocean warming or disturbances in their nutrient environment , rather than extreme events .
Colorful bleaching occurred between this past March and April in some areas of the Great Barrier Reef , suggesting some patches of the world ’ s largest reef system may have better recovery prospects than others .
“ Bleaching is not always a death @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can still be alive .
If the stress event is mild enough , corals can re-establish the symbiosis with their algal partner .
Unfortunately , recent episodes of global bleaching caused by unusually warm water have resulted in high coral mortality , leaving the world ’ s coral reefs struggling for survival , ” Dr. Cecilia D ’ Angelo , lecturer of molecular coral biology at Southampton , said in a statement .
Colorful coral bleaching involves a self-regulating mechanism , or so-called optical feedback loop , involving both the coral and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , head of Southampton ’ s Coral Reef Laboratory .
In healthy coral , much of the sunlight is taken up by the photosynthetic pigments of the algae .
But when coral loses those algae , excess sunlight travels back and forth , resulting in the white coral skeleton .
The increased internal light in coral is “ stressful ” for the algae and can delay their return .
“ However , if the coral cells can still carry out at least some of their normal functions , despite the environmental stress that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ levels will boost the production of colorful , photoprotective pigments , ” Wiedenmann said in a statement accompanying the study .

Written by Bianca Bruno on May 22, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Some coral reefs are adapting to warming ocean temperatures by making their own sunscreen in the form of bright neon colors — a strategy that invites coral animals to return to reefs and is seen as a critical adaptation to maintain healthy coral reefs around the world.
In a study published Thursday in the journal Current Biology, researchers at the University of Southampton detail a series of controlled laboratory experiments they conducted at their coral aquarium facility.
In the experiments, “colorful” coral bleaching events cause coral to produce a layer of vibrant sunscreen which encourages the coral animals vital to a mutually beneficial “symbiosis” relationship to return to coral habitats they abandon due to the effects of warming oceans.
Many coral animals live with tiny algae embedded in their cells — it’s a fragile symbiotic relationship where the algae gain shelter, carbon dioxide, and nutrients while the coral receives photosynthetic products to fulfill their energy needs.
When the ocean’s temperature rises, the symbiosis breaks down and the algae are lost, causing the coral’s white limestone skeleton to shine through and be damaged via coral bleaching.
The condition can be fatal to coral — when its live tissue is gone and its skeleton is exposed to erosion, an entire coral reef can break down in a few years, causing the biodiversity that relies on its complex structure to fall apart in the process.
But some coral undergoes colorful coral bleaching — emitting a range of different bright neon colors — derived from photoprotective green fluorescent protein-like pigments produced by the coral host.
The colorful adaptation could prove vital for overcoming the fatal coral bleaching incidents that have threatened coral reefs worldwide.
But the colorful coral bleaching – rather than the white skeleton exposure of common coral bleaching events – is believed to take place due to mild ocean warming or disturbances in their nutrient environment, rather than extreme events.
Colorful bleaching occurred between this past March and April in some areas of the Great Barrier Reef, suggesting some patches of the world’s largest reef system may have better recovery prospects than others.
“Bleaching is not always a death sentence for corals, the coral animal can still be alive. If the stress event is mild enough, corals can re-establish the symbiosis with their algal partner. Unfortunately, recent episodes of global bleaching caused by unusually warm water have resulted in high coral mortality, leaving the world’s coral reefs struggling for survival,” Dr. Cecilia D’Angelo, lecturer of molecular coral biology at Southampton, said in a statement.
Colorful coral bleaching involves a self-regulating mechanism, or so-called optical feedback loop, involving both the coral and the algae animals, according to Jorg Wiedenmann, head of Southampton’s Coral Reef Laboratory.
In healthy coral, much of the sunlight is taken up by the photosynthetic pigments of the algae. But when coral loses those algae, excess sunlight travels back and forth, resulting in the white coral skeleton.
The increased internal light in coral is “stressful” for the algae and can delay their return.
“However, if the coral cells can still carry out at least some of their normal functions, despite the environmental stress that caused bleaching, the increased internal light levels will boost the production of colorful, photoprotective pigments,” Wiedenmann said in a statement accompanying the study.
Read rest at Courthouse News
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-05-22--Carmakers Set To Desert Climate-Obsessed Europe

Written by Daily Express on .
Posted in Latest news Europe ’ s car industry was put on alert for more job losses on Friday as a French minister warned Renault could disappear if it didn ’ t get help soon and a Japanese news report said partner Nissan was considering 20,000 layoffs , with many in Europe .
Renault and Nissan have been in a carmaking alliance for the past two decades and are due to announce a strategy update next Wednesday .
The plan was originally billed as a reset of their relationship , which was rocked by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the alliance ’ s architect and long-time boss Carlos Ghosn on charges of financial misconduct , which he denies .
However , the update has taken on greater significance since the coronavirus pandemic hammered demand for vehicles and threw production into disarray .
French finance minister Bruno Le Maire , who is considering a £4.5billion ( €5bn ) loan for Renault to help it through the crisis , warned on Friday the company ’ s future was at stake .
Le Maire said Renault ’ s French plant in Flins mustn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to keep as many jobs as possible in France , but also said it needed to adapt and be competitive .
The Flins factory , northwest of Paris , is where Renault makes its electric Zoe models and the Micra car for Nissan .
It employed around 2,640 people at the end of 2018 , according to Renault ’ s website .
The company has 40 plants and 13 logistics sites in 16 countries .
Kyodo , meanwhile , said Nissan might ax 20,000 jobs from its global workforce , mainly in Europe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ knowledge of the matter told Reuters the number of cuts had not been finalized .
The Japanese automaker said in July last year it would cut 12,500 employees , nearly 10 percent of its 140,000-strong workforce .
If it raises that figure to 20,000 , it would broadly match the number of jobs it shed during the 2009 global financial crisis .
Sources familiar with the matter told Reuters earlier this month that Nissan ’ s management had become convinced it needed to be much smaller and would likely cut 1 million cars @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a bigger role for the United States and China in car sales .
Sources have also said it plans to scale back its European business to focus on sport-utility and commercial vehicles , including possibly closing a plant in Spain , which employs around 3,000 people .

Written by Daily Express on May 22, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Europe’s car industry was put on alert for more job losses on Friday as a French minister warned Renault could disappear if it didn’t get help soon and a Japanese news report said partner Nissan was considering 20,000 layoffs, with many in Europe.
Renault and Nissan have been in a carmaking alliance for the past two decades and are due to announce a strategy update next Wednesday.
The plan was originally billed as a reset of their relationship, which was rocked by the November 2018 arrest in Japan of the alliance’s architect and long-time boss Carlos Ghosn on charges of financial misconduct, which he denies.
However, the update has taken on greater significance since the coronavirus pandemic hammered demand for vehicles and threw production into disarray.
French finance minister Bruno Le Maire, who is considering a £4.5billion (€5bn) loan for Renault to help it through the crisis, warned on Friday the company’s future was at stake.
“Yes, Renault could disappear,” he told Europe 1 radio.
Le Maire said Renault’s French plant in Flins mustn’t close and the company should be able to keep as many jobs as possible in France, but also said it needed to adapt and be competitive.
Renault declined to comment on Le Maire’s remarks.
The Flins factory, northwest of Paris, is where Renault makes its electric Zoe models and the Micra car for Nissan. It employed around 2,640 people at the end of 2018, according to Renault’s website.
The company has 40 plants and 13 logistics sites in 16 countries.
Kyodo, meanwhile, said Nissan might ax 20,000 jobs from its global workforce, mainly in Europe and developing countries.
Two people with knowledge of the matter told Reuters the number of cuts had not been finalized.
Nissan declined to comment.
The Japanese automaker said in July last year it would cut 12,500 employees, nearly 10 percent of its 140,000-strong workforce.
If it raises that figure to 20,000, it would broadly match the number of jobs it shed during the 2009 global financial crisis.
Sources familiar with the matter told Reuters earlier this month that Nissan’s management had become convinced it needed to be much smaller and would likely cut 1 million cars from its annual sales target while seeing a bigger role for the United States and China in car sales.
Sources have also said it plans to scale back its European business to focus on sport-utility and commercial vehicles, including possibly closing a plant in Spain, which employs around 3,000 people.
Read rest at Daily Express
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-05-22--Activists Want Global Warming Recorded On Death Certificates

Written by James Delingpole on .
Posted in Latest news Researchers at Australian National University ( ANU ) have called for ‘ climate change ’ to be recorded as a cause of death on death certificates .
They claim that in Australia , the rate of people dying as a result of global warming may be 50 times higher than is officially acknowledged .
In a letter to The Lancet Planetary Health , researchers Arnagretta Hunter and Simon Quilty claim the impact of climate change is currently understated .
According to the Sydney Morning Herald : Over the past 11 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have been recorded as being caused by excessive heat , but statistical analysis by two doctors with the Australian National University shows that 36,765 could have been attributed to heat .
“ Climate change is a killer , but we don ’ t acknowledge it on death certificates , ” co-author Arnagretta Hunter , from the ANU Medical School , said .
“ Climate change is the single greatest health threat that we face globally even after we recover from coronavirus .
“ We are successfully tracking deaths from coronavirus , but we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ acknowledge the relationship between our health and our environment.
” Dr Hunter and her co-author Dr Simon Quilty , call for death certificates to include more information about factors contributing to deaths .
Climate activists around the world see the coronavirus pandemic as a crisis that they must not allow to go to waste .
The timing of this letter suggests that they are learning their lessons well .
They may have noted that in many countries , the medical authorities have adopted extraordinarily lax policies towards the inclusion of “ Covid-19 ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , for example , as Ronan Maher has reported here and here , the Coronavirus Act ( 2020 ) includes clauses that make it possible for doctors to put Covid-19 as a cause of death on certificates without even having seen the patient before their death — and with little independent oversight .
This makes it quite possible that significant numbers of coronavirus victims either did not have the disease – or did have the disease but only as a minor adjunct to much more serious conditions that killed them .
As the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Health must surely be aware , including ‘ climate change ’ as a cause of death on death certificates is fraught with similar difficulties .
As well as being easily abused by activists with an agenda , it is impossible to attribute with any certainty even extreme weather events to climate change .

Written by James Delingpole on May 22, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Researchers at Australian National University (ANU) have called for ‘climate change’ to be recorded as a cause of death on death certificates.
They claim that in Australia, the rate of people dying as a result of global warming may be 50 times higher than is officially acknowledged.
In a letter to The Lancet Planetary Health, researchers Arnagretta Hunter and Simon Quilty claim the impact of climate change is currently understated.
National mortality records in Australia suggest substantial under-reporting of heat-related mortality. Less than 0·1% of 1·7 million deaths between 2006 and 2017 were attributed directly or indirectly to excessive natural heat. However, recent research indicates that official records underestimate the association at least 50-fold.
According to the Sydney Morning Herald:
Over the past 11 years in Australia, just 340 deaths have been recorded as being caused by excessive heat, but statistical analysis by two doctors with the Australian National University shows that 36,765 could have been attributed to heat. “Climate change is a killer, but we don’t acknowledge it on death certificates,” co-author Arnagretta Hunter, from the ANU Medical School, said.
And:
“Climate change is the single greatest health threat that we face globally even after we recover from coronavirus. “We are successfully tracking deaths from coronavirus, but we also need healthcare workers and systems to acknowledge the relationship between our health and our environment.” Dr Hunter and her co-author Dr Simon Quilty, call for death certificates to include more information about factors contributing to deaths.
Climate activists around the world see the coronavirus pandemic as a crisis that they must not allow to go to waste. The timing of this letter suggests that they are learning their lessons well.
They may have noted that in many countries, the medical authorities have adopted extraordinarily lax policies towards the inclusion of “Covid-19” on death certificates.
In the UK, for example, as Ronan Maher has reported here and here, the Coronavirus Act (2020) includes clauses that make it possible for doctors to put Covid-19 as a cause of death on certificates without even having seen the patient before their death — and with little independent oversight.
This makes it quite possible that significant numbers of coronavirus victims either did not have the disease – or did have the disease but only as a minor adjunct to much more serious conditions that killed them.
As the authors of the letter to Lancet Planetary Health must surely be aware, including ‘climate change’ as a cause of death on death certificates is fraught with similar difficulties.
As well as being easily abused by activists with an agenda, it is impossible to attribute with any certainty even extreme weather events to climate change.
Read more at Breitbart
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-05-22--Bowing To Activists, Google Won’t Build AI Tools For Oil And Gas Drillers

Written by Associated Press on .
Posted in Latest news Google says it will no longer build custom artificial intelligence tools for speeding up oil and gas extraction , separating itself from cloud computing rivals Microsoft and Amazon .
A statement from the company Tuesday followed a Greenpeace report that documents how the three tech giants are using AI and computing power to help oil companies find and access oil and gas deposits in the U.S. and around the world .
The environmentalist group says Amazon , Microsoft , and Google have been undermining their own climate change pledges by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , BP , Chevron , and ExxonMobil that have looked for new technology to get more oil and gas out of the ground .
But the group applauded Google on Tuesday for taking a step away from those deals .
“ While Google still has a few legacy contracts with oil and gas firms , we welcome this indication from Google that it will no longer build custom solutions for upstream oil and gas extraction , ” said Elizabeth Jardim , senior corporate campaigner for Greenpeace USA .
Google said it will honor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but didn ’ t specify what companies .
A Google cloud executive had earlier in May revealed the new policy during a video interview .
Greenpeace ’ s report says Microsoft appears to be leading the way with the most oil and contracts , “ offering AI capabilities in all phases of oil production.
” Amazon ’ s contracts are more focused on pipelines , shipping , and fuel storage , according to the report .
Their tools have been deployed to speed up shale extraction , especially from the Permian Basin of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the contracts have led to internal protests by employees who are pushing their companies to do more to combat climate change .
Amazon declined to comment on the Greenpeace report , but pointed to the wording on its website that said : “ the energy industry should have access to the same technologies as other industries.
” Microsoft published a blog statement Tuesday that didn ’ t address Greenpeace ’ s claims but emphasized the company ’ s commitment to remove from the air all the carbon it has ever emitted by 2050 @

Written by Associated Press on May 22, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Google says it will no longer build custom artificial intelligence tools for speeding up oil and gas extraction, separating itself from cloud computing rivals Microsoft and Amazon.
A statement from the company Tuesday followed a Greenpeace report that documents how the three tech giants are using AI and computing power to help oil companies find and access oil and gas deposits in the U.S. and around the world.
The environmentalist group says Amazon, Microsoft, and Google have been undermining their own climate change pledges by partnering with major oil companies including Shell, BP, Chevron, and ExxonMobil that have looked for new technology to get more oil and gas out of the ground.
But the group applauded Google on Tuesday for taking a step away from those deals.
“While Google still has a few legacy contracts with oil and gas firms, we welcome this indication from Google that it will no longer build custom solutions for upstream oil and gas extraction,” said Elizabeth Jardim, senior corporate campaigner for Greenpeace USA.
Google said it will honor all existing contracts with its customers, but didn’t specify what companies. A Google cloud executive had earlier in May revealed the new policy during a video interview.
Greenpeace’s report says Microsoft appears to be leading the way with the most oil and contracts, “offering AI capabilities in all phases of oil production.”
Amazon’s contracts are more focused on pipelines, shipping, and fuel storage, according to the report. Their tools have been deployed to speed up shale extraction, especially from the Permian Basin of Texas and New Mexico.
Some of the contracts have led to internal protests by employees who are pushing their companies to do more to combat climate change.
Amazon declined to comment on the Greenpeace report, but pointed to the wording on its website that said: “the energy industry should have access to the same technologies as other industries.”
Microsoft published a blog statement Tuesday that didn’t address Greenpeace’s claims but emphasized the company’s commitment to remove from the air all the carbon it has ever emitted by 2050.
Read more at NY Post
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-05-22--Biden Opposing Keystone Shows His Contempt For Canadians

Written by Lorrie Goldstein on .
Posted in Latest news There ’ s nothing surprising about presumptive U.S. Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden saying if he defeats Republican President Donald Trump in November , he ’ ll kill the Keystone XL pipeline .
This latest fight over the $ 8-billion , 1,930-km pipeline intended to move bitumen from Alberta ’ s oilsands to U.S. refineries on the Gulf Coast , is all about American presidential politics in which Canada is a bystander .
Intended to carry 830,000 barrels of crude oil daily , it was killed by Democratic president Barack @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about it for seven years .
At that time , Biden , as Obama ’ s vice-president , obviously backed his boss in opposing Keystone .
Never mind that Obama ’ s state department twice told him after major reviews of the project that it would not significantly increase industrial greenhouse gas emissions , and that any alternative method of moving crude oil from Alberta to the U.S. Gulf Coast would increase emissions compared to the Keystone XL .
Eventually , Obama ’ s Environmental Protection Agency gave him an embarrassing 2 1/2-page @ @ @ @ @ @ @ essay but said what Obama wanted to hear .
That is that , based on some incredibly flimsy logic , Keystone might someday increase emissions compared to other methods of transporting the oil to the U.S. Obama then killed Keystone XL , which he had the sole authority to do because it crossed the Canada-U.S. border .
This was to pander to American anti-pipeline protesters and to Obama ’ s political base of know-nothing , jet-setting Hollywood celebrities , who were wailing ( as they still do ) about climate change , while @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , because of their high-consumption lifestyles .
While killing Keystone , Obama simultaneously boasted out of the other side of his mouth , saying — as he did to U.S. pipeline workers in Oklahoma in 2012 — that under his presidency , “ we ’ ve added enough new oil and gas pipeline ( in the U.S. ) to encircle the earth and then some.
” Obama was never a friend of Canada on this issue .
Billionaire investor and Obama supporter Warren Buffett said he should have approved Keystone .
Obama vetoed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ heading into the 2015 Paris climate accord summit , since there was no political cost to him , given that Alberta oil workers have no say in U.S. politics .
Now Biden is using the same strategy to distinguish himself from Trump and highlight his promise to have the U.S. rejoin the Paris climate accord if he wins the election , which Trump scrapped .
As it was for Obama , bashing Keystone is an easy way for Biden to burnish his “ green ” credentials at no political cost to his Democratic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ less about oil workers in Canada or Alberta ’ s $ 1.5-billion investment in the project .
For good measure , unsuccessful U.S. Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton did the same thing leading up to the 2016 presidential election she lost to Trump , coming out against Keystone after saying in 2010 — when she was Obama ’ s secretary of state — that she was inclined to support it in the interests of energy security .
Keystone is still tied up in the American court system as it has been for years @ @ @ @ @ @ @ U.S. Democrats , election after election .

Written by Lorrie Goldstein on May 22, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
There’s nothing surprising about presumptive U.S. Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden saying if he defeats Republican President Donald Trump in November, he’ll kill the Keystone XL pipeline.
This latest fight over the $8-billion, 1,930-km pipeline intended to move bitumen from Alberta’s oilsands to U.S. refineries on the Gulf Coast, is all about American presidential politics in which Canada is a bystander.
Trump revived the Keystone XL pipeline project in 2017.
Intended to carry 830,000 barrels of crude oil daily, it was killed by Democratic president Barack Obama in 2015, after he dithered about it for seven years.
At that time, Biden, as Obama’s vice-president, obviously backed his boss in opposing Keystone.
Never mind that Obama’s state department twice told him after major reviews of the project that it would not significantly increase industrial greenhouse gas emissions, and that any alternative method of moving crude oil from Alberta to the U.S. Gulf Coast would increase emissions compared to the Keystone XL.
Eventually, Obama’s Environmental Protection Agency gave him an embarrassing 2 1/2-page opinion that read like a high school essay but said what Obama wanted to hear.
That is that, based on some incredibly flimsy logic, Keystone might someday increase emissions compared to other methods of transporting the oil to the U.S.
Obama then killed Keystone XL, which he had the sole authority to do because it crossed the Canada-U.S. border.
This was to pander to American anti-pipeline protesters and to Obama’s political base of know-nothing, jet-setting Hollywood celebrities, who were wailing (as they still do) about climate change, while leaving huge carbon footprints in their wake, because of their high-consumption lifestyles.
While killing Keystone, Obama simultaneously boasted out of the other side of his mouth, saying — as he did to U.S. pipeline workers in Oklahoma in 2012 — that under his presidency, “we’ve added enough new oil and gas pipeline (in the U.S.) to encircle the earth and then some.”
Obama was never a friend of Canada on this issue.
Billionaire investor and Obama supporter Warren Buffett said he should have approved Keystone.
Washington Post fact-checker Glenn Kessler gave Obama “four Pinocchios” for telling “whoppers” (lies) about Keystone.
Obama vetoed it to burnish his phony environmental credentials heading into the 2015 Paris climate accord summit, since there was no political cost to him, given that Alberta oil workers have no say in U.S. politics.
Now Biden is using the same strategy to distinguish himself from Trump and highlight his promise to have the U.S. rejoin the Paris climate accord if he wins the election, which Trump scrapped.
As it was for Obama, bashing Keystone is an easy way for Biden to burnish his “green” credentials at no political cost to his Democratic base, who couldn’t care less about oil workers in Canada or Alberta’s $1.5-billion investment in the project.
For good measure, unsuccessful U.S. Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton did the same thing leading up to the 2016 presidential election she lost to Trump, coming out against Keystone after saying in 2010 — when she was Obama’s secretary of state — that she was inclined to support it in the interests of energy security.
Keystone is still tied up in the American court system as it has been for years, a convenient punching bag for hypocritical U.S. Democrats, election after election.
Read more at Toronto Sun
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-05-22--An Autumnal Wuhan Virus Rebound Would Discredit Climate Alarmists

Written by James Taylor on .
Posted in Latest news In a desperate attempt to deny that global warming can bring any significant benefit , climate alarmists have brushed aside assertions that warm temperatures may slow the spread or severity of COVID-19 .
After all , an earlier onset of warm summer temperatures , a later onset of cool autumn temperatures , and warmer temperatures in regions where summers can still remain cool would prove to be global warming benefits if warm temperatures stifle the virus .
But this goes against everything climate alarmists have been peddling about global warming @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Warmer temperatures stifling COVID-19 is bad news for climate alarmists but good news for everybody else on the planet .
Let ’ s hope the flattened and receding curve of coronavirus cases here in the United States will continue through the fall and throughout the year .
Nevertheless , advocates of perpetual government restrictions on our personal freedoms warn it is risky to ease government restrictions now because currently , warm temperatures may be masking an inevitable second wave of the virus when temperatures cool in the fall .
Ironically , these @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who recently denied that global warming may be lessening the terrible impacts of the virus .
First , they tell us warm temperatures will do us no good fighting coronavirus .
Then , they tell us to expect a fall rebound when temperatures cool .
Well , which is it ?
Do warmer temperatures inhibit the virus , which reveals another benefit of our modest global warming , or is there no reason to fear an autumn coronavirus rebound ?
Climate alarmists can ’ t have it both ways .
Indeed , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ CNN , and many other reliably leftist/climate alarmist media outlets have repeatedly and condescendingly lectured us that warmer temperatures this summer will not significantly inhibit COVID-19 .
Now , however , as the coronavirus curve has flattened and states begin to reopen , these same media outlets warn us that a potential fall coronavirus rebound makes restoring people ’ s freedoms too reckless and too risky .
From the climate alarmist perspective , the recent decline in coronavirus cases has had nothing to do with the onset of summer .
If that is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be behind us .
If coronavirus rebounds in the fall , however , climate alarmists owe the rest of us an apology and an acknowledgment that global warming is benefiting humans in the battle against this global pandemic .

Written by James Taylor on May 22, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
In a desperate attempt to deny that global warming can bring any significant benefit, climate alarmists have brushed aside assertions that warm temperatures may slow the spread or severity of COVID-19.
After all, an earlier onset of warm summer temperatures, a later onset of cool autumn temperatures, and warmer temperatures in regions where summers can still remain cool would prove to be global warming benefits if warm temperatures stifle the virus.
But this goes against everything climate alarmists have been peddling about global warming being a one-way street of catastrophic news.
Warmer temperatures stifling COVID-19 is bad news for climate alarmists but good news for everybody else on the planet.
Let’s hope the flattened and receding curve of coronavirus cases here in the United States will continue through the fall and throughout the year.
Nevertheless, advocates of perpetual government restrictions on our personal freedoms warn it is risky to ease government restrictions now because currently, warm temperatures may be masking an inevitable second wave of the virus when temperatures cool in the fall.
Ironically, these advocates tend to be the same people who recently denied that global warming may be lessening the terrible impacts of the virus.
First, they tell us warm temperatures will do us no good fighting coronavirus. Then, they tell us to expect a fall rebound when temperatures cool.
Well, which is it? Do warmer temperatures inhibit the virus, which reveals another benefit of our modest global warming, or is there no reason to fear an autumn coronavirus rebound?
Climate alarmists can’t have it both ways.
Indeed, the New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, and many other reliably leftist/climate alarmist media outlets have repeatedly and condescendingly lectured us that warmer temperatures this summer will not significantly inhibit COVID-19.
Now, however, as the coronavirus curve has flattened and states begin to reopen, these same media outlets warn us that a potential fall coronavirus rebound makes restoring people’s freedoms too reckless and too risky.
From the climate alarmist perspective, the recent decline in coronavirus cases has had nothing to do with the onset of summer.
If that is the case, the worst appears to be behind us. If coronavirus rebounds in the fall, however, climate alarmists owe the rest of us an apology and an acknowledgment that global warming is benefiting humans in the battle against this global pandemic.
Read more at Climate Realism
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-05-22--BlackRock Skirts Shareholder Questions On China, Climate Stance

Written by Valerie Richardson on .
Posted in Latest news BlackRock grappled with a couple of political landmines Thursday at its annual shareholders ’ meeting from conservative and progressive activists seeking to pin down the world ’ s largest asset manager on climate change and social justice .
A resolution pushing BlackRock to follow through on its recent agreement to adopt a “ sustainable ” corporate model garnered 3.85 % of the vote , more than the 3 % needed to bring the measure forward again in 2021 .
“ Now is the time to turn words into action , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to , and create a just and sustainable economy for us and for our children , ” said Andrew Behar , CEO of the leftist shareholder advocacy group As You Sow , which introduced the resolution .
Fueling the pressure on BlackRock is its fiduciary role in administering the $ 2.2 trillion Coronavirus Aid , Relief and Economic Security ( CARES ) Act , prompting questions about whether the $ 7 trillion investment firm is treating businesses in a politically neutral manner .
At Thursday ’ s remote shareholder meeting , BlackRock CEO @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about the discrepancy between the firm ’ s recent embrace of Environmental , Social and Governance ( ESG ) initiatives and its extensive investments in China , given its “ deplorable ” record on human rights and greenhouse-gas emissions .
Justin Danhof , general counsel of the conservative National Center for Public Policy Research , accused Mr. Fink of “ extreme corporate cowardice ” for failing to address the company ’ s “ hypocritical ” stance .
Mr. Fink “ consistently brags about his commitment to pushing environmental , social , and governance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a new ‘ stakeholder ’ capitalism , ” Mr. Danhof said in a statement .
“ Yet when I asked him about the two-faced nature of these hollow boasts against the backdrop of BlackRock ’ s promotion of Chinese investments that lack any ESG stewardship , he couldn ’ t answer the question.
” BlackRock has come under pressure from the right and left after Mr. Fink signed in August the Business Roundtable ’ s left-leaning new Statement on the Purpose of a Corporation , then announced in January a “ fundamental reshaping @ @ @ @ @ @ @ climate risk.
” While Mr. Fink has not responded to the criticism on the right , he said at Thursday ’ s meeting that he believes BlackRock already was operating “ in accordance with the principles and commitments consistent with the Business Roundtable ’ s New Purpose , ” according to As You Sow .
“ However , he gave no implementation details appearing to believe that the New Purpose was already implemented , disregarding the many contradictions between words and actions highlighted in the proposal , ” the environmental group said in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ resolution also asked whether BlackRock would make the “ new purpose ” statement legally binding and “ assist ” the thousands of companies in which the firm invests to adopt the statement .
The group pushed BlackRock to oppose a proposed Securities and Exchange Commission rule change that would raise the threshold on shareholder resolutions , making it more difficult to pass increasingly popular proposals on climate change and social justice .
“ We agree with The World Economic Forum , the Business Roundtable , and BlackRock on the path forward , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ This requires an alignment of words and actions .
Yet , historically BlackRock has voted for nearly every egregious CEO pay package and against nearly every climate resolution .
This cognitive dissonance is troubling.
” Conservatives , meanwhile , focused on the dissonance between BlackRock ’ s climate push and its China investments .
On Wednesday , BlackRock said Chinese stocks are “ still worth holding ” in a report , “ 3 reasons to like Chinese stocks .
”

Written by Valerie Richardson on May 22, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
BlackRock grappled with a couple of political landmines Thursday at its annual shareholders’ meeting from conservative and progressive activists seeking to pin down the world’s largest asset manager on climate change and social justice.
A resolution pushing BlackRock to follow through on its recent agreement to adopt a “sustainable” corporate model garnered 3.85% of the vote, more than the 3% needed to bring the measure forward again in 2021.
“Now is the time to turn words into action, to actively implement the ideas already agreed to, and create a just and sustainable economy for us and for our children,” said Andrew Behar, CEO of the leftist shareholder advocacy group As You Sow, which introduced the resolution.
Fink Thinks BlackRock Already ‘Operates in Accordance’ With New Purpose of a Corporation, however, he gave no implementation details appearing to believe that the New Purpose was already implemented, disregarding the many contradictions between words and actions highlighted in… — Andrew Behar (@andrewbehar) May 21, 2020
Fueling the pressure on BlackRock is its fiduciary role in administering the $2.2 trillion Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security (CARES) Act, prompting questions about whether the $7 trillion investment firm is treating businesses in a politically neutral manner.
At Thursday’s remote shareholder meeting, BlackRock CEO Larry Fink declined to take a question about the discrepancy between the firm’s recent embrace of Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) initiatives and its extensive investments in China, given its “deplorable” record on human rights and greenhouse-gas emissions.
Justin Danhof, general counsel of the conservative National Center for Public Policy Research, accused Mr. Fink of “extreme corporate cowardice” for failing to address the company’s “hypocritical” stance.
Mr. Fink “consistently brags about his commitment to pushing environmental, social, and governance [ESG] causes as part of a new ‘stakeholder’ capitalism,” Mr. Danhof said in a statement.
“Yet when I asked him about the two-faced nature of these hollow boasts against the backdrop of BlackRock’s promotion of Chinese investments that lack any ESG stewardship, he couldn’t answer the question.”
BlackRock has come under pressure from the right and left after Mr. Fink signed in August the Business Roundtable’s left-leaning new Statement on the Purpose of a Corporation, then announced in January a “fundamental reshaping” of its focus driven by “climate risk.”
While Mr. Fink has not responded to the criticism on the right, he said at Thursday’s meeting that he believes BlackRock already was operating “in accordance with the principles and commitments consistent with the Business Roundtable’s New Purpose,” according to As You Sow.
“However, he gave no implementation details appearing to believe that the New Purpose was already implemented, disregarding the many contradictions between words and actions highlighted in the proposal,” the environmental group said in a statement.
The As You Sow resolution also asked whether BlackRock would make the “new purpose” statement legally binding and “assist” the thousands of companies in which the firm invests to adopt the statement.
The group pushed BlackRock to oppose a proposed Securities and Exchange Commission rule change that would raise the threshold on shareholder resolutions, making it more difficult to pass increasingly popular proposals on climate change and social justice.
“We agree with The World Economic Forum, the Business Roundtable, and BlackRock on the path forward,” Mr. Behar said in prepared remarks.
“This requires an alignment of words and actions. Yet, historically BlackRock has voted for nearly every egregious CEO pay package and against nearly every climate resolution. This cognitive dissonance is troubling.”
Conservatives, meanwhile, focused on the dissonance between BlackRock’s climate push and its China investments. On Wednesday, BlackRock said Chinese stocks are “still worth holding” in a report, “3 reasons to like Chinese stocks.”
Read rest at Washington Times
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-05-24--Small Algae Bloom In Antarctica Freaks Out Alarmist Media

Written by H. Sterling Burnett on .
Posted in Latest news Life is spawning in a few , tiny locations in Antarctica that recently did not sustain life .
As small amounts of surface ice turn to slush in a few locations , small amounts of algae have sprung to life in the icy slush .
The cumulative total of algae is less than a square mile .
Incredibly ( or maybe not ) , alarmists and their media stooges are declaring a crisis .
CNN ’ s scaremongering headline announces , “ Snow is turning green in Antarctica — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” IFL Science hypes the horror with a headline , “ The Climate Crisis Is Turning Antarctic Snow Green.
” Many other prominent media outlets published articles with similarly alarmist titles .
A team of British researchers published a study in Nature Communication , indicating that during the Antarctic summer , temporary algae blooms cover a combined 1.9 square kilometers ( 0.73 square miles ) on the Antarctic peninsula .
Two-thirds of the algae formed on small low-altitude islands .
Most formed in the immediate vicinity and thriving on the droppings of , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
To put the size of the algae blooms in perspective , Antarctica is 14,200,000 square kilometers in size , so the seasonal blooms affect approximately 0.00001 % of the continent .
Although sometimes dormant or covered with snow , algae , lichen , and moss have always been present in these areas , particularly where large groups of penguins congregate and huddle , fertilized by the nutrients of their excrement .
Indeed , the study shows most or all of the blooms were located either within 5 kilometers ( 3.1 miles ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other birds nest or where seals congregate onshore .
The media uniformly claim that a small bit of life forming from the nutrients in penguin excrement in very small portions of Antarctica is a climate crisis .
But is that truly the case ?
The fake new media claim this less-than-one-square-mile of temporary algae absorb light and heat , unlike white snow , and therefore will cause substantial additional global warming .
IFL Science reports , “ White snow reflects around 80 percent of the Sun ’ s radiation , while green snow @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this only tells part of the story .
The algae act as carbon dioxide sinks , meaning they take more carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere than they release .
As the ISL Science article admits , “ these blooms , which act as a carbon sink , remove 479 tons of atmospheric carbon dioxide per year—equivalent to the emission of 486 planes traveling between New York and London.
” Well , if you believe in a climate crisis , isn ’ t that good news ?
The algae blooms will always be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ extremely cold winters .
Winter temperatures average −10°C on the Antarctic coast to −60°C at the highest parts of the interior .
Even if the algae expand modestly in the short summer months , the algae will mitigate global warming by taking more carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere .
So how and why is a tiny bit of algae that takes carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere a “ crisis , ” ISL Science ?
And why will this make climate change worse , CNN ?
It doesn ’ t really matter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can add another fictitious “ crisis ” to The Climate Delusion .

Written by H. Sterling Burnett on May 24, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Life is spawning in a few, tiny locations in Antarctica that recently did not sustain life.
As small amounts of surface ice turn to slush in a few locations, small amounts of algae have sprung to life in the icy slush.
The cumulative total of algae is less than a square mile. Incredibly (or maybe not), alarmists and their media stooges are declaring a crisis.
CNN’s scaremongering headline announces, “Snow is turning green in Antarctica — and climate change will make it worse.”
IFL Science hypes the horror with a headline, “The Climate Crisis Is Turning Antarctic Snow Green.” Many other prominent media outlets published articles with similarly alarmist titles.
A team of British researchers published a study in Nature Communication, indicating that during the Antarctic summer, temporary algae blooms cover a combined 1.9 square kilometers (0.73 square miles) on the Antarctic peninsula.
Two-thirds of the algae formed on small low-altitude islands. Most formed in the immediate vicinity and thriving on the droppings of, penguin colonies flourishing on the Antarctic peninsula.
To put the size of the algae blooms in perspective, Antarctica is 14,200,000 square kilometers in size, so the seasonal blooms affect approximately 0.00001% of the continent.
Although sometimes dormant or covered with snow, algae, lichen, and moss have always been present in these areas, particularly where large groups of penguins congregate and huddle, fertilized by the nutrients of their excrement.
Indeed, the study shows most or all of the blooms were located either within 5 kilometers (3.1 miles) of a penguin colony, or where other birds nest or where seals congregate onshore.
The media uniformly claim that a small bit of life forming from the nutrients in penguin excrement in very small portions of Antarctica is a climate crisis.
But is that truly the case?
The fake new media claim this less-than-one-square-mile of temporary algae absorb light and heat, unlike white snow, and therefore will cause substantial additional global warming.
IFL Science reports, “White snow reflects around 80 percent of the Sun’s radiation, while green snow only reflects about 45 percent.” But this only tells part of the story.
The algae act as carbon dioxide sinks, meaning they take more carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere than they release.
As the ISL Science article admits, “these blooms, which act as a carbon sink, remove 479 tons of atmospheric carbon dioxide per year—equivalent to the emission of 486 planes traveling between New York and London.”
Well, if you believe in a climate crisis, isn’t that good news?
The algae blooms will always be constrained by Antarctica’s long, extremely cold winters. Winter temperatures average −10°C on the Antarctic coast to −60°C at the highest parts of the interior.
Even if the algae expand modestly in the short summer months, the algae will mitigate global warming by taking more carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere.
So how and why is a tiny bit of algae that takes carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere a “crisis,” ISL Science? And why will this make climate change worse, CNN?
It doesn’t really matter to them, so long as they can add another fictitious “crisis” to The Climate Delusion.
Read more at Climate Realism
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print