Guest essay by Eric Worrall –
Climate Change is so low on the list of corporate priorities, that in Price Waterhouse Cooper’s latest survey of chief executive officers, climate concerns didn’t even make the list of questions.
According to The Guardian;
“In a critical year for action to prevent runaway climate change, one would hope the issue would rank high on chief executives’ list of business risks to worry about.
So it comes as a shock to discover that climate change appears so low on their list of concerns that professional services group Price Waterhouse Coopers did not even bother to include it in its global survey of business leaders.
PwC’s 18th annual global CEO survey, released Tuesday to coincide with the opening of the World Economic Forum in Davos, failed to even ask 1,322 business leaders about their global warming concerns after only 10% registered concern the previous year.
A spokeswoman for PwC said that climate change did not make it into the top 19 risks CEOs were questioned about because of their lack of interest in the subject.”
This total lack of concern about climate change makes a total mockery of activist claims that climate change is significantly impacting global economic activity.
If climate change were to say knock 10% off the profits of a major agri-business, climate would surely top their list of worries.
The fact that a credible source like PwC has demonstrated that climate change, as a corporate issue, rates somewhere below making sure the tea trolley arrives on time, conclusively demonstrates that climate change is having no impact whatsoever on global economic activity and corporate earnings. Any claim to the contrary is unfounded activist hype.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
CEOs are only concerned with Climate change or any other issue if it can be used as leverage for influencing government regulations or mitigating government regulations. The key point is government regulation not climate are CEOs concerns.
If you are a not CEO not in the energy industry, misguided and stupid government actions are not a concern. In the property insurance industry it is an excuse to raise rates which is not something they want to advertise. I can see the ad now running in the Super bowl, “We care about climate change, that’s why we are increasing your premiums.”
Wash Post has a columnist run a cliche/soundbite-heavy re-hash of marching orders…nothing new, nothing insightful, and plenty wrong – SRSLY? The polar bears?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/catherine-rampell-dangerously-in-denial-on-climate-change/2015/01/19/20796658-a01c-11e4-b146-577832eafcb4_story.html
Look for this to morph into the “evil CEO” meme…
My guess at copy: “Fat cat CEOs run corporations that rape the environment, so it is no surprise they care little about climate change. In fact, a recent survey firm found so few CEOs cared about climate change they stopped asking the question! I guess CEO 1%ers feel like they have theirs and screw the rest of us! Get your pitchforks! Let’s raise their taxes (and raze their homes!!!)”
James
Read the Guardian post. [They’re] not ‘Evil’ just ‘Stupid’, but can read the ‘correct facts’ in the pdf linked.
http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2015/jan/20/global-warming-business-risks-government-regulation-taxes
The survey highlights just how little CEOs understand climate change and the impacts it will have for generations to come. Unless action is taken now, it will be impossible to keep within the global goal of a 2C temperature rise (pdf) to prevent irreversible climate change.
bold links to http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/s/e/2degrees-map.pdf
“…how little CEOs understand climate change…”
Of course, they will only truly “understand” climate change when they accede to every demand of the activists. Until that day arrives, the shrieking, accusations, hysteria and doom-mongering will not cease.
Politicians and their spin doctors love climate change they can promise anything they like, and right or wrong the results will only come home long after they are gone. The public are far more cynical of politicians and science claims and most simply tune out at the first mention of the words “climate change”.
The politicians will no doubt try to pull some “non binding” agreement out of the hat in Paris and kick the can further along to 2020 or so. That buys another 5 years of spin and some nice junkets along the way.
It was a good attempt by the politicians to get a tax on “air” that would only leave a tax on “sex” left to chase down and they would have the long sought after tax coverage.
The politically correct thing is to not argue with the zealots, but do nothing. If pressed, take out an ad claiming “concern”. After all, you are fiddle-faddling with politicians who act the same way…ie millions or passionate words about income equality for the sexes, but somehow it can’t actually be managed for the white house staff.
One could find hundreds (thousands?) of similar examples. In te public eye, like corporate brass, what one says has to do with the sensibilities of the audience, even if idiotic….not what one believes.
More from the irony and hypocrisy wall of shame.
In last nights state of the union Obama touted the boom in oil and gas as one of his achievements. Later of course he touted the national security dangers of climate change. Go figure.
POTUS would have done well in the big corporate world as well. He knows the first rule of success. Take credit for anything good that happens on your watch and deflect blame for anything bad. I have seen it work for other incompetents in the corporate arena.
Conservatives need to take some lessons from him and how he got elected. No specifics on what you will do if elected, just “hope and change” type BS, get a young, reasonably good looking candidate that is a good talker. Republicans are their own worst enemy when they put up old, or possibly, old fat, men against sweet talking democrats who are good at deception. And no whimps, please! Scott Walker looks really good to me but I don’t hear much about him yet.
I like Walker too but I don’t know if he has enough swagger to beat Hillary.
She’s been in Washington politics since 92.
I like that he’s not an attorney.
Hell, he’s not even a college graduate but he’s a decent governor.
The trouble is she can lie very well.
And she’s not afraid to tell a lie to cover up previous lie.
Remember, she was taught politics and lying by the best.
Walker may be too honest to win POTUS.
mikerestin,
Maybe a young well spoken good looking guy can beat an old fat woman. Most important, large portions of the female population don’t like her and many folks in general find her lies pretty transparent. I think we have a chance this time if we don’t choose an old/fat man, but then I did’nt believe the present occupant of the office could win again either. Never underestimate the power of stupidity.
Reblogged this on Sierra Foothill Commentary and commented:
Heads up local lefties, global warming is no longer a concern of the business community. Only the political left are still hanging on to this failed science.
I think most CEO’s view “Climate Change” fear mongering like they did the Y2K scare — something that needs to be considered but is ultimately dismissed as baseless. Let’s be honest, this has been going on for thirty five years now, without any discernible adverse effects, other than those created by politicians.
Unfortunately, unlike the Y2K crisis, this nonsense does not have a built in finality, and continues to live on in the minds of the simple minded slogan chanters.
More evidence: At time of commenting this article has 65 comments. I’ve not read them yet but they must demonstrate interest.
The linked Guardian article has only 23 comments.
The numbers of alarmed and engaged is about half the numbers of sceptical and engaged enough to comment.
Need Help!
I’ve been writing letters to editor for local paper and they publish them (and neighbor John McClaughry – look him up) re lack of global warming, increase in atmospheric CO2, Susan’s polar bears are OK . . . that this is all politics and money and here in McKibben and Sanders Vermont there is monumental ignorance.
In return I am now receiving threats (I’m retired science professor who apparently struck a nerve) and my wife (health care provider) is the one taking the on-site heat out in community. My final letter – out today – essentially says, as does this piece, that no one cares about climate change but if you want to learn more, check out WUWT.
I have to stop writing, except for the odd innocence thing that reveals that I am not rabid, but Please fire away at –
http://caledonianrecord.com/ click on Submit – Opinion – post your letter.
Thanks
It may not be much but I was wondering how the UK headquartered PWC feels about the UK’s warmer winters. I think they have been sticking their heads out of their windows in the past few years to see climate change. That is what they told us to do: look around you, climate change is everywhere. PWC execs must be pissed with climastrologists after worrying that their “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,”
*Children just aren’t going to know what snow is*
Charles Onians of The Independent is a twit.
What an ass this guy is. Someone ought to put this moronic article in a time capsule that the deprived children of 2030 can open and then laugh about as they slip and slide in the snow and on the ice.
These global warming idiots are unbelievable.
For my part, I say, If global warming weren’t a ridiculous hoax, then they wouldn’t have had to change the term to “climate change”. Hmmm?
Don’t worry, people in the UK will soon become Warmists because of ‘climate change’.
21 January 2015 – UK
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/01/21/24E6B1D500000578-2919826-This_was_the_scene_this_morning_in_Foolow_Derbyshire_in_the_Peak-a-14_1421852956197.jpg
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2919826/Snow-causes-travel-chaos-UK-roads-blocked-car-breaking-TWO-SECONDS-runways-closed-s-plenty-come.html
Price water house should have asked the question. It could serve as a barometer of the worry we will see in the EU as electric power becomes unstable and we get more brownouts in the future. Don’t forget we have the eu goal to cut emissions by 40 % around 2030. This is going to cost an arm anda leg and will cause problems for all those happy CEOs who forget this global warming issue is a huge looming problem. And the problem could be government policies used to keep the EU offering leadership to India, China, Russia, and Saudi Arabia.
Perhaps the question wasn’t asked because important clients didn’t want the answers they were likely to get.
You don’t have to accept, explain or deny the thing that isn’t said.
Apparently the US Senate hasn’t noticed.
http://news.sciencemag.org/climate/2015/01/updated-u-s-senate-set-vote-whether-climate-change-hoax
“Climate change falling so far off the public radar, a major polling house didn’t even bother asking about it this year”
There is another way of looking at this statement……..and that is that the corporate world both sees money to be made from CAGW, and is to a degree reliant on Government subsidies and so why ask the question…..its a done deal. You only have to see the arguments for a retention of the RET scheme in Australia from business, to see that big business has become reliant on the CAGW scam.
So if business is happy with the existing Ponzi scheme, why ask a question which could rock the boat……..better to leave sleeping dogs lie, and claim that no one is interested.
If the US economy is over $10 trillion annually and global climate change business is $1 billion per day, at best the climate change industry represents no more than 0.3% of economic activity in the US. Energy costs are probably the most important economic factor for businesses’.
Sanity at last.
Big business knows there is no more money to be squeezed out of this scam.
There is is still some taxpayer money left for those with grant addiction.
Let’s hope cold turkey is not far off.
How did WUWT perform since the collapse of public interest for AGW? Did it’s audience rise because it was kind of a trendsetter and on the right side even before not being a warmist was cool? Or has it lost visitors like all other sites related to that fad because practically nobody in the real world cares about AGW anymore.
[Reply: WUWT has gained traffic since Climategate. ~ mod.]
[WUWT traffic has been increasing significantly the past two years, and traffic (number of replies and number of threads and number of readers) is faster yet as 2014 aged into 2015. .mod]
Remains to be seen, don’t it ?
I see it still retains your interest.
As proof of the corruption of government and science it’s more relevant than ever. As a proven non-problem interest has waned.
*The fact that a credible source like PwC has demonstrated that climate change, as a corporate issue, rates somewhere below making sure the tea trolley arrives on time, conclusively demonstrates that climate change is having no impact whatsoever on global economic activity and corporate earnings.*
That’s as it should be since global warming is a hoax.
Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming, aka Climate Change, didn’t even show up in the top 20 concerns of US citizens in a recent Gallop Poll.
See: http://www.gallup.com/poll/180398/cluster-concerns-vie-top-problem-2014.aspx
Given that it has hardly warmed in the last 18 years one can hardly be surprised.
The only people who are concerned are the whacko greenie organizations and government trough-feeders who both stand to lose funding if the hysteria goes away.
Atmospheric CO2 is identified as a climate change forcing with units of J sec-1 m-2 by the ‘consensus’ and the IPCC. Energy, in units J M-2 divided by the effective thermal capacitance equals average global temperature (AGT). Thus the time-integral of the atmospheric CO2 level times a scale factor equals the AGT change.
For 8000+ years the temperature trend has been flat while the CO2 level has been in the range 260-280 ppmv. This mandates that the scale factor be zero.
Since 2001 the temperature trend has been flat while the CO2 level has been in the range 380-400 ppmv. This also mandates that the scale factor be zero.
Together these observations lead to the expectation that ‘climate sensitivity’ to a doubling of CO2 level will also be zero.
The two factors that do explain the temperature rise since the depths of the Little Ice Age and the flat trend since 2001(95% correlation since before 1900) are identified at http://agwunveiled.blogspot.com
Yeah, I’ve said that many times.
It’s not surprising the world’s top CEOs don’t see climate change as a big concern. The world’s top economists also ranked climate change as low priority (12th rank). Higher priorities than climate change are deworming of school children and salt reduction in processed foods.
http://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/copenhagen-consensus-iii/outcome
“If climate change were to say knock 10% off the profits of a major agri-business, climate would surely top their list of worries.”
If a rogue, unsecured printing press went wild, chasing down and eating all the journalists at a newspaper then having adequate bolts to secure the next printing press would certainly top their list of priorities.
If journalists did their jobs objectively instead of fabricating ridiculous business loss scenarios then this whole world would be better off.
Remember, just because one printing press went ballistic doesn’t mean all of them will. Most are hard working, reliable assets to their employers..
Why is the Guardian still in business? Wasn’t London supposed to be under eight feet of water about 10 years ago?