Greenwashing Has Suddenly Become Very Expensive

green-drain-money

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

Companies which took the easy route of paying lip service to climate issues, instead of opposing green lies, may be about to pay a high price for their decades of complacency.

According to the WSJ;

Enlist the Market in the Climate-Change Fight

Standardized disclosure of climate risk will help secure long-term value for investors and taxpayers.

Even before the devastating flooding began in Louisiana last week, and we learned that July 2016 shattered all global temperature records, mounting data had demonstrated the growing risks climate change poses to the global economy. Whether you are an investor assessing the $2 trillion in bonds that Moody’s found carry elevated near-term climate risk, one of the nearly two million U.S. homeowners facing significant risk from climate-related flooding, or a U.S. taxpayer staring at $360 billion in direct government costs from extreme weather over the past decade—these threats are looming, large and increasing.

This year’s World Economic Forum Global Risks Report declared the “failure of climate-change mitigation and adaptation” the “risk with the greatest potential impact in 2016.” Yet financial markets suffer from an alarming lack of standardized and comparable climate-risk information, which keeps investors and policy makers from accurately incorporating these risks into their decisions. Combating climate change requires not only leveraging bold action by governments to cut carbon pollution, but also harnessing the power of market forces with clear, uniformly disclosed assessments of climate-related economic risks.

This starts by changing the way the federal government does business. On Friday, the Federal Emergency Management Agency is proposing the first update to federal flood standards in 40 years. These needed changes will reduce the risks and costs of flood disasters, including lost lives and up to hundreds of millions in taxpayer dollars. In coming months, our Housing and Transportation Departments will issue similar, new standards.

Likewise, the administration recently proposed requiring that all companies doing business with the federal government publicly disclose what they know about their climate-risk exposure. This information will be a factor in taxpayer-funded contracting decisions. The administration is also working to increase disclosure of climate risks that America’s more than 140 million pension beneficiaries face in their investments. And we now require that our agencies consider and publicly disclose climate risk when undertaking other major federal actions, like leases of public resources, issuance of permits, and investment in infrastructure.

Read more: http://www.wsj.com/articles/enlist-the-market-in-the-climate-change-fight-1471561052

The World Economic Forum report;

What are the top global risks for 2016?

From the environment to international security and the coming Fourth Industrial Revolution, the World Economic Forum’s Global Risks Report 2016 finds risks on the rise in 2016.

In this year’s annual survey, almost 750 experts assessed 29 separate global risks for both impact and likelihood over a 10-year time horizon. The risk with the greatest potential impact in 2016 was found to be a failure of climate change mitigation and adaptation. This is the first time since the report was published in 2006 that an environmental risk has topped the ranking. This year, it was considered to have greater potential damage than weapons of mass destruction (2nd), water crises (3rd), large-scale involuntary migration (4th) and severe energy price shock (5th).

Read more: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/01/what-are-the-top-global-risks-for-2016/

The Obama Administration of course is leading the charge, by moving towards requiring private tenders for government contracts to be assessed on how much climate risk information the tenderers submit.

The Federal announcement referenced by the World Economic Forum article;

Making Federal Acquisitions Climate-Smart

MAY 25, 2016 AT 10:00 AM ET BY ANNE RUNG, ALI ZAIDI, CHRISTINE HARADA

Summary: Today, the Administration proposed a rule that would drive greater disclosure of greenhouse gas emissions & climate-related risk data among the Government’s supply chain.

The idiom that ‘you don’t manage what you don’t measure’ holds when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions and climate-related risk.

It’s the responsible thing to do to take steps to understand the sustainability – and challenges – associated with your supply chain; and that’s especially true when you’re the Federal Government and that supply chain exceeds $400 billion per year.

Today’s action does just that.

Today the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council proposed for public comment a rule that would drive greater disclosure in the Federal Government’s supply chain to indicate if and where contractors and vendors publicly disclose greenhouse gas emissions, greenhouse gas reduction goals or targets, and climate-related risks—such as physical risks to operations associated with extreme weather events. The proposed rule puts even more focus on how we manage the Federal Government’s supply chain and the data we need to do that responsibly, and it leverages the Federal Government’s purchasing power to push for this type of unprecedented disclosure Government-wide.

By understanding where larger contractors and vendors that sell goods and services to the Federal Government disclose this information, we’ll be able to better assess supplier greenhouse gas management practices, manage direct and indirect greenhouse gas emission, address climate-risk in the Federal Government’s supply chain, and engage with contractors to reduce supply chain emissions.

Already, individual Federal agencies have started to manage their supply chains in this way. For example, just last month, the Department of Navy requested that its 100 largest suppliers disclose their greenhouse gas emissions and strategies for cutting them. And in 2014, the U.S. General Services Administration factored in greenhouse gas intensity (paired with estimated damages from those emissions) to make multi-million dollar contract awards for domestic delivery services for both air and ground shipments.

There are significant existing demand drivers for disclosure of greenhouse gas emissions and climate-related risk data, including growing calls from investors, insurers, and institutions like the Financial Stability Board. Today’s announcement sends another clear market signal that there is strong interest for disclosure of greenhouse gas emissions and climate-related risk data government-wide.

Anne Rung is the U.S. Chief Acquisition Officer.

Ali Zaidi is the Associate Director for Natural Resources, Energy, and Science at the Office of Management and Budget.

Christine Harada is the Federal Chief Sustainability Officer at the Council on Environmental Quality.

Read more: https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2016/05/25/making-federal-acquisitions-climate-smart

The Federal Government announcement may be the most immediately damaging. Quite apart from the extra costs, it potentially allows Federal bureaucrats to reject bids which offer best value for money on the basis of a qualitative judgement as to whether the bidder has provided the right “climate risk” information – which may pave the way for more Federal procurement corruption.

But make no mistake. If you run a construction business, or your business is in some other way sensitive to environmental pressure, your compliance and planning costs will likely skyrocket, unless you take steps now to challenge some of the more ridiculous green assertions which will shortly be added to various statutes, such as wild predictions of imminent accelerated sea level rise.

Paying lip service to green issues will no longer protect your business from increasingly damaging compliance requirements based on green fantasies.

Advertisements

143 thoughts on “Greenwashing Has Suddenly Become Very Expensive

    • “””””….. On Friday, the Federal Emergency Management Agency is proposing the first update to federal flood standards in 40 years. These needed changes will reduce the risks and costs of flood disasters, …..”””””
      I am already a victim of FEMA’s Flood Insurance scam.
      Following after the Katrina Hurricane losses at places built below sea level, and surrounded by large swimming pools to capture Hurricane driven waters, FEMA decided that people who have houses not below sea level should pick up the tab for those who do.
      So they tripled the premium for the flood insurance on my California Central Valley home.
      Well they added a bonus on top of the existing premium to bail out those who continue to build houses underwater or inside of forest fire locations, so they can rebuild those houses every year, after the rain and fire season. In California, we have both a fire season to burn everything down followed by a rainy mudslide season to take out the houses built on steep forest fire slopes.
      So my house is declared to be on a hazardous flood plain, so I am required to buy flood insurance from FEMA.
      Now it is true that my house is just outside the high water shoreline of the largest lake west of the Mississippi River, which is Tulare Lake, in Tulare County CA.
      Now the city of Hanford, and the Lemore Naval Air Station, are both right in the middle of the bottom of Tulare Lake, which hasn’t had water in it for the best part of 100 years.
      And the whole of that part of the valley has been laser leveled so you can flood the entire valley with just one inch of water.
      Well that would still take more water than falls on the whole of California in a single year.
      And my house is built on top of a four foot high Rock wall, and has a partial moat around it to drain off any H2O molecule that arrives there by any path,
      But FEMA hasn’t yet visited Tulare Lake to view flood damage.
      Have you noticed how few lakes there are ion the USA that ever have flooded.
      It seems to be rivers that flood.
      Well it’s just a climate phenomenon, I have observed.
      G

      • Typical government logic—make everyone pay for foolish behavior on the part of the few. John Stossal once said he lived where he did because the government would pay to rebuild his house over and over. I think it was meant to motivate people to demand a change, but obviously, it failed.

      • My property was also mapped into FEMA’s “flood zone”. I found a civil engineer who got the maps changed to put my property back out of the flood zone. Ask the neighbors too if any of them got the maps changed.

      • The rational land-use policy would be not to insure buildings on flood plains after a not-to-distant date, thus discouraging rebuilding in the path of floods. There are reasonable uses for flood plains, but houses and towns are not among them.
        Of course, as instapundit would say “insufficient opportunities for graft”.

    • GOOD COP/BAD COP
      Environmental NGOs and their Strategies toward Business
      Chapter 2
      ‘Who Is Part Of The environmental Movement’
      P. 59, Board level ties & Foundation ties
      Article has diagrams of NGO connections
      P.65
      “In 1997, BP was the first to shift its position on the view and acknowledge that climate change was a problem that needed to be addressed. It’s doubtful that its-modest consensus-oriented could have been as effective if ExxonMobil had not staked out the more radical,conflict-oriented position of disputing the science.”
      http://www.erb.umich.edu/Research/Faculty-Research/2010goodcop_badcop_hoffman.pdf

  1. I haven’t worked in beltway banditry for a number of decades. But even back in the 1980s, every proposal submitted to the US Dept of Defense had to have 50 pages or so of boilerplate attached explaining that the proposed undertaking wasn’t going to discriminate against minorities, destroy archeological treasures, pollute the environment, etc, etc, etc. I’m sure the number of pages of boilerplate has grown over time. In what way is this not going to be yet another few pages of standardized lies, misrepresentations, and evasions tacked onto every contract? With rare exceptions, it is unlikely that the often hard working, able people evaluating the proposals will have little or no time to scan, much less evaluate, the material.
    Increased costs (if any)? Not a problem. Increased costs will be passed on to the government just like always.
    Business As Usual.

    • Which is why Federal contract work is obscenely overpriced. The Davis-Bacon Act in response to Southern Negroes moving North is the granddaddy of them all; union bosses keep it alive.

    • Increased costs (if any)? Not a problem.

      Think again. If the boilerplate doesn’t say that there are are significant climate risks, the bidders won’t be awarded any Federal contracts. So any firm that wants to win contracts will have to say there are are significant climate risks. And all those that do will raise their bids to compensate for these extra costs. They will thus both win contracts and get extra money for supposedly preparing for the risks which in most cases won’t materialize.
      Within a year some researcher will find that there’s a 99+ percent consensus about significant climate risks even among all these supposedly “conservative” businesses. That finding will gleefully be reported by the independent press propaganda machine. And that figure will replace the extremely flawed “97 percent consensus of researchers” one because it will be much more defensible and actually accurate as far as it goes.

  2. 1. The lame duck socialists in the Whitehouse may be “moving toward” with this Envirostalinist, junk science-based, scenario, but they will never get there — IF Donald Trump is elected.
    VOTE TRUMP, SAVE AMERICA.
    2. If that yet-to-be-convicted perjurer, H. Clinton is (God forbid) elected (or “elected”), advice to business entity’s fill-out-the-form functionary, just write:
    There is not one piece of data which proves causation of extreme weather or any “climate change” phenomena by human CO2 (or methane) emissions. The known or reasonably likely risk is, therefore, 0.
    CO2 UP. WARMING STOPPED.**
    **That means, in case anyone has forgotten (lol): AGW is dead.
    Too bad, disaster insurance industry.
    Too bad, windmill and solar sc@mmers.
    Too bad, Big G tax vultures.
    Game over.

      • Thank you, Dr. Frank. And THANK YOU for sharing that powerful presentation utterly destroying the model projections touted by the AGWers. Those error bars, LOL — 2.8 + or – 14.0, etc.!
        Your reviewers (listed in the last or nearly the last slide) were an impressively well-qualified bunch.
        {{{ANTHONY — Dr. Frank’s presentation (out on youtube as of 7/29/16) should be a WUWT post.}}}
        Dr. Frank, I hope that you DO write up the horrible saga of trying for THREE years to get this fine analysis published. You write well (I’ve read several of your WUWT reports). It would be compelling and uniquely informative reading.
        What you have gone through, what Dr. Murry Salby, Dr. Willie Soon, Anthony Watts, and Nick Drapela and many (unfortunately, yes, many) other science giants have gone through can never be repaid. It can, though, I hope, be
        recognized and
        remembered.
        With gratitude and as proud of you as if you were my brother,
        Janice

      • I feel extreme doubt regarding her being the first, Pat . . The first commonly seen as an unindicted felon, is the bizarre situation the mass media presstitutes seem intent on aiding and abetting . . for reasons one is increasingly hard pressed to imagine are “innocent”.

      • And she would be bringing with her the only ex-President to have publicly admitted to felonies (Perjury and Obstruction of Justice) for which he disbarred.

    • I was a Cruz supporter, but maybe after a couple debates and some more conservative advice, I could vote for Trump. Never Hillary though…Thanks for that post Janice!… At least he is for cheap energy and anti CAGW…(I hope) …JPP

      • You’re welcome, JPP. Yes, he is anti-CAGW. He hasn’t talked much about it, but I remember him calling something like “a bunch of nonsense.” Listen to Trump’s Wisconsin speech — it was GREAT!

    • I sympathize; you get to choose between a rich criminal & this rich nutter https://cdn2.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/RLG3d02Qe2b_WdqypthNiRaYQOk=/800×0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/6959831/jbareham_160818_1191_0102.0.jpg
      Seems you’re between a rock & a hard place.
      American elections are……fascinating to us Brits.
      Although we do have our share of nutters over here, like Trumps ½ brother Boris Johnston
      Compare them –
      http://tinyurl.com/gu26j3v

      • If UK press coverage of US politics is anywhere near as bad as US coverage of UK politics, you probably have a very biased view of US politics. Most of the US mainstream media coverage of the Brexit election was very biased toward the “stay” side.
        Trump was not my first choice for President, but Hillary Clinton has so many negatives on policy her personal corruption is almost a bonus reason to vote against her.

    • The greatest business risk would have to be government-caused energy price shock, regardless of climate change or lack thereof.

    • Nope. Think of all this junk as an extra cost layer to everybody bidding. Then there are still the real costs of contract satisfaction, plus profit. Net result, the government contracts gravy train just roles on, with a few more deadweight cars attached. Only losers are taxpayers and future generations on the hook for the burgeoning deficits that result. Just like Obama’sAffordable Care act raised healthcare costs so much insurers are dropping out of exchanges.

      • This. It’s just going to be another cost of “business,” added (and probably hidden) into the long term liability statement of the balance sheet.
        Just one more dead-weight cost to be paid for by unwitting participators who have no voice.

      • Companies will handle it by employing a bureaucracy to do the paperwork. This will include lawyers to do a preliminary review of the global warming boilerplate, as well use of outside consultants.
        If I were assigned this task I would create a Joint Industry Project (JIP), hire three to four climate modelers and support staff to run at least three individual models, feed them a “reasonable” set of inputs (say the COP21 goals degraded to account for lack of commitment by third world countries, Russia, etc), run the models to develop regional forecasts for those areas where the JIP participants have operations, and show potential risks as projected by the models. This would cost several million USD (say 10 initially and $2 million per year thereafter), but it would give insight and elements to write the climate change impact. It’s just a small bureaucracy, and it may even have a practical payoff since the individual models will show a huge spread.
        By the way, I’m aware of climate model runs which predict faster sea level rise when emissions are reduced (only in some cases). This is caused by changes in the rate of ice accumulation over Antarctica. Reduced emissions reduce humidity and snowfall in the models. This is being kept out of the limelight since it’s somewhat embarrassing.

    • As per Ayn Rand 60+ years ago (she did spend a long time writing Atlas Shrugged), it’s not just profits or Federal contracts. To succeed at all, any corporation or individual must pay homage and tithe to the party (guess which one). But until another free internet is created after the USA surrenders control in two months all will be moot.

      • john another, I guess Ayn Rand”s “Atlas Shrugged ” is on the curriculum? right? About the internet is your statement correct? It sure as heck isn’t in the news anywhere about the US surrendering control or is this another facet being hidden by the WH?

      • “About the internet is your statement correct? It sure as heck isn’t in the news anywhere about the US surrendering control or is this another facet being hidden by the WH?”
        It’s correct. Obama is trying to give away control of the internet. I saw a news article on it just the other day. Republicans are trying to stop him by suing him. Rogue presidents are not much fun.

  3. At least the World Economic Forum report got one thing correct.

    The risk with the greatest potential impact in 2016 was found to be a failure of climate change mitigation and adaptation.

    It is definitely foolish to get caught with our pants down, given our current technological level and understanding of nature, by allowing any weather event to cause damage that could have been mitigated prior to the occurrence.
    Proper Prior Planning and Preperation

    • Good point, Bryan A. However, the WEA only almost got it right. “Climate change” is the term of art, now, for “human emissions-caused climate change.” Thus, they are, by that statement, actually not correct, for they are pushing the l1e that human emissions are the underlying cause (that’s mainly where “mitigation” comes in) of changes in the climate (or “extreme weather”) of the earth.
      Corrected version:

      The risk with the greatest potential impact in 2016 was … a failure of climate change weather disaster mitigation preparation and adaptation.

  4. A good example of the sort of regulations by the Obama Administration that would encourage anyone not a rabid green to vote the Democrats out.

  5. In my experience this type of “boiler plate” is intended to ensure that any and all liability , including essentially what cannot be foreseen, can be off-loaded onto the tendering companies. In some cases, this may be enough to cause those companies to not bid and in many more cases they have to pad their bid for contingencies and “:what-ifs” plus the possibility they wind up in litigation against the deepest pockets in the world. It all comes back on the taxpayer as more money for less value.

  6. Greenwashing resembles life before the enlightenment: strange forces known and controlled only by members of the intellectual priesthood call forth eclipses of the sun to scare the crap out of the sheeple and then extort money, labor and life-controlling power.
    Then the enlightenment happened, the scientific method evolved, knowledge exploded, and mankind advanced…right up until the time the priests figured out how to scare the sheeple again.
    It’s pretty vanilla to understand the priest’s greed, but the self-inflicted sheeple stupidity is troublesome (you just can’t fix stupid).
    Both the priests and the sheeple are to blame in this pas de deux.

  7. Just another straw on the government contracting broken camel’s back. There is a reason this industry is known as ‘Beltway Bandits’.

  8. “…the Department of Navy requested that its 100 largest suppliers disclose their greenhouse gas emissions and strategies for cutting them…”
    Really? What are the Dept of Navy GHG emissions and strategies for cutting them? The State Dept? The White House? Surely Obama’s security detail can be cut for the sake of reducing emissions and fighting climate change. After all, it’s a bigger threat than assassination!

    • Michael
      You seem to think that the Dept. of the Navy, Does NOT have a GHG control strategy. They are under the administrative branch of the government, and Obama is Commander in Chief. Of course they have been ordered to develop a GHG control strategy! I hope we will hear from some active duty folks on what they are having to do. In the meantime, I can see it now, each ship having a GHGO (greenhouse gas officer) who must fill out a monthly report on how much his ship has reduced their green house gases.

      • Well in the past, ships moved along quite nicely with oars and sails. Rowboats out in front towing an aircraft carrier is the 1st image I had. The second was a GHG friendly destroyer (engines removed and several decks of folks with oars with the Commander in Chief urging them on as was done in the past).

    • The CIC (that guy in the White House) has ordered, ordered the Dept of the Navy to institute a Green Fleet Initiative. This includes “100% renewable biofuels” for all ships in the fleet, and, if you can believe it, “Eco-Friendly naval aviation”. This has led to such boondoggles as testing alge based bio-fuels at $485.00/gallon. This is the military under direct orders from the Commander in Chief, they have no choice but to comply.
      The CIC further declared in a speech last June that any service personnel not supporting the “Climate Change” program was guilty of Dereliction of Duty. Understand that under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), Dereliction of Duty is an extremely serious charge which can, and has, resulted in lengthy prison terms for offenders.
      Observers both inside and outside of the military were left aghast at that statement. Others were left wondering if the CIC really is utterly clueless, or if he really hates the US military that much.
      This proposal appears to be a way to take the havoc caused in the military and expand it to the private sector. Of course, all done with regulations, so no congressional approval needed or desired. “I got a pen and I got a phone”

      • “Observers both inside and outside of the military were left aghast at that statement. Others were left wondering if the CIC really is utterly clueless, or if he really hates the US military that much”
        I think both.

      • Back in the Vietnam conflict , unpopular officers were often killed by “enemy action” .
        At least that is what was on the report, after someone tossed a hand grenade in their tent late at night.
        Or they went on patrol and did not come back.

      • “Back in the Vietnam conflict , unpopular officers were often killed by “enemy action” .”
        Leftwing, anti-war propaganda. Being repeated 40 years later.

      • Consider that a modern aircraft carrier has a fuel mileage of around 6 inches per gallon (inchage?) And this is with standard hydrocarbon fuel. Biofuels are less energy efficient and much more expensive to produce. You’d burn a few million dollars worth just leaving the harbor.

  9. This is part of President Obama’s job creation plan. There will be many more people required to collect, compile, and report this data along with all the new government employees required to collect and review all the reports. None of them producing anything except paper and electronic records.

      • You WONDER? I don’t! I KNOW there is virtually no one in the bureaucracy – especially at the senior level – who sees ANY relationship between work and production. The value of the work product is of NO concern.

      • relationship between work and production
        And thus the primary and only reason that a Donald Trump Presidency really scares the BEJESUS out of those “trough-feeders” at the senior level of all Departments of the current bureaucracy.
        Tenure or no-tenure, iffen they don’t “PRODUCE”, ….. their arse will be demoted or their “job” and/or its duties will be discontinued, cancelled, abolished, …… and they will then be “out-of-a-job” and will have to seek employment in the private sector.
        If their Job no longer exists, …… then they don’t have to resign or quit ….. and they don’t have to be fired

      • In South Africa, we have a quote about our dysfunctional, un-civil service – “A job is something you HAVE, not something you DO”.

  10. “Increased costs (if any)? Not a problem. Increased costs will be passed on to the government just like always.”
    Surely you meant to the CONSUMER, where ALL deficit spending tax-collection comes from?

  11. Companies which took the easy route of paying lip service to climate issues, instead of opposing green lies, may be about to pay a high price for their decades of complacency.

    I can agree with that. But I would like to point out that “conservatives” who took the easy way out and refused to follow the ideas of Classical Liberalism (these days called libertarianism) are already paying a heavy, heavy price.
    Classical Liberalism = https://mises.org/library/what-classical-liberalism
    The ideology that built western civilization (the industrial revolution and all the rest) has found that few modern Americans want to step up and publicly support private property, an unhampered market economy, the rule of law, constitutional guarantees of freedom of religion and of the press, and international peace based on free trade.
    The central government is now so strong and so ingrained in the people’s brain that returning to even a semi-limited government is nearly impossible without a total collapse of the country. Sad indeed. Even worse, many call what we practice economically “capitalism” when in fact it is crony-capitalism or “corporatism”. (Mussolini said his “f*sc*sm” was better named as corporatism)
    We should never have let the central government reach the power level that it has.

    • “We should never have let the central government reach the power level that it has.”
      It’s time to take our government back. There’s only one presidential candidate who might give us a shot at doing that.

    • Socialism. – It is not just for liberals anymore.
      The Drug Prohibition model is being applied everywhere.
      Men with guns can fix anything.

    • Well, Mark, the mods rarely (never?) answer that question, so I’ll just tell you that I tested (on “Test”) several potential “bad” words. Not one was “bad.” Shrug. I even tested your link. All A-OK. I would like to know the answer, too!

      • Hi Janice. Just a day of two ago, I had a comment that disappeared for several hours then just popped up. I think what happens is that WordPress publishes them promptly, but due to a buggy implementation, the comments get transported through a ripple in the space-time continuum and end up a bit in the future. So the comment gets published quickly, but you still have to wait to see it.
        That’s my theory.

      • Hi, Tony,
        lol Oh, yes, indeed. I am writing this here in the year 2018. Trump is doing a FANTASTIC job as president. I have a wonderful, good paying job, and WUWT is still going strong (those ol’ enviroprofiteers will always be lurking in the shadows, launching scuds and other dudly-but-potentially-deadly attacks …. they are opportunists….. whenever there is an opening, thus, we must maintain a vigilant post on the frontiers of argument). Yes, yes, all is cool in 2018. 🙂
        Hoping this finds you well.
        Janice

      • (red faced — oops) Well, TonyL, all I can say is, that the WordPress space-time spaghetti is a very complex thing about which we know very little…. say, where have I heard that before….

      • “Yes, yes, all is cool in 2018.”
        So “Misses M”… does that mean we got our La Nina (or no)?

      • August 19, 2018
        Hi, Arthur (smile),
        Yes! And the cooling that has been going on, overall, for about 6,000 years is still “business as usual” for the planet earth. Hillary got out on parole last month. Her community service time will be spent running the floor waxer for floors 1 – 16 of Trump Tower (Trump is housing low income people on those floors, now and they get small public subsidy, so it IS public service — he really does care (and that is not sarcasm)). All the Clinton Foundation assets were used up paying the restitution ordered to the families of the 4 Benghazi victims. Bill pays people to let him speak (and not to tell that he paid them) at their clubs. Last year, the Swedish Men for Fatter Women club made 500% of what they earned through pastry sales at the Christmas bazaar for the past 20 years! Bill tried hard to get SSH (Software Security for Hospitals) let him speak at their summer shindig, but they said it would be bad for business.
        And Mister Fonzarelli is happily enjoying life doing what he likes best with those he loves most.
        Gotta go. The snow is getting deep on my barn roof. Gotta go shovel it off again. ?? Oh. Al Gore just moved in down the block last week. Yup. Oh, yes, we TRIED. He likes the beaches. We did too. Sigh.
        Say, remember Pigpen from the Peanuts gang? That’s ol’ Gore for ya, except with snow. loololololololololo
        Bye!
        Ms. Janice
        P.S. No. Never threw a peanut at one of the gorillas.

      • “P.S. No. Never threw a peanut at one of the gorillas.”
        Ya don’t know what yer missin’… (☺)

      • I actually threw a gorrilla a milk dud once as a kid. The silverback moved the others out of the way to get it. He stated at me the whole time he ate it, knitting his forehead ever tighter as the dud clung to his teeth. Then he rapidly scooped up some dung and threw it at me!

  12. Eric writes: “Paying lip service to green issues will no longer protect your business from increasingly damaging compliance requirements based on green fantasies.”
    Thank you for that Eric.

  13. Name:
    USA
    Supply chain:
    $400bn, mostly from the Chineeeeeeeeeze
    What are you doing about CO2:
    We entered an historic agreement with the Chineeeeeeeze for them to increase their CO2 emissions without bound until 2030 (but they indicated they will try to limit it to real GDP, or about 6.5% p.a. so call it a 150% increase) so that their “carbon intensity” of the economy reduces. After their population peaks 70 years after one-child and starts to decline, they they hope (non-binding) to cap their emissions as the population declines.They did this after ramp-up of emissions intensive industries such as aluminium and steel supported by coal power such as the world has never seen before, enabling them to make easy gains by simply closing what now appears to be excess capacity.

  14. With the politicians genuflecting to the IPCC, now might be the time to look at where it is going. A good start is reading the pre-scoping document for the 1.5 Degree C Review, due in 2018. This, taken along with all the other IPCC piles of paper, reminds me of the old Soviet Union five-year plans. They planned out every conceivable contingency and forced everyone to adhere to their quotas, no mater what. With them holding the guns, rational people complied, no matter the massive screwups. We saw the predictable results of that particular manifestation of socialism.
    Taking the IPCC at its word, they are going to quantify all technical, economic and social factors to come up with detailed worldwide action plans to achieve “sustainable” development, save the climate, eliminate poverty, and ensure social justice. Everybody, from the individual up through the largest corporations and national governments, will be given their marching orders. I am not exaggerating; read their documents.
    Much of this blathering nonsense comes from the UN’s need to placate the non-producing and police states because of their overwhelming voting power.
    Nations with compliant (for whatever reasons) populations can get away with supporting such an agenda for awhile. Additionally, an entitled strongman such as President Obama may, through unilateral acts, circumvent political checks and balances for a time. Then issues of national sovereignty, economics, social inertia/self-interest and downright practicality overwhelm the socialist pollyannas.
    The sheer absurdity of a powerless entity such as the IPCC directing, in detail, a majority of the peoples of the world is beyond parody. All of the wonderful, self-congratulatory meetings in the vacation spots of the world will result in massive reams of paper that no sane politician could ever affix his/her/its signature. You will note that COP21 resulted in a document that did not commit its signatories to actually doing anything of substance. Expect much more of the same.
    Dave Fair

    • Also, if you read their plans for AR6, you will note that there will not be any serious look at reconciling observations with model temperatures, rainfall, drought, etc. I read it as they are now indicating WGI will say what it said in AR5, without any more digging into the science. They seem to be saying they will assume prior assumed attribution (to humans) of previously assumed climate disasters (all based on models and “expert opinion”) and just jump right into parceling out mitigation and adaptation responsibilities.
      I assume what they really mean is: “Send the dictators your money and ship your industrial jobs to China and India. The coming IPCC socialist utopia will take care of you. Trust us.”

  15. This chart tells everything about ‘green or ‘climate change mitigation’ policies. The only result of them: skyrocketing energy costs.
    http://www.euanmearns.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/europeelectricprice.png
    The liberal or so-called ‘progressive’ left has already ruined most of the EU’s economy. Higher energy prices are driving input costs upward, thus making energy-intensive industries uncompetitive. Greenwashing is an option only for big corporations, smaller or medium-sized family owned businesses have a way lower profit margin (and capitalization) so they just simply cannot afford to comply with the new regulations and higher input prices.
    Germany and Denmark have the largest installed per capita solar + wind capacity within the EU. German residential energy prices are around 0,33$ per kWh while in Hungary (where you have to search through the whole countryside to find any bird choppers or PV solar panels out there) you have to pay only $0.12.
    And EU bureaocrats are forcing Eastern European countries to accept higher mandates for renewable energy. They are also pushing for more regulations on residential building insulation requirements, this will inevitably lead to higher construction costs. The net median monthly earnings in Hungary are around $500 per month, while only 10% of the workforce earns above $850 p.m or $10000 p.a. Most of the people are sitting at home on hot summer days without air conditioning because they can’t afford the equipment & electricity costs. And a bunch of liberal-leftist-elitist types wants to elevate the costs of living even higher? Unbelievable!

    • So, just another strategy to drive the little people out of the market , leaving the field clear for the fat trough-snouters who pay their brown envelope dues to the Kommissars…

    • Adam Soereg — Great graphic and powerful comment. That should be used in every liberty-backing politician’s election campaign. Thanks for sharing.

  16. “On Friday, the Federal Emergency Management Agency is proposing the first update to federal flood standards in 40 years. These needed changes will reduce the risks and costs of flood disasters”
    How in the world does FEMA think that changing THEIR flood standards reduce or change in any way the risks and costs of flood disasters? Do they really think that not defining something as a flood makes it really NOT a flood?
    This is a serious dereliction of duty by the reporter to let that pass without question or comment. WSJ editors are usually better than that!

    • “Do they really think that not defining something as a flood makes it really NOT a flood?”
      Close but you have it backwards. They define “Not Flood” as “Flood”.
      In 2013, in my area (inland, not near a river, up a hill) changes to FEMA rules put a lot of homeowners into newly created flood areas. The homeowners were then forced to pay for compulsory flood insurance which they never had to do before. Obviously, it was nothing more than a ruse to squeeze more money out of the citizenry, money which goes straight into the agency shush fund.
      The only thing I would question is “first update in 40 years”. They have been doing stuff like this for a very long time.

  17. In this year’s annual survey, almost 750 experts assessed 29 separate global risks for both impact and likelihood over a 10-year time horizon. The risk with the greatest potential impact in 2016 was found to be a failure of climate change mitigation and adaptation
    Do you not find this very significant? Who are these 750 experts? I don’t know, but apparently
    Respondents are drawn from business, academia, civil society and the public sector and span different areas of expertise, geographies and age groups.
    These are not climate scientists, but apparently independent people. They think climate change is a big risk.
    Whatever you think about attempting to reduce climate change, it is big risk if we fail to adapt. If we think Govt. action is misplaced we should argue against government action, not against the reality of the changing -that is warmer-climate.

    • You don’t know reality from propaganda. Here’s some reality:
      – Rapid, adverse climate change in the next 10 years is possible (albeit unlikely) but if it occurs, it will be cooling, not warming.
      – Any resources expended – and, worse, resources and wealth not developed – on account of the utterly bogus theory that human activity has a significant influence on climate will not be available to mitigate whatever adverse natural climate change may occur.

  18. The Democrats’ doubling down on talebanic climate extremism could just lose them the election. They are going to find the “opinion polls” carried out by aggressive liberals to be of no more value than climate models.

  19. Renewables are good but inefficient. Oh, and they are usually heavy subsidised. Simple, this cannot be sustained over long periods of time. Please can someone get this through to the left.

    • Which is exactly why the subsidies are not intended to be permanent, which is why they tail off over time as more renewables are installed, which is why Germany has now reformed its subsidy programme…

  20. I found it amazing that a simple linear regression between two variables, residential electricity prices and per capita renewable capacity in EU countries gives us an R-squared of 0.846. The penetration of expensive solar panels and windmills explains almost 85 percent of sample variance.
    Or is it just a coincidence? As we know with all AGW-related issues, correlation alone never proves causation…

    • There could be a shifting of costs toward or away from residential customers by different countries. For example, if you want to subsidise industry, stick it to the little guy. Without a detailed rate structure breakdown, it is impossible to say.

  21. …No matter how much you dislike Trump, think of America’s future first instead of your bloated ego….There are ONLY two choices in this election…If you do not vote for Trump, you are electing Hillary..PERIOD !

  22. We need an apocalyptic war to sort out our priorities and get back to fundamental thinking of basics & priorities. World’s gone too soft.
    Pearl Harbour galvanized the USA out of indecision ….. we need a modern-day equivalent. Trump?

  23. Today, Trump is visiting the victims of the Louisiana flooding….Where is Obama ?? Still golfing…where is Hillary ? Unknown…

  24. You bend the knee you get the cash. That is exactly how the Soviet Union and its many copycats worked. Dissidents and their jailers agreed that living the lies was the greatest daily strain. Environmentalism as a political creed imposes the same requirements.

  25. They do not know what they are doing, obviously. Read this atrocious document that puts process ahead of human life.
    https://www.justice.gov/crt/file/885401/download
    I have been in the aftermaths of several hurricanes (since 1960) and floods (since 1957) They are not pretty. Also previously lived and worked in the Louisiana recent rainfall event area for three decades. Also watched the necessary destroying of racism in several southern states. This is setting it back.
    I read where a psychologist proposed that we are feeling guilty over our climate sin, and may not even realize it. I wonder if they are showing the well known psychological “displacement activity” where you, maybe not realizing it, do something ridiculously unrelated when you cannot handle a problem. Have done that.

  26. … bold action by governments …

    Bold is bad.
    Military officers can be classified along two axes: smart-stupid, and lazy-energetic

    “There are only four types of officer.
    First, there are the lazy, stupid ones. Leave them alone, they do no harm…
    Second, there are the hard- working, intelligent ones. They make excellent staff officers, ensuring that every detail is properly considered.
    Third, there are the hard- working, stupid ones. These people are a menace and must be fired at once. They create irrelevant work for everybody.
    Finally, there are the intelligent, lazy ones. They are suited for the highest office.” link

    The best officers find a way to achieve their objective with the least effort and danger. The best soldier tricks the enemy into surrendering. The best lawyer keeps you out of court.
    Stupid people don’t realize that they are stupid. They love taking bold action. They get people killed.
    Economists and political scientists have these grand theories and think they know what to do. With years of patient work, Philip Tetlock has demonstrated that they are wrong more often than they are right.
    Scientists are just as wrong as any other expert when they make predictions based on extrapolation. They don’t realize that and, as a result, they are really really dangerous.

  27. Where in hell is that global warming they shout about? Here in South Texas we have had just regular egg-frying weather in July and August over the years…and this year, August has been fairly mild by historical measures.

  28. Interesting, these excessive demands on business come from the government that cannot do anything right except to cover up corruption and illegal release of classified documents to or enemies. Just look at one agency, the VA, with the treatment of our Vets including throwing away records of making them wait for months to get an appointment. Meanwhile they squander $$$ on art and solar panels that do not work.
    It is obvious to me that this is an onerous requirement on suppliers to spend their time satisfying the global warming risks rather than making a high quality product.
    Ultimately it will give the government the Power and excuse to blackball those who do not agree with CAGW or don’t see any risk in their business.
    Meanwhile they will funnel contracts and dollars to those who will play ball with their imaginary risk to the planet and expect contributions back to the Democratic party.
    That’s how corrupt regimes work in Communist and other dictator run countries. In New Jersey it is called pay to play.
    “Summary: Today, the Administration proposed a rule that would drive greater disclosure of greenhouse gas emissions & climate-related risk data among the Government’s supply chain.
    The idiom that ‘you don’t manage what you don’t measure’ holds when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions and climate-related risk.
    It’s the responsible thing to do to take steps to understand the sustainability – and challenges – associated with your supply chain; and that’s especially true when you’re the Federal Government and that supply chain exceeds $400 billion per year.
    Today’s action does just that.
    Today the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council proposed for public comment a rule that would drive greater disclosure in the Federal Government’s supply chain to indicate if and where contractors and vendors publicly disclose greenhouse gas emissions, greenhouse gas reduction goals or targets, and climate-related risks—such as physical risks to operations associated with extreme weather events. The proposed rule puts even more focus on how we manage the Federal Government’s supply chain and the data we need to do that responsibly, and it leverages the Federal Government’s purchasing power to push for this type of unprecedented disclosure Government-wide.
    By understanding where larger contractors and vendors that sell goods and services to the Federal Government disclose this information, we’ll be able to better assess supplier greenhouse gas management practices, manage direct and indirect greenhouse gas emission, address climate-risk in the Federal Government’s supply chain, and engage with contractors to reduce supply chain emissions.

    • Dear Griff,
      You apparently haven’t had much exposure to real life insurance industry people. They** use FEAR to drive sales. They do it very subtly, but, that is what they do. For instance, about a month ago, I attended a web seminar about protecting client confidentiality and digital records. There were good things said, but, mixed in was a LOT of over-the-top hyperbole with carefully chosen “anecdotes.” I was not surprised to learn that the speaker was a broker of cyber-damage insurance.
      It’s like any sc@m (e.g., a religious cult). The insurance industry says some true things, but mixed in is the money angle and it is often not money with a good cost/benefit ratio for your business/personal finances.
      Re: large business entities buying such insurance — if the insurance industry can scare enough of their shareholders, they end up being forced to do it.
      Truth, nevertheless, is winning!
      Janice
      **”They” does not include ALL insurance people — the peace of mind and spreading of risk among claimants is a good thing and not all use fear tactics to do it. The disaster prep industry has been using “climate change” fear to market their policies for several years now.

  29. The new regulations are, however, a bonanza for climate scientists who can contract themselves out to perform the analyses, as well as others graduating by hordes as “environmental sciences” BAs and MAs.
    simply creates another industry — preparing (and in all likelihood, fudging) the newly required data.

  30. Is the ‘war on coal’ at least partially responsible for the flooding (e.g. Texas, Louisiana)? The ‘war on coal’ resulted from desperately clinging to the failed idea that increased atmospheric CO2 causes Global Warming. Thermalization explains why no credible CO2 level on earth would affect climate. Switching from coal to natural gas replaces harmless-to-climate (but helpful to life) CO2 with water vapor. The added water vapor contributes to more rain and flooding. How much of recent flooding is simply bad luck in the randomness of weather and how much is because of the ‘thumb on the scale’ of added water vapor?
    A ‘top down’ analysis identifying the contributors to climate change (98% match with measurements since before 1900) is at http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com

Comments are closed.