Greens Request Private Sector Keep the Cash Flowing

cop22_wheresmymoney_scr

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

Greens have requested that Private Businesses step in and top up an anticipated funding shortfall of in excess of ten billion dollars per annum, when Trump cancels US government funding of climate programmes.

The Private Sector May Lead the Charge Against Climate Change During the Trump Administration

Why? Because it makes economic sense. No matter what Trump and his cabinet do, the private sector will likely forge ahead, argues Shayle Kann.

by Shayle Kann
December 15, 2016

As the inauguration of President Donald Trump approaches, the future of federal action on energy and climate change remains highly uncertain. And while nothing is set in stone, there is mounting evidence that the new administration will drastically change course from the path set out by President Obama.

While no outcome is preordained, it is probably safe to assume that the U.S. will not take significant federal action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions over the next four years. And it is possible that the federal government will begin to roll back many of the R&D and investment programs that have supported the recent domestic boom in clean energy. Initiatives already underway in a few states may act as a limited countervailing force, but the absence of federal action will be strongly felt.

Large companies are already taking action

If the federal government steps back, the private sector may leap forward. The U.S. business community has already become an increasingly emphatic voice in the chorus of calls for greater action on climate change. Just after the U.S. election, during the Marrakech climate talks, over 300 businesses signed an open letter to the incoming president in support of the Paris climate accord and continuation of low-carbon policies. Ninety-one of these companies have annual revenue over $100 million, including DuPont, General Mills and Intel Corporation.

Corporate action cannot entirely make up for intransigence at the federal level, but it may just be enough to allow the global decarbonization trend to continue apace.

Read more: https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/the-private-sector-may-lead-the-charge-against-climate-change

While there is no doubt some CEOs are as rabidly committed to renewables as any Greenpeace protestor, this assumption that private businesses will step into the breach, that they will somehow be able to keep the party going, verges on delusional.

I’m sure private businesses run by hardline greens be able to stump up a few hundred million, maybe even every year. But in my opinion green groups are about to experience a very hard landing. Nobody will be able to cover the multi-billion dollar cash shortfall they are all about to experience.

Advertisements

173 thoughts on “Greens Request Private Sector Keep the Cash Flowing

  1. Why would stockholders of a business allow teh management of the company to divert their return dollars from dividend payments to “social action” without retribution – such as removing the CEO.

    • There is in fact a concept of a stakeholder that is treated quite seriously. So far the government was the stakeholder in the green murky-business. Exit the government, and all other green stakeholders turn silly.

      • Hang on, I thought is “deeenyerz” who were funded by a well organised ‘industry’ of private money.They want to steal our funding, no way ! LOL.

      • The government is a stakeholder in a very small percentage of companies. Most of the money that has been given out is in the form of grants or loans. Neither makes the government a shareholder, unless the loan is a convertible one.

      • @Greg – “deeenyerz”

        Love that spelling! You can almost hear the nasal whine of a 9-year old on the playground when it’s spelled that way.

      • In the private economy, a “stakeholder” is an interloper who wheedles his way into a business decision even though he has no property or legal rights. He is a usurper and any business executive who allows third parties to have a “stake” in a private matter have subverted the rights of the shareholders.

        If any third party wants to influence a business decision, they are welcome to appeal to the shareholders who in turn indicate that the issue should be taken into account, and who would be willing to accept any financial consequences to the value of their shares.

        This is one reason why progressives hate property rights and seek to erode and destroy them.

      • @buckwheaton – Actually, when a company is very close to insolvency, there is a fiduciary responsibility to run the company for all “stakeholders”, usually defined as creditors, employees, and shareholders. But yes, most of the time you hear it, it is hardly said in that context.

      • “Stakeholders” are interlopers who want a say in making decisions in an enterprise or organization in which they have no ownership or contractual authority.

    • Perhaps it goes like this – a net worth of maybe 5 million $ will buy one all of the creature comforts many people would ever want. So, say I have a net worth of $20M. I will certainly apply $15M of that toward something that I care deeply about. My std of living ain’t gonna change much going from $20M to $5M net worth. And chances are if I have that kind of money, I have the talent to make plenty more of it.

      So… perhaps there will be private contributions in the Billions $ all combined. If so, I say great! That is how it should work. If people want to spend their own money on this stuff, more power to them! But get the govt the heck out of funding crap science. Govt should fund some science – but it needs to do a WAY better job of oversight of the return taxpayers are getting on their hard earned dollars!

    • There are also private foundations. However every penny diverted to funding climate research is a penny diverted away from supporting left wing causes.

  2. “Greens have requested that Private Businesses step in and top up an anticipated funding shortfall of in excess of ten billion dollars per annum, when Trump cancels US government funding of climate programmes.”

    And if I don’t?

    • If you don’t you won’t be throwing your money away.
      Anyway, it is only a request. the answer to which is “Please explain exactly why I should give you anything. Include scientific data to support your request, if any exists.”

      • One of the differences between President Obama and President Elect Trump

        Obama
        Oh I wish I was a globalist and greenie,
        that is what I truly want to be.
        ‘Cause if I was a globalist and greenie,
        everyone would be in love with me

        Trump
        Oh I’m glad I’m not a globalist or greenie,
        that is something I don’t want to be.
        ‘Cause if I was a globalist and greenie,
        klimate ka$h is what they’d want from me

    • You will get bad reputation. They will say that your business hurt the environment and cause climate change. If they were able to give bad reputation to CO2, which is the most important gas for life on Earth, they can give bad reputation to anything.

      That is why I call them “green mafia”

      Pay up or your business will suffer.

      Have you seen the No pressure ad where people who do not support climate action were blown into pieces? Well, the sponsors were Sony and Kyocera, among others. According to Sony Europe’s Director of Communications, they did not know what they were sponsoring. That is what I call extorsion.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Pressure_(film)

      • There is a sort of precedent!
        Some years ago, when a Shell North Sea Oil Platform became redundant, Shell wanted to simply cut the legs and let it slide under the sea. The Green Brigade protested that it would create an environmental disaster, particularly for marine life, as there was a great deal of very toxic materials, chemicals and other contaminating items on-board. They demanded that Shell tow the rig onshore into a UK specialised dry dock with environmentally friendly, but excessively expensive, clean up and demolition facilities. The Green campaign raged on with banner headlines in all the UK Press, and Shell eventually caved in and did as were ere being asked. Low and behold, very, very little toxic materials and waste was discovered; nothing even mildly providing and environmental problems, particularly with the inevitable dilution actions of the sea, given Shell’s intended original procedure. Typically, the Greens never apologised or even accepted they had been wrong!
        This time, with the massive drop in oil and gas prices, the Oil and Gas Industry are far less financially strong and so, hopefully, their own self interest will kick in and they will not so easily buckle, even with a similar sustained and hysterical Green outburst!

    • The big problem any CEO will have wasting money on far-left climate agendas is the stockholders. Any CEO this stupid will quickly find himself not longer a CEO.

  3. Awesome. If Apple, Google, etc, refuse to bring their foreign money back home to avoid taxes (which were being used for this stuff) then they can happily self-fund… it’s not “real” money if it’s in Ireland as far as I’m concerned… why do I care if Ford-China is profitable or not if it doesn’t benefit the US? Similarly, I don’t really give a rip that they waste foreign money… if anything, it’s a net upside as it means less cash for foreign investment which could indirectly hurt US investment.

    “Why would stockholders of a business allow teh management of the company to divert their return dollars from dividend payments to “social action” without retribution – such as removing the CEO.”

    Because some companies attract similarly minded people. Apple specifically invited people to sell the stock if they don’t like the policies (probably to make sure it never becomes an issue during a shareholder vote.)

    http://www.cultofmac.com/268413/tim-cook-tells-profit-obsessed-investors-sell-stock/

    http://mashable.com/2014/02/28/apple-ceo-tim-cook-climate-change/#xIb9AvvfOuqT

  4. I think the desire of any private business to do virtue signalling will vastly diminish with the Obama adminstration out of office. Exxon-Mobil and carbon capture will go away, unless the EU or such makes it attractive, and similar silly notions by other corporations will be put on hold.

      • Thanks Chris, that document is vague lip service, which history will hopefully file under “Failed Climate Change Global Govt. Coup in early 21st Century”. Two drawers up from German business documents of the 1930’s aligning themselves with a successful ideological take-over.

      • Pop, it’s not lip service. Companies moving to obtain 100% of their energy needs from renewable sources is not lip service.

      • Chris===> which the companies are not actually doing, only buying offsets for the amount of power they use. That is rather like buying indugences, as no one has an actual all-renewable grid up anywhere.

      • Pop, it’s not lip service. Companies moving to obtain 100% of their energy needs from renewable sources is not lip service

        Well ’nuff said. Could you list them all so that I could avoid any investment in said businesses?

      • Tom Halla said: “Chris===> which the companies are not actually doing, only buying offsets for the amount of power they use. That is rather like buying indugences, as no one has an actual all-renewable grid up anywhere.”

        Do you have links to support those claims? Here is one example of renewable purchases (Apple): http://www.datacenterdynamics.com/content-tracks/design-build/apple-reaches-100-renewable-energy-across-all-data-centers/74708.fullarticle

      • Chris==.> There were two attempts to do an all-renewable grid, in Tasmania and one of the Spanish Canaries, both of which were failures, even using the EU definition of hydro as”renewable”. I am sure there is no such unicorn in North America or Europe.

      • There were two attempts to do an all-renewable grid, in Tasmania and one of the Spanish Canaries, both of which were failures, even using the EU definition of hydro as”renewable”. I am sure there is no such unicorn in North America or Europe.

        In Washington State, hydro power is considered “clean”, not sure if it’s considered “renewable”. But greenies don’t like hydro either, because it hurts the fishies.

      • I was taught as a wee laddie that Bonneville had a fish ladder to let the fishies get around the dam.

        Visited there a few years ago. The lampreys stuck to the observation glass were FREAKY!

  5. lol. Keep giving. money to a cause that is more parasitic than all religions combined. The climatocracy is the least productive movement yet created. Any private concerns giving that mob money willingly are run by fools. Starve the climate beast. The result will be that we discover “‘climate change” really is man-made…only not in the way the climate parasites claim.

  6. I’m curious how paying danegeld to the green monster may ever be considered heroic after it becomes obvious it is not a monster, but a bottomless pit with some silly green camouflage.

  7. Watching them cry is going to be delicious. Private sector isn’t going to come close to the $Texas$ they’re used to, and most were in it for the Federal handouts and tax breaks.

  8. There should be no limit on how people in the private sector choose to spend their money. And there should be limits on how other people’s money is spent by politicians.

  9. Why can’t we send all our nasty below zero weather to Silly Cone Valley in California and have them enjoy global cooling personally.

  10. Feeding misguided environmentalism at the public trough — trillions. Subjecting it to market forces — priceless.

  11. The good side of this is that once the money is cut-off, we will probably start to see some better science being done in this field (for the first time).

    All the funding just encouraged ever more faulty science to be produced. It just got worse and worse. It even resulted in the good science providers getting pushed out and fired. The peer pressure system evolved into something that encouraged bad science “only”.

    This is a prime example of providing too much free money to something.

    The green energy subsidies are the same. It is never beneficial to be “too” anything but providing “too much funding” to something usually produces the opposite results compared to that originally intended. Governments need to understand that but they often fall victim to lobby efforts or politically correct movements and often provide too much funding to various programs.

    Climate science needs to go back to Zero funding except to keep the lights on the satellites and observation gathering instruments until the peer pressure system and the group think can be reset and the bad scientists let go. How long do you think that will take?

    • Bill,

      The good side of this is that once the money is cut-off, we will probably start to see some better science being done in this field (for the first time).

      Exactly. Most readers here probably know the old economic adage, “If you want more of something, subsidize it. If you want less of something, tax it.”

      Climate science needs to go back to Zero funding except to keep the lights on the satellites and observation gathering instruments until the peer pressure system and the group think can be reset and the bad scientists let go. How long do you think that will take?

      I think less time than we might expect, Bill. If I understand Trump’s plans correctly, one of the ways of downsizing government is to eliminate or combine duplicate efforts and pare down non-performers. Using that approach eliminates the long slog of trying to fire individual employees. As best I know, it’s nearly impossible to fire any given government worker, but it’s a snap to eliminate whole groups, except for the fight with Congress. But since Trump can bypass the MSM, he’ll ask the voters, “Why do we need 2 (or 3 or 4 or 5) groups doing the same thing?” Given the election results, it will be Trump and the congress critter’s constituents against the congress critter.

      • I wish people would stop using the term, “congress critter”. It sort of makes them sound all cute and fuzzy and harmless.

      • I guess ‘critters’ have positive or negative connotations depending on your location. Around my local, the coyotes eat sheep and pets, the rabbits girdle trees, the raccoons often carry rabies and fish out ponds, the skunks tear up your yard, and the deer eat your landscaping to the ground. Last winter, the deer came up on our front porch to ring the doorbell because the bird feeder hadn’t been filled for a couple of days.

        But I take your point and will no longer use the alliterative descriptor, ‘congress critters’. Instead I’ll refer to them as congress vermin.

      • I’d prefer ‘varmint’, but can’t come up with a good modifier. How about ‘creature’ ? As in the congress creature from the Black Lagoon on the Potomac.

        [“Critter” is the mid-country, non-Hillary-elector-state, generic term for an unidentified rural creature wandering in the night. Hillary-elector-states use “rat”, since “politician” is an insult even there. .mod]

    • The desire for ‘better science’ is rooted in the belief that climate science is relevant. It’s not. Once you remove the doom, it resumes being esoteric. A field for hundreds, not thousands of scientists.

    • no its not inconsiderable
      I’d like to see such funds used to actually DO something useful.
      like provide water/sewerage or food to the same people they say…they intend to help…by greencrap instead.

    • Ten billion dollars per annum is a not inconsiderable sum of money

      Here’s the math: There are roughly 100 million families in the US. However, half the families in the US pay no taxes, and many even get “negative taxes”, I. e. subsidies. That means that EVERY taxpaying family in the US is on the hook for $200 in order to pay the 10 billion.

      • If only more people would realize that fact, there would be lot of teeth gnashing. Great for dentists. GK

  12. If the companies want to finance it and the shareholders are on board then great. I just don’t want a bunch of taxpayer money funding think tanks in Universities and funding the profit of political donors.

  13. I, for one, have enormous sympathy for their plight and hereby pledge to donate every single one of my ‘Big Oil’ checks to fight CO2-based Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming.

    I urge you all to join me. It’s the least we can do.

    • H.R. I agree with your motives and action. I hereby pledge to spend all my Big Oil Climate Change Disruption cheques to the development of poverty reducing technologies and offsetting the effects of climate change, especially winter.

      • I’m in for that as well.
        Not sure the warmists will be willing to hold their collective breath until they get it, though.

      • Nah, I’m going to keep mine and reinvest it in shares of Chevron or Exxon. Let Green Peace, Sierra Club, SkepticalScience, and Union of Concerned Scientists fund the research.

      • Me too. Nobody gets my Quick Trip rebates. My wife has distant relatives that own a pipeline terminal and all they ever gave me was a job pumping gas while in college. So much for big oil money here.

    • There was a Question Contest in Omni Mag years ago. The answer given was, “Space”. The winning question was, “What do most students occupy at university?”

      The overall winner was to the answer, “To be or not to be.” The winning question was, “What is the square root of 4b^2?”

  14. It is clear that in the current Administration it was considered good business to become a lapdog of the President because there were considerable favors for those who fell in line. Not to say this has not happened in previous Administrations, but normally our “free” media has historically exposed close relationships between business and the President. As others have mentioned, when the prize an propaganda are removed, support for climate change will wain.
    Looking at the list supporting the Paris Agreement, although I did not count, I note that a considerable number on the list are not corporations but government offices, religious groups, Unions, and ski lodges. Of course nothing would stop the 300 from donating their money to the UN rather than using my tax payments if they really believed in the movement.

  15. An implicit recognitiojn that “green” can’t stand on its own legs. And asking for a few billion per year can be put in the context of the scurrilous accusations at our address of being in the pay of “fossil fuel interests”.

  16. The Green Mob doesn’t have to worry, Gov Brown will keep things going. Well, for the next couple years…

  17. “………And it is possible that the federal government will begin to roll back many of the R&D and investment programs that have supported the recent domestic boom in clean energy. Initiatives already underway in a few states may act as a limited countervailing force, but the absence of federal action will be strongly felt……..”.

    Soooo sorry GreenTechMedia, but I hardly think that solar energy, which is currently providing about 0.6% of our total electricity needs in the U.S., constitutes what you call a “boon”. And that was as of April of 2016 according to the fed’s EIA—and the solar panel has been around for going on 63 years now. Wind isn’t doing a whole lot better at a mediocre 4.7% when those turbines aren’t killing birds. Look at the physics and engineering problems with wind and solar if you want to know why.

    http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=427&t=3.

    Coal, natural gas, nuclear and hydro together are producing 92% of our electrical energy needs, and I am all in favor of nuclear’s and NG’s numbers going up. Wouldn’t mind coal going up either, but the bad reputation it’s been given makes that seem unlikely to me. Some new nuke plants are being built in Georgia and South Carolina, IIRC, and one in Tennessee just went online a while back. Good to see.

    Do yourself a favor GreenTechMedia, you and California need to rid yourselves of the delusion that this country can do without fossil fuels and nuclear power in the absence of some major breakthrough to replace them (nuclear fusion?)—-especially crude oil which we use primarily for transportation, among other things, and not electricity generation.

    The country’s economy would collapse without fossil fuels and nuclear, and I have yet to hear of a game plan you greenies have in place to prevent that. Not that you probably care………

    • Oops, meant “boom”, not boon. Anthony: When are we going to be able to edit typos in our comments like we can do on Facebook?

    • CD, good posting, it IS delusional to believe wind, solar, and bio-fuels have a chance to replace the fossil fuels which currently make our lives comfortable. It is a crime that so many scientists are misinforming the policy makers and citizens into believing otherwise just to enrich their bank account. It will be many decades before sufficient alternatives are developed.

  18. When a government will subsidize a business for being green, businesses are more likely to act green. I wonder how many of those 300 business people represented companies receiving green financial incentives. Of course, they may also act green if it is good PR, but the election outcome shows that many Americans aren’t that interested in patronizing companies delivering the green mantra.

    Finally…the science will shift. It is already shifting. Research will reveal a much lower climate sensitivity than previously expected (it already has) and those papers will get more coverage. New studies will reveal that previous temperature adjustments were too large and often in the wrong direction. Crisis skeptical scientists will be funded and get more press, finally revealing the glaring false assumptions in the AGW Theory. Global temperatures will cool.

    Of course, Hansen et al, will still be regarded as heroes among the ‘intelligentsia’ and the ‘elite’. Those with massive egos will always cling to their delusions.

  19. “If the federal government steps back, the private sector may leap forward.”

    The private sector already leaped forward. They leaped forward to grab the money and run. I have been a US DOE grant reviewer. You should see the chancers and dancers that rock up when there is free money on a plate. Obviously it is felt that singing the current psalm from the right hymn book is how to win a beauty contest.

    Expecting to have the private sector leap forward is to hope (in vain?) that the government will give tax credit – in the sense of deducting it 1 for 1 from taxes payable – for anything shovelled at renewable and CO2 energy reduction projects.

    It is an interesting concept. Would private companies, even on that basis, fund the development of technologies that they didn’t already have a piece of? I am not saying don’t do it – not at all – but it raises an interesting question: Does the AGW meme find traction in private companies beyond sucking up free money? Would they actually pay for these things if it didn’t have perceived caché with the Starbucks and iPhone crowds?

    If CAGW is more than a party-political marketing and greenwashing exercise, now would be the time to prove it.

    • “If CAGW is more than a party-political marketing and greenwashing exercise, now would be the time to prove it.”

      Bang on the money, D day approaches. Put up or shut up, the science stands without public funding or it dies a death.

      The idea that private companies are going to fund government departments with that level of money is ridiculous. University science will attract private funding as always but without public money on offer to wind and solar companies then there won’t be any profit to invest. Do the alarmists think that funds are going to suddenly appear from companies that currently don’t back the science? That thinking falls into the same trap as government demanding ever more energy efficiency from industry because it thinks that companies normally waste money.

      Trump will not only be the best thing for America if he can force top down business ideology but also show a lead to the rest of the world.

    • Chris: Not too surprisingly, they are only in it for the money. The climate business is a dirty one. Where there’s muck, there’s brass. It is easy for a CEO to spend OPM on flights of fancy – no skin off their noses. Note that they spend ‘company money’ and don’t take it out of their contractual bonuses.

      (OPM=other people’s money)

      • Some companies fear being slimed by Greenie demonstrations and/or online dissing, so they succumb to greenmail.

      • Walmart is a business – so what? If anything, their customer base is more likely to be skeptical regarding AGW than strong believers.

      • I have always found that Walmart is more worried about its national image than it is about the local customers’ complaints. Furthermore, people of skeptic ilk are reasonable enough that they will patronize a business whose policies they might disagree with, where the “strong believers” will follow any spin of public correctness and boycott as instructed by the green action groups. That is why corporate America has chosen to align with the movement so far.

    • I checked your link & note-

      1 • The writer Joshua S Hill
      (“I’m a Christian, a nerd, a geek, and I believe that we’re pretty quickly directing planet-Earth into hell in a handbasket! I also write for Fantasy Book Review “),
      Lives in a full time Fantasy world & is a believer rather than an interrogator of facts.

      2 • They merrily show solar capacity …. but not production.

      people can draw their own conclusions

      • Believe me when I say that the average “evangelical” Christian does not support the AGW or CAGW religion or bad science. Most of them (I’m excluding myself here) barely know what science is and the older ones, having observed that the weather really hasn’t changed much over the decades, certainly don’t believe the bull crap coming out of the MSM.

        We are most interested in our personal lifestyle choices, to use liberal garbage terminology. It took Obama working to pull the noose tight around our necks, using global warming as an excuse, to make us finally turn out and vote for Trump because Hillary was all about the progressive endgame. I am one of the millions of voters who did not show up in poling because we chose not to participate in the MSM game.

      • 1savenergy, haha, if you want to play the fantasy world game, I can point you to a frequent poster on WUWT who claimed to have cured HIV and multiple sclerosis. if you have information that refutes the key points made in the article, please provide supporting links.

      • The artical states
        “The 22 companies (and their corresponding ranking in the Fortune 500) committing to 100% renewable energy are as follows:”

        Please explain how such companies manage to achieve this 24/7 without resorting to accounting tricks or riding on the back of fossil fuels.

      • “Chris December 17, 2016 at 9:20 am

        1savenergy, haha, if you want to play the fantasy world game, I can point you to a frequent poster on WUWT who claimed to have cured HIV and multiple sclerosis.”

        In my many years reading WUWT I have never seen anyone claim to have cured HIV or MS.

      • Patrick, if our friend Chris is calling for supporting links, surely he’ll be willing to oblige by showing us links to the postings to which he refers.

      • “surely he’ll be willing to oblige by showing us links to the postings to which he refers”

        Nah.

        Taking things out of context, and if that fails plain straightforward “making stuff up” is more his method.

    • I consider it self-protection against future quintupled power bills at their facility locations. If you recall Mr. Obama stated that electricity rates would necessarily have to rise dramatically to pay for our carbon debt.
      Hold on to that article and post it after 2 years of Trump. We’ll see how the trend goes then.

  20. Trump needs to demand that Universities repay the Federal Government for all research that was found to be biased/fr@udulent and whose conclusions don’t match the data. Once Universities and Fake Scientists discover that there is now a cost for perpetuating/manufacturing this nonsense we will never hear of it again. Any “consensus” based upon a conclusion reached by using “Mike’s Nature Trick…to hide the decline,” is a consensus of F00ls.

  21. The author of this article is so upbeat about:
    – the ability of the private sector to drive the research on climate change,
    – demand renewable energy sources for their companies to use,
    – how the cost per Watt for renewable has fallen faster than expected

    that by the end of the article she has made the case for no government involvement needed any more.

    Perfect. Taxpayers are finally done paying for all this.

    • One way to reduce the cost of climate research is for the government to fire the present researchers but before they leave they have to teach their replacements who qualify under the H1-B program. The replacement most from India will do their jobs at a fraction of the price. Maybe even do a better job since they actually may do some reseach.

  22. 300 businesses signed an open letter to the incoming president in support of the Paris climate accord and continuation of low-carbon policies. Ninety-one of these companies have annual revenue over $100 million,
    ==============================
    translation: they want government handouts, paid for by the taxpayer. The want the government to continue to function as a Reverse Robbin Hood. Stealing from the poor to give to the rich.

    And what will these companies do with this money? Use it to pay the cost of moving their operations offshore to take advantage of lower foreign tax rates and free trade back into the US. If you can move offshore, using US tax deductions, then pay no tax in the foreign location, and sell your products back into the US duty free as a result of free trade, your shareholders would be up in arms if you stayed in the US. In point of fact you could be sued by the shareholders if you didn’t move offshore,

    • ferdberple

      I like the idea of Aunty Robin Hood.

      Robin Hood takes from the rich and gives the rich-free back their own money taken as taxes.

      Aunty Robin Hood taxes the rich-free and gives it risk-free to the rich in order to ‘save’ the rich-free from the consequences of the means of production used by the rich to get themselves into a position where they can dictate how much tax the rich-free should pay them.

      Pretty good work, if you can get it.

      I would like to add that it is this kind of arrangement that ‘makes the world go round’ but I think it goes round because of inertia. Oh, wait…

    • Free trade is not the problem. Trade makes us all richer. Forcing people to pay double for an iphone just to provide a few thousand jobs would not improve our economy. Taking advantage of cheaper labor and expertise through trade is a good thing. Offshoring simply to avoid taxation is not. The root cause of why companies move offshore in name only is the ridiculously high tax rate here. Hopefully Trump will address the root cause by loiwering corporate taxes, instead of playing more crony capitalism games.

      • Not enough people would pay double for an iPhone, me included. Currently, we pay more than double the manufacturing costs, looking at Apples annual revenues and capital. If Apple moved back to the U.S. for manufacturing they would be forced to make a smaller profit to stay competitive. Any operation moved back to the U.S. would involve the heavy use of robotics and not as many jobs as people think. They would be skilled-labor jobs, however.

        Look at what McDonalds is rolling out to combat $15 an hour wages becoming popular in Democrat held cities. They are willing to totally change their image by going for automated ordering up front. Frankly, I support this given the number of English-as-a-second language employees I have to deal with in Arizona at fast food places. Just this week I locally ordered a Quarter Pounder Deluxe and was delivered a Quarter Pounder Double Cheese. In fact, I seldom eat at fast food places locally because prices are already so high family run restaurants can compete with better food.

        I chose these examples because they show the labor situation has grown so complex, it will take more than lowering taxes to fix the labor end of the problems in this economy.

      • Trade makes us all richer.
        =============
        Not if you are the one thrown out of work and unable to feed your kids or make your mortgage payments.

        Read the history of the Opium Wars in China to see what happened to England when it started trading with China. Brought to the verge of bankruptcy, the British hooked the Chinese population on Opium to balance the trade books. The Chinese have a long memory, and consider the US descendants of the British. Revenge is best when served cold.

      • Actually, the phone would not double. The labour content is only a portion of the cost (10%). There are a number of really good studies that show the cost advantage in china is only about 10% in many cases. Their cost of energy, transportation etc. have all soared in recent years. Toss in shipping, and you are BARELY ahead.

        I don’t have the link handy, but iPhone cost would only increase by about 12% if built here. And all of the factory jobs, taxes pay for schools, roads, hospitals etc. – it really is a no brain to have that phone built here.

        While china factory job wages were about $1 say 15 years ago, their costs are now $7 and are expected to continue to increase.

        Given with advanced manufacturing and assembly, then labor cost is not that large of a % of cost of the product. (only single % digits for today’s automated production lines)

        In fact there are some studies that show manufacturing in the USA is cheaper than most many places. Transportation costs are key. GE recently moved production of their water heaters from China back to the USA. The time from factory floor to Home Depot used to be about 6-8 weeks. Want to take a guess how fast it is now? – In some cases the water heater is delivered to Home Depot on the SAME DAY as the product having been manufactured!

        Free trade has absolute gutted the manufacturing economy here.

        Name one country in the world right now that shows increased standards of living – you find 99% of those cases that is countries that are stealing manufacturing jobs from someplace else. There is ZERO countries showing increased standards of living by adopting free trade and the resulting loss of jobs.

        Like global warming, free trade been sold as a job creating system and the results of this 30 year experiment has utter failed! Like global warming, free trade is a job killing scam.

        Don’t you find it interesting that Al Gore is the MAIN person who sold everyone on free trade, and now he is pushing global warming? So Al Gore and Bill clintion sigining the free trade act here is ALL YOU NEED to know!

        Free trade and global warming are the same thing – an anti west policy that re-distributes the world’s wealth.

        Regards,
        Albert D. Kallal
        Edmonton, Alberta Canada

  23. I read Shayle Kann’s article and scanned through the comments. Kann’s examples of businesses funding the green blob are based on the past 8 years of the US federal government encouraging and coercing businesses to spend money on green projects without any consideration as to whether such projects could be financially justified based on a positive ROI. Kann also sites many regulatory mandates for green compliance based on the false premises of climate change. Kann uses all of these examples of government coercion as reasons why businesses will continue to fund green organizations. In my opinion, Kann’s article lays out a road map of policies and regulations for the Trump administration to remove.

  24. This is a rhetorical question? If there is a project that doesn’t make any sense, which is more likely to do it – government or private sector?

  25. “Trump said that “nobody really knows” whether climate change is real …”

    Is kind of like saying nobody really knows if Russell’s teapot exists. The current incarnation of ‘climate change’ in which every change in an always naturally changing system is attributed to the human emitted component of a naturally occurring trace compound makes poor Russell’s teapot blanche in shame at the sheer scale of the unfalsifiability.

    Technology has moved on massively since Russell’s day and we could now in principle falsify the teapot if we wished to devote sufficient resources to the task but the climate change ‘hypothesis’ is not even in principle falsifiable regardless of resources deployed. It is in short a non-scientific idea and doesn’t even warrant the title ‘hypothesis’ as it lies forever outside of the purview of science.

  26. “Why? Because it makes economic sense.”

    Demonstrating one of things that is wrong with AGW / Green crowd. Always ready to spend, spend, spend, so long as it is someone else money.
    Along with no “sense”.

  27. “The Buffett Rule” on taxes
    The billionaire was even more explicit about his goal of reducing his company’s tax payments. “I will do anything that is basically covered by the law to reduce Berkshire’s tax rate,” he said. “For example, on wind energy, we get a tax credit if we build a lot of wind farms. That’s the only reason to build them. They don’t make sense without the tax credit.”
    Think about that one. Mr. Buffett says it makes no economic sense to build wind farms without a tax credit, which he gladly uses to reduce his company’s tax payments to the Treasury. So political favors for the wind industry induce a leading U.S. company to misallocate its scarce investment dollars for an uneconomic purpose. Berkshire and its billionaire shareholder get a tax break and the feds get less revenue, which must be made up by raising tax rates on millions of other Americans who are much less well-heeled than Mr. Buffett.
    This is precisely the kind of tax favoritism for the wealthy that Mr. Romney’s tax reform would have reduced, and that other tax reformers want to stop. Too bad Mr. Buffett didn’t share this rule with voters in 2012
    When the subsidies STOP, All the publicly owned companies will dump this scam.

  28. “Greens have requested that Private Businesses step in and top up an anticipated funding shortfall …”

    If I were AWG / Green crowd, I would be far more worried about getting Pro Bono Legal aid lined up to defend against charges of Waste and Abuse of Federal Funds.

  29. “it may just be enough to allow the global decarbonization trend to continue apace.”

    They misspelled decapititation.

    • If there has been a “global decarbonization trend,” it has only been due to a global recession. Replacing nuclear energy with wind and solar, backed up by fossil fuels, is not going to decarbonize anything. Replacing coal with natural gas reduces some emissions. But when the global economy improves, energy use will increase and reverse any decarbonization trend seen in recent years. The Greens’ solution is to reduce the global population by making fossil fuels unavailable or too expensive for the poor. That will serve to reduce life expectancy for the masses and accomplish their ultimate goal. Climate change is just the means to that end. If it falls out of favor, they will simply turn their attention to other means, as they have done in the past.

  30. “Why? Because it makes economic sense.” And they really believe it. There’s a constant state of denial about the economic viability of renewable energy. MSM propaganda may enforce that notion but corporate spread sheets don’t lie. There will be no favors to curry with the new administration in regards to Climate Change and I guarantee the corporations are breathing a sigh of relief and have already allocated that money to something that will help their business grow.

  31. I do not invest my money in business that is supporting the CAGW-fraud. If I’d find out that they are or tend to I’d withdraw it immediately.

  32. Quite like the idea. Private funding will have a start point – tender process – award – strict scope of supply against a strict payment by results timetable – and an end! Doubt there will be year on year cash flow for the effects of an indiscernible amount of warming may have on the natterjack toad.

  33. The private sector is still coming off their high of virtue signaling.
    When they realize there are no gov’t favors to be had they will soon redirect their resources to more worthwhile real world endeavors.

  34. Any public corporation CEO who throws his/her company’s profit on UN Climate Aid fire pit needs to be removed by either their board and/or by shareholders at large.

  35. What the greens don’t understand is that big business won’t be giving them shareholders money based on bogus science and propaganda as their motive

  36. 300 businesses? 300 businesses? Do they really think those are impressive numbers?
    Remember when Trump noted that 70,000 businesses went belly up over some relatively short period of time? He found that number unbelievable, amazing. These radical green people also list 91 businesses with over $100 million REVENUE, not gross income, not net income, not disposable income. Anyone who thinks tightwad Elon Musk will part with any of his millions is cuckoo.

  37. I think we’re inching closer to knowing what is going to happen when the loonie left runs out of Soros’ money. They will have to emerge from their safe space cellars like locusts and shift for themselves. Out with the old, embrace the new. That is progressive group think, isn’t it?

  38. Perhaps the money sucking “scientists” will shift their studies towards looking for the Root Cause of the Global Warming they claim is occurring into finding the TRUE cause of the indicated warming. I am sure Trump and the people he is appointing to the various departments will gladly support this endeavor. The money sucking, “scientists” will quickly latch onto the tit giving them money when their’s drys up. This should result in a real, scientific, conclusion of the cause and solution. I feel this will happen as it has been 40 plus years and there is still no PROOF that the major cause of this warming is caused by man.
    Why is it we have discovered more about Space than the Earth’s atmosphere? We have proven that Black Holes exist. As late as 20 years ago a cosmological scientist would have been laughed at if he said Black Holes were real and existed. Yet today, the “Climate Scientists” are still following the mission and objective of the UN IPCC requirements of PROVING all global warming is caused by mankind. So, as a result we are still proving a cause but not THE cause. [Read the front matter of any IRC] Now read WG1AR5 (or any other version) Chapter 8 and note the complete lack of the effect of water vapor, other than from “Stratospheric water Vapor from CH4.” This tells me that the conclusions of the various reports ELIMINATES all other water vapor effects. After reading each version of the WG1 reports (several times) I can find no other mention of the effect of “generic” water vapor – other than in the front mater (Section D of the SPM) describing how it is “extremely likely positive.” Give me a break. Twenty years and this is all the IPCC “scientests” can come up with?
    “The net feedback from the combined effect of changes in water vapour, and differences between atmospheric and surface warming is extremely likely positive and therefore amplifies changes in climate. The net radiative feedback due to all cloud types combined is likely positive. Uncertainty in the sign and magnitude of the cloud feedback is due primarily to continuing uncertainty in the impact of warming on low clouds. {7.2}”

      • The term “proven” may be a little strong for your liking, however, supermassive objects exist in most galaxies, these objects are not visible.. Strongly implying these objects are black holes. Please Google “Do Black Holes exist?” you will find a stronger base of knowledge that Black holes exist than there is supporting the myth that “The majority [or even a substantial portion] of the Global Warming is Anthropogenic.” If they do not exist, what is at the center of a galaxy? What are the stars in a galaxy rotating around? Further, you would face a rather strong pushback if you, as a cosmologist, declared they did not exist.

      • PS,
        A search of NASA – https://www.nasa.gov/ – place Black Hole in their search box, gives me the impression that many Scientists and cosmologists believe that they exist. And as I write this I am watching a Nat Geo documentary on the Hubble telescope and they use terms implying there is no doubt that Black Holes exist. They do not quibble about them or imply they may exist, probably exist, etc. They muse the existence of Black Holes to explain the observed phenomena they are describing. Even Stephen Hawking believes in them so that make you smarter than both him and Einstein.

  39. Well, the new mantra is that everything is just fine, and business will take up the slack. (Read: we are in deep panic and totally screwed right now).

    Even when Al Gore came out of Trump tower, the spin was that new green technologies will create jobs. Given that the left socialists realize that Trump won due to jobs and industry, then the only way to sell this crap is to promote the idea that industry and jobs will result from such policies! (Can they actually say green and jobs in the same sentence with a straight face??).

    The problem is Germany experience with all these huge green energy subsidies been a train wreck in the making. And Spain went on a HUGE socialist spending in an attempt to SHOW the world how they can be the leader in job creating by adopting green energy. We will show the world how to do this! The result is what, 25% or more unemployment among the youth. You have common 3 generations of a family now living in a crap small apartment in Spain, no jobs, no industry growth. And those 3 generations living in that tiny box are often educated on the tax dime by some local university. So what value is such a university degrees on gender studies going to result in a job without industry?

    And with the Spain government broke, those billions spent on green energy is not producing wealth and job creating – let alone tax dollars for the government. 600+ solar companies have gone bankrupt as the government cuts back. Should have spent those billons on at least re-building roads, or promoting jobs and industry. And like a Las Vegas gambler, you blow it on stupid things, then roads, bridges? The result is you don’t have money to repair your car, or house or in this case re-build the country – you blew all your money and now Spain is not only broke, but have nothing to show for that massive green spending spree.

    The key takeaway here is that large scale green investing been a black hole, and a formulas for a bankrupt country.

    When Trump won, the Morocco COP climate conference turned from an expected Hillary victory dance into a funeral (or shall I say morgue). They realized the gig was up without billions of handouts from the USA.

    And amazing, the “spin” at the Morocco conference was we go it alone without the USA – we don’t need them (ya, right!!!). So they now promoting the idea to get industry on board to give us our huge handouts.

    Without buckets of duckets from the government, the whole thing really collapses. Worse, with Europe and Canada pushing carbon taxes, all they do is chase jobs to the USA.

    This is all about who’s has the handouts – and the greens are in a state of panic over the changing political landscape.

    The simple fact is people are un-willing to trash their economies in the name of this global green scam.

    The real story:
    They are in a state of outright panic right now.

    Regards,
    Albert D. Kallal
    Edmonton, Alberta Canada

    • Jobless young people in southern Europe are not due to the spoiled green market but because of the 2008 crash and in Spain especially through the crashed real estate market with the overblown credits.

  40. But why have people turned their back on Obama’s plan to create “whole new industries” and “100’s of thousands of jobs here in America”. He had been working on that plan since 2010 using billions in government investment.
    You can see him explaining what he planned to do in this video. Watch from 1minute 58seconds.
    The investments created “Abound Solar” – (now bankrupt, liquidated with all jobs lost and capital destroyed and unsold or returned highly toxic sub-standard panels processed as hazardous waste) and invested in foreign solar subsidy miners, Abengoa – (now in the process of trying to avoid becoming the biggest corporate bankruptcy in Spanish history and being sued by the U.S. for attempting to funnel U.S. investments back to Spain.)
    Why don’t people understand that Obama really believed that he was going to transform America and create 100’s of thousands of jobs. By using his magic Keynesian stimulus approach, in which he and his friends picked winners and losers in the marketplace based on nonsense that they had read in the New York Times.
    Ye shall judge them by their fruit:

    • 2:42 “… what’s more, over seven percent of the components and products used in construction will be manufactured in the USA…”

      So over 92% of the components and products used in its construction will be imported from outside the USA.

      • To be fair – I do think that he was saying “seventy percent”.
        Of course, that’s an unprovable and uncheckable claim.
        On top of the difficulty of accounting for the origin of every component, there is an odd definition regarding the official location of manufacture of a product. This is usually defined as the last location in which final assembly took place. It’s a definition open to abuse.
        It didn’t help America though. The fact that supply chains were established on American soil has just meant that more Americans are hurt by the collapse and liquidation.
        It takes a man who generates policy based purely on “hope” and “the power of dreams” to tolerate misallocation of capital and opportunity cost on that scale. Can we flush trillions down the toilet – YES WE CAN!!!

  41. Maybe NASA could sell off the naming rights for hurricanes and other disasters to the highest bidder. What have names like “Katrina” or “Sandy” ever done for private enterprise? Why not “Hurricane Google” and “Geico Flood”, and maybe “Walmart Super El-Nino”? For extra bucks, the statistics for the disaster in question could be rigged to let it score higher in the rankings, and thus increase name recognition. As a wholesome side effect, ever-increasing inflation of disaster statistics would powerfully reinforce the “narrative” of impending doom.

  42. One of the better consequences being brought by the new administration will be the toning down of the rhetoric directed at critics of AGW by government entities. The greens used fear and greed to further their agenda. Remove both by not punishing rational dissent, and subsidies ‘taxed’ onto utility bills supporting unprofitable wind & solar schemes.

  43. They would have to own them, not just run them. Any public company forking over serious money is going to be asked by shareholders why they don’t get the money instead.

  44. Whilst were busy grabbing other people’s money to fund green insanity – maybe private business would like to retroactively fund the $3.5 million cost of Stein’s failed Wisconsin recount.
    131 additional votes for Trump, discovered at a cost of ~ $27,000 per vote.
    Those greens sure know how to get a return on their investment.

  45. Businesses can be expected to support federal programs when this means there’s taxpayers money on offer. In the absence of this, they can still be expected to show interest in any technologies that are profitable without subsidy.
    Which ‘green’ technologies would that include, though ?

  46. Not so fast. Corporations do green because of pressure from some of there biggest share holders, the Trusts and Foundations whose boards have been infiltrated with radical greens and left leaning academics. Corporations will I assume still cater to those large stakeholders for fear of retaliation

  47. Earlier this year, Congress allocated continuing subsidies to wind and solar (and biofuel) for the next five years. How is that going to be undone by Trump? It’ll be a big battle. And Trump told farmers in Iowa that he favored continuing the biofuel subsidy.

  48. I nominate the Clinton Foundation to step up and pledge $ 100 Million (per annum), with earmarks to Griff for $1.50 in support of his good efforts ;>)

  49. “verges on delusional” – Verges??? No they went past delusional a long long time ago :)

    The president submits the budget but congress will still fund. It will depend on how much Trump will use his veto. Is he willing to shut down the country over a budget? If not then they will sneak some in.

  50. Chickens are coming home to roost. It’s what chickens do. No more money from taxpayers. No more hiding data. No more windy get rich scams. No more failed models predicting catastrophe. No more believe it or else!
    Shut down the funding. Investigate the 25 biggest frauds and then go after 26 – 50. Bring Government, Educational and Non-profits to heel by immediately opening all taxpayer funded work product to everyone for scrutiny.

    That should get us started. On January 21st we can plan our next steps!

    Cut the head off this snake.

    Merry Christmas
    Gudolpops

  51. I feel great hope, since November 8th! I am hopeful that we will progressively implement a great change in the US government and private business as well, as we move away from crony socialism, reduce the overwhelming burden of government regulations, and re-embrace capitalism to guide investment dollars.

    ‘May your days be Merry and Bright!’
    Merry Christmas Everyone!

  52. When the gov shells out big cash, the private sector goes to the head of the line to get their hands on it, grants or tax breaks. When a gov backs out and quashes subsidies, that’s it. There is no incentive for a company to put out unproductive cash. Their would even be a case for a shareholder class action if they did. When unproductive things are done by gov or private companies, it is the tax payer’s or the sharehilders’ cash that is being squandered. Maybe you clones should have taken time to learn a few things while you were occupying Wall Street.

  53. Most of the oil industry has pretended to go along with the scam. Let’s now see if they actually fund it too.

  54. Demanding more money from the competition only strenghtens Trump’s position. Go ahead – self destruct – that is their goal, anyway.

  55. ” Nobody will be able to cover the multi-billion dollar cash shortfall they are all about to experience.” we can only hope!

Comments are closed.