Rupert Darwall: Growth Will Be A Thing Of The Past If Businesses Choose ‘Net Zero’

From The GWPF

Date: 07/03/20

Rupert Darwall, The Hill

Investors more obsessed with climate than investor returns, who bully corporations into adopting net-zero business strategies, are doing more than destroying shareholder value. They are destroying the capitalist growth machine.

Pledging “net zero” by 2050 to achieve compliance with the Paris Agreement on climate change is all the rage in the corporate world. BP has announced that it will be a net-zero company – that is, maintaining a balance between emissions produced and emissions taken out of the atmosphere – by the designated date. During its “Beyond Petroleum” days in the 2000s, BP made massive bets on renewable energy, ending in large write-downs in 2011. The lesson: An oil company doesn’t become a renewable-energy company.

BP apparently hasn’t learned. In effect, its new CEO, Brian Looney, is sun-setting the world’s sixth-largest quoted oil company and Britain’s fifth-largest company by market capitalization. Nonetheless, BP’s move was welcomed by some of its most militant shareholders, led by the Church of England’s head investor, Edward Mason, who promptly urged investors to up the pressure on Exxon Mobil to disclose its emissions.

In fact, the Paris Agreement speaks only of “pursuing efforts” to limit the rise in average global temperature to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and achieving net-zero emissions sometime “in the second half of this century.” The more aggressive timetable came three years later, when the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) produced its 1.5°C special report. In that document, the IPCC asserted that emissions must reach net zero by around 2050 and, by 2030, cut emissions by about 45 percent from 2010 levels.ADVERTISEMENT

The 2030 timeline unleashed the current wave of heightened climate alarmism. It provoked Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) to talk of the world ending in 12 years. At the Democratic presidential debate in Las Vegas, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) spoke of scientists warning that “incredibly bold action” must be taken in the next six or seven years. Irrespective of any action by the European Union and the U.S., there is not the slightest chance that the draconian emissions cuts will meet the target of the now-totemic 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels. The math is simple: It took less than a decade-and-a-half for the growth in carbon-dioxide emissions from non-Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries to outstrip the combined total of U.S. and EU emissions.

Before businesses embark on costly emissions cuts, they should read the fine print of the IPCC’s 1.5°C report. There, they will find a blueprint for the extinction of capitalism as we know it. Indeed, the 1.5°C report is the most ideological of any IPCC report so far. The 1.5°C target, the report says, creates the opportunity for “intentional societal transformation.” In language closer to Sanders’s than any believer in capitalism, the IPCC says hitting 1.5°C implies “very ambitious, internationally cooperative policy environments that transform both supply and demand.”

Under this vision, the energy, industrial, construction, transportation and agricultural sectors are all slated for policy-induced restructuring. A dietary shift from meat and dairy is envisaged to reduce pastureland by up to 11 million square kilometers, or 4.2 million square miles, an area greater than the U.S. (which is roughly 3.8 million square miles). The industrial sector is to cut its emissions by between 67 percent and 91 percent.

How can this happen, without inducing a contraction that makes the Great Depression of the 1930s look like a mild recession? There is no point in cutting greenhouse-gas emissions unless the whole world does so. There was more rationality to Soviet-style central planning, which at least had the aim of producing something of value rather than producing nothing.

Free-market capitalism is not the IPCC’s only victim. Higher food prices are on the 1.5°C menu, too. Higher energy prices will delay the transition to “clean cooking” and away from burning wood or animal dung and the indoor pollution they cause, one of the biggest killers in poorer countries. Yet the IPCC avoids weighing the costs of the 1.5°C pathway against its putative benefits, arguing that it’s a matter of value judgments.

Full Post here.

Advertisements

59 thoughts on “Rupert Darwall: Growth Will Be A Thing Of The Past If Businesses Choose ‘Net Zero’

  1. A lovely optimistic poem by Susan Jarvis Bryant

    Doomsday… or Not?

    The Green New Deal is out there, and Bernie says it’s true—
    there’s only twelve more years left for the likes of me and you
    to curtail carbon footprints and cure the ailing earth
    by living lives of paucity, deficiency and dearth;
    shunning all air travel to posh, exotic climes,
    cooking on dung fires and shutting down the mines,
    relishing bean burgers and banning buns with beef
    coz cattle cutting cheese will bring apocalyptic grief;
    trading roaring engines for sturdy walking shoes,
    so long as they’re not made from any bovine beast who moos.
    Let’s not forget the plastic and the drastic aftermath
    of oil embroiled production that paved the green warpath;
    so, switch off every cell phone and damn PCs to hell,
    quit wittering on Twitter and break the Facebook spell;
    turn off the heat and air-con, trade your brick house for a shack—
    if you want a longer future you’re compelled to travel back
    to Neanderthal conditions, so now’s the time to choose
    to pine in pious penury, or crack a vat of booze,
    then book a one-way ticket to an island soaked in sun
    and bask in global warming for twelve more years to come!

    • Yeah, just in case you wondered whether or not this was all a bad dream or we really are living in the Matrix.

      What the hell point is there in having a zero carbon fossil fuel business? That’s like thinking you can have carbon free sugar !

      they say the devil worshiping , illuminati, secret societies running the world have a rule that they must give us signs of what they are doing so that they can claim we knew and thus consented.

      I guess this must be one of the those signs.

    • You’re not seeing this post logically.

      If BP’s CEO is preaching zero carbon it’s to elimate competition, a PR move to settle down Climate Prattle, introduce new products etc.

      Use subtractive logic.

      • I agree, John. For most of the CEOs, government officials, and climate disaster rank and file, 2050 (or even 2045, as the virtue signaling increases), is so far into the future that many of them will not be alive or cognitive when the bill comes due. As we march down the same road as the Germans, it will become even more glaringly apparent that planetary temperatures are not following the models and the grid cannot survive relying solely on renewables.

    • I thought it might be a misprint, or a sarc, so I actually looked it up, and that is his real name. That made me grin today, on such a grey depressing week. Now I will never forget who is CEO of BP, and obviously not touch them with a 10 foot pole. Not because of his name which he was born with, but because he subscribes to a real looney theory.

    • Bruce,
      As a BP pensioner I hang my head in shame.
      As a fellow Irishman Mr Looney should do the same.
      But you should excuse him, he is Kerryman, and they raise up some strange ones there.
      Yes – the unfortunate surname is apt.
      Mind you we voted conservative here in Britain recently. The choice was between Boris Johnstone a so called conservative and Jeremy Corbyn a Marxist.
      We got Boris Corbyn. See today’s budget.

  2. I think CEO Brian Looney has a very appropriate surname and must have been destined to be such a sound leader for shareholders. Go Woke go broke may apply here.

  3. We need net zero CO2 to protect our climate ?
    Because we are told it will heat up, will it realy ?
    Decadal Changes of the Reflected Solar Radiation and the Earth Energy Imbalance

    Abstract: Decadal changes of the Reflected Solar Radiation (RSR) as measured by CERES from 2000 to 2018 are analysed. For both polar regions, changes of the clear-sky RSR correlate well with changes of the Sea Ice Extent. In the Arctic, sea ice is clearly melting, and as a result the earth is becoming darker under clear-sky conditions. However, the correlation between the global all-sky RSR and the polar clear-sky RSR changes is low. Moreover, the RSR and the Outgoing Longwave Radiation (OLR) changes are negatively correlated, so they partly cancel each other. The increase of the OLR is higher then the decrease of the RSR. Also the incoming solar radiation is decreasing. As a result, over the 2000–2018 period the Earth Energy Imbalance (EEI) appears to have a downward trend of −0.16 ± 0.11 W/m2dec. The EEI trend agrees with a trend of the Ocean Heat Content Time Derivative of −0.26 ± 0.06 (1 σ
    ) W/m2dec.

    Two remarks:
    1. Winter seaice doesn’t “clearly melt”
    2. 2000 – 2018 is a short time to observe and evaluate climate.

    • Besides the fact that open water in the Arctic appears dark because all of the specularly reflected sunlight is constrained into a sheath where the angle of reflection equals the angle of incidence, instead of being scattered in approximately equal amounts in all direction by snow (actually, even snow has a strong forward reflecting lobe due to the sub-alignment of the flat crystals), the Arctic is famous for the frequent fogs that forced Vikings to use something called a “sunstone” to navigate.

      https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/09/12/why-albedo-is-the-wrong-measure-of-reflectivity-for-modeling-climate/

    • Oddly I was reading a very similar paper yesterday from 2019.

      Unlike DeWitte et al which you link to it craftily restricted itself to ” Reflected Solar Radiation” and also only looked at the summer months ( because winter did not change much and was not “significant”).

      This is lying by omission since they willfully ignore half the equation : the outgoing LWIR. They also studiously ignore the fact that open water in the stormy Arctic loses a lost of heat via evaporation.

      The fact that Arctic sea ice minimum was no less in Sept 2018 and 2019 than it was when IPCC started to scare the schist out of everyone , if pretty clear indication that there is a negative feedback just as strong and the supposed albedo feedback.

      What DeWitte should have done is compare 2000-2018 to 1997-2007 which was the period when majority of the ice was lost, rather than trying to straight line the whole 20y record of daily data into one scalar quantity. Yet more “trend” obsessed analysis.

      Hopefully one day they will employ scientists whose data processing goes beyond straight line fitting in Excel.

  4. THIS IS SCIENTIFICALLY CORRECT AND VERY IMPORTANT.

    END THE CLIMATE INSANITY!

    The Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change (hereafter, Center) announces it has filed a petition with the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), asking it to repeal its Endangerment Finding for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act (74 FR 66,496, Dec 15, 2009).

    Over ten years have elapsed since the EPA Administrator made this judgment in its so-called CO2 Endangerment Finding. During that time a considerable amount of scientific research has been conducted on the potential impacts of rising greenhouses gases on humanity and the natural world. The additional knowledge obtained from such research and observations reveal quite clearly that rising greenhouse gases do not represent what EPA identified in 2009 to be a current or future threat to public welfare.

    According to the Center’s Chairman, Dr. Craig Idso, who is the lead author of the petition, “multiple observations made over the past decade confirm the projected risks and adverse consequences of rising greenhouse gases are failing to materialize. The truth is, in stark contrast to the Endangerment Finding, CO2 emissions and fossil fuel use during the Modern Era have actually enhanced life and improved humanity’s standard of living. And they will likely continue to do so as more fossil fuels are utilized.”

    The 139-page petition by the Center highlights multiple peer-reviewed scientific studies in support of this thesis. In particular, the petition shows (1) there is nothing unusual or unnatural about Earth’s current warmth or rate of warming, (2) historic and modern records of atmospheric CO2 and temperature violate established principles of causation, (3) model-based temperature projections since 1979 artificially inflate warming (compered to observations) by a factor of three, invalidating the models and all their ancillary claims associated with greenhouse gas-induced warming, and that (4) key adverse effects of greenhouse gas-induced warming, including extreme weather events, temperature-induced mortality and sea level rise, are not occurring despite EPA predictions they should be worsening.

    The petition also presents compelling evidence that CO2 emissions and fossil energy use provide critical benefits that act to enhance health and welfare for humanity and the natural world. According to Dr. Idso, “Without adequate supplies of low-cost centralized energy derived from fossil fuels, few, if any, of the major technological and innovative advancements of the past two centuries that have enhanced and prolonged human life could have occurred. Additionally, without the increased CO2 emissions from fossil fuel use over the past two centuries, Earth’s terrestrial biosphere would be nowhere near as vigorous or productive as it is today. Rather, it would be devoid of the growth-enhancing, water-saving and stress-alleviating benefits it has reaped in managed and unmanaged ecosystems from rising levels of atmospheric CO2 since the Industrial Revolution began.”

    Such demonstrable facts presented in the Center’s petition provide clear evidence that EPA’s 2009 Endangerment Finding is scientifically flawed. Consequently, the Center calls upon the EPA to overturn its 2009 Endangerment Finding.
    The petition can be viewed or downloaded at:
    http://www.co2science.org/articles/V23/mar/EPAPetitionCO2ScienceMarch2020.pdf

    * * *

    • Here’s the Conclusion:

      The underlying position in EPA’s 2009 Endangerment Finding is that atmospheric CO 2 is a powerful greenhouse gas capable of causing dangerous global warming that will threaten life on the planet. In critically examining that position, this Petition for Repeal of the Endangerment Finding has presented convincing evidence based on real-world observations that it is not.

      Atmospheric CO 2 is not the all-important greenhouse gas EPA claims it to be. Sufficient proof is documented in the historic temperature and CO 2 records. Sufficient proof is also found in the missing model-derived fingerprint of CO 2 -induced warming in the tropical upper troposphere
      that observations fail to validate. And sufficient proof is noted in a vast array of real-world data that fail to match model projections for a host of subordinate temperature-related climate catastrophes.

      Furthermore, it is clear based on a multitude of observations that, far from being a dangerous pollutant, rising atmospheric CO 2 is actually benefitting humanity and the natural world. It is undeniable that fossil energy initiated (and continues to sustain) the Industrial Revolution and the many human and environmental benefits that have emerged therefrom. Without adequate supplies of low-cost centralized energy, few, if any, of the major technological and innovative advancements of the past two centuries that have enhanced and prolonged human life could have
      occurred. Additionally, without the increased CO 2 emissions from fossil fuel use over the past two centuries, Earth’s terrestrial biosphere would be nowhere near as vigorous or productive as it is today. Rather, it would be devoid of the growth-enhancing, water-saving and stress-alleviating
      benefits it has reaped in managed and unmanaged ecosystems from rising levels of atmospheric CO 2 since the Industrial Revolution began.

      When considering and accounting for such positive improvements, it becomes scientifically and morally indefensible to demonize fossil fuel use and declare CO 2 emissions a current (or long-term) threat to human health and welfare. More, not less, fossil fuel use is needed to enhance
      human progress and sustain the natural world. Consequently, in light of all the above evidence, EPA must repeal and overturn its 2009 Endangerment Finding for greenhouse gases under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act.

      Assessing the political ramifications of the EPA repealing its endangerment finding, just before the election, is well beyond my pay grade.

    • Thank you for your comment Allan. Dr. Idso’s petition provides an excellent summary of the science refuting the hypothesis of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW), most of which has appeared and been discussed in detail on this website.

      • Hi Joe,

        The catastrophic humanmade global warming (CAGW) hypothesis was false from the start. I knew it was false in ~1985 when I first heard about it, because of my knowledge of paleoclimate. CAGW has since been falsified many more times – we KNOW that climate is INsensitive to increasing atmospheric CO2 – there is NO real global warming/wilder weather crisis due to increasing atmospheric CO2.

        We also KNOW from much credible evidence that the CAGW hypo was a scam from the start, a political smokescreen for extreme-left totalitarian political objectives.

        What is truly objectionable is the abject cowardice displayed by so many politicians and businessmen, who are afraid to speak the truth, and acquiesce to this global-scale fraud in order to pacify the most ignorant of their followers. These cowards are traitors to their country and to those who depend upon them – voters, employees, citizens. They are by their cowardice aiding this scam and supporting the destruction of their countries’ economies.

        Regards, Allan

    • THE CATASTROPHIC ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING (CAGW) AND THE HUMANMADE CLIMATE CHANGE CRISES ARE PROVED FALSE
      By Allan M.R. MacRae, B.A.Sc.(Eng.), M.Eng., January 10, 2020
      https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2020/01/the-catastrophic-anthropogenic-global-warming-cagw-and-the-humanmade-climate-change-crises-are-proved-false.pdf
      [excerpt]

      There are numerous highly credible observations that falsify the CAGW hypothesis and many are listed herein, but as Albert Einstein famously stated “One would be enough”.

  5. If for example the Looney at BP causes the share price to drop while the assets stay in place then a sensibly run oil company such Exxon or Chevron will find it hard to resist launching a takeover bid. There was speculation about this during the Deepwater Horizon saga but nothing happened. Perhaps the money extorted from BP by the US courts put them off – noting that the majority of BP shareholders are actually American which Obummer ignored while attacking ‘British Petroleum’ to boost his poll ratings.

      • Maybe, debt load notwithstanding, BP will undertake a large share buyback program if the share price drops into target levels? I know from experience that arms-length second-guessing of resource company directors is a complicated endeavour, and often doomed due to not knowing all of the underlying strategy.

  6. Net Zero for corporations. Net Zero for populations. At least they’re consistent. China seems to regret their normalized choices.

  7. RE: “They are destroying the capitalist growth machine.
    This is not an ‘effect’ of socialist green bullying of corporations. It is the goal!

  8. The Malthusians say that economic growth leads to the destruction of the planet. They’re wrong.

    Once again I drag out my favorite Al Gore observation.

    Between 1977 and 2001, the amount of material required to meet all needs of Americans fell from 1.18 trillion pounds to 1.08 trillion pounds, even though the country’s population increased by 55 million people. Al Gore similarly noted in 1999 that since 1949, while the economy tripled, the weight of goods produced did not change. link

    Growth can be a result of doing more and more with less and less. It reduces the burden on the planet and improves the environment. It also improves the lives of humans all over the Earth. What’s not to like about growth?

      • You have to specify a time frame. Anyway, we’re approaching peak population. You also have to take improving technology into account. Over a thousand years, we could approach the point where we don’t have to extract any resources from the planet and everything we need will be recycled. ie. it will be the environmentalist’s dream brought to us by the power of capitalism.

      • If extrapolating any trend out to infinity was a valid way of projecting the future, then the warming since the sun came up this morning would prove that the earth will be vaporized in a few months.

    • Well, Gore was right: conservation, not environementalism; productivity, not progress; and personal, not shared/shifted responsibility. Then there is the wicked juxtaposition of green (not Green) growth and Obama’s characterization of “burden”: CO2 and carbon-based life, respectively.

  9. What if we don’t want our society to change?

    This is the biggest mass delusion I have ever seen. These delusional people are trying to jump through all these different hoops to reduce CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere, meanwhile, there is absolutely no evidence that CO2 is harmful or that it adversely affects the Earth’s atmosphere in any way.

    Full steam ahead! No facts or evidence required.

    And it’s a good thing no facts are required because it doesn’t take a genius to figure out the human-caused climate change narrative has holes in it big enough to drive a truck through. Yet these alarmist fearmongers can’t seem to figure that out.

    Some constituent ought to ask these people to tell us how they reached the conclusion that CO2 is a danger to humans or the Earth. I bet noone has ever asked them. They cruise along there thinking they know what they are doing.

    • It’s probably a mass hysteria, akin to a religious delirium.

      It has been speculated by historians that such events probably brought about the collapse of some earlier civilisations, where no natural cause can be evidenced.

      The Spanish Inquisition, Nazi Germany, etc, might be cited as recent examples.

      That is somewhat concerning.

  10. “Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”
    Maurice Strong

    “This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the industrial revolution.”
    Christiana Figueres

    “We’ve got to go straight to the heart of capitalism and overthrow it.”
    George Monbiot

    • “We’ve got to go straight to the heart of capitalism and overthrow it.”
      George Monbiot

      … then what ?

      George Monbiot: Oh , I hadn’t thought about that.

      • Greg … at 8:58 am
        George Monbiot: “Oh , I hadn’t thought about that.”

        The only thought that occurs to our left wing friends is how to win the political argument. They are like the five-year old running away from home and will have no idea what to do next once they get to the end of the driveway with their packed suitcase.

  11. The Bishop of Salisbury who leads for the Synod of the Church of England in their policy of disinvestment from fossil fuels unless companies conform to the Paris Agreement believes in the IPCC’s SR1.5 and a ‘carbon’ free future. It’s very sad – both for his pensioners and for the poor of the world lacking electricity. But the formal Christian church has always been a bit weak on christianity.

  12. If anyone believes that BP’s Looney believes in a CO2 free future please drop me a line. I have a bridge for sale. It’s very nice.

  13. Nothing but virtue signaling from BP. They realize ‘net zero’ a fantasy goal and are going with the flow to keep the heat off of themselves. Instead of playing the skeptic roll they just parrot the noise and say “me too” because they realize nothing will/can come of it. Cowards.

  14. Real Estate people say “Location, location, Location”
    In government (a form of marketing) and marketing in general it is “Perception, perception, perception.”
    It does not take much study to show that the bulk of the people do NOT share the perceptions of the Representatives (as in “Representative Democracy”) since the Representatives behave as if it is a Kleptocracy, not a Democracy. It has (almost) always been thus, since life crawled out of the primordial slime.

    Yes, there IS no climate Catastrophe, yes most people (if adult) know this. But one needs to ask oneself why the same clowns get re-elected over and over.

    The coming >cooling< due to solar minimum and more clouds will, initially be preceptionized as caused by global warming. Just watch.

  15. “Growth Will Be A Thing Of The Past If Businesses Choose ‘Net Zero’”
    It should be; the Past will be a thing of the future if …

    • Daddy, what did we light our homes with before candles?
      Electricity, son, electricity……

  16. I suspect that when he says that BP will be “net zero” he is referring to doing some tree-planting or CCS to offset the emissions that occur during oil and gas production. Not the emissions from the fuels that they produce. That would be a challenge for any oil company. So if I’m right, it’s not really net zero at all. It’s all window dressing and vague promises. We need those fossil fuels, and he knows it.

  17. Net zero is a fraud.

    Consider the daft crediting of the wood chip substitution of coal as zero emissions.

    Its all in the provisions and the exceptions. Get the correct people on your side and coal could be redefined as “carbon neutral”.
    They are disingenuous and playing for time and money. The climate is warming but in my view tracking to 1.5C or less so they will all be claiming victory and credit when in fact they are a ship of fools.

    Stalin would see them all as useful fools, Looney included.

  18. [QUOTE FROM ARTICLE]”Under this vision, the energy, industrial, construction, transportation and agricultural sectors are all slated for policy-induced restructuring. A dietary shift from meat and dairy is envisaged to reduce pastureland by up to 11 million square kilometers, or 4.2 million square miles, an area greater than the U.S. (which is roughly 3.8 million square miles). The industrial sector is to cut its emissions by between 67 percent and 91 percent.'”

    What about pasture land where rainfall is too low and/or soil is too poor to grow crops other than grass? Cattle and sheep can eat cellulose and turn it into protein; human beings cannot. Is this massive amount of pasture land supposed to go to waste, possibly resulting in human starvation?

  19. “…BP’s move was welcomed by some of its most militant shareholders, led by the Church of England’s head investor, Edward Mason, who promptly urged investors to up the pressure on Exxon Mobil to disclose its emissions.”

    The Roman Empire also still has its admirers.
    A couple of decades ago or so (God, I must be getting old), the Church of England was much in the news because of the catastrophic management of their investment portfolio. Commentators said that the loss of value would likely lead to a further decrease in the Church’s ‘operations’ generally. Like BP, it seems that they too are not learning from past mistakes.

    In any event, their financial clout is now small, despite having a lot of attractive buildings ripe for conversions to yuppie residences. (Some years ago a great curry house in Lancaster was in a former CofE place of worship.) And what kind of an organisation can expect to be taken seriously when it has the woke green HRH Prince Charles as it’s titular head? Never has titular head been a more appropriate phrase./rant

  20. Things like the Green New Deal and their like will result in mankind doing less and less with more and more resources. It will increase the burden on the poor and the planet and ruin the environment. Warmism ruins lives all over the place, which is the opposite of its intention.

  21. Civilization is predicated on Discoveries and inventions ; Notably, by a move into higher and higher energy flux densities. Resource base is constantly changing, so think of resources as a transitive verb rather than a noun, an example is electricity which did not exist as a resource until a short time ago. MIT recently discovered that He-3 can be used in fusion energy and produce zero radiation, it has a flux of 40,000,000 -50,000,000 kWh/lb, additionally we currently coast around space chemically @ 3000 meters/second on the escape thrust. Fusion equates to 100,000,000 meters/sec. NASA estimates 1.5 million tons of He-3 on the moon, we can mine the regolith simply by shaking it, the He-3 floats to the top. Only a bombed out hippy, dreams of moving civilization backwards to a pathetically low energy flux at an estimated cost of 97-100 trillion.

  22. So many things seem to boil down to the endlessly roaring schemes of the Looney Left these days!

    In supporting Paris Accord linked virtue signalling, does it occur to the corporate leadership of BP oil that there is a significant prospect that the Accord will be more or less officially *dead* later this year? The prospect is that U.S. incumbent leader Trump will get a second term as President. At that point, a few more papers signed will have the major original instigator/supporter, the U.S., out of it altogether! Given that China and India have never really been ‘in’ (in the sense of committing to anything), and with other countries pulling out or disagreeing on what to do, how can this nonsensical “Accord” be anyone’s basis for planning?

    Of course, asking about the impending total demise of the Paris Accord doesn’t seem to get us regular folks much of anywhere with the current government here in Canada, say. It’s hard to argue with the Looney Left’s version of ‘religion’, i.e., this mystical, heartfelt, impending catastrophe belief that is supposedly scientific somehow.

Comments are closed.