Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Back in May, WUWT published an academic claim that weak climate promises could be used as a trap, to leverage real corporate climate expenditure. This scenario is now unfolding in Australia.
Green claims to be put under microscope
Angela Macdonald-Smith
Senior resources writer
Jul 4, 2021 – 4.00pmCompanies can expect scrutiny of their climate claims and targets will only intensify, with oil and gas producers right in the firing line.
While sensitivity around greenwashing claims has been mounting for many months, it is now moving to another level as ESG issues shoot up the agenda for investors, lenders and other stakeholders, and green credentials start to have a monetary value.
“We are moving into an environment where environmental performance has now got a financial value, and [that] means you bring a whole new level of scrutiny to performance claims that are being made to the market,” says Emma Herd, EY’s new partner, climate change and sustainability.
…
Regulators have already been particularly active, whether in the case of financial reporting, financial products labelling or documentation for capital raisings or loans.
…
Most recently, Tamboran Resources was put through the wringer by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission over its commitment in the prospectus for its $61 million IPO to be a net zero emissions gas producer from the outset.
ASIC required the Northern Territory gas explorer to remove references in the prospectus to clean and potential production and add detail on its net zero pledge, which Tamboran CEO Joel Riddle says was a key element behind the success of the float with today’s market super-focused on ESG.
…
Read more: https://www.afr.com/policy/energy-and-climate/green-claims-to-be-put-under-microscope-20210702-p5868g
The full AFR article is well worth reading, if you have any exposure to large Aussie mining firms.
Why is this happening? In my opinion what is happening is a consequence of decades of suicidal corporate complacency in the face of increasingly absurd climate demands. For years corporate executives have allowed themselves to be lulled into believing they could get away with empty climate promises, a little PR greenwashing to spice up their annual report. Now they are realising, too late, that the noose is tightening – those empty promises they were lured into making are actually legally enforceable commitments.
If large corporations had challenged climate insanity from the start, instead of pretending to comply, they wouldn’t be in this horrible situation of having to try to live up to their impossibly expensive climate promises.
They made their bed, now they get to lie in it. Plenty of Climate Fakers out there, trying to game the Climate system.
What happens when the shareholders discover that fulfilling the ‘promises’ means 0 dividends for the next couple of decades?
Nothing
Most of the shareholders own through huge equity funds who hold their proxy votes, and those monster funds are completely on-board with the climate change lunacy. In fact, in most instances, they are the ones who pressured the companies into making the climate claims in the first place.
The science is gamed, so why not the decarbonization claims? It is amazing how good these folks are at reading the corporate “fine print” but can’t seem to use that same intellect to examine the “dog food” quality science they lap up.
Talk about being trapped in a hall of mirrors or on a Mobius Strip. (facepalm)
Why not lie about corporate climate achievements? the whole climate thing top to bottom is a big lie anyway, it is all a virtue signalling exercise.
They tried that, now regulators are checking the lies.
Maybe the regulators should check the lies in the so-called “science.”
Once again, appeasers discover that appeasement never works.
Went quite badly for Volkswagen when they faked their diesel engine emissions performance.
I wonder when these people will bite the bullet and say the CAGW thing is a scam?
It’d be cheaper to do that than pander to the green activists, and it’d have the merits of being the truth.
Did it go bad for VW though?
Or did their fine amount to a drop in the bucket of their overall revenue, making the risk of cheating well worth it?
If the benefits of cheating greatly outweigh the penalty, companies will often roll the dice and build into their budget a contingency fund for paying fines when they get caught. If they can get the benefits for a couple of years before getting caught, paying the fine is no big deal.
They keep saying, “Rely on the science.” So, I challenge any Australian corporation or any any government to provide reference to just one single peer reviewed study cited in any IPCC report that demonstrates CO2 emitted from human activities is causing catastrophic global warming, and is the key driver of climate change.
I cannot find a single citation in any IPCC report because there isn’t one.
Are you sure? I thought all the IPCC reports had the doomsday conclusions. Not that the actual body of the work said so or was even near to proving it, but the conclusions and the executive summaries that were tacked on, mostly with no relationship to the guts of the paper, certainly were all cataclysmic.
The summaries have doomsday conclusions. The actual reports were less so.
Then again, the summaries were written first.
Regardless of the IPCC “Summaries” on their reports, the Summaries are all Governmental reports. The results generally are not supported by the research papers they are based on and hence are lies.
Any honest court would review the basis for the government claims and immediately dismiss any claims that are falsely based.(assuming that they do their legal duty and don’t fabricate supporting results). Since all the claims are not based on the underlying reports they aren’t valid.
It’ll likely only take 20 or so years to work through this and another to draw conclusions. By then the results should be obvious when the “world” temperatures have leveled out.
They have monopolised and homogenised and outsourced all human endevour to the point where there are not enough workers for their children to boss over. This “function” of policing the mega corporations on vague parameters shall be done by the otherwise unemployable offspring of the shareholders. The better to “extract value from the revenue stream”.
Make-work for rich kiddies, just make-work… paid from our taxes!
My neice is studying for a masters degree in “sustainability” with the expectation that this will be a ticket to the higher levels of the corporate world – apparently there is a great demand in large companies for people with expertise in this BS subject
These woke organisations claim transparency, however I suspect anyone wanting to get the the bottom of “100%” renewable electricity contracts or offsets will come up against many roadblocks.
Melbourne city council is an example.
#1 They claim 100% renewable electricity from their contract with the Crowlands wind farm. The real time output from this farm has been about 1% capacity for the last 4 hours. No wind at all. Their 100% claim is dodgy.
#2 They have paid offsets for all their vehicles via several contracts which don’t actually remove CO2 from the atmosphere. One is the contribution of a hydro scheme in Indonesia. Melbourne city council is not actually using less fossil fuels and neither is Indonesia. I suspect also some serious double dipping.
While it is clear Melbourne city council is bsing, it is virtually impossible to find details to confirm
We should sue them
YES,YOU SHOULD SUE THEM. Much of the current problem is caused by ttreating this green junk with a smart comment instead of taking legal action. I can say this because I was centrally involved in contesting the UN world heritage land grab in Australia’s highest court. I am disgusted at the lack of fortitude of our current chiefs of major corporations. Really dropped the bundle, didn’t you??? Geoff S
Yes, yes, you should sue them…in a system where “Independent Jurists” are not only above the law, they may corrupt and twist the law as they please, arbitrarily declaring our “elected legislators” in contravention of “International(ist) Law”.
To talk to one, costs you thousands upon thousands, to get one to talk on your behalf, in this case, would be millions, and the decades-long “legislative process” is sure to bankrupt anyone.
Then, maybe, you’ll get a hearing, in a court run by ‘Independent Jurists’ who are ethics bound not to cross their minders over at The BAR. A BAR that has decided to save mankind from themselves by sanctifying the divine status of the Internationalist Banksters and their “Rules Based Governance”.
Yes, yes, you should sue them…. Geoff S. will pay for it? or is he merely soliciting business?
The only sensible course now for the companies is to pay their fines instead of crippling their companies further. Make an announcement that you they are in the mining business and although we do everything to comply with best practices and meet all environmental requirements, it is the nature of the business that there are limitations to what can be done.
Remind everybody that the Green New Deal will engender the biggest demand for minerals and metals that the world has ever seen. Big, successful, economic mines are the Green New Deal’s largest partner. Don’t expect more.
Hey, maybe I should set up a consultancy in Australia!
Or, just stop. Stop selling their products to Aus. The lying greens can eat cake.
Pay fines? It is more likely they will lobby for a government bailout for the cost of going “green”.
Or, or…they will make those fines just high enough to instantly bankrupt any independent operator, while the big guns like PHBilliton will drag those fines across years and years until they are either forgotten, or magically turn into a tax deductable “cost of business”.
Methinks Gary Pearse is trying to insert himself as a solutions provider for problems he prays to appear. Also, he spell-checks people…
Problem has already appeared – post.
ESG? Could that be Environmental Sensitivity Greenwashing? What’s wrong with calling it what it is: BS?
How appropriate …. putting a cost to virtue signaling. If we did this to everything down to the person we wouldn’t be hearing AGW claptrap.
So we will now have Californians AND Ozzies moving to Texas?
G’day little doggie.
Brisket AND shrimp on the barbie!!
Tribute to NZ
OOooooooooooo….
If you can mike it down to good ‘ol N-zealnd, stop in and sai, G’day!
If you can mike it down to good ‘ol N-zealnd, stop in and sai, G’day!
Well, when it comes to sports, you know we’re the best,
of rugby, racing, yachting, I can boast.
And when it comes to delicacies, you know we’ve got the lot
nothing better than Kiwi fruit on toast!
OOooooooooooo….
If you can mike it down to good ‘ol N-zealnd, stop in and sai, G’day!
If you can mike it down to good ‘ol N-zealnd, stop in and sai, G’day!
Now if you don’t behave yoself well ya better git in behind, it’s a bad load of paradise things look better if you’re blind.
OOooooooooooo….
If you can mike it down to good ‘ol N-zealnd, stop in and sai, G’day!
If you can mike it down to good ‘ol N-zealnd, stop in and sai, G’DAY!
dogie?
We are the ones who will pay and do without.
They thought they could abort the baby, cannibalize her profitable parts, sequester her carbon pollutants, and have her, too. Play with double-edged scalpels and get dismembered, disinterred, decapitated, at best, scalped, and run the risk of progressive viability.
Each IPO prospectus needs four graphs and a few sentences basically describing each graph without a lot of interpretation: 1) UAH global temps for short term, 2) AMO longer cycle chart not detrended, 3) paleoclimate temp chart, and 4) China’s coal consumption including imports.
These companies find themselves hoist on their own petard.
They thought they could buy themselves absolution by just saying what they green beast wanted to hear.
Now they are finding that they are going to have to walk the walk. This is going to be an expensive lesson for them.
MarkW
“This is going to be an expensive lesson for them.”
It certainly will. I started thinking about what they would do, and it came to me – Carbon indulgences, er, Credits. They will simply buy carbon credits and declare themselves 100% net carbon free.
Of course, as you point out, it’s going to be expensive. But, it’s just another cost of doing business, which they will pass on to their customers.
Heh, responded before I read yours; I’ll file that under “great minds think alike.”
Unfortunately, that means by extension it will be an expensive lesson for US. Because every company producing what is needed will simply pass the cost of their hard-learned lessons to the ultimate consumers, and the only ones benefiting are the perpetrators of the scam and those rich enough to “invest” in the legally sanctioned theft from those who actually produce something useful.
As usual, the shareholder-funded corporate lawyers will fight it out with the taxpayer-funded government lawyers. Regardless of who wins, everybody else loses.
No, the professional “climate” grifters also win – through more taxpayer and sucker, er, donor “funding.”
Looks like Australia is trying to follow in the footsteps of the People’s Republic of Commifornia!
Remember kids, Commifornia once had a master plan that called for slow growth and the development of water and natural resources to keep the state beautiful AND productive! With the ascension of the watermelon Greenies to power the plans were scrapped and the border and benefits were opened to all who wanted them! Now you have a state that is severely overpopulated, without the water system available to use as storage for their over abundant Unreliable energy sources! This is the Green Socialist Utopia in a nutshell; let forests burn down instead of harvesting them for jobs and inexpensive building materials, and let scarce water resources flow back to the ocean to protect a smelt that is a favorite of predators everywhere!
Can the Aussies outdo Commifornia? I’m sure hoping they’re not in the process of saying; “Here, mate! Hold my beer!” The ChiComs are watching with great interest to see if their investment in GangGreen will pay off rather handsomely!
CALIF. has taken stupidity, if not criminality to the next level.
Facing Dry Year, CA State Water Board is Draining California Reservoirs
May 21, 2021
https://bit.ly/3A2mtTe
CA reservoirs were designed to provide a steady five year supply for all users, and were filled to the top in June 2019
After responding to MarkW’s comment above, I again wondered how all this climate change madness will end. Many of us hope the whole house of cards will come tumbling down. But as I thought about carbon credits, and followed the money down that rabbit hole, I realized the end will probably be more like ‘1984.”
The easiest way for any company to be 100% net carbon neutral. is to buy carbon credits. So by 2050 every company and government on the planet will be ‘100% net carbon neutral.” from buying carbon credits.
But where will these carbon credits come from? Why, from all the companies that will go into business supplying carbon credits. And who will certify that these companies are actually reducing atmospheric CO2? Why, since it’s international, the UN of course. And they will have to charge a large fee for their services.
The companies will find it cheaper to bribe the UN inspectors, than to actually remove CO2.
But what about atmospheric CO2 measurements? Well the UN will have to take charge of them. Of course, they will need normalizing and adjusting, but in end it will be seen that man made CO2 has stopped.
And the global temperature? Well it will do whatever it naturally does, but it won’t matter whether it goes up or down, because the world was saved from man-made CO2.
Our regulators are largely a joke. They don’t notice when people are ripped off By banks, supposedly investment professionals and downright conmen. But it’s okay, they’ll be able to enforce the ESG requirements for climate change. Morons! All it does is make life more expensive harder for the ordinary citizen – not safer, not better, not decent sensible regulation. Just more cost!
Welcome to the lucky country.
Dear Australian Press Council,
We have not heard back from you re your overdue apology for your libellous attack on Professor Ian Plimer re his use of the term ‘fraudulent’ when referring to the Australian Bureau of Meteorology’s Weather Maps. You can view the evidence of both Professor Plimers integrity and the fraudulent practices of The Australian Bureau of Meteorology in the letter that we sent.
You will notice on the poster, in the letter, that the newspapers and meteorologists of that time were reporting extremely high temperatures.
http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/59308062. where birds were dying from the excessive heat
And the South Australian Ornithologist where the temperature was recorded as 124 Fahrenheit in the shade (124F = 51C)
While the BoM maps recorded a much milder 30 to 33C. This equates to about 86F. This is a lot less than trustworthy sources of that time were reporting.
We realise that the Cancel Culture Media Press Council; and the Press Club of Australia, will find this evidence above unpalatable so may wish to somehow cancel it. But hopefully some of the younger generation, and their teachers, will have the strength and integrity to pursue this fairly basic research methodology. The links to the National Library Trove and the BoM archives are provided here. To that effect we are including all schools in Australia into this evidence based email.
However, the necessary investigation needs to commence ASAP. We predict that the BoM will try to manufacture something like a data- hacking incident, so that they can lose this incriminating evidence and start afresh. Therefore, this letter evidences the existence of this data in August 2020. We are prepared to swear to that, and everything stated above, as the truth before almighty God in any court of law.
Respectfully Yours
Dr Judy Ryan
CD and Editor Principia Scientific-Australia.
AND
Dr Marjorie Curtis
Retired Geologist
Dear Anthony Watts,
I have two voice over semi-automatic presentations on what the evidence indicates was academic fraud at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology about 10 years ago. I also have evidence of complicit political malfeasance by two government ministers who were instrumental in removing the terms ‘data quality assurance’ and ‘Due diligence’ from investigation that had been launched by the then Prime Minister Tony Abbott. Those two malfeasant politicians now hold senior ministerial positions in the current government under Prime Minister Scott Morrison. I think we have enough evidence to expose them in a court of law.
In Australia they are trying to get rid off the paper versions of newspapers to remove the evidence of their crime.
I think this is good. It might help to keep the ba$tards honest to use an Izzy phrase. Big shopping chain here claims to be using 100% renewable. Truth is they are using offsets so claim is a lie. They should be challenged. This way people will start to see real costs.
Spot on – we need to start calling out the offsets any chance we get. Offsets is nothing but a cop-out so you don’t actually have to DO anything.
Rule no. 1, NEVER give in to blackmail. Even if you can afford the first payment.
Maybe it’s not a mistake. The big, multi-nationals are clearly working with globalists on driving cultural revolutions across the world, with their CRT-based training and constant “woke” advertising campaigns.
Every public listed corporation in Australia should be forced to provide reference to a single peer reviewed study in any IPCC report that supports the IPCC’s supposition that CO2 emitted from human activities is causing catastrophic global warming and is the key driver of climate change.
And it should be obligatory for every external independent auditor in Australia to demand this information from their audit clients.
Indeed, seeing that most auditors in Australia are chartered accountants, their professional body, Chartered Accountants Australia and New Zealand should be required to also provide evidence of such a peer reviewed study in any IPCC report.
The fact is via the Yellow Pages project we every accountant ,lawyer, etc etc have seen the footage shown below
As a corporate executive in Australia for the past 15 years, before retiring, I was never “lulled” on a climate topic. I just ignored it with a belief that physics and basis science education would come to the fore and the stupidity would stop. Sadly I’m still waiting.
Via the Saving Small Business project in Australia every lawyer, accountant, medico etc etc etc who has an email address has seen this compelling evidence.
If You really do care about the fauna of our planet; view these, less than one minute, videos.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lb6VeMaXy8
And
https://youtu.be/ICLXQN_lURk
You cannot fake a moving image.
They are not all alarmist crooks. The quiet majority of them now have the evidence and the will to pursue justice, openly.
Me again. I think we have reached a watershed moment in Australia. I think powerful people in the IPA are going to insist on the hard audit. Tony Abbott, the PM who called for an audit into the Bureau of Meteorology which included the terms ‘due diligence’ and ‘data quality assurance’ is now a revered member of the IPA.