Everything that needs electricity is made with the oil derivatives manufactured from crude oil. In an all-electric world, there will be nothing to power without oil.
Published Sept 22, 2022 at Heartland https://www.heartland.org/news-opinion/news/america-is-successfully-pursuing-esg–extreme-shortages-guaranteed
Ronald Stein is an engineer, senior policy advisor on energy literacy for Heartland, and co-author of the Pulitzer Prize nominated book “Clean Energy Exploitations.”
Energy growth, electricity AND the products made from oil derivatives manufactured from crude oil and the fuels to power ships, planes, militaries, and space programs, are directly linked to prosperity and well-being across the globe.
Today, most of the energy the world consumes is from hydrocarbons, with crude oil being the dominant source of transportation fuels. Today, crude oil is the ONLY source for the oil derivatives manufactured from crude oil that makes more than 6,000 products for society.
President Biden’s U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) projections are that world energy consumption of crude oil, coal, natural gas, electricity from renewables, and nuclear will grow by 56 percent between 2010 and 2040. Without any replacements or clones to what fossil fuels can provide the EIA forecasts that fossil fuels will continue to supply nearly 80 percent of world energy use through 2040
President Biden and Sacramento leaders, from Governor’s Brown, Schwarzenegger, and now Newsom, have supported reductions of in-state oil production. And all remain supportive of Biden’s pledge that “we are going to get rid of fossil fuels”.
Another way to interpret Biden and Newsom’s pledge for an all-electric world:
- Biden and Newsom are oblivious to the reality that everything that needs electricity is made from the oil derivatives manufactured from crude oil. In an all-electric world with JUST wind and solar electricity from breezes and sunshine, there will be nothing to power.
- Biden and Newsom believe that the products and fuels manufactured from fossil fuels, are supporting lifestyles and economies, are dangerous and polluting and is causing dangerous climate change.
- Biden and Newsom believe that all the infrastructures developed in less than two centuries, from the products manufactured from crude oil, are not needed by future societies, such as medical, electronics, communications, and the many transportation infrastructures such as airlines, merchant ships, automobiles, trucks, military, the space program.
- Biden and Newsom believe that an all-renewable electricity system from unreliable weather conditions, WITHOUT the products and fuels from fossil fuels, can work to support a modern economy.
America is in fast pursuit toward achieving President Biden’s stated goal that “we are going to get rid of fossil fuels”. Today, Biden supports and encourages banks and investment giants to collude to reshape economies and energy infrastructure with their Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) divesting in fossil fuels movement. ESG is an extremely dangerous precedent as the American people never voted to give banks this sort of control over our country.
With no known replacement for crude oil, Biden and the ESG believers need to be careful about eliminating “all” 3 fossil fuels! America continues to contribute to China’s domination as divesting in crude oil, the same oil that changed the world after 1900, guarantees shortages and inflation in perpetuity of products supporting societies and economies.
It seems obvious that the efforts to cease the use of crude oil may be the greatest threat to civilization. Attempting to attain a decarbonized world like the one that existed in the 1800’s and before, could result in Billions of fatalities for the eight billion on earth from disease, malnutrition, and weather-related deaths, versus the projections of millions of fatalities from changes in climate.
The world leaders are experiencing a “dangerous delusion” of a global transition to “just electricity” that eliminates the use of the fossil fuels that made society achieve so much in a few centuries.
There were almost 700 oil refineries as of January 2020, but as a result on continuous over regulations and permitting delays and the worldwide support of the Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) to divest in fossil fuels, the right operating model and level of integration will be crucial for survival and sustained profitability of refineries.
Consequently, one in five oil refineries are expected to cease operations over the next five years. One in five is 20 percent, or almost 140 refineries expected to be shuttered worldwide, resulting in a 20 percent decline in the products manufactured to meet the ever-increasing demands form society. With the reduction in manufacturing capabilities, shortages and inflation in perpetuity are likely the new norm!
As of 2021, there were eighty-eight new facilities in planning or under construction in Asia and Europe is set to see an addition of twelve petroleum refineries. The amount of oil fed through refineries in Asia has significantly increased in the past three decades as demand for petroleum products surged in developing countries such as China and India. China is on track to succeed the United States as the country with the greatest oil refinery throughput.
Today, America’s energy policies support being held hostage to unstable Petro-powers and the vagaries of foreign crude oil supplies to meet America’s demands.
The key challenge is meeting the growing demand for energy in an environmentally friendly and safe manner. Energy supplies are crucial to economic growth in both developed and developing countries to power businesses and homes, connect communities across boundaries, provide safe water, move commodities, and ultimately promote human and economic development.
While renewables continue to underperform in the generation of electricity, subsidies continue for wind and solar power plants based on “nameplate ratings”. Wind and solar should be penalized when they cannot deliver that for which they have been permitted. And while America promotes the “nameplate farce” of wind and solar, crude oil continues to be targeted for elimination along with coal and natural gas, even though oil is seldom used for generating electricity.
The unintended consequences of attempting to rid America and the world of crude oil usage are being realized in supply shortages and soaring prices resulting from the elimination of products and fuels manufactured from crude oil that support:
- Asphalt for roughly sixty-five million miles of roads in the world
- Tires for the 1.4 billion vehicles in the world
- Fertilizers to feed the world on this increasingly resource-stretched and crowded earth.
- Medical supplies that are primarily made from oil derivatives
- Jets that comprise more than 50,000 for military, commercial, and private sector.
- Merchant ships that comprise more than 53,000 that move products throughout the world
- Vehicles that are mostly made of plastics
- Renewables of wind turbines and solar panels that are made from oil derivatives
Simply put, the goal to “electrify everything” is a de facto energy tax on low- and middle-income citizens that could add more instability to already proven unstable power grids.
It is mind boggling that America continuously perpetuates greater reliance on foreign countries for the products demanded by society, and for the exotic minerals and metals to support wind, solar, and EV batteries. America is successfully pursuing ESG, i.e., Extreme Shortages Guaranteed and inflation in perpetuity that is associated with unreliable supplies to meet ever increasing demands.
Ronald Stein, P.E.
Ambassador for Energy & Infrastructure
http://www.energyliteracy.net/
The best long term solution is for governments to concentrate on the base load via fossil fuels and nuclear whilst minimising their use by encouraging individuals and businesses to add solar and wind energy to the mix.
Instead, governments are concentrating on solar and wind whilst neglecting base load.
China seems to be doing it the right way round by increasing fossil fuels for base load whilst also becoming a leader in wind and solar.
If you have baseload from FF, what purpose do renewables serve?
They can’t be switched on and off to accommodate demand fluctuations, they can’t contribute to baseload reliably, in fact allowance has to be made for them by using fast response gas turbines.
They cause more headaches than they solve and are simply an unnecessary burden.
Exactly right.
To include Stein’s points regarding the contribution oil derivatives to making virtually all products, perhaps oil use should not be curtailed until inexpensive plastic sources are available to the extent that ALL of the components of a wind turbine are produced via renewable technologies.
Our security suffers because China is virtually a sole source for critical materials, such as rare earth minerals. Imagine what might happen if China became the sole source for plastics.
It’s not just rare earths. China’s share of critical resource minerals –
Light Rare Earths (LREES) 95%
Heavy Rare Earths (HREES) 95%
Magnesium 87%
Antimony 87%
Tungsten 84%
Bismuth 82%
Gallium 73%
Natural Graphite 69%
Germanium 67%
Scandium 66%
Fluospar 64%
Silicon metal 61%
Phosphorous 58%
Indium 57%
Vanadium 53%
Phosphate Rock 44%
That is a good point.
My comment was directed to those who are so afraid of fossil fuels that they insist on a renewable component.
By their own logic it is the renewables that should be secondary rather than fossil fuels or nuclear.
Personally, I would go for small modular reactors such as those being developed by Rolls Royce and scrap everything else.
I recall the 1950s when the U.K. was a world leader in civil nuclear power. We were told that electricity would be too cheap to meter. It could have been so but greenies and lefties threw it all away.
Stephen mentioned that renewables would be used by individuals and businesses – they get to decide if it makes sense to them. Maybe in the future a new building will go up with windows that a transparent solar cells that generate power for lighting and air conditioning/ventilation, but they’ll work that out on their own without any stupid subsidies to sway the owners. Maybe remote areas will use wind to avoid fuel deliveries. But the things are fit for prime time for widespread use, especially without free magic batteries.
Renewable energy utility on a large scale is ridiculous. A cabin in the woods or some remote location along with a propane back-up generator perhaps. I know my neighbor had solar panels and a small wind turbine. They ran their propane generator quite a bit. There is no return on investment for renewable energy between the upfront cost, maintenance and replacement of component parts.
Renewable energy is a fools errand. Good grief. Look no further then the disaster unfolding in German or GB. This narrative of free or cheap electricity as the sales pitch is rubbish, misleading and a lie.
Along those lines, I have a friend who built a house and was determined to be off-grid. Not because he’s an eco-nut, he just didn’t want to pay any for power. After a year of solar panels and batteries, chasing down a dead cell in the battery array at night in February at -5 F (which I warned him about), and not being able to turn on his coffee maker and microwave when the well pump was on, he called the power company to hook him up.
They don’t USE wind and solar – they just sell it to moron westerners.
Stephen,
why continue with what is a very poor source of electricity, namely renewables? They really are very poor at producing electricity both practically and technically?
Get busy with nuclear if CO2 is a problem.
An amount of nuclear as a baseload makes the most sense as there will always be some demand for power.
France showed the way, until it lost its mind
I read Stephen’s comment “encouraging individuals and businesses to add solar and wind energy to the mix” to mean using wind and solar at individual locations to supplement their own electric use. But that will bring in a new set of problems as base load use revenue goes down, maintenance costs do not. So it will require increases in prices to consumers to keep the base load available.
Ownership costs do not decline either.
Adding something dysfunctional to something highly functional, to make it less functional, is an expensive idiocy
Yes, Insanity is adding something unreliable to something reliable. Why not just stay with the reliable?
That is what Putin told the EU bureaucrats, but they would not listen, because the U.S. was aiming to increase its much more expensive LNG exports to Europe
Bureaucrats opted for wind and solar and other nonsense, and now Europe is up the creek without a paddle for years
Funny how the Putin backers always assume that the US has the worst intentions. On the other hand, the only reason why Putin ever does something that looks bad is because the US forced him to.
Just how was the US trying to force anyone to buy US LNG?
Stating that relying on Russia for your energy supplies is a bad idea is simply a fact, and one that has been proven to be true.
Stating that relying on Russia for your energy supplies is not a recommendation for what alternative you should take.
How would we increase LNG exports anywhere considering we have very limited port facilities for that? And I believe it was Trump who was warning Europe to develop their own energy resources, which Putin did not want so he could control European energy.
The best long term solution to every problem is to minimize government.
Totally agree – except for the wind and solar bit. Why encourage people and individuals to do something that is unreliable?
China and Russia are encouraging the West’s use of wind and solar. Does it occur to any leftists that perhaps they don’t have our best interests in mind?
Europe is encouraging the U.S. to use more wind and solar, especially offshore wind, where they have all the experience
When the US encourages Europe to not rely on Russia, you call it forcing.
So by your standards, why should the US allow Europe to force us to use wind and solar?
So, how is Europe’s idiotic reliance on wind and solar working out for you?
The Cloward-Piven plan calls for instability to bring on Socialism.
This cannot be the real Stephen Wilde. Stephen has argued for years that CO2 isn’t the control knob for climate. If he is correct then there is no reason to add expensive solar and wind.
If he has changed his mind then admit it. Theses are two posts are wrong in wanting to add renewables and for praising a killer government like China.
If I had said what you said, I might be repeating myself to the extent that Europe’s leadership is decidedly leftist, some of which are China supporters, many of which also don’t have the U.S.’s best interest in mind.
Renewables add nothing to an energy solution. The reason for this is that they are unpredictable. Both wind and solar can and do vary from minute to minute based on changes in wind or the movement of clouds.
Unfortunately baseload providers can’t vary their output fast enough to keep up with these changes so the result is that either the baseload power plants run very inefficiently, or most of the energy from renewables is thrown away.
Best solution is to wind or solar only in those places where it is too expensive to run a power line to. Everything else is run from baseload with a few peaking plants.
I’ve said for years that solar and wind power were only good for niche applications.
An example of a niche application I have personal experience with is at my sportsman’s club.
On the sporting clays course, the throwers are battery powered with solar panels for charging. This is because they are hundreds of yards from any power source and running power to 15 stations that get moved frequently is not feasible.
The only application for “green” energy is for intermittent, low power situations where traditional energy sources are not cost effective or feasible.
If you have a cabin in the woods and are miles from the nearest power line, wind and solar makes sense.
You still need a generator for when wind and solar aren’t available for longer than your batteries can provide. However generators are capable of ramping up and down fast enough to compensate for changes in wind and sunshine, so renewables are useful in extending how long your diesel supply lasts.
That’s a mighty expensive cabin. Powering a building with alternate power supplies requires an involved engineering system even without the intermittency of wind and solar taken into account.
I was involved with the construction of a few data centers a couple decades back. Their primary concern was continuity of clean power to their servers.
One solution was to have access to two different Com Ed feeds from different grids and each capable of delivering the planned power required. This was integrated into a system that also had seven 4500 HP diesel generators for more backup in case both feeds went down. This was divided into substations where the power was stepped down, filtered and rectified to run through lead acid batteries. The DC was then converted back to clean AC for the different server rooms.
Adding “renewables” to the mix would add another level of complexity and cost. I heard that Google determined it wasn’t feasible and quietly abandoned the effort.
Depends on how much power you are after. Most off-gridders aren’t looking for a lot.
It also doesn’t have to be the kind of high quality power that a data center would need.
I specifically said renewables were only viable for those for whom, a connection to the grid is not practical. Which obviously leaves out a data center.
Windmills, solar panels, and batteries are not inexpensive items. That’s what I meant by saying it would be a mighty expensive cabin. Plus you still need the fuel for the generator when the batteries run out.
The rest was alluding to the complications arising from having multiple energy sources. Even just having a backup generator involves heavy switching contactors with associated monitoring equipment or having no power until manually switching over.
There’s a solar solution I really like. We’re out in the country and there are a lot of 4-way stops and no road lighting.
The area is growing some, and newbies and visitors were often taken by surprise at night when they came up on a 4-way; they blew right through. There were some accidents.
The County installed solar powered flashing red LEDs around the edges of the stop signs, and it has been great. I can’t recall the last time there was an accident at one of the 4-way stops.
Oh, and so far, I haven’t seen where one of the lighting units has failed. I wonder what battery type they are using for storage? I haven’t seen any flaming stop signs.
Sometimes, solar makes sense. Too bad it’s most often used where it makes no sense at all.
I’ve read the responses and confirm that I still consider CO2 not to be an issue so for climate purposes we can freely rely on fossil fuels.
There is still the issue of particulates which could be dealt with by filters of various types or we could go for nuclear entirely given that historically it has been far safer than anything else despite a few incidents that are well known.
My point was really directed at those who are so afraid of fossil fuels that they insist on a place for renewables. Sadly, we have to recognise that they are in the ascendant. If they insist on renewables being used and given that renewables cannot provide the base load it logically follows that government should focus on the base load and encourage individuals and businesses to employ renewables to minimise the level of base load required.
Instead they have been focusing on renewables entirely and neglecting base load needs. China is not making that mistake.
If they are in the ascendant and want renewables what ever makes you think they will logically say “Gee let’s focus on fossil fuel for base load”?
They want western civilization crushed. They want power and will do anything to accomplish those ends. Don’t be fooled about anything less than that.
Since the power from renewables can be relied upon to be zero at times, this suggestion would not contribute to any reduction of the necessary base load.
The purveyors of this madness of no fossil fuels must know about the consequences so clearly described here, thank you Ronald Stein.
Yet they continue.
What drives them now?
We hear mutterings about various motivations, but which is the one to identify, engage and destroy?
It is a strong, natural human instinct to rebel against perceived harms.
Geoff S
Stupidity. Moronic gullibility.
Ed Milliband in UK HoC attacking lifting the fracking ban by claiming we are doubling down on fossil fuels and renewables are 9x cheaper than gas.
Totally gullible moronic idiot who gave us the Climate Change Act. Stupidity that knows no bounds.
That boy ain’t right.
Just like Joe Biden, as a kid in Texas might say, “his cornbread ain’t done in the middle.”
Like most lies, every time it’s told, it gets bigger.
It was a bit over a year ago when they were claiming that renewables had become cheaper than fossil fuels. Now they are claiming 9x cheaper. (I assume he means that they cost 1/9th as much, 9x cheaper just doesn’t make any sense.)
Many oil executives have a significant education in the Earth Sciences – they KNOW the climate scam is false, but they won’t risk their salaries and pensions to speak out against the wishes of their woke Boards, most of whom are uneducated dolts from the financial community.
We’ve been watching this systematic culling of the elderly unfold for years, especially in Britain and Germany as green-energy schemes are promoted by the usual suspects. Depopulation! First it was the global warming Climate-and-Energy scam, and then it was the Covid-19 Lockdowns-and-Vaccines scam.
The big cull of the elderly of Europe will happen this winter – we predicted it in 2002 and 2013 – it was all terribly costly – in dollars and lives – and all entirely avoidable – a willful squandering of the lives of innocents. Crimes against humanity.
There does not appear to be enough readily-available energy in Europe (outside of Russia) to solve this problem in time for this winter’s cold. The cull of the elderly and the poor will proceed, barring an improbable warm winter or some herculean efforts by governments in Britain and Germany – and decades of energy dysfunction and intellectual sloth by those governments have put their current leaders into an impossible conundrum.
We published the important conclusions to this debate in 2002 and nothing has changed:
The alleged Climate Crisis is a fifty-year-old scam, and “green energy” is not green and does not produce much useful energy.
The Climate scammers have wasted trillions of dollars and millions of lives on fraud.
AN OPEN LETTER TO BARONESS VERMA
British Undersecretary for Energy and Climate Change, 31Oct2013
So here is my real concern:
IF the Sun does indeed drive temperature, as I suspect, Baroness Verma, then you and your colleagues on both sides of the House may have brewed the perfect storm.
You are claiming that global cooling will NOT happen, AND you have crippled your energy systems with excessive reliance on ineffective grid-connected “green energy” schemes.
I suggest that global cooling probably WILL happen within the next decade or sooner, and Britain will get colder…
I suggest that Winter deaths will increase in the UK as cooling progresses.
I suggest that Excess Winter Mortality, the British rate of which is about double the rate in the Scandinavian countries, should provide an estimate of this unfolding tragedy.
Allan MacRae, B.A.Sc., M.Eng., Calgary
https://energy-experts-international.com/
Ach , Allen. Don’t be naive. Govts and MSM will blame all those excess winter deaths in Europe on the latest Covid variant.
Elliot: You may be correct, but here is reality:
The March 2020 Covid-19 lockdown was never justified – there was an illness, but it was a mild-to-average winter flu with NO EXCESS WINTER DEATHS in Alberta or Canada in Winter 2019-2020.
Simple treatments including Vitamin D and Ivermectin would have stopped it, but Ivermectin was disallowed, as was Hydroxychloroquine
Hospitals were emptied in March 2020 for a “tsunami of Covid-cases” that never happened – one typical 600-bed Alberta hospital averaged less than 5 Covid-cases during its two-month Covid-19 shutdown.
In both Canada and the USA, PCR tests were run at a concentration factor of ~45, which gives an enormous bias towards false positives.
There was no increase in total deaths in Alberta and in Canada to July 1, 2020. No “death bump” above the six-year trend line means no serious pandemic, full stop! Scamdemic, yes! Casedemic, yes! Pandemic, no!
The Covid-19 lockdown was completely unjustified – pure government propaganda. The average age of deaths in Alberta attributed to COVID-19 was 82 and that was true until the commencement of the toxic vaccinations. That number has now declined to about 78 as more younger people die from the toxic vaccines.
Many countries including the USA and Canada labelled people as UNvaccinated” until 14 days after their second Covid-19 shot (or their first shot for single-dose injections like J&J). That is how they falsely concealed the many deaths and illnesses caused by the vaccines within the “Unvaxxed” population.
The above facts just “scratch the surface” of the global Covid-19 fraud.
———————-
In the USA, reported Covid-19 deaths were more than ten times per capita Covid-19 deaths in Alberta – because many non-Covid USA deaths in the USA were falsely coded.as Covid-19. The actual number of Covid-19 deaths in the USA was actually about 1/16 of the reported deaths. The USA coding definition was changed in March 2020 so that every death with a positive PCR test was coded as Covid-19 – even vehicle accident deaths were labelled Covid-19 – More Fraud!
(SEE MY PAPER CORRECTPREDICTIONS.CA FOR A PLOT OF THE SIX-YEAR, NO-BUMP, DEATH TREND IN ALBERTA AND CANADA TO 1JULY2020.)
Covid-19 was a WHO scam. I called it correctly in a note published on 21Mar2020, ~6 days into the needless, destructive lockdown. Covid-19 was an illness that was only fatal to the very elderly and infirm, but not even close to a serious epidemic. Six months later on 4Oct2020, world experts wrote the same conclusion re the lockdown in their Great Barrington Declaration.
I wrote our Alberta & Canadian politicians and North American media on 8Jan2021 to NOT release the Covid-19 “vaccines”. These so-called “vaccines” are toxic – some informed parties call them “bio-weapons”.
In Alberta now, the leading cause of death is listed as “unknown”. It’s actually the toxic Covid-19 vaxxes. Deaths jumped in 2021 after the Covid-19 vaxxes were deployed – most of the “Covid” deaths, especially of people under ~75, were caused by the vaxxes, not the virus.
_______________________
The USA solved that (lack of total mortality) problem by paying hospitals to perform incredibly-wrong, very-late-and-extreme treatment of Covid-19 patients with remdesivir (which causes liver and kidney failure) and ventilators to finish them off. Also in New York and nearby, patients with active Covid were put back into old-folks homes to infect them.
Based on Canada’s successful experience, ~all of these 2020 Covid-19 deaths were avoidable with early treatment.
_____________________
Summary:
On 21Mar2020 I published the best (earliest and most accurate) assessment on the Covid-19 lockdowns and on 8Jan2021 one of the best on the toxic Covid-19 “vaccines”. Neither the lockdowns nor the vaccines were ever necessary and both were hugely harmful. With rare exceptions, our governments were completely scammed by this false crisis.
The death toll from the toxic Covid-19 “vaccines” will total in the millions, and the vaccine-injury toll will be much greater.
Justice must be pursued and capital punishment is appropriate for those who led this deadly scam.
Surely this will stop, when they realise there are not enough minerals, copper, etc, on the planet, to make us all electric. So this nonsense will have to stop.
One would hope….I just hope things don’t get too bad before a major reversal of these nutty zero fossil fuel policies begins. I used to wonder how bad things would have to get, and now I’m thinking I might not want to know. Europe this winter might be a taste of that sort of thing.
Imagine if all the 1.4 billion plus ICEVs in the world were EVs. An EV battery has a life of about 8-10 years. Imagine the amount of mining this will involve when just one round of battery production would use up nearly half of known nickel reserves and over 40% of lithium reserves. Some recycling will probably be possible but the scale of mining necessary renders the idea impractical.
Cult members are usually completely unable to use common sense. That’s what indoctrination/brainwashing does.
I suspect that for some, they honestly believe that for the good of the world (whatever that means) civilization should retreat to the era before the industrial revolution. There was no such thing as pollution, everything was biodegradable. Food poverty kept population down, as did lack of medicines. Man was more integrated with the natural world around him.
I also suspect if they had to live in that world they would rapidly change their mind.
Electricity is a carrier. It is not a source of energy.
Led by morons.
That is a key point.
To depend on wind in a more renewable manner (using all natural fibers), that energy should be carried via kites.
I see that Scott Adams by means of his Dilbert cartoons has started what looks like an effective campaign against the ESG scam. So effective that 77 newspaper titles have cancelled Dilbert. The vampire squid known as Blackrock is the prime motivator of this barrel scrape for unearned profits and it has convinced the simple minded opportunists at WEF and the British royal family plus the lunatics at the UN that this is a good idea.
It has momentum fellas and the longer it rolls the more destruction of our world it will cause.
He stuck his head up one too many times and will now suffer from it. A logical conclusion is, a la Solzhenitsyn’s warning, everyone’s fate if we do not wake up soon.
Biden’s White House senior staff includes five former Blackrock executives. As with everything else the current administration does, the WEF’s Great Reset and its Build Back Better schemes are put first and America and its people are put last.
I understand Biden hates the English
“”Fracking ban LIFTED for shale gas in massive energy boost with 100 new oil and gas drilling licences to get green light””
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/19883428/fracking-ban-lifted-new-licences/
There’s another reason!
Never forget that CO2 does not drive the weather
Exactly, it drives primary production and we kind of need that
ESG is now being challenged by financial institutions because it exposes them to unnecessary risk they can be sued over.
…they can be sued…
_____________________
This WattsUpWithThat post with a CFACT video presentation that named the big three ESG Asset Managers:
Black Rock, Vanguard, and State Street.
After watching the CFACT video, I looked up own IRA account to see how much was in one of these big three and it’s heavily invested with Vanguard. I’m thinking of ringing up my broker to tell him that if there’s a class-action law suit involving brokerage houses that aren’t following their fiduciary responsibilities that I’m going to join it. The goal being to have the courts issue a “stop and desist” decision against brokerage houses practicing such irresponsible investment practices for their clients.
I like my stock broker he’s a good guy and does a great job, but…..
“That would be the road to hell for america ” ceo Diamond Wells Fargo bank so they are not buying it
I would prefer that financial institutions not be allowed to vote in corporate proceedings.
Right now, they vote for the shareholders without their knowledge and consent.
They should have all the votes go to the company proxies where the company board determines the vote. If the board makes bad decisions, the financial institutions can sell off the shares.
Financial institutions have no business influencing a company’s direction other than the buying and selling of shares.
In more ways than one….
An intoxicated 17 year old, on probation for poisoning a teenage girl, deliberately runs over a mother pushing a baby in a stroller and then flees the scene in Los Angeles. (Venice to be more precise)
He’s convicted of 2 counts of vehicular assault and given 5 to 7 months in a low security juvenile facility.
Despite constantly getting into fights and otherwise being a behavioral problem, he’s asking to get out early based on good behavior.
DA Gascon stated that vehicular assault was the toughest charge available to him (Deliberately trying to run someone over, is attempted murder. I’ve seen the video, the kid swerved in order to hit the woman. It was no accident.)
This woman needs to do a better job of picking her DA.
When plastic insulation for all that electrical wiring is no longer available from fossil fuels, will we go back to natural rubber and cloth insulation of the early 20th century?
And that stuff had a long life too! /sarc
There’s also asbestos, for added security. 😆
No need for insulation. Their won’t be any energy to smelt the copper for wire.
It seems that people (especially young people who go along with this ESG crappola) simply have no idea what life was like before fossil fuels, or even a century ago before plastics took off and manufacturing really ramped up after WW2.
I used to collect old science books, and I have some very old medical books from the early 20th century and very late 19th century. When I looked thru them, I was totally disgusted by the fact that pretty much all medical devices and equipment was sterilized (hopefully!) and re-used. Including syringes and needles! Yuck! That is something you might only find in a third world country these days…. There was little or no plastic before WW2 and therefore no disposable devices or equipment.
I wonder if Biden and Newsome would want to go back to a world like that….but then again, with only renewables, the only medical equipment around would be what one would have found in the early 19th century and earlier…. hand forged surgical tools/devices and those made from ivory, bone or other natural materials. Talk about yuck!
This is what happens when so many people (especially young people) lack education and a knowledge of history. Science is great (real science, not “The Science”) but I really do believe that along with a scientific education people should also have a good grasp of history (and not just history of their chosen scientific field). Then people would realize how things were in the past and have an incentive to seek improvements and not regress to that which has already been tried but didn’t work well, or work at all!
Unfortunately the education system has been centralized under leftist control. It is an indoctrination system meant to keep the populace isolated from history and science. They are following the Orwell book 1984 where one of the slogans is:
Ignorance Is Strength.
Once the populace is ignorant, the other slogans can ensue with aplumb. Freedom Is Slavery and War Is Peace
Benjamin Franklin knew the danger of ignorance when he made the statement:
“A nation of well informed men who have been taught to know and prize the rights which God has given them cannot be enslaved. It is in the region of ignorance that tyranny begins.”
In the late 1960’s early 70’s, whilst a student, I worked over the summers in the Radcliffe Infirmary, Oxford. We were still sterilising lots of utensils and equipment then.