By Craig Rucker
For years, environmental activists have pressured the business world to embrace the UN’s aggressive climate and energy agenda. They know full well that corporate leaders won’t sign on voluntarily — doing so would mean skyrocketing costs, suffocating regulations, and peddling products that consumers simply don’t want.
Enter ESG: the “environmental, social, and governance” criteria that Greens devised as a tool to coerce compliance.
The strategy is clever and relentless. ESG advocates form “voluntary” industry groups that lock in their radical priorities from the start. Then, they lean on major corporations to join these pacts — or else face coordinated boycotts and damaging PR campaigns. Take the U.S. Plastics Pact, for instance: It’s a targeted assault on the plastics, food, and petroleum sectors, with an explicit mission to trigger a “profound paradigm shift” and drive “systemic change” in how these industries operate.
The good news? Resistance is building at last.
A coalition of state Attorneys General, led by Florida A.G. James Uthmeier, has written to environmental groups demanding to know how their use of the Pact to fuel their activism does not violate antitrust laws.
Uthmeier is joined by the Attorneys General from Texas, Georgia, Alabama, and Louisiana. Read their full press statement at CFACT.org.
“Radical environmental activists do not have the right, nor the avenue, to suppress business operations in our market,” Uthmeier said.
Antitrust law outlaws combinations and monopolies in restraint of trade. These A.G.s assert that is precisely the mission left-wing climate pressure groups have taken on.
“We have grave concerns that this mission is harmful to our States’ economies,” the A.G.s said, “results in higher costs to our States’ consumers, unreasonably restrains trade, and reduces output and quality of goods and services.”
Institutional control and ESG are common tactics the Left uses to push policy it cannot achieve through law or regulation.
Bravo to these Attorneys General for calling out such abuses.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Join or group or else?
Sounds like they are getting dangerously close to RICO.
Exactly, and RICO has real teeth.
Sounds like good news to me.
I don’t understand what their actual issue with plastics is. I know my issue with plastic is that I don’t want to be ingesting microplastics with every meal and/or drink I consume, and there’s no real escaping from it as things stand. But that’s not what this lot seem to be prioritising.
As usual, there’s no talk of what could replace plastic, just talk of recycling it, and we all already know that that is just a load of old horse-puckey. Instead of campaigning where the pollution is – South East Asia mostly if I understand it right – they’re campaigning where there has already been decades of campaigning on recycling, to the point where it’s a complete drag and doesn’t make a difference because it largely gets shipped to South East Asia.
John Stossel on recycling: https://youtu.be/NLkfpjJoNkA?si=0HEUqxO8Cpv67CRv
Microplastics are inert, non-toxic, not metabolised in the body, too big to cross the gut wall into the blood stream and are excreted by normal process.
And your concern is?
My concern is that you’re mistaken –
https://hscnews.unm.edu/news/hsc-newsroom-post-microplastics-human-brains
I’m not afraid of carbon chains of any length and they’ll pry a plastic straw from my cold dead hands… but I respect others’ choice to avoid those things. Secondary smoke made “smoking” and “non-smoking” sections of restaraunts seem a little silly to me – everyone could smell it. I think a non-plastic section wouldn’t hurt anyone. PD using a plastic straw does not affect XB using a paper one, unless the sight of utensils getting soggy is too frustrating to endure.
This is straight out of Agenda 21/30. Everything in it is “voluntary” but as you read “there are ways to get countries on board”. These “ways” include shaming, intimidation, ostracizing, and trade blackmail according to the UN. With no way to enforce their ‘suggestions’ they sleaze their way into compliance. This is no different.
What are they offering/suggesting as an alternative?
Why not just burn the stuff? Get energy out of plastic waste.
Yup, waste to energy. Dispatchable power, not worse-than-useless wind and solar.
Bravo, indeed. About effing time.
“It’s a targeted assault on the plastics, food, and petroleum sectors”
That’s a large target.