Climate Update


Distortions around which the energy and climate conversation is rigged

 -(Bad thinking method) Looking only at the negative side-effects of fossil fuels, while ignoring the massive and unique benefits of fossil fuels.

 -(Bad thinking method) Only looking at the positives of solar and wind while ignoring obvious negatives. E.g., praising solar and wind as “secure” because they don’t depend on Russia like oil and gas do, when in fact they depend on China far more than oil and gas depend on Russia.

 -(Bad thinking method) Only looking at the negatives of CO2 emissions while ignoring the positives (such as greater plant growth and the prevention of cold-related deaths—which far outnumber heat-related deaths).

 -(Bad thinking method) Engaging in “partial cost accounting” for solar and wind—claiming they are cheap by only looking at some of their costs (e.g., solar panels, wind turbines) while ignoring other huge costs (e.g., the cost of 24/7 life support for an unreliable input that can easily go near-0).

 -(Bad thinking method) Ignoring the massive climate-related benefits of fossil fuels—their benefits in helping us master climate danger—even though these benefits have far overwhelmed any negative climate side-effects of fossil fuels.

  -(Misleading terminology) Using the vague term “climate change,” which conflates some human impact on climate (which the vast majority of climate scientists agree with) with catastrophic human impact on climate (which is not supported by climate science and economics).

 -(Misleading terminology) Using “climate crisis” or “climate emergency” as the basic noun to refer to the state of today’s climate—thereby asserting a catastrophe without needing to provide any evidence.

  -(Misleading terminology) Using the terms “energy” and “electricity” interchangeably, even though the vast majority of the energy that powers our machines is not electricity but the direct burning of fossil fuels for transportation, industrial heat, or residential heat. This (along with “partial cost accounting,” helps promote the false idea that solar and wind electricity can rapidly replace all fossil fuel energy.

 -(False assumption) Treating climate (and, more broadly unimpacted nature) as a “delicate nurturer”: a stable, sufficient, safe phenomenon that human impact ruins, when in fact climate (and more broadly unimpacted nature) is dynamic, deficient, and dangerous—and human impact makes it a lot safer (e.g., irrigation radically reduces drought-related deaths).

 -(Anti-human value) Treating today’s global energy use as sufficient or even excessive, when in fact most of the world is desperately lacking in energy. E.g., 3 billion people use less electricity than a typical American refrigerator.

 -(Anti-human value) Treating human impact on climate, and more broadly human impact on nature, as intrinsically bad. E.g., assuming all “climate change” is bad even though rising CO2 clearly leads to beneficial greening and warming will clearly save many lives in many places (far more people die of cold than of heat).

 -(Anti-human value) Making eliminating human impact on climate at all costs (e.g., “net zero”) our number one global climate, energy, and political goal—instead of embracing the proper, pro-human goals of maximizing climate livability, human empowerment, and human flourishing.

The Europeans have been working hard for years to build up their “green energy” economy. But in doing so, Europe largely stopped developing their own fossil fuels and instead pumped money into renewables like wind and solar power. Costs and energy shortages have skyrocketed. The problem is wind and solar aren’t reliable like natural gas—and still need fossil fuel backup all the time. So, Europe has imported Russian gas to make up for their energy shortfall. In short, in an attempt to push forward it’s green energy initiatives, Europe compromised energy security by outsourcing it to Russia.

Further reading:

36 years ago, the leaders of the extreme environmentalism movement expressed the desire to eliminate human life on Earth.  In 1986, paul taylor, environmentalist, stated that the "total, absolute, and final disappearance" of human beings would enhance the well-being of the Earth, and be greeted with a hearty "good riddance!"  On October 22, 1989, support for human extinction was stated openly in the la times by david graber when he wished for "the right virus to come along."  In 2010, bill gates stated that we could lower the population if we do a "really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive services."  In 2020, patrisse cullors, founder of black lives matter, said they are trained, organized marxists, and  black lives matter leader lilith sinclair admitted that she was organizing for the abolition of the United States.

Great Climate Reset Conspirators Are Coming for Your Retirement Money

biden is pushing a range of policies across various regulatory agencies to force companies, pension fund managers, and portfolio funds to account for and divulge climate-related risks, in their disclosure statements, stock offerings, annual reports, and other public documents. biden is in essence telling companies, fund managers, and investors that they know better than businesses and fund owners and managers themselves what risks they should take account of while pursuing profit. According to biden, the most important issue for businesses and funds to consider from a financial perspective and with respect to their investors should be climate change.

ESG investing, the Great Reset, and the Green New Deal are nothing more than warmed-over socialism. Business owners and investors have the best understanding of the factors likely to have the most impact on their success. Trump sought to minimize political interference, political correctness, wokeness, and the influence of bureaucrats and political appointees with socialist or climate alarmist views on companies’ operations and investment decisions.

biden and the left-wing are actively working to reset the relationship between government and business by insisting their radical constituencies’ views on environment, climate change, corporate governance, and sustainability inform every business decision corporate officers and fund managers make.

With marching orders from biden and harris in hand, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has created a 22-member Climate and Environment, Social, and Governance (ESG) Task Force to enforce the administration’s social justice and climate change goals. Simultaneously, the SEC issued a call for public comments for a rule requiring publicly traded corporations, investment management firms, and mutual funds under its regulatory purview to disclose the climate-change-related risks and opportunities they might face. This public disclosure would include a thorough description of how their business operations, legal proceedings, management discussions and decisions, and financial conditions might be affected by climate change and how the companies are responding to any potential risks uncovered.

The Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) assembled and submitted formal comments in response to the SEC’s climate risk disclosure proposal. Multiple organizations endorsed and signed on to CEI’s comments. The coalition’s comments provide a thoroughgoing refutation of the idea that companies can realistically anticipate and accurately report the magnitude and probability of the financial losses they could incur due to the physical impacts of climate change.

The direction and impacts of climate change 20, 30, 50, and 100 years from now are unknown and, indeed, unknowable. The projections climate-simulating computer models make of future conditions cannot be trusted. They have consistently overstated past and present temperatures, the most basic projection they make. The models have also consistently misidentified the kinds of climate conditions and weather events the Earth should have already experienced; thus, any projections of the future should be taken with a huge grain of salt by companies and their investors. Political decisions will, of necessity, impact business decisions and success or failure. But, to be fair, companies and fund managers can’t know what direction future political elections will take the country on climate matters. The farther into the future businesses and funds try to anticipate political decisions, as with economic forecasting, the less likely their projections are to be correct. Policies, regulations, and laws, imposed by one Congress and Presidential administration, may be withdrawn or changed by the next. Businesses and funds should operate within the current law and set of regulations, while anticipating to the extent possible what political changes are most likely to impact their business fortunes and how, and how they are positioning themselves to respond to changes. They should report such considerations transparently.

In short, the SEC should have no role in requiring businesses to account for climate risks in their business and investment decisions. However, if a publicly traded company or fund does say climate change will materially affect their business and they are taking steps to respond, the SEC maintains its legal mandate to ensure the company’s statements on its response are transparent and its practices correspond to its public statements on the matter, and that, in all cases, the law is followed.

Government has no business telling every corporate officer, fund manager, and investor in America that climate change should be of concern to them, much less an overriding concern driving their operations and disclosures. Now as always, markets respond better to the concerns and motivations of their participants than politicians or regulatory czars do.

Further reading:


What Do CNN Viewers Know About Climate Change?

You need to be a member of Command Center to add comments!

Join Command Center

Email me when people reply –