Fun Fact: Lefty Climate Hypocrisy Finds a Risible Home At The Guardian

guardianThere is a wonderful predictability about the smug political left. Its members always want you to do as they say – not as they do (controlling the world is what lefties think they do best after all). The Guardian is as good a place as any to find such socially progressive hypocrisy.

A recent podcast released by the paper contains a remarkable conversation about the evils of fossil fuel between editor-in-chief Alan Rusbridger and some adoring acolytes. See the excerpt below as they attempt to grapple with the question of what happens when the Guardian’s quest to drive other companies to divest themselves of oil company investments – all in the name of saving the planet – meets the harsh reality that they too are guilty of holding the same financial interests.

Amanda Michel: You know, there are big questions about asking people to do something that we ourselves have not done.

Aleks Krotoski: What Amanda is talking about is sorting out the Guardian’s own pots of money, their investments.

Amanda Michel: It will seem like hypocrisy.

Alan Rusbridger: We have about £600 million invested at the moment, and I don’t think our fund managers could say exactly how much was invested in fossil fuel. But it is there, we haven’t said that it shouldn’t be, so we have got money invested. And so, if we’re going to be calling on people to divest, people are bound to ask “Well, is that what the Guardian’s going to do?”

Let me answer that last question for you in one word. No. The morally self-regarding Guardian will do absolutely nothing about its own investments in multinational oil and coal companies. It will admonish others for doing that, but at the Guardian they are a little more relaxed by the prospect of making pots of money from evil, filthy coal and oil.

All this, as the Guardian starts a campaign hectoring the Gates Foundation and Wellcome Trust by saying they “should commit to taking their money out of the companies that are driving global warming” while neglecting to do the same thing itself.

This sanctimony doesn’t come cheap but the Guardian can afford the tab; it funds its operations on the back of the Scott Trust Limited which handles in excess of £850mn to underwrite the paper’s losses from here to eternity.

Doncha love it?

Source

Trackback from your site.

Leave a comment (newest first):

Comments (5)

  • Avatar

    Gator

    |

    Leftists love writing rules, but seldom follow them. Rules are for the ruled over.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Amber

    |

    The Guardian had the opportunity to restore some credibility but have chosen to leave the person responsible for it’s demise as the circus master .

    Now that they are in free fall how very convenient to bring in a different Editor to wear the disaster .

    Cowardly ownership management that is too afraid to confront the real problem .

    When a newspaper becomes the propaganda sheet for it’s managers hobby horse it has abandoned it’s pact with readers and the readers will abandon it .

    At the five year rate of readership decline and cash burn the Guardian is running out of runway fast .

    Reply

  • Avatar

    JB

    |

    The Guardian could do even better by disconnecting all their properties from the ‘dirty’ electricity grid and rely solely on alternative energy sources.
    Disclosure: I have investments in pedal generators.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    SD

    |

    Leftys say they care about the planet, but whenever they have an event outdoors, the place is always left with trash all over the place. Hypocritical pigs.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Amber

    |

    Rusbridger “I don’t think our fund managers could say exactly how much was invested in fossil fuels “. Really… he is paying people $millions and that can’t say exactly how much is invested in fossil fuels ? He knows and would rather not draw attention to that giant wad of hypocrisy If he doesn’t know how did he make it up the food chain?

    Perhaps he could also ask them to identify any company they do invest in to not use fossil fuels .That should eliminate about 100 % of the Guardian investments but at least they wouldn’t be such raving hypocrites .

    The only reason the Guardian is still a float is because they are propped up . A luxury they are no doubt beholding to while it lasts .

    Reply

Leave a comment

Loading Disqus Comments ...

No Trackbacks.