In recent years, climate change activists have increasingly turned their attention from issues like the Paris Climate Accord – which President-elect Joe Biden promises to rejoin – to corporate climate activism.
A small but vocal minority of climate catastrophists is pressuring large corporations into making lofty net-zero pledges and promising to divest from fossil fuels.
Many large investment firms and banks are joining a global energy discrimination campaign, refusing to fund businesses in fossil fuel production and other industries like petrochemicals, agriculture, forestry, and mining.
Even the Rockefeller Foundation, built with John D. Rockefeller’s oil riches, is now divesting from fossil fuels.
In other areas, the energy companies are taking the lead themselves. ExxonMobil, for example, recently announced that it will begin reporting what climate activists call “scope 3” greenhouse gas emissions.
Scope 1 emissions refer to those generated by a company directly on its premises; scope 2 are those emissions generated indirectly; and scope 3 are emissions not under a company’s direct control, such as those from its suppliers or distributors.
The goal of corporate climate activism is to stigmatize private companies with the “sin” of greenhouse gas emissions, even though these companies provide products and services that make our lives dramatically better.
If ExxonMobil starts a trend with its decision to report scope 3, American businesses will be penalized not only for their own emissions but also for the emissions of all the businesses they work with.
Even a business that sincerely works to reduce its carbon footprint – and even if it does so using effective tools like direct carbon capture and utilization, rather than just buying carbon credits or offsets – would be penalized for each of its vendors’ actions.
Common sense dictates that we shouldn’t be punished for what we can’t control. And scope 3 has other problems: the process of tracking emissions across a supply chain means that emissions will be assigned to companies more than once.
Governments and corporate leaders trying to appear eco-conscious should lighten up on scope 3 emissions for the same reason that they should refuse to kowtow to climate alarmists’ demands: eliminating these emissions is a terribly expensive and harmful way to deal with climate change.
Globally recognized climate data models project that even banning all U.S. emissions by 2030 – that’s all gas-powered cars, all fossil fuels, and even all gas-powered appliances – would only help temperatures dip by less than a microscopic two-tenths of a degree by the end of the century.
In other words, the untold trillions that it would cost to totally restructure our economy would barely move the global temperature needle.
Around the world, we’re suffering from climate change anxiety for nothing. This is the best time in history to be alive.
Our lifespans, health, comfort, individual freedoms, and quality of life have improved dramatically since the Industrial Revolution.
Yes, average temperatures have risen slightly over that time, but we have become more resilient to Earth’s climate, not less. You and I are 98.9% less likely to die in a climate-related natural disaster today than our great-grandparents were.
Holding businesses liable for not just their emissions but also their vendors’ emissions is a nonsensical and counterproductive approach to climate change. It won’t affect climate change – but it will punish companies for their success.
Read more at RealClearEnergy
just stop selling it in in the state that brings the case
Providing to the fact that that same liberal rag TIME was going on about Global Cooling and New Ice Age back in the 1970’s a TV series IN SEARCH OF from 1978 has episode of Coming Ice Age and mentions the winter of 1976/77 and Buffalo N.Y. and its 44 days of snow
Google, How many ice ages in the past on earth? It will show you that stopping climate change is impossible, as it’s a cycle that has be repeated several times on the planet.
I don’t really believe the so-called average “global temperature” – too many manipulations of the raw data.
What I would like to see is a tabulation of new “record high” and new “record low” temperatures per year for say the last ten years or more. Are we seeing more new record highs than lows – or more new record lows. I think this would give us a better idea of just what is happening with world temperature.
Just a thought…..
Man-made “Climate Change” was once known as “Climate Warming”, a name that made sense. Following Michael Mann’s “Hockey Stick” graph, the campaign shifted gears to CW. Be that as it may, the campaign under any name remains a grand hoax designed to render Earth’s H. sapiens population subservient. Such a circumstance, if successful, will thus enable the UN’s plan to impose a government that will rule Planet Earth – presumably from the East River in New York City. We assume that China, Russia and Islam expect be major elements in Head Office simply because they are experts at controlling unruly crowds decrying the loss of those freedoms that, thanks mostly to the Anglosphere, have prevailed around most of the world for much of the past century.
Gerald Porter
ge**********@***il.com
Global Warming/Climate Change is just like another fake scientific theory like Evolution its has never been proven but is still taught in the Schools as Fact