Al Gore: “Sustainable Capitalism Is Key To Prosperous Future” Or Something

It’s long been noted that the “climate change” movement is really all about far Left Progressivism (nice fascism), not science, with one of the goals being to completely change the economic system away from capitalism. Al Gore provides more proof of this

Taking a look at the link, which leads to a PDF, we can learn about sustainable capitalism

Sustainable Capitalism is an economic system within which business and capital seek to maximise long-term value creation, accounting for all material ESG (environmental, social and governance) metrics.

Integral to this framework is the consideration of all costs and benefits, regardless of whether they are currently attributed with an economic “price tag” by society.

While this framework is designed with a long-term horizon, it also has meaningful short-term implications, providing a process for identifying current risks and opportunities.

Sustainable Capitalism aims to address real needs in all economic, business and policy decisions.

It transcends borders, industries, forms of ownership, asset classes and stakeholders. Indeed, it exists at the intersection of business, science, politics and market forces. Consequently, it is necessary to coordinate across disciplines and sectors in order to inspire and catalyse the innovation and lasting change that we believe is urgently needed.

So much of “sustainable capitalism jibes very well in bringing in all the typical complaints from progressives. We further learn

A Sustainable Business does not borrow its current earnings from its future earnings and provides goods and services in a manner that is consistent with the transition to a low-carbon, prosperous, equitable, healthy and safe society.

Making money doesn’t seem to be part of the equation.

For example, much work remains to be done to further our recommendation to align compensation structures with long-term sustainable performance.9 The investment community has yet to adopt the changes that are necessary to align compensation structures with long-term sustainable performance, though there are mounting pressures on the financial services industry to rethink its approach to remuneration. Not only does it make economic sense to anchor rewards in comprehensive long-term performance metrics, grassroots movements (like “Occupy Wall Street”) and other global calls to address untenable levels of wealth inequality10 have highlighted the need to revise compensation structures. (While inequality is a necessary condition for capitalism, and is not undesirable in and of itself, hyper-inequality is corrosive to both capitalism and democracy and is simply not sustainable over time.) The investment community must urgently reconsider the need for this recommendation and the pace appropriate for its implementation. For our part, we will continue to seek ways in which we can catalyse sustained positive change on this topic.

Interesting. Compensation based on Cult of Climastrology goals, rather than actual performance. This is a way to fundamentally transform current economics.

We read on page 11 about the Warmist’s need to “enforce a carbon budget”, ie, the silly divestment movement (will an enterprising reporter ask Al Gore if he has divested all his own holdings from fossil fuels?).

One of the things they’re calling for is for “key actors in the global economy to (eventually be Government mandate):

  1. Assess carbon risk and price carbon in all capital allocation decisions
  2. Use sustainability analysis to enhance investment frameworks
  3. Uphold the full remit of fiduciary duty

Much of the complaints are aimed at fossil fuels, of course, but Gore and this group want everything within the economy to be changed to asses the “carbon” risk. Again, unscientific, since we are discussing CO2, not C. Specificity matters.

Incorporating sustainability considerations into the capital allocation process is not only permissible for fiduciaries; we would argue that the active decision to ignore sustainability factors may in fact be a breach of fiduciary duty. This is especially true when assessing the impact of ESG considerations on the financial performance of investments.

So, they’re evil if they do not take “carbon risk” into account. In the Conclusion, we see

If we redefine societal wealth to mean “the range of human problems it has solved and how available it has made those solutions to its people”61 then we must not only continue the journey towards a more sustainable form of capitalism, but we must also quicken our pace. Implementing the recommendations outlined in this report could radically transform the global economy by 2020. Financial markets would incorporate the price of externalities like unabated carbon emissions that are currently treated as nearly free resources and allocate capital accordingly.

In other words, they want to change the entire economic system, replacing capitalism with their far left ideas. Well, hey, people like Al Gore have already obtained their own massive largess using the current economic system.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

6 Responses to “Al Gore: “Sustainable Capitalism Is Key To Prosperous Future” Or Something”

  1. Dana says:

    Jeffrey’s favorite internet host quoted:

    If we redefine societal wealth to mean “the range of human problems it has solved and how available it has made those solutions to its people” then we must not only continue the journey towards a more sustainable form of capitalism, but we must also quicken our pace. Implementing the recommendations outlined in this report could radically transform the global economy by 2020. Financial markets would incorporate the price of externalities like unabated carbon emissions that are currently treated as nearly free resources and allocate capital accordingly.

    Hmmm: this could “radically transform the global economy” in five years? Would this be the same five year interval Mr Gore specified, in 2009, which would see the North Polar ice cap gone by the summer of 2014?

    This is why I have said, repeatedly, that the left do not understand economics. Our Nobel laureate wishes to redefine “social wealth” as “the range of human problems it has solved and how available it has made those solutions to its people,” but capitalism is based not on notions of “social wealth,” but on the profit of the individual enterprise. The very green company which tries to increase “societal wealth” without being reasonably profitable individually won’t be contributing to the “societal wealth” for very long.

  2. Jeffery says:

    Yes, exactly. The concept is simple. The total costs of doing business should be incorporated into pricing. This includes the negative externalities of pollution.

    And of course the choices are political. But the industry sponsored far-right choice of willful ignorance is not an option.

    In other words, they want to change the entire economic system, replacing capitalism with their far left ideas.

    Far left ideas such as justice, fairness and responsibility?

    Teach ascribes emotionally loaded terms such as “evil” to the communications of others. CO2 is not evil. Capitalism is not evil.

    The article did not call capitalism evil, but said that “the active decision to ignore sustainability factors may in fact be a breach of fiduciary duty.”

    Capitalism as practiced today (as in the late 1800s) is unsustainable. The constant flow of rewards from the working classes to the political donor class is unsustainable. The continued destruction of the middle class is unsustainable.

    These results did not occur “naturally” but are the results of decades of policies that favor the wealthy at the expense of the working classes.

    Amazon is not evil, but Amazon does receive an unfair advantage over the corner bookstore or department store. In most states, Amazon does not collect taxes on their sales. This is a policy decision not some natural evolution of capitalism.

  3. Liam Thomas says:

    Capitalism as practiced today (as in the late 1800s) is unsustainable.

    Capitalism today is no where near what it was in the 1800’s.

    Today we are a consumer driven free market society in which capitalism only thrives in an environment that is conducive to consuming.

    This is the very thing the left communists despise about the current day capitalism.

    The capitalism of the 1800’s was a:

    Laissez-faire (/ˌlɛseɪˈfɛr-/, French: [lɛsefɛʁ] ( listen)) is an economic system in which transactions between private parties are free from government interference such as regulations, privileges, tariffs, and subsidies. The phrase laissez-faire is part of a larger French piece and literally translates “let (it/them) do,” but in this context usually means “let it be,” or “let it go.”

    Communists continually conflate even our economy because they understand that if they can drive the narrative they can win the debate….

    Jeffery you cant even get the system right.

    The reason the middle class is suffering is because of consumerism….not because of capitalism.

    In order to consume in the current climate the fed has reduced the interest rates to zero to stimulate borrowing to buy or consume.

    WEALTH IS NOT CREATED BY BORROWING….it is created by saving and accumulating.

    The reason the middle class has suffered is because of government regulations from Reagan to Obama that makes it so EASY for Americans to consume.

  4. john says:

    Liam right now treasury 1 year treasury bonds are paying 0.25% interest. In 1 year we can pay them off with dollars that are worth 2% less than the ones we sold them. Why not borrow? Liam did you correctly predict that the stock market was going to triple in 6 years under Obama?
    Listening to right wingers speak on economics is like listening to the right wing war mongers who promised us a quick easy and cheap victory in Iraq.

  5. gitarcarver says:

    john likes to give the Dow as some sort of indication that the economy is doing great. He seems to forget that Dow is an average of certain stocks and not an indication of the growth of anything. Very few economists use the Dow as a sign of anything within the economy. In fact, prior to 2013’s high the previous high in the Dow was in 2007, 2 months prior to the recession. The Dow showed no indication of the recession in 2007. Add to that the Dow is being propped up by the Federal Reserve buy assets, and most people can see the problem.

    From Questions and Observations comes this recap of the economy:

    Existing home sales fell -3.3 % in April to a worse-than-expected 5.04 million annual rate, as weakness continues in the housing sector.

    The Philadelphia Fed Business Outlook Survey fell -0.8 points in May to 6.7.

    The Conference Board’s index of leading economic indicators jumped 0.7% in April, mainly on increases in building permits. Oddly, the jump in permits hasn’t yet shown up as strength in the constructions sector.

    The Kansas City Fed Manufacturing Index fell -8 points in May to a deeply negative -13.

    The Chicago Fed National Activity Index improved from -0.42 in March to a still-negative -0.15 in April.

    May’s flash reading for the PMI manufacturing index fell -0.4 points to a 16-month low of 53.8.

    Initial weekly jobless claims rose 10,000 to 274,000. The 4-week average fell 5,500 to 266,250. Continuing claims fell 12,000 to 2.211 million.

    The Bloomberg Consumer Comfort Index slipped -1.1 points in the May 17 week to 42.4.

    The Fed’s balance sheet fell $-20.8 billion last week, with total assets of $4.480 trillion. Reserve bank credit rose $4.0 billion.

    john thinks that is a show of a healthy economy.

    You can’t teach stupid.

  6. Dana says:

    John knows just enough economics to be dangerous:

    Liam right now treasury 1 year treasury bonds are paying 0.25% interest. In 1 year we can pay them off with dollars that are worth 2% less than the ones we sold them. Why not borrow? Liam did you correctly predict that the stock market was going to triple in 6 years under Obama?

    Except, of course, that a year from now we’d be paying for something that is giving us no current benefit. And we’d just be adding that debt to the debt accumulated over the past nearly two centuries.

    One reason I think so highly of President Jackson is that he is the only President who actually paid off the national debt, something he accomplished in 1836.

    Borrowing makes sense if it produces future wealth, something which is possible when you have some hope of actually paying off the incurred debt, but we’re so far past that that such is practically impossible; what we spend government finds on these days is primarily wasteful.

    Keynesian economics tells us that we should borrow and use deficit spending in times of economic distress, but the part everyone ignores is the side which says we should balance the budget and pay down the debt in good economic times; that we never do!

Bad Behavior has blocked 8105 access attempts in the last 7 days.