Big Businesses Climate Targets Are Unambitious Or Something

The Warmists at the UK Guardian seem shocked that most businesses are simply paying lip service to Hotcoldwetdry

Big companies’ climate change targets are ‘unambitious’, say analysts
While almost all companies have plans in place to reduce carbon emissions, those plans don’t go far enough, according to the Carbon Disclosure Project

Nearly nine out of 10 of the world’s biggest companies have plans in place to reduce carbon emissions, new research has found, but only a fifth of them are doing so for 2030 and beyond.

The Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) also found that only 14% of its sample of 1,073 large companies around the world had “science-based targets” – that is, goals to reduce carbon emissions which are in line with the global agreement to hold warming to no more than 2C, enshrined in the 2015 Paris agreement.

“Targets [from companies] have previously been short in scope and pretty unambitious,” Marcus Norton, chief partnerships officer at CDP, told the Guardian. “That is improving.”

I’d hazard to suggest that most of these companies made plans simply for good PR, not because they actually care or want to Do Something, at least when it comes to Doing Something with their own money. It really doesn’t harm them to announce plans, make a big splash, then do pretty much nothing. The only time they’ll really take action is when it saves them money. They are not going to do things that cost them more money.

But, then, this is Warmism in a nutshell: lots of big plans, lots of Pronouncements about Doing Something, but, never actually really doing anything. But demanding that Other People be forced to do something.

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

10 Responses to “Big Businesses Climate Targets Are Unambitious Or Something”

  1. Jeffery says:

    Corporations are obliged to try to earn as much money for their shareholders as legally possible. Corporations can’t be expected to unilaterally disarm serving up an advantage to their competitors.

    It has been suggested that policies be put in place to level the playing field for competing corporations.

  2. rotterdam says:

    For those that care.

    http://www.rain-tree.com/facts.htm#.WfWln4hryUk

    For those that care even more. WEll actually no one does care because I can tell you that the billions and billions of dollars already invested into rainforest preservation actually just finds its way into the pockets of corrupt politicans and governments. For every dollar we spend 99 cents finds its way into a new car, mansion, jetsetting politican or kickbacks to keep the flow of razed forests coming.

    Additionally not to fear. I understand the skeptics and those that do not believe in AGW which actually I am one of those people, find something so mundane as the destruction of the rainforests a bothersome side note designed to beg for money.

    And the fact is that in this case that is true. Money and lots of it are required to save the rainforests because the economic benefits far outweight any efforts at conservation.

    Yet and despite the efforts of a few the rainforests will be gone by 2055. And with it tens of thousands of plants used for worldwide medicines not grown elsewhere. Additionally with the rainforest goes the aspiration of roughtly 35 percent of the worlds o2.

    Consequently the world will be forced into using even more fertilizers which have the devastating effects of raising the Nox2 in the atmosphere which is then broken down into No. Creating dead zones in the ocean. Now these dead zones destroy phytoplankton and guess what this plankton does.

    Yes it absorbs co2 which then creates nearly 50 percent of the worlds 0xygen.

    Additionally every climate accord does not regulate co2 emissions regarding agriculture and the creation of fertilizers puts an estimated 1 percent of the co2 into the air each year.

    The co2 is not the problem. The problem is that the rainforest provide more then just wood for fancy houses. They breath for us, provide many of our important medicines and almost 25 percent of the fresh water on the planet are created by the Amazon Rairnforest and 50 percent by ALL rainforests world wide.

    So That is why I do not fear AGW. AGW is taking the eyes off of the one thing that will indeed destroy this planet. That is the destruction of the Rainforest and the mass production of fertilizers and even those fertlizers are way over used by 300 percent at least causing the further loss of phytoplankton which is the other main contributor of oxygen in our atmosphere.

    Governments don’t listen and Communist AGW advocates only care about the destruction of western economies. You AGW clowns are going to soon have you way, but not in the way you ever imagined.

    Your imagination is a warm planet and rising seas. The real result is an unbreathable atmosphere, the necessity to become vegetarians with the wholesale slaughter of nearly all mammals and an ocean unable to sustain the ecosystem anymore. And most of that is not the result of AGW, its the result of nitrogen fertilizers and the destruction of ALL the rainforests of the world.

    Fricken AGW CLOWNS. Yes none of us will see it but our children will.

  3. Jeffery says:

    Much of the destruction of Amazon rainforests comes from cattle ranching. So wouldn’t slowing beef consumption also slow the destruction of rainforests?

    Note too that burning fossil fuels, besides adding CO2 to the atmosphere, consumes O2.

    2 C8H18 + 25 O2 –> 16 CO2 + 18 H2O

    Is it possible that burning fossil fuels, which adds measureable CO2 to the atmosphere, is partly responsible for the declining atmospheric O2?

    Few actual scientists would claim that the bulk of CO2 increase seen over the past century or so comes from fewer trees, in the face of the fact that humans have directly added hundreds of millions of kilotons of the long-lived greenhouse gas, CO2 to the atmosphere.

    Again, preserving trees and transitioning to energy sources with reduced CO2 pollution are not working at cross purposes. But to say that fossil fuel burning is not contributing to global warming is not supported by the evidence.

  4. Jl says:

    Evidence? All the bad stuff that was supposed to happen but hasn’t.

  5. Jeffery says:

    j typed:

    Evidence?

    Evidence for what claim?

    We didn’t make the unsubstantiated claim that global warming is solely caused by the destruction of the rainforests, Rotterdam did.

    j – Since you make the claim that the only effect of global warming is the “greening” of Earth, i.e., plants are being stimulated to grow and adding oxygen to the atmosphere. Answer a simple question, please… Why is the concentration of atmospheric oxygen continuing to DECREASE?.

    Perhaps you and Rotterdam should compare your competing models and reach a 2 “man” consensus.

  6. Jl says:

    No idea because I’ve yet to hear of it. But something tells me it’s the new flavor of the week in what CO2 allegedly does. There’s no direct link to the other dire scenarios that haven’t happened, but wait-now it could be decreasing oxygen! Could that be also causing this? https://twitter.com/gillesnfio/status/906994819746148353

Bad Behavior has blocked 8983 access attempts in the last 7 days.