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

By William Teach May 23, 2015 – 7:09 am

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.

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

Posted in Economy, Global Warming, Progressive Goals | 6 Comments | Trackback URL

Warmists Fail To Strip College Degree From Skeptic

By William Teach May 22, 2015 – 3:09 pm

If you’ll remember, I mentioned a bit ago that super tolerant Cult of Climastrology members were looking to strip Washington State Senator Doug Ericksen of the degree he earned and paid for, ’cause tolerance. Now

(Watchdog) A Washington state senator has survived a campaign by Western Washington University students who demanded their school revoke his master’s degree because he’s not radical enough on global warming.

But the effort to yank Ericksen’s degree — he earned his MA in political science and environmental policy at WWU — met with a stiff rebuke last week from the university’s president.

​“We appreciate the good work of Senator Doug Ericksen on behalf of Western Washington University,” said WWU President Bruce Shepard. “Senator Ericksen, a Western alumnus, has proven to be a friend to Western and a strong advocate … The strength of our democracy is that all citizens, including students and leaders like Senator Ericksen, have the freedom of expression to take positions with diverse viewpoints.”

Shepard dismissed “any notion that we might seek to penalize a graduate for the positions they express” as “a disturbing misunderstanding of the intellectual freedoms any university worthy of the name must stand for.  And, protect.”

CoC members could care less about freedoms. They have their positions, and all who fail to fall in line Must Be Punished.

Read: Warmists Fail To Strip College Degree From Skeptic »

Posted in Global Warming | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach May 22, 2015 – 1:00 pm

…is a wonderful forest setting which could be set on fire from an evil cigar, with the fire being made worse by climate change, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Moonbattery, with a post on the Boy Scouts banning water pistols.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Latest CoC Talking Point: Deniers Hate Children

By William Teach May 22, 2015 – 10:07 am

Not mentioned is how the best way to lift people out of poverty is reliable, affordable energy

Conservatives against children

Some will scoff.  Some will send me e-mails full of expletives and hate.  That’s normal.  Some will become incensed as they rant and rail.  But it is a fact.  There is one interest group actively working against all efforts to prevent our planet from passing a threshold of dangerous climate change.

That interest group is money.  Big money.  The biggest money on the planet.  The biggest money there ever was.  Big oil.  Big coal.  Big stupid money.  And the political party they long ago bought and paid for.  Republicans.  And their little sister, the Tea Party.  They will do whatever big money asks.  And I mean whatever.

Forget truth, science, morality, democracy, even Christianity.  Big money and big power rules.  And if you are a conservative, you must shrink your heart, kiss the ring and bow low.

On the other side are non-human life, the billions of powerless poor people across the planet and our precious children.

Yeah, nothing like the power and money of Government along with interest groups and non-governmental groups. Eh. You know the reality. Unless you’re a Warmist. Who complains about fossil fuels usage. By Other People.

It’s simply a typical “won’t someone please think of the children!!!!” argument designed to elicit feelings to deflect from hard facts in order to institute far left progressive policies.

Read: Latest CoC Talking Point: Deniers Hate Children »

Posted in AGW Scaremongering, Global Warming | 14 Comments | Trackback URL

Paper States Current Warming Well Within Standard Deviation

By William Teach May 22, 2015 – 7:11 am

Obviously, the study author and all those associated will be deemed to be in the pay of Big Fossil Fuels and are all Evil Deniers who want to end all life on earth, and probably hate the poor, women, and puppies….well, not puppies, because dogs are Bad For Climate Change, especially puppies

(Daily Caller) Global temperature change observed over the last hundred years or so is well within the natural variability of the last 8,000 years, according to a new paper by a former Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change (IPCC) lead author.

Dr. Philip Lloyd, a South Africa-based physicist and climate researcher, examined ice core-based temperature data going back 8,000 years to gain perspective on the magnitude of global temperature changes over the 20th Century.

What Lloyd found was that the standard deviation of the temperature over the last 8,000 years was about 0.98 degrees Celsius– higher than the 0.85 degrees climate scientists say the world has warmed over the last century.

Why 8,000 years? For one, that is the time period after which the massive climatic changes from the end of the last glacial age smoothed out.

The United Nations’ IPCC claims there’s been 0.85 degrees Celsius of warming since the late 1800s, and concludes that most of this warming is due to human activities– mainly, the burning of fossil fuels and changes in land use. The IPCC says that “more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010” have been caused by human activity.

If Lloyd’s results hold, the IPCC may have to revise how much warming it attributes to mankind. In any case, the IPCC’s estimate of man-made and natural warming (0.85 degrees) is still below the standard deviation for the last 8,000, according to Lloyd’s results. This means that warming is not very significant within the context of the Earth’s recent climate history.

Much like the sea rise during that time period, which is simply average for the last 8,000 years. By the way averages work, we should expect much higher sea rise, to offset the lower to possibly negative sea rise during the longer Holocene cool periods.

At the end beginning of the day, Cult of Climastrology members will dismiss this paper out of hand, like they do with virtually ever other paper and scientific investigation, like they do with history, in favor of defending their cult. They won’t defend their cult with facts and science, but with smears and slurs. This is how they operate, because it isn’t about science, but about pushing far left Progressive (nice fascist) policies.

And, of course, those few who acknowledge that the warming isn’t that much now will say that it is coming, that we are doomed by 2100.

Read: Paper States Current Warming Well Within Standard Deviation »

Posted in Collapsing Science, Global Warming | 14 Comments | Trackback URL

Latest Idea From Social Justice Warriors: Ban Salary Negotiation

By William Teach May 22, 2015 – 6:59 am

Such is the idea from Laura J. Kray, who stops short of saying that these bans should be enforcement by government. It’s just implied

The best way to way to eliminate the gender pay gap? Ban salary negotiations.

Ellen Pao, interim chief executive of Reddit, announced last month a ban on salary negotiations at the social media company. Her stated goal: to eliminate the persistent disadvantage that women have at the bargaining table.

Her pronouncement came just days after Pao lost a high-profile sex discrimination lawsuit against one of Silicon Valley’s biggest venture capital firms. Since then, she has insisted that companies “can’t just hide” from sexism in their workplaces, and must be proactive in counteracting discrimination. Still, while it is true that women earn about 78 cents, on average, for every dollar a man makes for comparable work, Pao’s no-negotiating policy has struck many as absurd.

Why take away an important tool for women to achieve equal pay? Why stop a woman with star qualifications from pushing for as much money as she can get?

Yeah, why? Oh, right. “Social justice”.

In a perfect world, I would agree. Many people in the equal-pay debate argue that inferior negotiating skills are at the root of the gender pay gap. Teaching women to be better negotiators – or getting them to negotiate at all – would fix the issue. But the causes of this problem are more complicated than that. We have two decades of rigorous empirical research on how gender affects contract negotiations and it all points in the same direction. Put simply: As we practice it in the United States, negotiation is a man’s game with men’s rules.

This is followed by all sorts of excuses and Blamestorming and such, in an attempt to softly paint women as hothouse flowers in need of rescue by some sort of Big Entity, because they are always disadvantaged. Sadly, many of the real reasons that women end up on the lower end of the pay raise carrot are never mentioned. Things like men tending to work longer hours, taking less sick and personal days (these days are often taken to take care of the children), time off for maternity, they’re less likely to work weekends, and many other reasons. There is often a time at work disparity.

What’s that? Train women to be better negotiators? Oh, brother, no no no, that’s part of the excusifying. It’s not like anyone could just google “salary negotiation strategies”.

Of course, banning salary negotiation (who is doing the banning?) has its own issues

Such policies do come with some risk. A ban on negotiations leaves a lot of power in the hands of employers, who may not be making equal salary offers to men and women in the first place. The solution is transparency. In an effort to encourage equity and trust, a growing number of companies reveal the salaries of all their employees, sometimes even posting them online. This makes it much harder to hood-wink job candidates and helps eliminate gender discrepancies.

Is Ms. Kray saying that women are too naive to figure it out? Seems rather callous.

Certainly, it would be best if women were judged and treated just as men are when sitting at the negotiating table. But society’s gender biases and discriminating behavior haven’t been overcome in a generation. Pao’s solution of banning salary negotiations is not ideal, but it has the virtue of being grounded in the reality of the world as it is, not as we’d like it to be.

On one hand, feminists/liberals tell us women are super strong, and in the next breath tell us they need all sorts of super protections (by whom, we are not told in this opinion piece). Which is it? Like anything, negotiating salary is a skill, one that can be learned. Fewer and fewer companies disallow negotiation at most levels: there is one set pay scale. This is all progressivism at its best: punishing those who succeed, rather than elevating those who aren’t by teaching.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Latest Idea From Social Justice Warriors: Ban Salary Negotiation »

Posted in Current Affairs, Liberal World | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach May 21, 2015 – 1:00 pm

…is a world turning to desert, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Public Secrets, with a post on subsidizing dependency, rather than decreasing poverty.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

CNN: We Totally Need To Declare War On The Weather!!!!!

By William Teach May 21, 2015 – 10:59 am

Totally! So says CNN “national security analyst” (let that sink in for a few) Juliette Keyyem

Declare war on climate change?

We have a tendency to view certain public policy issues as wars. As in “the war on … ” fill in the blank: drugs, cancer, poverty.

It is often a misleading analogy, but it is meant to get the public to respond to a dire need, just as they would in wartime. The terminology, however, is entirely accurate — and literal — when it comes to our need to address the changing environment as “the war on climate change.” (snip)

As someone in homeland security, I am often asked what is my biggest fear: a pandemic, a terrorist, a loose nuke? All are risks, of course, but the one phenomenon that may have the most likely capacity to alter whatever global stability we can muster at any given moment has to do with Mother Nature. Indeed, the argument the President made Wednesday is more sophisticated than the fact that wars often begin because of the fight over limited resources.

(yes, we finally have a Janeway, er, Captain Janeway, facepalm!)

Skeptics of these global seismic shifts are not simply denying science, they are denying safety and security. Until we recognize — with the immediacy we would if a nation launched missiles against our cities — that climate change isn’t something that can be debated, but must be mitigated or, failing that, adapted to, we will not expend the effort or resources to prepare ourselves to the one phenomenon that we know is coming: simply, the waters are rising and this is a war.

BTW, how’s that war on poverty going? If Liberals fight the war on weather climate change in the same manner, the earth probably will burn to a crisp.

Read: CNN: We Totally Need To Declare War On The Weather!!!!! »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming | 7 Comments | Trackback URL

Good News: Ferguson Plans Permanent Memorial To Criminal

By William Teach May 21, 2015 – 8:28 am

Now that the memorial to Michael Brown has been knocked down multiple times, being that it is in the middle of the road, Ferguson has decided to go a different route

(The Hill) The mayor of Ferguson, Mo., announced on Wednesday that his city would construct a permanent memorial to Michael Brown, the unarmed teenager shot and killed by a police officer there last summer.

Mayor James Knowles III said that the tribute would honor Brown’s memory at Canfield Drive, according to the Associated Press.

Will this permanent memorial show the gentle giant stealing cigars, assaulting the clerk, walking in the middle of the road, assaulting an officer of the law, attempting to take his service weapon, running away after a shot was fired, then returning to charge the duly sworn officer? Will it perhaps have a saying such as “he made his bed, now he has to lie in it”?

Only in Liberal World do they celebrate a criminal. Of course, Liberals have taken other criminals and bad actors, such as Mumia, Tookie Williams (who’s been executed, of course), Che Guerra, Hugo Chavez, Saddam Hussein, Islamists, Stalin, Mao, Castro, illegal aliens, Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton (can you imagine the outcry from Liberals if Bill was a Republican, and had been accused of rape and sexual assault?) to heart, embracing them.

Wilson resigned over his role in the incident last November. Neither a St. Louis County grand jury nor the Department of Justice (DOJ) pursued criminal charges against the officer for his actions.

In other words, the both found that Officer Darren Wilson did not break the law. Michael Brown did. They’re going to erect a memorial to a thug and criminal.

Hey, maybe the memorial can feature a picture of Ferguson residents looting their own neighborhoods, stealing hair car products for “justice”.

Read: Good News: Ferguson Plans Permanent Memorial To Criminal »

Posted in Liberal World | 29 Comments | Trackback URL

California Looks To “Necessarily” Skyrocket Electricity Rates, ‘Cause Climate Change

By William Teach May 21, 2015 – 7:57 am

Can you guess who will be hurt by this idea, as being pushed mostly by White Liberals?

(USA Today) How much Californians pay for electricity could soon depend on when they use it — and some could see their summer bills go up substantially.

The California Public Utilities Commission could soon ask Southern California Edison and other utility companies to start designing “time-of-use” residential electricity rates, to take effect in 2019. The rates would make electricity more expensive when demand is high, and less expensive when demand is low.

Some ratepayer advocates and environmental groups support time-varying rates, which they say would help reduce dependence on climate-altering fossil fuels. But at least one consumer watchdog group is worried the rates would have unintended consequences. For instance, the new rates could make electricity much more expensive during the summer, hitting desert residents hard during the many months of air conditioning season.

It will also hit lower and middle class income folks much harder than all the Rich White Liberals in California. Let’s not forget, those who are involved with environmentalism/climate change, particularly the leaders, tend to be rich and white. Funny thing is, the very people who will be hurt the most, poorer minorities, are the ones calling the most for Government to Do Something, to make it a top priority. The RWLs have convinced poor minorities that raising the cost of living is necessary.

As for “unintended consequences”, increasing the cost of energy, which will increase the cost of living, is anything by “unintended”. It should be pointed out that peak demand cost is nothing new; quite a few power companies practice it. What is different here the rate demands, and the why

Many environmental groups see time-varying rates as a smart way to limit fossil fuel-driven climate change.

While the rates wouldn’t be designed to reduce overall energy consumption, they would ideally limit the need for expensive, gas-fired “peaker” plants. Those plants are generally inefficient, spewing more air pollutants and planet-warming greenhouse gases than most energy sources.

They want to use the force of Government to change people’s behavior. Meanwhile, these same Cult Of Climastrology members refuse to give up their own fossil fuels usage. Weird, right?

Here’s the “typical demand profile of an individual household monitored every two 2 minutes” (from here)

And “total California load profile for a hot day in 1999”

Hooray, everyone can do their laundry in the middle of the night! Of course, let’s consider that so many uber-Democrat voters in California are CoC members, and have been calling for all sorts of “climate change” rules, regulations, laws, and initiatives. Well, here they go. They’re getting their wish. It will be amusing when they complain about their cost of living escalating precipitously. Because what they really want is all the penalties and cost increases and bad stuff to be forced on Other People. Now they’ll have the opportunity to be forced to practice what they preach.

It might help if California would actually build new power plants. A few nuclear plants would do wonders. Heck, if the enviroweenies would stop blocking solar farms, even solar could help during peak time.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: California Looks To “Necessarily” Skyrocket Electricity Rates, ‘Cause Climate Change »

Posted in Energy, Global Warming | 3 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove