SEC’s Climate Scam Rule Could Force Companies To Account For “Pollution” They Didn’t Create

By William Teach March 23, 2022 – 10:30 am

Carbon dioxide is not pollution, and the SEC is creating all sorts of problems for businesses over a scam

SEC’s landmark climate-change ruling could demand companies account for pollution they don’t directly create

Should Amazon.com and Walmart be forced to tell investors how much pollution all their suppliers send into the atmosphere? Should ExxonMobil be responsible in accounting for the emissions that auto drivers rack up?

The Securities and Exchange Commission on Monday gave the nod, by a 3-1 vote, to preliminary approval of long-anticipated regulation on climate-change disclosure for publicly-traded companies, including what stock and bond-issuing companies do to prevent pollution and how they prepare for rising oceans, severe storms and more.

All eyes have been on whether the agency could force companies to regularly report the more complicated Scope 3 emissions that are out of their direct control.

The proposal around Scope 3 announced Monday calls for a phase-in for companies, a safe harbor for liability around the reporting, which could buttress banks in particular, and an exemption from such emissions disclosures for smaller companies. After collecting comments, the SEC’s proposal has included some of the compromise language urged by the business community and mostly Republican lawmakers.

Scope 3 inclusion was a stipulation embraced by environmental groups, some Democratic lawmakers and investing advisers who believe only the most stringent rulemaking will curb climate change in time, and to satisfy growing interest in environmental sensitivity among investors.

Why, exactly, is the SEC even getting involved and creating these rules? It seems a pretty big expansion of their power

(Investopedia) The Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (SEA) was created to govern securities transactions on the secondary market, after issue, ensuring greater financial transparency and accuracy and less fraud or manipulation.

All companies listed on stock exchanges must follow the requirements outlined in the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Primary requirements include registration of any securities listed on stock exchanges, disclosure, proxy solicitations, and margin and audit requirements. The purpose of these requirements is to ensure an environment of fairness and investor confidence.

And now they’ll have to spend lots of time and money on something very silly

Opponents, meanwhile, have said the costly reporting demands of Scope 3 are untenable and likely set up a court challenge to the SEC.

Still, big moves in climate-change regulation have increasingly gained value as a centerpiece of the Biden administration’s efforts to slow the planet’s rising temperature, particularly as other White House clean-energy initiatives have stalled in Congress. A Gary Gensler-led SEC has made landmark climate change ruling part of its DNA, including in speeches.

There will be plenty of lawsuits, since you have 3 unelected bureaucrats determining that companies must comply with their cult beliefs, a serious overstretch of the SEC’s mandate. If they want to do something like that then it needs to be a vote in Congress by the duly elected Legislative Branch, rather than inventing a rule out of some obscure, unrelated language in other bills. How will this rule help at all?

For investors, most want to fairly price the stocks of companies that will be affected by climate change. Investors are trying to guess if a company’s products may be regulated in the future because of their impact on the climate, or if its supply chains may get more expensive over time. A company could be based in one part of the country, but source most of its raw materials in a region subjected to rising sea levels, for instance.

So they want to know if Government will screw with their investments with idiotic, scam related legislation? Huh.

Read: SEC’s Climate Scam Rule Could Force Companies To Account For “Pollution” They Didn’t Create »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Economy, Global Warming | 10 Comments | Trackback URL

We’re Saved: Ann Arbor To Dim Lights To Spread Awareness Of ‘Climate Change’ Doom

By William Teach March 23, 2022 – 7:15 am

Wow, this is totally going to help. Will they be doing this every day?

Ann Arbor dimming city lights to raise awareness about climate change

 For several years, Ann Arbor has joined others around the world in switching off lights on the last Saturday in March as a symbolic gesture to raise awareness about climate change and promote energy conservation.

The city has participated in the Earth Hour movement by turning off lights at city hall and dimming streetlights downtown.

Wait, that’s it? I even used 12 Foot Ladder to remove the paywall, and that’s all there was. One would think in the era of climate doom this would involve a bit more of a story, eh? I’m sure the city thinks they are Doing Something. If this helps so much, just turn them all off, or at least dim all the city lights. But, they’re right that it is a symbolic gesture, because that’s about all Warmists engage in.

Anyhow

‘OK Doomer’ and the Climate Advocates Who Say It’s Not Too Late

st greta carAlaina Wood is well aware that, planetarily speaking, things aren’t looking so great. She’s read the dire climate reports, tracked cataclysmic weather events and gone through more than a few dark nights of the soul.

She is also part of a growing cadre of people, many of them young, who are fighting climate doomism, the notion that it’s too late to turn things around. They believe that focusing solely on terrible climate news can sow dread and paralysis, foster inaction, and become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

With the war in Ukraine prompting a push for ramped up production of fossil fuels, they say it’s ever more pressing to concentrate on all the good climate work, especially locally, that is being done. “People are almost tired of hearing how bad it is; the narrative needs to move onto solutions,” said Ms. Wood, 25, a sustainability scientist who communicates much of her climate messaging on TikTok, the most popular social media platform among young Americans. “The science says things are bad. But it’s only going to get worse the longer it takes to act.”

That seems rather doomy.

Some climate advocates refer to the stance taken by Ms. Wood and her allies as “OK Doomer,” a riff on “OK Boomer,” the Gen Z rebuttal to condescension from older folks.

How cute. Certainly, Ms. Wood and her fellow non-doomers are doing Big Things

Yet people like Ms. Wood, and her thriving community of climate communicators, believe that staying stuck in climate doom only helps preserve a status quo reliant on consumerism and fossil fuels. Via social media, she and her fellow “eco-creators” present alternative narratives that highlight positive climate news as well as ways people can fight the crisis in their everyday lives.

Yeah, that’s pretty much it. Activism, videos, “climate strikes”, but, absolutely nothing about modifying their own lives.

Read: We’re Saved: Ann Arbor To Dim Lights To Spread Awareness Of ‘Climate Change’ Doom »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming | 6 Comments | Trackback URL

Bummer: Democrat Talking Point To Blame Fossil Fuels Companies For High Prices Not Working

By William Teach March 23, 2022 – 7:00 am

They tried blaming Russia, and people could read the charts that showed gas prices going up before Russia invaded Ukraine

Americans weren’t buying that, so, Democrats flipped to trying to blame oil/gas companies. Apparently, people understand the Biden Effect, along with how a commodities market works

Survey: Plurality Blame Joe Biden for High Gas Prices

A plurality of Americans blame the Biden administration for high gas prices, an Emerson Polling survey released this week found.

Inflation is continuing to hit Americans hard as 83 percent reveal they are experiencing some level of hardship due to increased prices of goods. Of those, 40 percent say they are experiencing “significant” hardship. Given that, it comes as no surprise that the economy is the top issue for respondents. 

According to the survey, “When asked about who they blame for an increase in gas prices” specifically, “a plurality (39%) blame the Biden Administration, 21% blame the sanctions on Russia, and 18% blame gas and oil companies.”

Biden has long refused to take responsibility for skyrocketing gas prices, blaming Russian President Vladimir Putin as well as gas and oil companies.

“I’m sick of this stuff. … The American people think the reason for inflation is the government spending more money,” Biden raged this month. “Simply. Not. True.”

So, the Blamestorming has rather failed. You can’t really blame any politician for refusing to take any responsibility, but, you can blame them when they do everything possibly to make the situation worse, and then do the wrong things to address the problem to resolve the problem, or, at least reduce the impact.

Read: Bummer: Democrat Talking Point To Blame Fossil Fuels Companies For High Prices Not Working »

Posted in Economy, Joe Biden | 10 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach March 22, 2022 – 2:55 pm

…is a horrible stadium which uses lots of fossil fuels and invites people to come in fossil fueled vehicles, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is A View From The Beach, with a post wondering if Hunter Biden will be indicted.

Forgot to hit the button to post at 1pm. My bad.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

Climate Cult Says Rich Nations Must End Fossil Fuels Use By 2034

By William Teach March 22, 2022 – 2:48 pm

Does this include all the climate cult bigwigs being disallowed from taking fossil fueled trips to big climate conferences?

Rich nations told to stamp out oil, gas by 2034 to avoid climate chaos

Wealthy countries must completely stop oil and gas production within the next 12 years if the world is to limit warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius and avert the most disastrous impacts of climate change, a study published Tuesday warned.

Lead author Kevin Anderson, of Manchester University’s Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, said the 2034 threshold applied to a host of rich countries, while poorer nations would have until the middle of the century to catch up.

The 76-page analysis found that 19 of the world’s 88 oil and gas producers needed to stamp out their activities if the world was to have a 50/50 chance of capping temperatures at 1.5C of warming.

“The report makes absolutely clear that there is no capacity in the carbon budget for opening up new production facilities of any kind, whether coal mines, oil wells or gas terminals,” an overview of the study said.

Or, all the climate cultists could give up their own use of fossil fuels, and let’s see how that goes with their own lives.

Maine scientists on Everest hike shine light on climate crisis

Six researchers from the University of Maine traveled to Mount Everest and are releasing their findings from their ice research conducted there.

Near the top of the mountain in the Himalayan Mountain Range, on the border of China and Nepal, Paul Mayewski, Ph.D., lead the team nearly three years ago as part of a National Geographic expedition.

Hmm, so, they all took a long, long fossil fueled flight to Katmandu, then a fossil fueled flight to Lukla, before hiking to Everest, stopping at lots of tea houses in Nepal which often run on fossil fuels, natural gas and propane. All to whine about ‘climate change’.

Read: Climate Cult Says Rich Nations Must End Fossil Fuels Use By 2034 »

Posted in Climahypocrites, Global Warming | 5 Comments | Trackback URL

Pilots Sue CDC Over Federal Mask Mandate

By William Teach March 22, 2022 – 10:29 am

Of course, since most of the news media is biased for Democrats, this is less news and more hit piece

10 JetBlue, American Airlines, and Southwest pilots are suing the CDC over the federal mask mandate, saying it encourages unruly behavior but they’re citing flawed science

A small group of pilots who work for major US airlines are suing the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention over the recently extended federal transportation mask mandate.

The 10 pilots work for commercial airlines including JetBlue, American Airlines, and Southwest Airlines, according to the lawsuit.

In the filing, the pilots alleged that the CDC acted “without providing public notice or soliciting comment.”

The federal mask mandate applies to public transportation, including commercial aircraft. On March 10 it was extended for 30 days, according to the Transportation Security Administration. The rule is set to remain in effect through at least April 18.

How many of the issues on planes revolve around masks?

The pilots say in the suit they have “serious concerns about the safety implications” of the mask mandate in relation to unruly-passenger incidents caused by mask policies.

The lawsuit says: “As pilots for major airlines, we have seen up close and personal the chaos in the sky created by the FTMM (Federal Transportation Mask Mandate), with thousands of reports to the Federal Aviation Administration of ‘unruly’ passenger behavior since the FTMM took effect Feb. 1, 2021.”

The pilots described 2021 as the “worst year on record for buffoonish behavior on planes” and blamed nearly all of the “chaos” on mask requirements.

The FAA has said 4,290 mask-related incidents were reported in 2021, accounting for more than 75% of the agency’s unruly-passenger reports. Since January of last year, the agency proposed fines of more than $682,000 against unruly passengers.

In fairness, people know the rules, and, wearing a mask for a couple hours or so is no big deal, at least in my opinion. Sure, it’s annoying, but, I’ll consider wearing one while flying simply to reduce the chance for a cold or flu. And, again, it is the rule, as stupid as it is. People knew the rule when booking the flight. Instead, some try to create problems, for whatever reason (social media fame, they want to make a point, etc), inconveniencing everyone else and getting themselves in trouble.

But the suit also claims, without good evidence, that the mask mandate “impairs pilots’ health.”

“Wearing a mask before and during flight causes us numerous medical deficiencies,” the pilots claim in their suit, saying that they’re suffering from “mask fatigue,” which is not a thing, and suggesting that “face masks are totally ineffective.” The reality is that face masks are effective at reducing COVID-19 transmission (and high-quality respirators do the job better than simple cloth coverings).

The pilots cite an article authored by Lucas Wall, a longtime opponent to the federal mask mandate, who has filed several lawsuits against the CDC and airlines. Wall, an avid world traveler and former newspaper journalist, has no scientific or public health background.

First, that’s funny because neither of the “journalists” writing this piece have a background in science or public health. The majority of climate crisis (scam) pieces in the news are written by people with no science background. Regardless, anyone who has been forced to wear a mask knows exactly what mask fatigue is. We’ve experienced it. We’ve felt it. All for masks that are, at best, 10% effective at stopping COVID19. And why do pilots, sitting in the cockpit behind closed doors, need to wear masks? They’re segregated from the “cattle” in the back.

Of course, it might be a bit late for this lawsuit, if the mask mandate does go away in April. But, since the Usual Suspects are fearmongering on a new surge from a sub-variant, they might keep it.

Read: Pilots Sue CDC Over Federal Mask Mandate »

Posted in Bat Soup Virus, Wonky Media | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

New One: Astronomy Is Bad For ‘Climate Change’

By William Teach March 22, 2022 – 8:43 am

In all my years of blogging on anthropogenic climate change, and watching it long before that, I don’t think I’ve ever run across this. It just goes to show that the Cult of Climastrology will blame/link everything to the doomy cult beliefs

Astronomy’s Environmental Toll Is Surprisingly High. But There Are Ways to Clean it Up

It’s hard not to love the Kepler Space Telescope. Launched in 2009, the venerable spacecraft discovered nearly 5,000 suspected or confirmed exoplanets—or worlds orbiting other stars—during its 11-year lifetime. Built and launched at a relative bargain price of $600 million, it generated 4,306 scientific papers written by 9,606 authors. So all good, right? Well, not entirely.

In that same 11 years, the telescope that discovered so many other worlds did no favors for our own, generating an annual total of 4,784 tons of carbon dioxide emissions, or a hefty 52,620 tons over its lifetime, mostly as a result of the electricity and supercomputing power it took to keep it operating. That also comes out to 12 tons of CO2 per paper and five tons per author.

Astronomy, in some ways, seems like the cleanest of sciences. After all, it costs nothing to look at the sky. But both ground-based and space-based observatories extract a huge environmental toll—in terms of construction, launch, energy generation and consumption, and even, at least before the pandemic, in the air miles burned as the world’s estimated 30,000 astronomers flew from conference to conference around the globe.

Science is bad for ‘climate change’.

Now, a new paper in Nature Astronomy has taken the full measure of the greenhouse gas footprint of the skygazing discipline. For the study, researchers analyzed the total CO2 output of 46 space-based missions and 39 ground observatories, dating as far back as the the 62-year old Observatoire de Haute Provence, in southeastern France and as recently as the new InSight observatory in New Mexico, which went online in 2017. In that time, the researchers—affiliated with the Institut de Recherche en Astrophysique et Plane?tologie (IRAP), in Toulouse, France—concluded that the 85 observatories have generated a prodigious 20.3 million tons of CO2, or an average of 1.2 million tons per year.

Sigh. Anyway, there’s a lot of Concern from a few climate cultists over this footprint. All the fossil fuels and concrete used to construct the telescopes/observatories, how many are far from civilization, so must rely on fossil fuels for power.

The paper stresses that the astronomy community must take dramatic steps to address its carbon footprint and not simply consider it the cost of doing business. The 20.3 million tons of CO2 emitted overall by the 85 observatories is, after all, the equivalent of the annual greenhouse gas output of entire countries such as Croatia, Bulgaria or Estonia. There are ways to bring those numbers down.

“The first step,” said IRAP astronomer and co-author Lyigi Tibaldo, “is that existing structures are decarbonized, by switching to renewable energy sources.” Sun is abundant in the Atacama, making solar power a viable option. And the more the overall energy grid, especially in Europe, comes to rely on renewables, the more the telescopes located there will be able to operate without so much of a greenhouse impact. Most space-based observatories already rely on solar panels to keep them going, but a cleaner grid means their observations can be conducted and their data analyzed with a smaller carbon footprint too.

So, the paper is an advocacy one, activist, not serious science. Is anyone surprised? I suppose some cultists brainstormed what they could drag into their little cult that hadn’t been already.

Another answer, the authors argue, is to slow down the current building boom in new observatories in the Atacama and elsewhere, relying more on the astronomical infrastructure that already exists. “The strong reduction of emissions that are required in the next decade will not be achieved if we continue building new infrastructure at the pace that is occurring now,” said Tibaldo. “That will also give us more time to perform more comprehensive exploration of the data we have from existing infrastructure.”

Stop doing science, people! The Cult has spoken.

Read: New One: Astronomy Is Bad For ‘Climate Change’ »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Collapsing Science, Global Warming | 9 Comments | Trackback URL

Poll: By A 4-1 Margin Americans Say They Are Not Better Off Than Last Year

By William Teach March 22, 2022 – 8:23 am

Perhaps a lot of people should have thought more about their vote, what kinds of policies they were voting for, rather than losing their minds over mean tweets

I&I/TIPP Poll: Are You Better Off Today Than A Year Ago? By 4-To-1, Americans Say ‘No’

Are you better off today under President Joe Biden than you were a year earlier? And are you financially prepared for a downturn in the economy or a job loss? The March I&I/TIPP Poll suggests most Americans would answer “no” to both of those questions.

The poll asked: “Generally speaking, is your family better off today than it was one year ago, worse off than it was one year ago, or about the same as it was a year ago?”

Fewer than one in five (20%) said they were “better off.” while more than twice that number — 42% — said they were “worse off.” Another 36% said they were “about the same.”

Taken as a whole, that means 78% of Americans have seen no progress or improvement at all in their financial and economic lives since Biden took over in early 2020.

Despite this, Biden’s recent speeches have included references to the “best economic growth in the last four decades.”

Well, in fairness, you wouldn’t expect Biden to say that things are not good. That just doesn’t happen in politics anymore. Rarely will the party in power acknowledge the actual problems, especially in a mid-terms year. Unless it’s a problem the Democrats can fear-monger over, in order to spend lots of taxpayer money and take away freedom and liberty, like with the climate crisis scam. The GOP will tend to go after the border and national security. Regardless, they usually acknowledge the issue in private, and attempt to deal with the problem. Biden and the Democrats are in La La Land when it comes to the economy

In the same poll, I&I/TIPP also asked Americans, “How much does your household have in emergency savings — that is, money that is readily available in either a checking, savings or money-market account?”

Respondents were given eight possible responses: “No emergency savings,” “One month’s expenses,” “Two months’ expenses,” “Three months’ expenses,” “Four months’ expenses,” “Five months’ expenses,” “Six months’ expenses or more,” and “Not sure.”

Sadly, the biggest category by far was “No emergency savings,” at 34%. Both “One month’s” and “Two months’ ” garnered 11% each.

So 56% of all Americans, over half of the population, have either no savings or barely enough to last two months, should economic trouble occur. For most, that means they are one job loss or personal injury away from economic disaster.

#Let’sGoBrandon! Is it any wonder that Biden’s approval rating is under water badly? That people consistently say America is on the wrong track? That Biden polls horribly on the economy? Americans need to really start thinking about policies and results when voting, rather than personality.

Read: Poll: By A 4-1 Margin Americans Say They Are Not Better Off Than Last Year »

Posted in Economy, Joe Biden | Comments Off on Poll: By A 4-1 Margin Americans Say They Are Not Better Off Than Last Year | Trackback URL

SEC Floats New Climate Scam Disclosure Rule

By William Teach March 21, 2022 – 3:00 pm

They just want to make business harder and more expensive

The S.E.C. moves closer to enacting a sweeping climate disclosure rule.

The Securities and Exchange Commission has said for the first time that public companies must tell their shareholders and the federal government how they affect the climate, a sweeping proposal long demanded by environmental advocates.

The nation’s top financial regulator gave initial approval to the much-anticipated climate disclosure rule at a meeting on Monday, moving forward with a measure that would bolster the Biden administration’s stalled environmental agenda.

The proposed rule — approved by a 3-1 vote — was a major step toward holding companies accountable for their role in climate change and giving investors more leverage in forcing changes to business practices that have contributed to rising global temperatures.

Ben Cushing, who leads the Sierra Club’s push for stronger climate disclosures, cheered what he called a “long-overdue step” and urged the commission to quickly finalize “the strongest rule possible.”

It still must go through the rule making process, but, does anyone think the climate cultists won’t make this happen?

The SEC’s Climate-Change Overreach

The Securities and Exchange Commission will propose sweeping new rules this week requiring publicly traded, and perhaps even private, companies to disclose extensive climate-related data and additional “climate risks.”

Setting climate policy is the job of lawmakers, not the SEC, whose role is to facilitate the investment decision-making process. Companies choose how best to comply and thrive under those polices, and investors decide which business strategies to back. That approach addresses many societal issues—think vaccines—and enhances global welfare. Taking a new, activist approach to climate policy—an area far outside the SEC’s authority, jurisdiction and expertise—will deservedly draw legal challenges. What’s worse, it puts our time-tested approach to capital allocation, as well as the agency’s independence and credibility, at risk.

That’s correct, the SEC shouldn’t be basing this on some tiny bit of language in another bill, possibly one that has little relation to ‘climate change’. Congress is responsible for this, not unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats.

Understanding and addressing global climate change is one of the most complex and significant issues of our time. Some predict we face inevitable catastrophe, while others say the costs of the transition to a “net-zero world” outweigh the benefits

We know four things for sure. First, implementing an economywide emissions-reduction policy will have a profound impact on the domestic energy, labor, transportation and housing markets, among others. Many jobs will be destroyed while others are created. Some businesses will close while others will flourish. Even if the long-term benefits outweigh the costs, near-term stresses on working Americans are inevitable and will be distributed unequally.

Government shouldn’t be picking winners and losers for a scam. Especially bureaucrats

Fourth, the body that the Constitution prescribes for weighing the relevant trade-offs in this area is Congress. Congress, duly elected by and responsible to the people, is precisely where climate policy, in all its complexities and consequences, should be resolved. Yet over decades, elected leaders have pushed hard policy questions to federal agencies staffed by unelected bureaucrats, whose decisions are reviewed only by unelected judges. This is at best bad for democracy and at worst unconstitutional.

Demanding that the SEC “act on climate change” allows politicians to say that they are working on their constituents’ behalf without accepting responsibility for the hard choices involved in crafting policy.

Exactly. And this will drive up costs, which are then passed on to consumers.

Read: SEC Floats New Climate Scam Disclosure Rule »

Posted in AGW Socialism, Economy, Global Warming | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach March 21, 2022 – 1:00 pm

…is the land turning to desert from too much carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Greenie Watch, with a post on the Dems radical climate agenda being a political albatross.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 13 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove