Pirate's Cove

I figured it was to educate people to get them ready for a real career. Eric Worrell writes “If you thought the most important mission of universities was to provide kids with professional skills to help them get a better job, think again.” Of course, we’ve seen institutions of higher learning offering degrees this century that make basket weaving look good (hey, at least with a basket weaving degree you can make great baskets and sell them for money), degrees that make companies not want anything to do with the applicant because they will just be trouble, degrees that aren’t worth the paper they are printed on. But, the mostly Democrat run schools are just looking for money

Climate change is the most important mission for universities of the 21st century

Universities are confronting the possibility of profound sector-wide transformation due to the continuing effects of COVID-19. It is prompting much needed debate about what such transformation should look like and what kind of system is in the public interest.

And, of course, the Cult of Climastrology is taking advantage of Bat Soup virus to push their cult

This is now an urgent conversation. If universities want a say in what the future of higher education will look like, they will need to generate ideas quickly and in a way that attracts wide public support.

This will involve articulating their unique role as embedded, future-regarding, ethical generators of crucial knowledge and skills, well-equipped to handle coming contingencies and helping others do the same.

And this means higher education changes are entangled with another major force for transformation – climate change.

How can universities credibly claim to be preparing young people for their futures, or to be working with employers, if they do not take into account the kind of world they are helping to bring about?

Much-needed transitions towards low carbon and well-adapted systems are emerging. But they are too piecemeal and slow relative to what is needed to avoid large scale cascading and compounding impacts to our planet.

Apply the graphic to universities. No fossil fueled vehicles, no fossil fueled travel for employees and sports teams or visiting dignitaries and lecturers. Heat has to be kept in the 50’s, AC in the 80’s. If even allowed.

Universities are key to enabling Australian society to transition to a safer and lower emissions pathway. They are needed to provide the knowledge, skills and technologies for this positive transition. And they are also needed to foster the social dialogue and build the broad public mandate to get there.

I’d say it is absurd that they’re saying that universities should be more about indoctrination rather than providing an education for a professional life, but, then, this is the way it has been going for a while.

They must become public good, mission-driven organisations devoted to rapidly progressing human understanding and action on the largest threat there has ever been, to what they are taken to represent and advance – human civilisation.

Indoctrination.

Some universities are already starting to build aspects of climate change into their operations. Most prominent have been efforts to divest university finances from direct support of fossil fuels. While some institutions are still dragging their feet, the University of California has announced it will fully divest  its US$126 billion endowment from fossil fuels.

Yeah, but they don’t give up their own use of fossil fuels, and then have to raise tuition even more because of the loss of that investment. Have fun, kids!

Read: ‘Climate Change’ Is The Most Important Mission For Universities Or Something »

Haven’t the climate cultists heard that the COVID19 issue is dead after all the protests?

Economic recovery efforts must consider climate change

In response to the massive economic contraction stemming from the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, some central banks — including those of the United States, European Union, Japan and other major economies — are engaging in “quantitative easing” (QE) programs on an unprecedented scale. These programs involve large-scale asset purchases, namely central banks buying financial instruments such as government and corporate bonds. The goal is to inject liquidity into financial markets and stimulate economic activity. (snip)

After the Great Recession of 2008, as central banks tried to stabilize the global economy, advocates for climate action called for “green” QE. They argued that central banks should buy only or primarily the bonds (or stocks, in some cases) of companies with low carbon footprints or with clear commitments to reducing their greenhouse gas emissions. That way, the world could confront two challenges at the same time — global recession and climate change. In the end, QE in the 2010s did not consider climate change, and in fact some central banks disproportionately purchased assets from carbon-intensive companies.

This time, large-scale asset purchases are taking place in a very different world from the one of 2008.

In the intervening decade, we have learned much about the risks of ignoring climate change when making financial decisions. Central banks can make a much stronger argument today for why taking climate change seriously is consistent with their mandates. They have more tools to incorporate climate considerations into their asset purchases. And, even if QE does not move the needle on climate change by itself, there are good reasons to pursue this approach anyway.

You know what we have learned? That so many of these “green” projects cannot survive without massive government (taxpayer) subsidies. And we’ve learned that Doing Something about climate change is popular in theory, but not practice, where most people, including Warmists do not want to pay much out of their own pockets. That people want to tackle real issues, not ‘climate change.’

Instead, responsible QE should support companies that will thrive in a low-carbon, resilient future. QE programs should more selectively purchase corporate debt from companies whose emissions are already aligned with Paris Agreement goals or that have set (or commit to setting) targets for reducing their greenhouse gas emissions in line with climate science — as 841 companies have done with the Science Based Targets initiative.

Interestingly, almost no one follows up to see if these companies making pledges actually follow through on those pledges. I suspect they are mostly lip service, just like with all the pledges made by the Paris agreement signatory countries.

Taking climate change-related risks and opportunities into account for QE corporate debt purchases not only would be financially prudent, but it also could help unlock growth and deliver a strong, sustainable, inclusive economy — for example, by supporting economic diversification and the delivery of quality jobs. The case for climate action by governments is strong. A report by the Global Commission on the Economy and Climate found that bold climate action could deliver economic benefits of $26 trillion between 2018 and 2030.

They keep saying this, but, there really hasn’t been much economic growth from this “green” stuff, rather the reverse. But, climate cultists are doing what they do best, hijacking a real issue to inject their cult.

Read: Warmists Still Pimping A Green Recovery From Bat Soup Virus »