Nearly every proposal from the climate activists was struck down:
How times have changed. After the energy crisis of 2022 investors at major oil and gas firms are spurning climate activism. A year ago nearly a third of investors at Chevron and Exxon voted for the draconian “Scope 3” emissions targets. These targets are ludicrous — requiring the oil and gas giants to adopt a plan to reduce third party use of their own products. It’s like a form of corporate sabotage.
This year only about 10% of the same investors voted for these measures. And apparently there’s a similar trend on the other side of the Atlantic with BP and Shell investors rejecting activism too.
By Collin Eaton and Jenny Strasburg, The Wall Street Journal
The votes were abysmal for climate activists. All but two of the 20 shareholder proposals for the two companies garnered less than 25% of investors’ vote, according to preliminary results, with some performing much worse than similar proposals put forward last year.
In recent weeks, similar climate proposals failed to win over most shareholders at annual meetings of British oil and gas giants BP and Shell in London.
It’s still bonkers that 10% of oil investors would vote for a plan to get their customers not to use their own product, but if those 10% were BlackRock and Vanguard, the giant financial asset managers themselves, then they have other ways to profit from these votes.
The ESG spell is broken:
But Wednesday’s votes demonstrated how some shareholders have backed off pushing major oil companies to embrace certain climate goals. Investors said many voices pushing ESG measures have been drowned out following Russia’s war in Ukraine, which caused oil and gas prices to skyrocket as global supplies were crimped.
Investments in fossil fuels pushed many oil companies to record profits last year, which lured back some investors who had fled after years of meager returns from the industry. Exxon Chief Executive Darren Woods said Wednesday the company had benefited from investing in fossil fuels when others pulled back.
But Woods and other industry executives have argued some climate-related proposals would backfire or leave the economy worse off. Woods said several proposals rejected Wednesday would have required the company to assume the world will cut carbon emissions at a much faster pace than observers have projected.
“Some [would] go so far as to force us to decrease oil and gas development,” he said. “This would do nothing to reduce global demand.”
This is a good sign that the free market is not dead yet.
______________________
ESG Means: environmental, social and corporate-governance issues.
It is in effect: If there is a train and it’s less than a 2.5 hour trip, in France you can’t fly — unless of course, you own your own private jet, the most “polluting” kind of plane (according to the EcoWorriers). How does that make “carbon sense”? Are we saving the planet, or just stopping the riff-raff from traveling?
It’s one rule for you, another for the Feudal overlords.
Private planes make 5 to 14 times as much CO2, but they are “good to go”?
… numerous studies demonstrate that private jets are much more impactful to the environment than other modes of transportations.
They are about “5 to 14 times more polluting than commercial planes (per passenger),” a report published by the Transport and Environment group in 2021 states.
According to a recent study, “only 1% of the population causes 50% of global aviation emissions.”
Right now there are only three routes in France that will be banned, Paris-Orly to Bordeaux, Nantes and Lyon affecting only 2.5% of all domestic flights. The original plan was to ban five more routes, but the timetables weren’t so friendly for early morning or late in the day flights.
“You were warned! This is what a climate lockdown looks like. This is what the Great Reset looks like. The climate agenda demands you give up airline travel, car travel, cheap reliable energy, and plentiful food. Net Zero goals are now dictating vehicle shortages to force more people into mass transit.
They’re going after your freedom of movement; they’re going after private car ownership, they’re going after everything it means to be a free person and turning it over to the administrative state.”
The Citizens illusion of Debate and Democracy
The BBC and others are mentioning that banning flights was first suggested at France’s Citizens Convention on Climate, as if Macron is just doing what the people wanted — but never forget that the people have been free all along to not-fly and take the train but they didn’t want to. The people of France were voting with their money and time, but now they can’t.
To create the illusion, Macron tasked a group of people to assume the world was going to end because of CO2 and come up with ideas. With enough monkeys on typewriters, how could they miss? Afterwards Macron can just pluck out the suggestions he was going to do anyway, and say “Voila — this is what the citizens suggested”.
France’s Citizens’ Convention on Climate, which was created by President Emmanuel Macron in 2019 and included 150 members of the public, had proposed scrapping plane journeys where train journeys of under four hours existed.
But this was reduced to two-and-a-half hours after objections from some regions, as well as the airline Air France-KLM.
There was no Citizens Convention on whether we can stop the storms with solar panels. No Convention on Holding Back the Sea. No one asks the citizens if it’s worth spending a trillion Euro to cool the world by one hundredth of a degree. It’s not democracy, and it’s not debate. The Bureaucrats only ask the citizens questions that make Big Government bigger.
As I said It’s the Reality TV version of “Democracy” where 150 people pretend they speak for a nation while 65 million people get sidelined. Expect to see them take off everywhere. They are the perfect tool for Big-Government.
Won’t change the weather, will kill people
Now that short flights are banned, how many people won’t take the train and will get in their cars instead?
France’s Ban on Short-Haul Flights Will Kill People
You’re 2,200 times more likely to die when traveling by car as opposed to by airplane.
A recent study out of Harvard University found that, for people traveling within the United States, Europe, and Australia, the chances of being killed while flying are 1 in 11 million, while the chances of being killed while driving are 1 in 5,000. Put differently, you’re 2,200 times more likely to be killed when traveling by car as opposed to by airplane. By diverting some travelers from the air to the roadways, the French government will almost certainly cause more travelers to die.
Political theater, it turns out, can be deadly.
Don’t mention the private jets
The BBC doesn’t want anyone to notice that the Billionaires and corporate heads can keep churning out the CO2 of ten men…
Putting private jets on the graph would blow the scale and shrink the rest to tiny lines.
Worse, it would expose that this law is not about reducing CO2 at all.
It’s a cult. Believers in the climate religion can’t persuade the rest of the population through polite conversation, so a few are resorting to vandalism-for-the-planet because they know more than you do about atmospheric physics, right? After a spate last year, the call has gone out for activists to sneak around again after dark, being the deceptive cowards they are, and let down the tyres of SUVs to punish owners for not joining their pagan religion. Judging by their twitter thread, it doesn’t seem like a mass movement.
Philosophically, it’s just bully-badger-and-harass people for the climate kind of thing. According to “Tyre Extinguishers“you too can change the weather 100 years from now by dressing like a bank robber, and prancing around in the dark making other people’s lives more difficult. “Bravo” eh?
The same evangelists don’t seem to be concerned with even heavier EV’s made with child labor, the solar panels made by slaves, or the landfill toxic waste, destruction of forest, birds and bats by renewables. It’s just a tribal performance art to impress their friends and fill the spiritual vacuum in their lives.
When will the grown-ups in the environmental movement condemn vandalism? It’s time the Greens were asked if they support this.
A radical movement purporting to save the world from climate change has declared war on SUV owners, encouraging the public to actively sabotage cars in the street.
The Tyre Extinguishers is a guarded organisation that has built a global following in recent months, attracting what some have described as “extremist” activists who want to rid the roads of these “massive and unnecessary” vehicles.
Just making the world a nastier place to live…
Presumably, if this becomes common (which seems unlikely. How many people really get a thrill from this?) then SUV owners will respond by buying tyre valve locking caps, security cameras, and consuming more resources buying air compressors.
The group’s manifesto says activists should “inconvenience and expense SUV owners” by deflating their tyres wherever possible.
“SUVs are bigger and heavier than other cars, they are more polluting and use more fuel,” the group’s website reads.
“This makes them a disaster for our climate. International Energy Agency researchers were shocked in 2019 to find that SUVs are the second-largest cause of the global rise in carbon dioxide emissions over the past decade – more than shipping, aviation, heavy industry and even trucks.”
It’s a great way to make the average punter resent all forms of climate impost and see it for the fake religion it is.
Wealthy SUV owners have lockable garages, so this will hurt the workers more than the rich. It will also hurt EV owners when daft minions can’t tell the difference between a gas powered and battery fueled car (the group have a page that looks like it was written by a 14 year old, to help activists figure out what an SUV is). But the truth is there are only a sporadic few incidents of this around the world in the last month, 30 cars in Paris, 30 in Brussels, 38 in southern France, 18 in one German town and 46 in Czechia. There were some incidents in the UK and France in April. Most of the news stories on it date from last year.
What will they say when workers who own SUV’s miss medical appointments, can’t pick up children, get to hospitals, or care for aged or disabled people? How will they feel when they get charged with trespass? One Doctor has had her tyres slashed twice and leaves a note in her car saying she needs the car for on-call medical work and home visits.
Few heroes in history saved the world with vandalism.
This surely would be illegal if it was done with permanent paint (which apparently it was, and would cost £200 to have it removed). “Avon and Somerset Police said the incidents were being treated as criminal damage.”
Thirty years ago a study reported a lower risk of fatal heart attacks in people who ate nuts four times a week.
Since then scores of studies have shown the same general conclusion, popped out in the news, then got forgotten til the next one. Last week a mega review whittled them down to just 42 “cohort” studies on 1.9 million people and concluded that yes, nuts really do reduce heart disease deaths by around 25%, it’s “probably causal” say the researchers. And it most likely works through reducing blood lipids, though it might be displacing something bad.
They did also look at 18 randomized controlled studies of just 2,266 people to check for causality.
My thought for the day is if, in the extreme case, 1 in 4 heart attacks are caused by a nut deficiency and solveable with a daily dose of 50 cents worth of nuts, we could save quite a few people, not to mention hospital budgets. Coronary Heart Disease remains the biggest killer in the West. In the USA 700,000 people die of it nearly every year, which means something like 150,000 people might theoretically still be alive had they eaten more nuts. And that’s just in the US.
It might be cost effective (not to mention humane) if our Ministry of Health tried to get the message out. This would seem extra sensible given that excess deaths are up 12 – 15% across the West for other unmentionable reasons. But then sensible things don’t seem to happen in government health departments.
I’m not suggesting that nuts per se are some magical medical intervention, because there are many other useful things we can do. I’m just saying that there is low hanging fruit sitting there that our Government Health Machines have little interest in. The Minister of Health isn’t handing out cashew nuts in carparks, or giving the poorest of the poor nut-subsidies. Does the Minister really want to keep people out of the Emergency Ward?
No one seems to be training doctors to ask patients if they eat any nuts at all. But patented drugs with similarish ball park figures (and many side effects) get the red carpet rolled out. Our brightest of the bright are trained for six years to write special licences for people to get these patented profitable answers.
There is a pattern here and all roads lead to a pile of money.
In terms of deaths from heart disease the big benefits come in the first ten grams a day — just getting those people who don’t normally eat any nuts to eat a few will probably save the most lives.
Figure 6b: Linear (red, dashed line) and non-linear dose-response (black lines with confidence intervals) association between total nuts and seeds consumption and coronary heart disease mortality (panel B; 9 studies) in cohort studies, with 0 g/day as reference. Circles show the effect estimates for each level of intake in the individual studies, weighted by the inverse of the standard errors. Vertical axes are log scaled.
In terms of total risk of heart disease — which still has a big effect on quality of life — the benefits appear to accrue up to 20g a day or even more.
Figure 6a: Linear (red, dashed line) and non-linear dose-response (black lines with confidence intervals) association between total nuts and seeds consumption and risk of total coronary heart disease (panel A; 14 studies), with 0 g/day as reference. Circles show the effect estimates for each level of intake in the individual studies, weighted by the inverse of the standard errors. Vertical axes are log scaled.
Studies of associations with diet and death are notoriously confounded, but with 1.9 million participants and follow up times of up to 23 years long, there is an awful lot of data suggesting that people who eat more nuts have healthier hearts. The paper itself has 167 references. It is a tome.
One way to reduce the risk of heart disease: Eat more nuts and seeds, according to a new review of 60 studies.
Scandinavian researchers found that eating nuts could reduce the risk of a heart attack.
“If you eat a handful of nuts every day, that is around 30 grams, you will have a 20% to 25% lower risk of suffering from cardiovascular disease. In comparison, adults in the Nordic countries only eat on average around 4 grams of nuts a day. Many do not eat nuts or seeds at all,” said study co-author Erik Arnesen, research fellow at the University of Oslo.
Book for Melbourne (June 1 and 2) , Brisbane(June 5th scroll down!), and Perth(June 10th). It is already sold out or taken place in NSW, the Gold Coast, South Australia and the ACT. (Sorry!) Hopefully video will be posted.
The AMPS is a new medical organization for doctors and health workers in Australia formed during the pandemic because the AMA was doing such a bad job. Find out more about the AMPS and the tour on Facebook and Twitter: @AMPS_RedUnion
I’ll be there at the Perth event.
BREAKING:
‘The narrative on the covid mRNA vaccine is likely the greatest medical deception we will witness in our lifetime’
Climate experts wrong on Australian frosts, and media say nothing
The IPCC experts were sure would be less frosts in Australia, but buried in a government funded ABC weather report was the virtually unknown admission that the frost season is actually growing across southern Australia, not shrinking. And in some places by an astonishing 40 extra days a year. What’s more, the researchers have known about this long term trend for years but didn’t think to mention it, and the ABC didn’t have a problem with that either. (It’s not like farmers need to know these things?)
When asked for an explanation for the increase in frosts, the ANU climate expert said “I think this is one of those climate surprises,” as if the IPCC unexpectedly won a game of Bingo, instead of getting a core weather trend 100% wrong.
We note the ABC feigned journalism to cover up for the Bureau of Meteorology and IPCC failures. Where were the headlines: “Climate Change causes more frosts, not less”, or “IPCC models dangerously misleading on frosts?” Did any Australian farmers and investors buy up properties and plant the wrong crops based on the global warming misinformation repeated or tacitly endorsed by the ABC, BoM and CSIRO?
Frost damage costs Australian farmers around $400 million each year. (Perhaps if we sold the ABC we could cover that).
Buried under 450 words of weather, trite caveats, and preamble the ABC journalist finally gets to a new virtually unknown climate trend that affects farmers, investors, researchers, and rural Australia:
The latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report projected, with high confidence, that frost events would decrease, in general, across southern Australia in the future with climate change.
ANU climate applications scientist Steven Crimp said some parts of New South Wales were now experiencing five more frost events on average each year, compared to 1960.
And he has known for years:
He said this was based on local weather station data between 1960 and 2018, but the trend was unlikely to have changed much in the past five years.
“I think this is one of those climate surprises,” he said.
Scientifically they are not caught unaware because climate models are useless politicized fantasies, it’s because there is more “climate-nuance” around now:
“Despite the sort of overall warming trend in our temperatures, the extremes of our temperatures, be they hot or cold, are acting in a slightly more nuanced and complex way, which can be quite surprising at times,” he said.
BOM forecast overnight minimum temperatures to fall well below zero across large swathes of the country [last] Sunday.
But jokes aside, this actually seems like a trend that matters:
Dr Crimp said they had also found the frost season was lengthening across southern Australia.
“So if we think about the east coast first, we see an earlier start and a later finish to that frost window,” he said. “In some cases, the extension of that frost window is greater than 40 days.
“But in Western Australia in particular, we see that it’s less to do with the later frost occurrence, but more earlier frost occurrence.”
The frosts are due to the dry conditions, says Dr Crimp, putting in an admirable effort at scientific-word-salad to cover up for what he’s not allowed to say — that they have no idea.
Why aren’t frost days decreasing?
Dr Crimp said, ironically, the observations could be explained by the types of weather system that brought warmer, drier weather. That was high pressure systems which often produced the clear, still nights needed for frost to settle.
“As anyone knows who’s outside at night in winter, you have to have those clear night skies and the atmosphere needs to be very dry,” he said.
“That way the surface of the Earth loses heat very rapidly and any moisture in the air then condenses as a frost. “So because we are getting those dry conditions that are starting to emerge, that is more conducive for frosts to occur.”
But the truth is that, on average, and a priori — global warming would increase humidity and global cooling would dry the air out. And carbon dioxide is supposed to work at night time too — increasing minimum temperatures. All these factors make frosts less likely.
And yet the frosts happen.
Global warming ‘science’ has lost,
Being useless, at a terrible cost,
As their heat without end,
Is bucked by the trend,
Of Australia’s more nights of frost.
–Ruairi
h/t to A happy little debunker who points out we’ve had three wet La Nina years as well.
Those who own and control the “public town square” control the conversation
You may have seen the spooky opening video compilation before (where all the newsreading clones read the same script) but this is a neat compilation of speeches and even snippets from “Network” a movie from 1976.
The clones warn that fake news on social media is a threat to democracy. The truth, of course, is that real news on social media threatens the mind control of the corporate media cartels.
What if the media was just the lobbying agency for bigger profit making ventures? The media’s true goal is not subscription or advertising income, it’s the power to control governments and the narrative to make money for all their other parasitic operations, like unreliable energy generators, useless pharmaceuticals and carbon markets that won’t solve problems that don’t exist.
What looks, acts and smells like a Global News Cartel and just got hit by an Antitrust lawsuit…
Imagine if the media and tech giants of the world banded together behind-the-scenes to rule certain stories were “misinformation” and all their agencies thus reported the same “news”?
The real free press are the bloggers now
The big threat to the legacy media and corruptocrats everywhere was the rise of the independent bloggers and influencers who could easily outscore the boring media bloc that repeated the same tedious lies. Ten years ago an army of blogs like this were growing every year and getting front page in many searches..
Polls show as many as two out of three Democrats voters still trust the media, while barely 1 in 6 Republicans do. If the media were not so nakedly biased, those statistics wouldn’t be so skewed.
Make no mistake, the UN “finance” cartel is the supermassive black hole at the centre of the climate-mafia galaxy.
The UN Environment Programme brags that across insurance, banking and investing, it has over 450 members representing more than $100 trillion dollars worth of carrots and sticks to beat up politicians and businesses with. These are the cogs and levers of the halls of global power.
In 2021 many Insurance giants had rushed to join the global climate activist cartel designed for their industry — the Net Zero Insurers Alliance (NZIA) — which would have turned the insurance industry into another form of climate police answerable to the UN or the WEF. But it’s all coming undone now, thanks to the 23 US States who are pressing the Antitrust button. I mean, imagine if all the competitors in an industry got together to force political changes that the voters hadn’t voted for…
What if those companies colluded to make it hard for one type of energy business to get insurance?
What if companies that profit from fear itself colluded to amplify fears?
The NZIA behemoth is a part of the UN Glasgow cabal set up by former head of the Bank of England, Mark Carney. If they got away with this, the world would be just that much closer to One World Government — where unelected bureaucrats effectively “make the rules” and boss around the national governments.
Six of the eight founding signatories have already left. Departees include Munich Re, Zurich Insurance, Hannover Re, Swiss Re, Allianz ,AXA and SCOR.
By Tommy Wilkes Alexander Hübner, and Tom Sims, Reuters
LONDON/FRANKFURT, May 25 (Reuters) – A United Nations-convened climate alliance for insurers suffered at least three more departures on Thursday including the group’s chair, as insurance companies take fright in the face of opposition from U.S. Republican politicians.
At least seven members of the Net-Zero Insurance Alliance (NZIA), which launched in 2021, have now left including five of the eight founding signatories.
Departures on Thursday included AXA , whose Group Chief Risk Officer Renaud Guidée had chaired the alliance. The French insurer said in a statement it was leaving to “continue its individual sustainability journey.”
The media may try to downplay things but the critical factor here is that 23 US state attorney generals sent NZIA members a letter on May 15th.
Insurers which have left the NZIA, … say their exits will not change their individual commitments to addressing climate change.
While other insurers didn’t provide specific reasons for their withdrawal, Munich Re made it clear. “The opportunities to pursue decarbonization goals in a collective approach among insurers worldwide without exposing [them] to material antitrust risks are so limited that it is more effective to pursue our climate ambition to reduce global warming individually,” said CEO Joachim Wenning in the firm’s announcement of the exit.
There’s nothing to stop these insurance companies chatting after canapes and champers at the next WEF meeting, but they can’t be openly colluding and that’s a step in the right direction. If some foolish insurers refuse to insure oil and gas development it won’t matter much as long as there are enough competitors to step in and take up their contracts. The danger of an industry-wide cartel is that insurers could de facto enforce policies that suit their billionaire backers against the wishes of the people.
And that is exactly what NZIA appears set up to do. The Lloyds boss is saying the rules are too harsh and the whole thing will fall apart if they don’t back off.
In response, Lloyd’s Chief Executive John Neal told Reuters the exits should lead to a rethink about what it means to be a member of the group.
“There are five objectives, and you have 12 months to meet one of them and 36 months to meet three of them. NZIA need to have another look at what their objectives are or the alliance will fall apart.”
General Reyes (Utah AG) explains why they sent the May 15 letter from 23 US States:
“The ESG movement has spread to every corner of the world’s financial and energy sectors, and unsuspecting Americans are paying the price,” Reyes said…
“Insurers have an obligation to protect the interests of their clients, not advance a radical environmental agenda. Utah is taking a stand against these efforts to stop the increased prices and other harms these horizontal agreements will cause,” he said.
Under antitrust laws, agreements not to do business with disfavored sectors – such as those that do not meet certain carbon emissions standards – could be an illegal boycott. Likewise, collective agreements to fix prices or restrict production are also illegal. NZIA members wield enormous market power, and their actions threaten to dramatically raise prices for consumers, according to the AGs.
The AGs said they have “serious concerns about whether these numerous requirements square with federal law, as well as the laws of our states, as they apply to private actors.”
“Under our nation’s antitrust laws and their state equivalents, it is well-established that certain arrangements among business competitors are strictly forbidden because they are unfair or unreasonably harmful to competition,” they wrote.
“For example, ‘an agreement among competitors not to do business with targeted individuals or businesses may be an illegal boycott, especially if the group of competitors working together has market power,'” they said, adding that collective agreements to fix prices or “restrict production, sales, or output” are illegal.
Ponder that the UN-WEF-banker cabal was roping the insurance companies into forcing “science based” carbon targets on every industry that needed insurance. Then remind yourself that the UN communications chief bragged last year that “we own the science” and she’s teamed up with Google.
“…(the Protocol) will enable NZIA members to begin to independently set science-based, intermediate targets for their respective insurance and reinsurance underwriting portfolios in line with a net-zero transition pathway consistent with a maximum temperature rise of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels by 2100. With the launch of the Protocol, existing NZIA members are required to set and disclose their initial target(s) by 31 July 2023. “
So the UN WEF Banker cabal could effectively make anyone do anything if they call it “science” and sack all the skeptics.
Thank the Lord for the US Republican state power, and ask, where are the rest of our elected politicians?
Post Note: If you don’t know much about the WEF, start reading here. It’s worse than you think. The richest people in the world are here to help us, they are the “select few” touched as our saviours. Climate lockdowns are coming and you will need to ask permission to leave your 15-minute-suburb. They said that.
A bunch of giant Foundations (run by billionaires that also invest in renewable energy) gave Associated Press (AP) $8 million dollars last year to push the climate propaganda even harder than it has been running for the last 20 years.
In return AP, which calls itself a not-for-profit news agency took the grant and then ran 64 climate crisis or ESG stories in the next year. They called this surge a “sweeping climate journalism initiative”.
Sixty four stories doesn’t sound like much but AP stories are repeated in 1,300 newspapers and broadcasters. So 64 stories could really mean 83,200 stories.
The money came from the Rockefeller Foundation, Quadrivium (James Murdoch, who is son of Rupert), the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, the Walton Family Foundation (Walmart), and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute.
Looks like, smells like, advertising money for Renewable investors disguised as a grant?
At least some of these Billionaires may be paying for media stories that could improve the return on their green investments. According to InfluenceWatch, two years ago Quadrivium Foundation committed to invest $250 million US in BlackRock Inc for “green energy infrastructure”. Likewise the Rockefeller heirs invested in renewables years ago, and the Walton family have made hundreds of millions of dollars from solar power.
STUDY: AP Pushes Woke Terms Across 64 Climate Stories After $8M Grant from Leftist Orgs
Joseph Vazquez and Luis Corneli, Newsbusters
AP announced Feb. 15, 2022, that it would “significantly expand its climate coverage” with the goal to “infuse” the media landscape with climate journalism backed solely by private interest groups. AP called the new development a “sweeping climate journalism initiative” and claimed in its press release that it would retain “complete editorial control of all content.” AP also claims on its “About Us” page that it is in the business of “unbiased news,” which is little more than a pathetic joke. The so-called “journalism” AP has been doing on climate involves behaving like the de facto mouthpiece for its major left-wing donors who have an obsession with pushing apocalyptic climate narratives on the internet.
It’s a parody of journalism: AP said the money came “without strings”
AP summarized Carovillano’s claim that “AP accepts money to cover certain areas but without strings attached; the funders have no influence on the stories that are done.” Carovillano, in this particular case, called the activist investment a “‘mutually beneficial arrangement.’”
And if politicians got free houses or holidays from companies they made laws about, they could just say it was a “mutually beneficial arrangement” right? And we would laugh out of town, any politician that said that.
“The AP is supposed to be a newswire service, reporting hard news,” Legal Senior Policy Fellow at the Energy and Environment Legal Institute Steve Milloy told MRC Business. “But it has deteriorated into a climate propaganda outfit for left-wing foundations. The AP routinely reports just one side of any climate story. If it lets its readers know there is another side, that only occurs via bogus ‘fact-check’ articles that are intended for use by climate activists to get other outlets to censor climate skeptics.”
Because AP stories are run in many other news outlets, the propaganda is amplified but the payoff money gets laundered through the other outlets, which don’t mention the conflict of interest.
[Steve Milloy] continued: “The AP imagines that its corruption of the news is excused because it discloses on its website that it is being paid to report one-side of every climate story. But its stories are run by other media outlets who don’t make the necessary disclosures.”
Climate Depot founder Marc Morano also ripped apart AP’s unashamed partnership with left-wing groups in comments to MRC Business:
The media is not only ideology in sync with the climate agenda of our government, international organizations, academia, and the billionaire class, but they are also quite literally being paid to promote the climate scare. AP has received millions from ‘philanthropic grants’ to toss out all objectivity and balance in their reporting. The AP and the corporate media engage in paid press release journalism. The media has zero obligation to serve as watchdogs over government claims or policies and instead regurgitate the approved messaging of their paymasters.
It’s Climate hush money — it buys silence
The big problem with the current media is the total lack of any critical research or backgrounding, or cross-checks on the stories. When the IPCC says we are all doomed, AP says “we’re all doomed” — they don’t interview the Nobel Prize winners who disagree, or the men who walked on the moon, or any of the 30,000 scientists who can point out the flaws in the UN hyperbole.
AP News was founded in 1846. The original founders must be rolling in their graves.
If climate skeptics got $8m in funding from anywhere, the media would be all over it. But when one of the core groups of the media world sells out journalism to politically motivated vested interests most of the most lauded reporters in the world won’t even notice…
What’s more important — freeing people in slave labor camps today or making the world one hundreth of a degree cooler a century from now? Oh the dilemma.
It’s just another unintended consequence on the road to Climate Heaven. If solar panels were actually efficient and competitive they’d make network electricity cheaper and theoretically, at least, there would be money to pay for real wages. Instead competition is cut-throat, and no country with a lot of solar panels can actually afford to make solar panels.
New Walk Free study shows Australia’s push for green transition exploits slave labour
By Jenna Clarke, The Australian
Leading Australian philanthropist Grace Forrest is warning Climate Change and Energy Minister Chris Bowen that the push for Australia’s green energy transition could force more people into slavery.
The comprehensive international study, five years in the making, shows Australia’s supply chains and products at risk of human exploitation for the first time, including solar panels which are imported from China at a cost of close to $2bn.
“For the first time, we have solar panels in our top five most vulnerable products of modern slavery. This is a confronting reality, one that speaks to compounding an intersecting crisis,” Ms Forrest told The Australian.vMs Forrest said. “You can‘t harm people to save the planet.”
If we cut back on slave made solar panels, where will the solar panels come from, and how much more will the forced energy transition cost?
Ironically, Grace Forrest, who founded “Walk Free” is funded by her father, billionaire Twiggy Forrest who wants to build the largest ever solar farm in the world in the Northern Territory. That may explain why she bizarrely doesn’t believe in boycotts. Instead she wants a bigger government with more rules (just a lighter version of slavery, eh?):
…Walk Free boss Grace Forrest says that although consumers should shop carefully, the real onus for tackling the problem is not on them: it is on governments and businesses – which are not doing enough, despite the strictures of the five-year-old Modern Slavery Act.
She wants to see non-compliant companies hit with financial penalties. And she urges politicians not to worry about exacerbating the cost-of-living crisis, because paying exploited workers a fair wage would boost prices by as little as 1 per cent.
She said Walk Free did not support boycotts, and was not asking consumers to take responsibility for eradicating modern slavery. As with climate issues, the equivalent of greenwashing could make it too difficult for the individual shopper.
Magical thinkin’ — apparently businesses can do this without hurting consumers:
“We actually argue the business should absorb that cost, rather than it being for the consumer,” she told The Australian Financial Review while visiting London to launch Walk Free’s latest Global Slavery Index.
We presume she flew to London for the launch. Nice work if you can find a philanthropist to pay for the trip. But hey, she could have been playing the party-circuit, and instead she is raising awareness of modern slavery.
Slavery in other G20 countries means we all need more laws, and more lawyers
Somehow because there is slavery in China and it’s a G20 country, it follows that Canada and Australia need to bring in legislation and employ more bureaucrats.
“The fact is that 50 per cent of the world’s people living in modern slavery are residing in G20 countries,” she said. This statistic showed that the slavery problem was not just in poorer countries – “it’s over here, not over there”, as she put it.
“We would like to see an increase in legislation across the G20 countries. Canada has just announced this. Germany is going to see their example set across the EU in the coming years. We just need the political will now to step up and do that everywhere.”
Ms Forrest says “You can‘t harm people to save the planet.” Jo Nova says, “They are already harming people, and they probably won’t save anything.” What’s wrong with boycotts?
How times have changed. After the energy crisis of 2022 investors at major oil and gas firms are spurning climate activism. A year ago nearly a third of investors at Chevron and Exxon voted for the draconian “Scope 3” emissions targets. These targets are ludicrous — requiring the oil and gas giants to adopt a plan to reduce third party use of their own products. It’s like a form of corporate sabotage.
Recent Comments