Weekly clippings #46 - arctic ice, net zero vs science, carbon capture, ESG warning and guidance, DEI backlash, false subsidies, EV bloodbath, wind vs wells, responsible yachting
Once again we bring you a collection of news that does not bode well for ESG/DEI etc. The second science piece is especially important.
Science
• Unusual cold at both poles
• Challenging net zero with science
Investment/Economics
• What should government do about carbon capture?
• Blackrock energy pragmatism and legal warning
• CSA guidance on ESG-related fund disclosure
• The backlash is real: behind DEI’s rise and fall
• America’s Top Public Companies De-Emphasize the ‘E’ in Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) Communications
• Canadian fossil fuel subsidies hit $18.6 billion in 2023, says report
• Bad News for Tesla Highlights the Looming Bloodbath for the US Auto Industry
Absurdities
• Industrial wind turbines are destroying rural wells!
• Real COP 28 Learning Session: 'Responsible Yachting, Today and Tomorrow'
SCIENCE
Unusual Cold Plagues Both Northern, Southern Hemispheres….Arctic Sea Ice Strengthens "The Australian continent saw temperature anomalies of up to 28°C below the multi-decadal norm, affecting large regions."
"Temperatures in Greenland have fallen sharply as the thermometer in Summit showed -55.1 °C on Saturday. On Monday it got even colder, falling to -57.9 °C, That’s about 15 °C below the seasonal norm."
"The exceptional cold in the far north has contributed to Arctic sea ice extent to be above the average for the period 2011-2020, and is rapidly approaching the average for the period 2001-2010."
"On March 21, the seasonal minimum at Concordia dropped to -67.7°C, from -67.4°C on March 20. Antarctica is cooling, the data is clear…"
Our take: exceptional cold somehow does not generate headlines, even when such conditions were forecast long in advance by scientists who study natural climate cycles.
Challenging Net Zero with Science "Net Zero Plans Are Dangerous and Unsupported by Science and the Scientific Method. Net Zero initiatives of governments and private organizations are scientifically invalid and will lead to worldwide impoverishment and starvation if implemented, according to a paper published by the CO2 Coalition. The 55-page paper details how the objectives of Net Zero to eliminate the use of fossil fuels and the emissions of greenhouse gases are based on analytical methods that violate fundamental tenets of the scientific method which originated more than 300 years ago. “Reliable scientific knowledge is determined by the scientific method, where theoretical predictions are validated by observations or rejected by failing to do so,” say the paper’s authors – two renowned physicists and a geologist of more than 40 years.
“Agreement with observations is the measure of scientific truth,” continues the paper. “Scientific progress proceeds by the interplay of theory and observation. Theory explains observations and makes predictions of what will be observed in the future. Observations anchor understanding and weed out theories that don’t work.”
"The paper predicts global starvation if fossil fuels are eliminated. At risk in coming decades would be half of the world’s 8.5 billion to 10 billion people who are fed by crops grown with fertilizers derived from fossil fuels. Listed as an example of Net Zero’s potential consequences is the economic and social calamity of Sri Lanka which had banned the use of fertilizers and pesticides made from fossil fuels.
The authors describe how “Net Zero” regulations and actions are scientifically invalid and fatally flawed science because they:
A. Fabricate data or omit data that contradicts their conclusions, for example, on extreme weather.
B. Rely on models that do not work.
C. Rely on IPCC findings, which are government opinions, not science.
D. Omit the extraordinary social benefits of CO₂ and fossil fuels.
E. Omit the disastrous consequences of reducing fossil fuels and CO₂ emissions to “Net Zero”.
F. Reject the science that demonstrates there is no risk of catastrophic global warming caused by fossil fuels and CO₂.
Our take: if more people were taught how to understand and interpret science and statistics in school, and were taught a proper morality, they would be able to see the many, many falsehoods, biases, errors and omissions in climate alarmism and its consequent politics. Really, it should only take one good scientific paper to convince a rational person, since a single fact wipes out the most elegant false hypothesis.
INVESTMENT/ECONOMICS
What should the government do about carbon capture? "Carbon capture's viability requires that it be extremely cheap or even profitable at scale so that fossil fuels remain cheap to use. Most forms of carbon capture today are so expensive that they make fossil fuels high-cost, and none are globally scalable."
"The valid concerns of both opponents and supporters of carbon capture can be addressed by a pro-freedom carbon capture policy—one that facilitates the exploration of low-cost and scalable forms of carbon capture vs. creating a subsidized, non-scalable industry that forces taxpayers to pay huge amounts of money."
"How big are carbon capture subsidies? The IRA’s $85/ton for CO2 emissions in exhaust might not seem like a lot. But in practice it means that a $30 ton of coal that generates 1.76 metric tons CO2 gets $150 in subsidy. The coal ends up costing $180 instead of $30: 6 times as much!"
"The right policy toward carbon capture is: Stop preferences by eliminating all carbon capture subsidies, along with all other energy subsidies—e.g., by the IRA. Stop punishments by allowing carbon capture in all emissions reductions programs and above all by stopping the war on fossil fuels."
Our take: as is often the case, government intervention in the economy creates massive distortions that prevent clear thinking, and so harms citizens in many ways. Eliminate ALL subsidies and let rationality and productivity be the guiding principles, not subsidy.
Blackrock's Fink stresses need for "energy pragmatism" in annual letter "The BlackRock CEO said that in conversations with politicians and grid operators across the world over the past year "the message I heard was completely opposite to what you often hear from activists on the far left and right, who say that countries have to choose between renewables and oil and gas. These leaders believe that the world still needs both. Even the most climate-conscious among them saw that their long-term path to decarbonization will include hydrocarbons, albeit it less of them, for some time to come."
BlackRock Gets Legal Warning Over ESG Funds From Mississippi "BlackRock Inc. faces the prospect of being barred from offering securities in Mississippi after state officials accused the investment firm of making “fraudulent” statements regarding its climate strategy."
"“Many of BlackRock’s acts, practices and courses of business operate or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon investors and potential investors in Mississippi,” Watson said in the order." "Specifically, Watson said BlackRock has claimed that ESG factors provide a financial benefit, when there’s no proof that ESG-related metrics result in improved investment returns."
Our take: this might be the tip of the iceberg as far as ESG litigation goes. When it is so easy to prove ESG claims as false, why would governments, whose prime purpose is the protection of the individual rights of citizens, not take legal action against potentially fraudulent claims? How many prospectuses disclose the risks of getting the basic facts of ESG wrong, at the expense of investors and society?
Canada: CSA Issue Revised Guidance On ESG-Related Investment Fund Disclosure "Since the Original Notice, the CSA have conducted extensive reviews of retail investment funds in relation to environmental, social and governance ("ESG") matters. The Revised Notice has been issued in response to those reviews. The Revised Notice provides detailed guidance to investment fund managers ("IFMs") concerning the CSA's expectations for the disclosure and sales communication practices of investment funds as they relate to ESG matters. Unlike the Original Notice, the Revised Notice draws clear distinctions between the levels of disclosure expected of investment funds in which ESG factors play a significant role in the fund's investment process and those for which ESG factors do not play such a significant role. The CSA encourage IFMs to review the Revised Notice in its entirety and consider the CSA's guidance when preparing regulatory disclosure documents and sales communications."
"Risk Disclosure: ESG-related investment funds should consider whether there are any material risk factors associated with the fund's ESG-related investment objectives or ESG strategies. Where such material risk factors exist, they should be disclosed."
Our take: the CSA does not make mention of any due diligence on the ideas that underlie ESG, and we take this to mean they accepted the ideas as a given- - what we think is a massive failure. Notice that in the risk disclosure section they have started to speak of potential risks associated with ESG objectives or strategies. For example, consider the "Challenging Net Zero with Science" article referenced above, explaining the massive harm done to all human life to the degree such policies are implemented. This is not a little thing like sales practices, industry standards, or even financial fraud, which are very limited by their nature, this is human suffering and civilizational risk on a scale usually only seen in world wars and in apocalyptic movies. Talk about missing the forest for the trees.
"The findings revealed that the entire nature of the ESG discussion is morphing as companies are de-emphasizing environmental topics, which in 2021 accounted for 38% of the overall discussion, and two years later environmental communications had declined to 14%."
“The pendulum has swung from ESG taking center stage over the last couple of years to a de-emphasis among companies that aren’t seeing the benefit of touting these initiatives. It is costly to implement ESG policies, and if you aren’t getting credit for climate and social justice initiatives, there is little benefit for companies to draw more attention to these subjects than is necessary.”
Our take: so companies thought that by virtue signaling they could buy social credit, but when they discover they've been had, they pull out. Good for them for starting to realize the con.
Canadian fossil fuel subsidies hit $18.6 billion in 2023, says report "$8 billion in loan guarantees for the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion and $7.3 billion in financing passed through Export Development Canada, a Crown corporation that helps Canadian companies invest overseas. Another $1.3 billion went to carbon capture and storage projects, while $1.8 billion was handed to companies in the form of tax breaks, the report found."
"In addition to direct subsidies, the report included a calculation of the social costs of greenhouse gas emissions from Canada’s oil and gas sector in 2023, estimated to be roughly 200 megatonnes. Using a government tool to calculate the dollar value of carbon pollution, the report found fossil fuel yearly emissions cost society $52 billion in 2023."
Our take: notice how biased this report is. After government attacked the Trans Mountain pipeline and prompted the company to stop its development, the federal government stepped in to buy the project, then promptly costs multiplied many times over. And they call this a subsidy - a government-owned project. Also, the notion that $1.8 billion was "handed to companies" is absurd. If anything, it means the boot of taxation that weighs on the throats of energy producers was lightened a bit. Allowing a business to breathe, to write off assets that any company would write off, is not a subsidy.
Notice the extreme bias in calculating some imaginary social costs of fossil fuels while completely ignoring their wonderful life-supporting properties. As fossil fuel use has increased in recent decades, all forms of pollution have fallen dramatically and life expectancy has risen sharply, hardly indicative of a net "social cost" is it?
Bad News for Tesla Highlights the Looming Bloodbath for the US Auto Industry "My theory for this year has been that every pure play EV maker in the US would either go into bankruptcy or be teetering on the brink by the end of the year. At the same time, diversified automakers like Ford, GM, and Stellantis would continue delaying their EV goals and scaling back on EV-related investments, a move that began during the 4th quarter of 2023 as faltering demand for the cars set in in a big way.
"My assumption has been that Tesla would be fairly well insulated from the general carnage in the EV space in the US, mainly because of its 15-year head start over the other pure plays and big edge in charging infrastructure and supply chain management. After Tuesday, though, that part of my scenario may be due for a bit of a reconsideration."
Our take: it will be interesting to see which EV makers survive the coming carnage. Make sure your investments are diversified folks.
ABSURDITIES
Industrial wind turbines are destroying rural wells! "The problems for residents near the East Lake St. Clair Wind Farm were caused by pile driving 100-foot steel H-beams, about 25 per turbine, into the shallow aquifer (only 65 – 75 feet deep for Christine’s home), breaking the black shale below the water level, forcing toxic sediments into the well water. Huge cylinder-style beams with cement caps were used in the North Kent 1 facility with the same result. Even after construction, the vibrations of the turbines have kept the shale so disturbed that the sediment never settles in the well water and so remains mobile."
Real COP 28 Learning Session: 'Responsible Yachting, Today and Tomorrow' "The goal was to teach all these ultra-wealthy and super-duper concerned adherents to the dogma of the Global Church of Climate Change how to be “responsible” owners of super yachts like the one picture at the top of his piece. That yacht is over 400 ft. long, and is owned by climate alarm activist Leo DiCaprio. Truly, if these people did not already exist, you could never possibly make them up, and why would anyone in their right mind even want to try?"
Comments
Post a Comment