Corporate policy makers entering the fray should be guided by two principles, both reflecting the balance of evidence at the intersection of climate science and climate economics. First, mandatory GHG programs should be rejected in favor of voluntary approaches…. Second, voluntary actions by corporations should not go beyond win-win “no regrets” initiatives. Control practices that are uneconomic penalize either consumers or stockholders and politicize the issue of corporate responsibility.”
– Robert Bradley, “Climate Alarmism and Corporate Responsibility.” Electricity Journal, August/September 2000.
Upon the election of Donald Trump, the environmental Left redoubled its effort to politicize business on the climate issue. The subtitle to an early 2017 article in Yale Climate Connections, for example, “Business Leadership on Climate Seen as Key,” read: “With expectations of a much lower federal leadership role on controlling carbon emissions, key sectors of business community seen by some as maintaining momentum.”…
“If all the policies instituted in 1975 in the previous figure are delayed until the year 2000, the equilibrium state is no longer sustainable. Population and industrial capital reach levels high enough to create food and resource shortages before the year 2000.”
– Donella Meadows et al. The Limits to Growth. New York: Universe Books, 1972, p. 169.
The New York Times headline screamed: “Trump Administration’s Strategy on Climate: Try to Bury Its Own Scientific Report.” Reporter Coral Davenport began her piece:
The Trump White House, which has defined itself by a willingness to dismiss scientific findings and propose its own facts, on Friday issued a scientific report that directly contradicts its own climate-change policies.
That sets the stage for a remarkable split-screen political reality in coming years. The administration is widely expected to discount or ignore the report’s detailed findings of the economic strain caused by climate change, even as it continues to cut environmental regulations, while opponents use it to mount legal attacks against the very administration that issued the report.…
“Home to half the world’s population, Asia accounts for three-fourths of global coal consumption today. More important, it accounts for more than three-fourths of coal plants that are either under construction or in the planning stages — a whopping 1,200 of them….”
– Somini Sengupta, The World Needs to Quit Coal. Why Is It So Hard? New York Times, November 24, 2018.
It’s a fossil-fuel world. Dense, storable, portable mineral energies are winning despite much government-directed misdirection at home and abroad. And the Paris global climate accord, three years old next month, is reeling as a result.
Every now and then, the anti-fossil-fuel media owns up to the harsh reality of consumers choosing the most economical, convenient energies. This was the case of a recent New York Times feature, The World Needs to Quit Coal.…