Is the ocean broken?

I like that new amendment making the rounds of state legislatures. If ratified, every congressperson has to eat a copy of any bill they vote for, before leaving for the day. Should reduce bill size and cost by eliminating thousands of pages of pork from each bill

 

We could go back to clipper ships but somebody would complain about the galley stove.

 

Some people find PORK quite tasty.

 

I thought I'd elaborate further on what the interviewee, Tariq Fancy, had to say.

“I have looked inside the machine and I can tell you business [cannot solve Climate Change].” “Not because these are bad people but because they run for-profit machines that will operate exactly as you would expect them to do.”

Investors have a fiduciary duty to maximise returns to their clients and as long as there is money to be made in activities that contribute to global warming, no amount of rhetoric about the need for sustainable investing will change that.

“I don’t think the public realizes we [financial investment companies, like Black Rock] are not talking about stopping climate change,” he said. “We are literally talking about selling assets so we don’t get caught up in the damage when it hits.”

“In truth, sustainable investing boils down to little more than marketing hype, PR spin and disingenuous promises from the investment community. Existing mutual funds are cynically rebranded as ‘green’ — with no discernible change to the fund itself or its underlying strategies — simply for the sake of appearances and marketing purposes.”

“There’s an impetus in large companies to build a green product that gets maximum marketing value with minimal change to the underlying structure,” Mr Fancy said, drawing parallels with strategies of the tobacco and fossil fuel industries.

“It almost doesn’t matter whether an ESG (Environmental, Social, and Corporate Governance) fund has an oil major in it or not,” he said. “It’s all moving deckchairs on the Titanic. The fundamental problem is the entire system doesn’t work. The reality is it doesn’t pay to be responsible.”

Mr Fink, CEO of BlackRock, said that he “prefer capitalists self-regulate” on climate impacts. Mr Fancy said that he views such statements as irresponsible. “He’s using his pulpit to spread a set of ideas that are invariably going to delay regulation,” he said. He likened Wall Street’s actions to Big Tobacco and Big Oil’s deceptive marketing strategies “every time the public realises that a set of lucrative business activities are hampering the long-term public interest”.

“We needed to bend the curve of the [Covid] infection rate and did it with science and government action. And yet when scientists tell us we need to bend the curve on greenhouse gas emissions, suddenly the free market is good enough? That is a position that needs to be open to public debate.”​

 

Only Congress is authorized by the Constitution to make laws and they're restricted in the laws they make. Can't mess with our rights. The Constitution gives the fed authority to regulate interstate commerce, but that is not a permission to create regulations. Regulations with the force and penalty of laws that aren't laws and nobody authorized to make law voted for. All federal regulations are unconstitutional, ie illegal and usurpation of unauthorized power by bureaucracies.

 

Or they will choose to simply pay the tax and add the added operating expense into their MSRP because the investment in green is at least as expensive as the tax. Either way, prices go up, soon to be followed by wages, to keep up.

Of compliance to a green agenda is left ambiguously defined and the measures of compliance are open to interpretation, positive results will be impossible to measure and corruption will become institution.

OSHA doesn't specify one safety device, it approves a whole range of choices that can be adopted.

Of course, everyone prefers that. It isn't irresponsible to state such preferences. Historically, industries who don't self-regulate lose autonomy. If industry had been more concerned with the welfare of their employees, for example, and had actually treated them with dignity and respect, there would never have been a union formed. Governments also suffer such failures. The unionizing of industry is an example of that as well. If government had done their job of guarding the welfare of all its citizens, again no need for unionization. Just one example from a long history of short-term self-centered thinking.

-Will (Dragonfly)

 

Or they will choose to simply pay the tax and add the added operating expense into their MSRP because the investment in green is at least as expensive as the tax. Either way, prices go up, soon to be followed by wages, to keep up.

If compliance to a green agenda is left ambiguously defined and the measures of compliance are open to interpretation, positive results will be impossible to measure and corruption will become institution.

OSHA doesn't specify one safety device, it approves a whole range of choices that can be adopted. The standards of safety eventually become the expectation and compliance becomes the norm.

-Will (Dragonfly)

 

NASA measures direct evidence humans are causing climate change

Checkmate climate change deniers! /s

Link to NASA article and study.

 

NASA isn't the NASA that put men on the moon. It was infiltrated by AGWers. Don't trust anything they say. now days

Lefties loaded up all the bureaucracies, just like they did with the public education system and media

Deep state everywhere

 

I remember a time, not that long ago, when NASA was one of the hold outs in supporting AGW claims. Then their tune changed at about the same time the federal government was being accused of withholding funds unless a pro AGW agenda was being supported. I have no idea about the truth of these things, but I believe the scientists at NASA are real scientists with no personal AGW agenda. However, everyone wants their funding.

In that light, I would say, one can't measure human cause. That is only something that can be inferred and reasoned based upon what we can measure and what we know about physics. So, In open to the possibility, but as yet, unconvinced. That doesn't mean I want to deny or stop the research. Just that I want to be sure I can trust it.

-Will (Dragonfly)

 

Here is an interesting website explaining why you should trust NASA :The Evolution of Trust https://ncase.me/trust/

NASA and scientists play the game for a long time and are on the record. So if they ever cheat they will get found out and loose credibility. So they would rather take the (hypothetical) hit in funding. And face it those guys are smart people they can find better paying jobs anyways.

 

You actually believe everything the government tells you? My, my.

 

The biggest payers of a carbon tax will be the fossil fuel companies. And of course they will pass their higher cost on to the consumer. That is expected and desired. We want the cost of non-fossil energy sources to be very competitive with fossil fuels. We want to greatly reduce the use of fossil fuels.

The next problem is that poor people will undesirably suffer disproportionately from a carbon tax. To get around that outcome it has been suggested that the fees collected from a carbon tax be distributed monthly in equal per capita rebate payments to all adults (less for children).

It's not "devices" that need to be specified. It's a whole infrastructure that needs to be abandoned, and a possibly-yet-to-be-invented group of new technologies that needs to be deployed.

 

Unless you can cite reputable sources, that is poop.

 

I'm curious if you can tell us what it would take to convince you? Forgive me for being blunt, but you don't seem to be very scientifically literate (and neither am I). Neither of us can really understand or argue for or against all the technical details found in any scientific paper on physics, chemistry, hydrology, meteorology, geology, glaciology, etc. If the science that's already been produced doesn't convince you, what exactly will?