By Robert Bradley Jr. — December 6, 2022
“What if a company bases its ESG ‘policy’ not on climate model projections or ‘attribution science’ but on the obligatory consumer demand for energy? reliable, abundant, affordable quality?
“The giving is that now that everyone knows that fossil fuels are prevailing and the saturation effect is closing the mitigation window, the Church [of Climate] riders will not check their premises. If they really have ‘climate anxiety’, they’ll want to understand the case for CO2/climate optimism…”. (RLB, below)
The exchange began on social media regarding the article “ESG doesn’t wake, it’s capitalism,” by Robert Eccles. “There are several important points to debate about ESG from a corporate, investor, and public policy perspective,” he began.
This is best done with the goal of finding common ground. This webinar is another step forward for Dan [Crowley] and I’m trying to bring my Democrats and his Republicans together to understand ESG. What is it and what it is not. What it can do and what it can’t do. Our first step was the article “Reducing the Heat in the ESG Debate: Separating Material Risk Disclosures from Outstanding Political Issues.” https://lnkd.in/e_fbgzj4
Who is Dan Crowley, another voice in the two-person discussion? An ESG critic? No, a one-time Republican/conservative or fake is trying to sell ESG to legitimate skeptics. Apparently, Mr. Eccles needed to join a real opponent about Legality of the ESG instead of assuming it.
I responded:
Government and politics drive ESG [is] anything other than the “free market”. ESG is simply trying to achieve what cannot be achieved with future legislation.
Paul Watchman replied:
You are confusing physical investment risk factors with waking capitalism or Marxism. It’s apolitical, unethical, and doesn’t care about Republicans or Democrats. Like all tools, it should be sharp, well maintained, and in the hands of a skilled craftsman.
I responded:
‘Material investment risk factors’… What if a company bases its ESG ‘policy’ not on climate model projections or ‘attribution science’ based on the consumer imperative for reliable, abundant, and affordable energy? For example, more oil, gas and coal for people – and help the landscape by avoiding industrial wind turbines. “Material investment risk factors” based on climate alarmism is a shaky foundation. Political background
the guard: Get the wrong G and have little hope for anything else.
Bradley: “G” is in neutral government with strict general law provisions on force and fraud. Let civil society take it from there with G removed. The ‘G’ in government (again, showing how subjective the ESG is in its political fundamentals) should be a classical liberal G as an enforcer of private property rights. multiply the minimum and the minimum. Not ‘G’ as in defining good and bad for activism and enforcement in areas like climate change.
——————
Then came a harsh react to Paul Watchman from Professor Ujjval Vyas:
What makes you think you have the brain power to make the right letter “G”. Your Freshfields report will fail my classes and many of my other students, regardless of their political views, will immediately see through a special plea and a lack of rigor.
A few “important” titles and positions don’t create coherence. And I, for one, have always been extremely disgusted with arguments from the government and especially arguments from the bureaucracy. Let alone from a machine at the United Nations. Get out and start thinking for yourself rather than serving some misconception that you are part of God’s saving army. It was like listening to Al Gore or other self-proclaimed demigods speak from the top of a mountain.
A deeply compliant commitment to ethical action will give you goosebumps as demagogues disavow their title of “saving the world” from the coming Apocalypse. Seek higher levels of self-criticism and standards of personal ethical commitment to eliminate hypocrisy and self-aggrandizement.
Join the rest of us, just mortals committed to virtuous action without the luxurious certainty or religious fundamentalism of your place as member of the “elected person”.
He said not me. But while Paul Watchman was polite and erudite, his inability to inspect his facility midway through failure was disappointing. So I comment on Vyas:
This is a strong accusation [of Watchman], but apparently the EU/UK energy crisis didn’t happen and that was business as usual for the Climate Church. With very little thought back, this is easy with a sober look at climate models and an understanding of energy density. And I guess no amount of industrial wind turbines and solar arrays is ‘too many’.
There is a lot of ‘fake knowledge’ to believe that the economy and climate can be planned by ‘experts’ and politicians. And the failure of the government is not a political rival [sic: market] failure. Humility is needed in climate science, climate economics, and climate policy—and it is utterly lacking when congregations rely on one another with confirmation bias.
How about COP28 having debates on each aspect of the climate question? I suggest that here:
Vyas replied to my comment:
Sadly, it’s like asking for a public debate on Science or Solid Handling. Can’t tolerate self-righteousness and the strange reactions you get for making the simple claim that they are morally questionable people. Surprisingly, they don’t have special uniforms like clerics or other members of the religious system (maybe this also includes shirts for people who cry and clench their teeth). Give me Montaigne on Robespierre any day. The former understands the difficulty of living a good life, the latter makes sure he knows he has the answers and knows who should die and live in the new Utopia.
I responded:
The sad thing is that now that everyone knows that fossil fuels are taking over and the saturation effect is closing the window of mitigation, Church-goers won’t be checking their premises. If they really had ‘climate anxiety’, they would want to understand the case for CO2/climate optimism, but that would be Atheism.
The debate continues…. But much has been said about ESG and the whole controversial premise behind it: climate alarmism and forced energy conversion by magical thinking.
Related
