Tag: carbon neutrality

Climate Alarmists Indifferent to Geopolitical Realities and Human Suffering 

As war rages in the Middle East and Ukraine, as missiles and drones claim new victims every day, and as the global order is threatened—with all the attendant consequences of human misery—a strange persistence haunts the comfy living rooms of certain remote corners of the West, tucked away warmly and safely from the turmoil. A segment of our elite, obsessed with the quest for carbon neutrality, seems indeed incapable of lookng away from its Excel spreadsheets to contemplate the human drama unfolding before its eyes.

From Watts Up With That?

By Robert Girouard

As war rages in the Middle East and Ukraine, as missiles and drones claim new victims every day, and as the global order is threatened—with all the attendant consequences of human misery—a strange persistence haunts the comfy living rooms of certain remote corners of the West, tucked away warmly and safely from the turmoil. A segment of our elite, obsessed with the quest for carbon neutrality, seems indeed incapable of lookng away from its Excel spreadsheets to contemplate the human drama unfolding before its eyes.

In an article titled “When War Drives Up GHG Emissions” recently published in Montreal-based La Presse Plus, journalist Éric-Pierre Champagne poses the question that seemingly haunts climate alarmists: “Do armed conflicts like those in Iran, Ukraine, or Gaza drive up global greenhouse gas emissions? But is this pollution significant or marginal? In short, does war hinder our efforts to reach carbon neutrality?” In this scholarly exposé, where numerous experts are consulted, there is not a single word regarding the economic and human costs engendered by these conflicts; only carbon accounting holds any importance.

There is something deeply disconcerting, if not morally suspect, about seeing experts ponder the “carbon footprint” of an invasion or a bombardment. This attitude reveals an unprecedented derailment of reason: the elevation of a technical indicator—the CO2 molecule—to the rank of an absolute divinity, before which every other reality, even the most atrocious, must bow.

Morality demands a hierarchy of urgencies. Yet, the ideology of carbon neutrality operates a flattening of all values. How have we reached this stage of emotional anesthesia, where the survival of a nation or the agony of a civilian population is passed through the filter of greenhouse gas accounting? Prioritizing “net-zero” while the world tips into geopolitical brutality is not foresight; it is a form of narcissism totally disconnected from geopolitical realities and human suffering. It is the stubbornness of one who, seeing their house burning and their family trapped, worries about whether the fire trucks are electric.

War should be a wake-up call. It should remind us that heat, electricity, and the capacity for self-defense are not negotiable options in the name of climate virtue, but the very foundations of civilization. Even Germany, a champion of the energy transition, did not hesitate to reopen its coal mines to avoid freezing in winter, having suddenly rediscovered, through pain, Maslow’s hierarchy of needs.

Those who continue to place decarbonization above basic security and human dignity demonstrate a lack of morality hidden behind the shroud of “science.” By refusing to see that peace and freedom are the prerequisites for any environmental policy, they condemn societies to helplessness.

The senseless quest for carbon neutrality at any cost, disconnected from the needs of ordinary people, has become an ideological drift that blinds us. It is time to denounce this indecency. A ton of carbon avoided will never be worth a life saved. A world freed from fossil fuels but enslaved or destroyed by violence is not progress; it is an ecological cemetery. True reason consists in admitting that there are realities greater, more urgent, and more sacred than the planet’s thermostat. War forces us to look horror in the face. Let us at least have the decency not to ask for its carbon footprint.

How it ends: 96% of Big Corporations are quietly abandoning their climate commitments

he Tech-Giants are backing away. Microsoft and Google have given up — they’re not bragging about their carbon neutrality anymore. Not now that their emissions have increased 29% and 50% respectively in the last four or five years.  Over 500 companies pledged to get to net zero by 2040, but 96% of them are failing to stay on track. To distract us from talking about how the Climate Bubble has popped, some are blaming “AI”.

From JoNova

By Jo Nova

And then the climate pledges evaporated

The Tech-Giants are backing away. Microsoft and Google have given up — they’re not bragging about their carbon neutrality anymore. Not now that their emissions have increased 29% and 50% respectively in the last four or five years.  Over 500 companies pledged to get to net zero by 2040, but 96% of them are failing to stay on track. To distract us from talking about how the Climate Bubble has popped, some are blaming “AI”.

The world is facing mass death and boiling oceans, and wind and solar are still as cheap as they never were, but Big Tech are sneaking away from saving the world, wait, because Artificial Intelligence uses a lot of electricity? It’s like, these CEOs were saviors of Mother Earth not long ago, but the ice-caps be damned, there’s a race on to capture the AI market?  Apparently, the planetary heroes just turned back into robber barons doing business.

Dr Jemma Green, who sells software for renewables markets, is trying to sell us a bad-luck story, as if it makes any sense. The truth is that if net zero technologies were cheap and useful, and the CEO’s ever cared about the planet, they wouldn’t be abandoning them. But they are…

Why Big Corporations Are Quietly Abandoning Their Climate Commitments?

Jemma Green, Forbes

AI’s energy hunger and corporate climate hypocrisy

…corporations like Google, Microsoft, and Shell once positioned themselves as leaders in sustainability, setting ambitious net-zero goals to align with global environmental efforts. However, the rapid rise of energy-hungry artificial intelligence is forcing these companies to reconsider—or even abandon—these commitments…

Corporate climate pledges surged recently, with over 500 companies globally committing to net-zero emissions by 2040. This momentum continued between June 2022 and October 2023, with a 40% increase in new net-zero targets​. Yet, as the AI revolution gains traction, cracks in these promises are beginning to show. Recent analysis reveals that only 4% of these companies are on track to meet their goals, highlighting a disconnect between corporate rhetoric and reality​.

Despite the headline, Jemma Green isn’t even trying to explain “Why” the end is here. After a few paragraphs blaming AI she laments how other giants like Shell, or Gucci, or EasyJet are stepping away too from their goals too,  poking a hole in her thesis that it was only due to AI. It’s not like Gucci want to sell you AI programs to wear.

What she’s documenting is the corporate world quietly erasing their mistakes:

Shell, for instance, has abandoned its 2035 target of a 45% reduction in net carbon intensity, citing “uncertainty in the pace of change in the energy transition.” This target was a key milestone towards Shell’s broader goal of net-zero emissions by 2050.

The same goes for luxury fashion house Gucci, which once committed to carbon neutrality through verified carbon offsets and in May 2023, quietly removed its claim of being “entirely carbon neutral” from its website.

The truth is that if the Earth was in danger, smart CEO’s and billionaires, who have to live on the planet too, would be pushing nuclear power like their children’s lives depended on it.

Instead it was all an intellectual fashion contest and a quick subsidy buck, and maybe a few even believed wind and solar power did something useful, but they don’t anymore.