{"id":228456,"date":"2022-11-10T19:39:52","date_gmt":"2022-11-10T18:39:52","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=228456"},"modified":"2022-11-10T19:39:54","modified_gmt":"2022-11-10T18:39:54","slug":"its-all-blood-and-gore-until-somebody-loses-a-fortune","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=228456","title":{"rendered":"It\u2019s all \u2018Blood and Gore\u2019 until somebody loses a fortune"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Essay by Eric Worrall<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

h\/t Dr. Willie Soon; Authors David Blood and Al Gore, writing in the WSJ as guests, are astonished some companies and politicians are resisting their push for climate and sustainable development disclosures. But there is a hidden catch in their push.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

ESG Investing Is Consistent with Fiduciary Duty<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

It\u2019s not an end in itself. It\u2019s simply an analytical tool that investors would be smart to make use of.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

By Al Gore and David Blood
Nov. 8, 2022, 630 pm ET<\/p>\n\n\n\n

No matter your investment strategy, timely access to accurate and comprehensive information is critical. Transparency enables investors to make informed decisions with a greater understanding of the risks and opportunities facing a company. Yet incredibly, some American politicians are now trying to pass laws to prevent investors from taking highly relevant information into account.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Why? Is the information they seek to ban inconvenient?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2026<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Consider two examples. If a company is at risk of having significant liabilities for its past practice of dumping toxic chemicals into a river, don\u2019t investors need to know that? Or how about if a company is building gas-fired power plants or new oil pipelines that, as governments tighten their climate targets, may have to be shut down decades before their projected useful lifetimes expire. Isn\u2019t that relevant information?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2026Read more: https:\/\/www.wsj.com\/articles\/sustainable-investing-is-consistent-with-fiduciary-duty-esg-capitalism-emissions-co2-business-costs-growth-tool-market-value-rules-11667879249<\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

What is that catch I mentioned? The problem is Al Gore\u2019s push is political. Those climate targets haven\u2019t been tightened yet and might never be tightened \u2013 but\u00a0requiring companies to include ESG considerations in their financial decisions would force them to behave as if that tightening of climate regulations had already occurred<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

There is nothing inevitable about the changes Al Gore claims will occur in the future.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Worse, pressure for companies to consider climate goals could actually put corporate finances in jeopardy. For example, back in June, Green Party German Vice Chancellor Robert Habeck announced Germany would be restarting their coal plants<\/a>, due to their desperate energy shortages \u2013 caused by forcing companies to behave as if the green energy revolution was inevitable.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The same thing could happen to the USA, if Al Gore and his friends get their way.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I have no problem with companies publishing climate information voluntarily or inviting an audit from Santa Claus and the tooth fairy if they think that will improve their business prospects. But financial disclosures must remain focussed on the here and now, not on Al Gore\u2019s fantasies about what might happen in the future \u2013 otherwise the US national economy could end up like train wreck Europe.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

via Watts Up With That?<\/mark><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

November 10, 2022<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n
It’s all ‘Blood and Gore’ until somebody loses a fortune<\/a><\/blockquote>