"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong." Richard P. Feynman

Monday, June 14, 2010

Activists With Vested Interests.

This is a guest post by Teejay , a regular on this site and committed climate realist who was angry reading about Australian alarmist Tim Flannery's financial interest in Companies on the receiving end of government grants associated with the Global Warming scare campaign.

When it comes to the twin issues of Climate Change and Global Warming, I call on all those in positions of power and influence to declare their vested interests whenever they attempt to sway public opinion via public commentary and/or governmental action.
 The cost of this pseudo science has already reached enormous proportions with literally hundreds of thousands of people making a living from it, either directly or indirectly. In Australia alone, we now have an entire federal bureaucracy specifically set up to deal with Climate Change related issues. Many universities have gone ahead and set up special seats of learning entirely devoted to this one area of so called science and in many instances, these are attracting millions of dollars in grant funding that ultimately comes out of the public purse. Add to this the reality that every man, woman and child on our planet is, in one way or another, being to asked to contribute to fighting this non-existent problem via lifestyle changes, increased prices and existing or proposed taxes and we have some idea of the true extent of this problem.


Yet no one is ever required to produce truly tested scientific evidence to support the need for this outpouring; call it haemorrhaging, of public monies. Yes, we have all seen the outflow of data (not true evidence) from the now infamous computer models supposedly capable of accurately predicting future climate change events, none of which has yet come to pass, so it not surprising that the ‘massaging’ of data that has been going on has recently been uncovered with Britain’s top scientist in this field having now shamefacedly admitted his predictions have failed to come true.

If an apparent fraud of this magnitude was perpetrated on investors on the stock exchange, by a scientist or anyone else, the outcry would be enormous and reach in every nook and cranny in the corridors of power. There would be hell to pay! Yet these people have continued to line up at the public trough with nary a need to submit a prospectus or business plan for public scrutiny and raised million upon millions of dollars.

Why the double standards then? How can people and institutions milk public funds as the climate change and global warming alarmists have done and get away with it? Who is holding them accountable? Who will pay when the day of reckoning that is now fast approaching finally comes and the whole thing is revealed for what it really is, nothing more than smoke and mirrors? The Herald journalist, Andrew Bolt, recently interviewed a prominent Climate Change advocate who was obliged to admit his pecuniary interests in related businesses while also admitting that his well known dire predictions of natural disasters had failed to come true. Why is it then that this did not become headline news around the country? I ask again…who is holding these people accountable? Certainly not our government and certainly not the recently passed over leader of the opposition who is still wearing a large Climate Change badge over his heart as he apparently attempts a resurgence to power.

True, we could also say there are those on the other side of the fence, the so called non-believers or sceptics, who in some instances have done very nicely out of it too with books, public appearances and the like, but we must keep in mind that these people were not the perpetrators of the fraud. They have simply done what they believed to be best to uncover the fraud and reveal the truth. The fact that in some instances they have made money out of it is a secondary issue and should not be used to discredit them, or what they and many others have had to say on this topic. After all, they do not have access to the same buckets full of grant monies so they have to rely on normal commercial means and public contributions to support their cause. In any case, in the overall context of things, what they have received is a mere pittance. Indeed, in many instances they have received no financial gain at all, having acted solely with considerable conviction and for nothing more than altruistic intentions, often at great personal cost.

In closing, I refer you to the following excerpt from Wiki. It is a commentary on the concept of a Triple Bottom Line (TBR) which proposes we see things from a financial, societal and environmental point of view. In other words, take a balanced view of issues based on achieving true sustainability. I see this is relevant because there is nothing sustainable about what the alarmists are proposing. They want all of humanity to travel down a road to nowhere based on nothing more than a number of flawed theories and concepts, none of which has yet been able to stand up to close scrutiny. Where are their TBR calculations? Why is that we cannot find anyone who can demonstrate proper compliance in their research with even the most basic of Quality Assurance standards, the kind of standards that normally apply whenever access to government funding is involved?



THE TRIPLE BOTTOM LINE:

The concept of Triple Bottom Line (TBL) demands that a company's responsibility be to stakeholders rather than shareholders. In this case, "stakeholders" refers to anyone who is influenced, either directly or indirectly, by the actions of the firm. According to this theory, the business entity should be used as a vehicle for coordinating stakeholder interests, instead of maximizing shareholder (owner) profit. The triple bottom line is made up of "social, economic and environmental" the "people, planet, profit" phrase was coined for Shell by SustainAbility, influenced by 20th century urbanist Patrick Geddes’s notion of 'folk, work and place'.

"People, planet and profit" succinctly describes the triple bottom lines and the goal of sustainability..

"People" (human capital) pertains to fair and beneficial business practices toward labour and the community and region in which a corporation conducts its business. A TBL company conceives a reciprocal social structure in which the well-being of corporate, labour and other stakeholder interests are interdependent.

A triple bottom line enterprise seeks to benefit many constituencies, not exploit or endanger any group of them. The "upstreaming" of a portion of profit from the marketing of finished goods back to the original producer of raw materials, i.e., a farmer in fair trade agricultural practice, is a not unusual feature. In concrete terms, a TBL business would not use child labour and monitor all contracted companies for child labour exploitation, would pay fair salaries to its workers, would maintain a safe work environment and tolerable working hours, and would not otherwise exploit a community or its labour force. A TBL business also typically seeks to "give back" by contributing to the strength and growth of its community with such things as health care and education. Quantifying this bottom line is relatively new, problematic and often subjective. The Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) has developed guidelines to enable corporations and Non-governmental organisations (NGO’s) alike to comparably report on the social impact of a business.

"Planet" (natural capital) refers to sustainable environmental practices. A TBL company endeavours to benefit the natural order as much as possible or at the least do no harm and curtail environmental impact. A TBL endeavour reduces its ecological footprint by, among other things, carefully managing its consumption of energy and non-renewables and reducing manufacturing waste as well as rendering waste less toxic before disposing of it in a safe and legal manner. "Cradle to grave" is uppermost in the thoughts of TBL manufacturing businesses which typically conduct a life cycle assessment of products to determine what the true environmental cost is from the growth and harvesting of raw materials to manufacture to distribution to eventual disposal by the end user. A triple bottom line company does not produce harmful or destructive products such as weapons, toxic chemicals or batteries containing dangerous heavy metals for example.

Currently, the cost of disposing of non-degradable or toxic products is borne financially by governments and environmentally by the residents near the disposal site and elsewhere. In TBL thinking, an enterprise which produces and markets a product which will create a waste problem should not be given a free ride by society. It would be more equitable for the business which manufactures and sells a problematic product to bear part of the cost of its ultimate disposal.

Ecologically destructive practices, such as overfishing or other endangering depletions of resources are avoided by TBL companies. Often environmental sustainability is the more profitable course for a business in the long run. Arguments that it costs more to be environmentally sound are often specious when the course of the business is analysed over a period of time. Generally, sustainability reporting metrics are better quantified and standardized for environmental issues than for social ones. A number of respected reporting institutes and registries exist including the Global Reporting Initiative, CERES, Institute 4 Sustainability and others.

The eco bottom line is akin to the concept of Eco-capitalism..

"Profit" is the economic value created by the organisation after deducting the cost of all inputs, including the cost of the capital tied up. It therefore differs from traditional accounting definitions of profit. In the original concept, within a sustainability framework, the "profit" aspect needs to be seen as the real economic benefit enjoyed by the host society. It is the real economic impact the organization has on its economic environment. This is often confused to be limited to the internal profit made by a company or organization (which nevertheless remains an essential starting point for the computation). Therefore, an original TBL approach cannot be interpreted as simply traditional corporate accounting profit plus social and environmental impacts unless the "profits" of other entities are included as a social benefits.

1 comment:

  1. This is a really good article and I totally endorse the sentiments.
    It is the attachment written by Andrew Bolt (referenced above) that fires the big guns. It is Bolt's 'revalation' that Flannery received a Federal Government Grant of $90 million through his company Flannery Geo-dynamics that is real gob smacker! We know from Flannery's book on Global Warming that he was completely wide of the mark on both research and interpretation. It is therefore scandalous to see so much of tax payers dollars pushed his way for investigations into Geothermal technology in Innamincka..
    I want to make two calls:

    1. That Flannery's 'Australian of the year award made in 2007 be forthwith revoked.
    2. That no further Federal Funds be made available to Flannery or his associated companies.

    Tommo
    Central Queensland

    ReplyDelete