Delingpole: 30 Trillion Reasons Why the Green Blob Must Die in 2018

In this time of alcohol-fuelled indolence, late nights, late breakfasts, and “oh God, do I really have to go back to work already?” I think it’s important that we remind ourselves who our enemies are and whom we must destroy utterly in 2018.

For me, there is one candidate that stands out above all the others, not because it’s the most physically dangerous or the most savagely cruel or the most monstrously evil, but simply because it is the most ubiquitous and insidiously vile and repellant.

I’m talking, of course, about the Green Blob.

Over the last year, I’ve written quite a bit about how the entire global warming industry is basically a junk-science-fuelled scam and the biggest financial and scientific scandal in the history of the world.

Some of you may think I’m exaggerating. So in order to stiffen up your sinews, summon up your blood, and gird your loins for the fight in 2018, let me parse for you a recent newspaper editorial which sums up pretty much everything that is wrong with this scam.

It comes from my favorite financial magazine — Moneyweek — and is a summary of an editorial which appeared in the Financial Times.

Read the paragraph, if you can stomach it, then I’ll explain why it drove me to apoplexy when I read it in the bath over Christmas — and why you should be just as annoyed and disgusted as I am:

One promising sign from this year’s One Planet summit near Paris was a pledge by 225 financial institutions – including eight of the world’s top asset managers, pension funds, insurers and sovereign wealth funds – to start holding the world’s worst-emitting companies to account. This will see them “pressure companies to cut greenhouse gas emissions and improve disclosure and oversight of climate-related threats”. Climate change poses three types of business risk. If governments get serious about enforcing commitments made under the Paris Treaty they will be forced to toe the line. If governments do nothing, the resulting “cataclysmic events” that could ensue are going to have hard-to-measure effects on their bottom lines. Finally, if advances in green technology happen “faster than imagined” it will be “disastrous” for firms that fail to keep up. For both activists and shareholders, “this is an exercise in transparency and peer pressure that will have long-term consequences.”

This is a reference to an initiative called Climate Action 100+ in which 225 financial institutions — among them names like Rockefeller Asset Management, Schroders, Skandia and Deutsche Asset Management — vow to police the companies in which they invest for environmental correctness:

We believe that engaging and working with the companies in which we invest – to communicate the need for greater disclosure around climate change risk and company strategies aligned with the Paris Agreement – is consistent with our fiduciary duty and will contribute to achieving the goals of the Paris Agreement.

If this sounds like so much harmless corporate and social responsibility guff let me tell you the scary part: these people currently have $26.3 trillion in assets under management. That is equivalent in value to just over one-third of the entire current global economy.

And that doesn’t even include the world’s biggest asset manager BlackRock — with a further $6 trillion in assets under management — which has also taken it upon itself the role of the financial world’s Eco Stasi.

As Bloomberg reported this month:

The firm, which oversees almost $6 trillion in assets, sent letters from its corporate-governance team to about 120 companies this week, urging them to report climate dangers in line with the recommendations of the Financial Stability Board’s Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures, set up by Bank of England Governor Mark Carney.

 The letters were sent globally to BlackRock holdings with “material climate risk inherent in their business operations,” such as those in the energy, transportation and industrial sectors, according to a copy seen by Bloomberg. They were signed by Michelle Edkins, the firm’s global head of investment stewardship.

The Financial Times — house journal of Davos Man, the EU technocrat elite, crony capitalist corporations and embittered Remoaners — seems to think this is all a jolly good thing.

Let me explain, with reference to that editorial (above), why it’s not:

…to start holding the world’s worst-emitting companies to account.

What are these companies emitting, exactly? Toxic waste? Poisonous fumes? Distilled essence of industrial effluvia and metastasizing cancer? Nope. The regulations on pollution — in the West, at least — are rightly stringent. But what these “worst-emitting” companies are emitting is nothing more deadly than the harmless trace gas which helps plants to grow: carbon dioxide.

Improve disclosure and oversight of climate-related threats

What climate-related threats? There is no credible evidence whatsoever of catastrophic or unprecedented climate change caused by human carbon dioxide emissions. The only threat so far is a fantastical one which exists only in activist scientists’ discredited computer models, which are increasingly divergent from observed real-world temperatures.

If governments get serious about enforcing commitments made under the Paris Treaty they will be forced to toe the line.

That’s an awfully big “if.” In fact, what we’re seeing is the precise opposite. From Germany’s disastrous Energiewende to Spain’s abandonment of renewable subsidies to Trump’s pulling out of the Paris Accord, the tendency across the world is for countries to renege on the CO2 reduction targets, not to enforce them.

If governments do nothing, the resulting “cataclysmic events” that could ensue are going to have hard-to-measure effects on their bottom lines. 

The journalist who typed the words “cataclysmic events” might just as realistically typed in “unicorns” or “alien invasion.” There is simply no credible evidence that climate change poses any significant threat to business.

Finally, if advances in green technology happen “faster than imagined” it will be “disastrous” for firms that fail to keep up.

Yes. That’s how free markets work. It’s called “creative destruction”: businesses that make the wrong calls fail, while those that get it right thrive, create more jobs, and generate value for both customers and shareholders. But again, that whole sentence hangs on a very big “if.” It would make just as much sense — actually much more sense — if it said the exact opposite, viz: “if advances in green technology happen ‘more slowly than imagined’ then it will be ‘disastrous’ for firms that have embraced them to the exclusion of more reliable fossil-fuel technologies.” That’s why the business of business is best left to business, without meddling interventions either by governments or green activists who have wormed their way into fund management companies and are putting politics before the interests of their clients.

Let me repeat: climate change is the biggest scientific scam in the history of the world. But, even worse than that, it is the biggest financial scam.

The people pushing this scam — and that includes everyone from the reinsurance companies bigging up the climate threat in order to get extra business to the corporate interests snouting at the renewables industry subsidy trough to the investment fund managers talking all this nonsense about “material climate risk” — do not deserve their inflated salaries and certainly should be allowed nowhere near your job or your hard-earned money.

Some of them are incompetents, some of them are go-along-to-get-alongs, some of them are stupid, some of them are brutal cynics, and some of them so crooked they deserve to be behind bars.

While you and I work hard producing stuff that people want or need (I’m giving ourselves the benefit of the doubt here), everyone on the climate change gravy train is simply feeding parasitically off our labor.

If they were leeching from our blood like vampires, that would be bad enough. But it’s actually worse than that: they are erecting unnecessary obstacles which make it harder for our businesses to make a profit or even survive, while simultaneously making our cost of living more expensive and funneling our money into the pockets of horrible people who don’t deserve a penny of it.

Do you remember why it was that people on your side of the pond voted Trump and people on my side voted Brexit?

I do.

It was because it was maybe our last chance, our only chance, of overthrowing an entrenched liberal elite which cared nothing for the lives or aspirations of ordinary people, a liberal elite which simply abused its position to feather its own nest.

Well the people most benefiting from the climate scam are the embodiment of that liberal elite. Just like those banks that were too big to fail, just like those clever Collateralized Debt Obligation packages which they used to bury toxic debt ever deeper into the financial system knowing that in the end it would be ordinary Joes who would have to pay, the climate industrial complex is just another manifestation of the liberal elite’s Enron-style shakedown of the “little people” like you and me.

When we complain that the markets are rigged, we’re right. They are rigged. They are rigged so blatantly that it’s quite amazing that the financiers who engage in such skullduggery and manipulation haven’t been locked up. But because it’s all being done in the name of combating climate change and with government support, dishonest — indeed, probably illegal behavior — has been sanctioned and not just made legit but actually promoted at the highest level.

At least at was being promoted at the highest level until Donald Trump came along.

The Green Blob is the very essence of the swamp he promised to drain.

It must be destroyed in 2018 — and destroyed utterly.


Comment count on this article reflects comments made on Breitbart.com and Facebook. Visit Breitbart's Facebook Page.