Why big business loves the Green-Left

By Andrew L. Urban.

They won’t say so in public, of course, but many manufacturing corporations, like Siemens, are no doubt quietly cheering the Green-Left’s push for massive renewable energy targets – and the global politics of officially mandated political blackmail that engulf what is misleadingly called climate science. It stands to reason. Siemens, for example, will be producing some US$200 billion worth of offshore wind turbines in the next 10 years.

That is just one part of the global business to be had from the policies that underpin so called climate action. So called, because such action is not based on any cost benefit analysis: the reason for that is that it can’t be. There is no measurement in any of the literature from the IPCC or anywhere else, of how much human emissions of carbon dioxide is contributing to global warming. It may or it may not be insignificant, minuscule, significant or catastrophic. No-one knows. But we do know that there is much money to be made from wind turbine manufacturing, say.

There is money in solar, too, of course. In the first quarter of 2016, solar installations in the US totalled 1 million sites, according to the Solar Energies Industries Association, which is very bullish about prospects. Go the Greens! Investors in renewable energy stocks are silently applauding them. Who says the Green-Left is anti business?

WealthDaily, December 11, 2016:
“It should be of little surprise that Warren Buffett recently doubled his stake in renewable energy: a whopping US$30 billion investment, in total.
After all, in 2014, a new solar project in the U.S. was installed every 2.5 minutes.
In fact, newly installed solar capacity just hit a record high, with an additional 6,201 megawatts added to homes and businesses across the U.S.
The craziest part is that experts are expecting the numbers for 2015 and 2016 to be even bigger… way bigger, in fact.
In that time alone, the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA) expects solar capacity in the U.S. to double. That’s 20,000 added megawatts by the end of 2016.”

Any online search will readily yield a baseload of information about the rich business of climate change policies –
“The United States has attracted capital in clean energy markets for more than a decade. Renewable energy, or RE, investment in U.S. wind, solar, hydro, and geo- thermal power has increased nearly 250 percent since 2004, reaching $36.7 billion in 2013. (A pittance compared to what’s coming – see above. This report was written in June 2014.) These numbers only represent part of clean energy’s full investment potential as new regulations on carbon emissions and advances in technology will significantly increase demand for low-carbon fuels.” That is from the Goldman Sachs website in a report by the Centre for American Progress, Clean Energy Investment in the US: the View to 2030.

The report goes on: “At the same time, wind and solar energy—which generated only 3 percent of U.S. electricity in 2010—are projected to experience significant growth and provide 17 percent of electricity by 2030. Base load hydropower and geothermal energy are predicted to maintain their current levels of 7 percent of power generation. Altogether, Deutsche Bank predicts that renewable electricity will account for one-quarter of all U.S. electricity generation by 2030.

“These findings may show only a slice of clean energy’s investment potential for three reasons. First, both states and the federal governments are moving to limit carbon pollution. Second, technological advances in clean energy offer a cost-effective, certain investment opportunity. Finally, financial tools and foreign investment can inject additional capital into the clean energy market. Clean energy is at an apex of viability and affordability as financial institutions and governments seek to secure a lower-carbon future.”

That last line should read: a lower carbon dioxide emitting but higher dollar emitting future. Corporations benefiting from the climate industry are not ideologues; ‘climate change’ is not small change.

These snapshots are part of the much larger picture of where most of the trillions of dollars being spent internationally end up (other than in the hands of the compliant / complicit scientists): in the hands of manufacturing industries and their suppliers. That’s good no? Lots of jobs. We could look at it as an alternative taxation program in which consumers are paying higher energy prices instead of (sometimes as well as) higher taxes. But the equation is more complicated than that, which even those of us not trained in economics can see. New jobs v lost iobs in the fossil fuel industries, from actual mining to transport and distribution to retail; the long term consequences of energy insecurity, an observable factor already; the fallibility of the rationale that drives such policies, decimating the fossil fuel industries, leaving us energy-exposed too early in the transition; the immediate and long term loss of vast resources and efforts that could be and should be used to improve life in the world’s poorest regions viz electricity, effective sanitation and clean water.

If the Green-Left were as dedicated and as mobilised to relieving those genuine and urgent needs of living humans, we might get something positive done, because that is a humanitarian cause everyone would sign up to.

Politicians are fooled and cowed, businesses are complicit and scientists are either bullied or self serving in the cause of global warming politics. That leaves the outliers and the marginalised to confront the fraudulent global climate industry. Those who should speak out and upend the ideologically driven gravy train don’t have the resources or the platforms to do so. For the Green-Left it’s an authoritarian ideological cause. To test that statement, just ask how happy they are when told of any good news about global warming, eg the expanded forestation of the planet, or indeed, the 20 year ‘pause’ in warming. It isn’t welcome. It isn’t a cause for relief. It’s flipped to be a negative to enforce the ideology of the cult. The heat is hiding in the ocean.

This entry was posted in Democracy and global warming policies. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *