Opinion Polls: Delphi's Polling Place

Hosted by Showtalk

Opinion polls on all subjects. Opinions? Heck yes, we have opinions - but we're *always* nice about it, even when ours are diametrically opposed to yours. Register your vote today!

  • 5090
    MEMBERS
  • 133352
    MESSAGES
  • 32
    POSTS TODAY

Discussions

Climate Change farce...   The Serious You: How Current Events Affect You

Started 9/8/22 by WALTER784; 46220 views.
Msg 307 of 369
In reply toRe: msg 265
WALTER784
Staff

From: WALTER784

Aug-23

RIGGED: Having a good ESG score means NOTHING, analysis finds – all companies pollute the same

08/04/2023
Ethan Huff

The Financial Times published an exposé this week revealing that equity, social, and governance (ESG) scores mean absolutely nothing when it comes to the amount of pollution a company emits.
 
Scientific Beta, an index provider and consultancy group, discovered upon analysis that companies relying heavily on ESG metrics, including even just the "environmental" component alone, pollute just as much as companies that recognize ESG to be a scam.
 
Billions of dollars of investment money have been poured into a complete lie, in other words, because there is absolutely nothing legitimate about ESG. It is inequitable, antisocial, and based on poor governance and smokescreens.
 
Researchers further learned after looking at ESG scores from Moody's, MSCI, and Refinitiv that companies focused specifically on the "E," or "equity," component are the worst polluters of all. Whenever an "E" was emphasized on a company's score, Scientific Beta identified a "substantial deterioration in green performance."
 
"ESG ratings have little to no relation to carbon intensity, even when considering only the environmental pillar of these ratings," commented Felix Goltz, a research director at Scientific Beta. "It doesn't seem that people have actually looked at [the correlations]. They are surprisingly low."
 
Goltz would add that the carbon intensity reduction of green, i.e., low-carbon intensity, portfolios "can be effectively cancelled out by adding ESG objectives."
 
"On average, social and governance scores more than completely reversed the carbon reduction objective," he continued. "It can very well be that a high-emitting firm is very good at governance or employee satisfaction. There is no strong relationship between employee satisfaction or any of these things and carbon intensity."
 
Goltz emphasized that even the environmental pillar means little because, practically speaking, it is "unrelated to carbon emissions" in the way that companies bearing it utilize it.
 
ESG is a useless rubber stamp that satisfies the globalist lust for more power and control
 
Also commenting on the matter was Keeran Beeharee, vice president for ESG outreach and research at Moody's:
 
"[There is a] perception that ESG assessments do something that they do not. ESG assessments are an aggregate product, their nature is that they are looking at a range of material factors, so drawing a correlation to one factor is always going to be difficult."
 
"In 2015-16, post the SDGs [UN sustainable development goals] and COP21 [Paris Agreement], when people began to really focus on the issue of climate, they quickly realized that an ESG assessment is not going to be much use there and that they need the right tool for the right task. There are now more targeted tools available that look at just carbon intensity, for example."
 
In short, ESG is just a rubber stamp that measures a company's resilience to financially material "environmental, societal, and governance risks," whatever that is supposed to mean.
 
As usual, ESG is a steaming pile of horse manure that the globalists get a cheap thrill out of pushing on corporations. It serves no purpose other than to tyrannize and divide, which just so happens to be the endgame of everything the globalists are constantly inflicting on society.
 
"It's more than a 'scam' (i.e., a technique to gain money)," one commenter wrote. "It's a weapon to leverage companies to promote degeneracy and other tools to destroy our culture."
 
"Even speech is weaponized," responded another. "I am seeing more and more asymmetry; indeed, we are at war."
 
"In the Imperium of Lies, scam is a virtue," wrote another.

RIGGED: Having a good ESG score means NOTHING, analysis finds – all companies pollute the same – NaturalNews.com

FWIW

 
 ReplyToggle Dropdown
Msg 308 of 369 to WALTER784WALTER784 
In reply toRe: msg 307
Showtalk
Host

From: Showtalk

Aug-23

Why would they expect it to relate to carbon?

 
 ReplyToggle Dropdown
Msg 309 of 369 to Showtalkshowtalk 
In reply toRe: msg 308
WALTER784
Staff

From: WALTER784

Aug-29

The activists & politicians all push that it's the carbon dioxide that's destroying the earth. 

This is from 7 years ago, but it is still just as valid today and might help explain their delusion. 

FWIW

 
 ReplyToggle Dropdown
Msg 310 of 369 to WALTER784WALTER784 
In reply toRe: msg 309
Showtalk
Host

From: Showtalk

Aug-29

Money…power…headlines

 
 ReplyToggle Dropdown
Msg 311 of 369 to Showtalkshowtalk 
In reply toRe: msg 310
WALTER784
Staff

From: WALTER784

Aug-29

Yep, and that is just as true today as it was 7 years ago when that video was made.

FWIW

 
 ReplyToggle Dropdown
Msg 312 of 369
In reply toRe: msg 311
WALTER784
Staff

From: WALTER784

Sep-1

<...>With the world population sitting at 8,057,937,765, that would mean we only have to kill off 4,028,968,883 people to become carbon neutral! World Population Clock: 8.1 Billion People (LIVE, 2023) - Worldometer (worldometers.info)

Greenpeace co-founder: Achieving ‘net zero’ emissions means ‘at least 50% of the population would die’

Andreas Wailzer
Thu Aug 17, 2023 - 4:52 pm EDT

(LifeSiteNews) — Greenpeace Co-Founder Patrick Moore has said that achieving “Net Zero” carbon emissions globally would lead to “at least 50 percent of the population” dying. 
 
“If we actually did it, my point would be that if we actually achieve net zero, at least 50 percent of the population would die of hunger and disease,” Moore said in a recent interview with BizNewsTv. 
 
“And no doubt about it, because of just one thing, which is nitrogen-based fertilizer, which won two Nobel Prizes,” he continued. “One for developing the process of combining natural gas with nitrogen in the atmosphere to make ammonia. And the other one, the other Nobel Prize, was for the person who scaled it up to an industrial level.” 
 
Moore stated that “at least 50 percent of the population depends on nitrogen fertilizer for its existence today.”  
 
“And there’s people trying to ban it. And the Netherlands and Sri Lanka have already made these kinds of moves.” 
 
READ: Dutch farmers’ strategy to fight Net Zero policies may have evolved beyond protests 
 
“So it is truly a death wish in disguise,” he continued. “And the disguise is to save the earth. Which doesn’t need saving, particularly.” 
 
Moore mentioned the World Economic Forum (WEF) and its founder Klaus Schwab as being among the people who are pushing the “Net Zero” agenda, saying that “I think they are our enemies.” 
 
“Not just our enemies, but the Earth’s enemies.” 
 
READ: How the World Economic Forum response to ‘climate change’ is virtually the same as their COVID approach 
 
CO2 is good for the environment, Moore argues  
 
Moore argued that having higher CO2 levels in the atmosphere is beneficial for the environment because “life is made with carbon.” 
 
“They’ve created a false narrative about CO2, which is actually the staff of all stuff of all life,” he said. “It is the most essential part of life. That’s why organic chemistry is the chemistry of carbon.”  
 
Moore furthermore asserted that life on earth could flourish with much higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere than the current 417 parts per million (ppm).  
 
“The life that is here now could flourish in 4000 ppm CO2, which is ten times what it is [now], even after we’ve put all this CO2 into it,” he said. “I don’t think that there [are] enough fossil fuels to get it back to 4000 [ppm] because most of it’s locked up in rocks, in limestone, and in chalk and marble and dolomite.”  
 
Moore expressed his discontent with framing fossil fuels as a “dirty” source of energy, since “putting CO2 back into the environment where it came from in the first place is one of the most important things that has happened in the history of life on Earth.” 
 
“It’s a stupid thing that they’ve been able to get away with calling fossil fuels dirty. Because our food is grown in dirt, it’s ‘dirty,’” Moore said regarding the way words are used to paint certain types of energy in a negative light. 
 
Making the case for nuclear energy 
 
Moore argued that the only way to reduce reliance on fossil fuels without many people starving would be to transition from so-called “renewables” like solar and wind to nuclear energy.  
 
He said that fossil fuels should be mainly used for heavy machinery like “tractors and farm machinery,” while most other things could be
...[Message truncated]
View Full Message
 
 ReplyToggle Dropdown
Msg 313 of 369 to WALTER784WALTER784 
In reply toRe: msg 312
Showtalk
Host

From: Showtalk

Sep-1

They can say whatever they want to but it’s not practical.  I don’t see them lining up to be the first to die to save the planet, so until they are, they should back off and leave people alone.  I have no problem with people wanting to follow any crazy ideas on their own but when they try to compel others to behave as they want them to, they are going against the very principles of freedom in our country.  

 
 ReplyToggle Dropdown
Msg 314 of 369 to WALTER784WALTER784 
In reply toRe: msg 312
Dee (DLAINEDEE)

From: Dee (DLAINEDEE)

Sep-1

Net Zero means death for the planet.  These people are psychopaths, dying for their cause is just fine as long as they take out no less then 6 billion of us.  The elite at the very top, they want to get the population down to 500 million.

They are banning fertilizer and nitrogen, which without those very little will grow.  They are blocking out the sun, which means nothing will grow.  Without co2 nothing will grow.  They are destroying farmers, and buying up their land, which in then end means mass starvation.

Depopulation at its finest.

 

 
 ReplyToggle Dropdown
Msg 315 of 369 to Showtalkshowtalk 
In reply toRe: msg 313
WALTER784
Staff

From: WALTER784

Sep-1

Showtalk said...

They can say whatever they want to but it’s not practical.

Too many people don't realize that and still think that it's possible.

Whether they were brainwashed, provided with misinformation, too stupid to understand or just believe anything the liberal news media says... is unknown. Perhaps all of the above?!?!?, doesn't matter... but they still believe it.

Showtalk said...

I don’t see them lining up to be the first to die to save the planet, so until they are, they should back off and leave people alone.

CHUCKLE... Yep... the best way to lead is by example... LMAO... so get up there and show us all how to depopulate yourselves!!! (* SNORT *)

Showtalk said...

I have no problem with people wanting to follow any crazy ideas on their own but when they try to compel others to behave as they want them to, they are going against the very principles of freedom in our country.

I would say a good majority agree with you. Sadly however, the minority are the ones pushing this farce and the liberal news media are trying to make it bigger than what it is!

But it's all about depopulation. 

FWIW

 
 ReplyToggle Dropdown
Msg 316 of 369 to Dee (DLAINEDEE)DLAINEDEE 
In reply toRe: msg 314
WALTER784
Staff

From: WALTER784

Sep-1

Yep... their goal is depopulation.

Sadly, very few realize it to be as real as it actually is!

FWIW

 
 ReplyToggle Dropdown
Keep Reading
TOP