More Climate BS...

#2,802
#2,802
Time to halt ESG and let firms focus on shareholders.

From the release:

Attorney General Ken Paxton sued BlackRock, State Street Corporation, and Vanguard Group, three of the largest institutional investors in the world, for conspiring to artificially constrict the market for coal through anticompetitive trade practices.

These firms also deceived thousands of investors who elected to invest in non-ESG funds to maximize their profits. Yet these funds pursued ESG strategies notwithstanding the defendants’ representations to the contrary.

A coalition of 10 other States joined Attorney General Paxton on the lawsuit. The Buzbee Law Firm and Cooper & Kirk are serving as outside counsel.

www.texasattorneygeneral.gov

Attorney General Ken Paxton Sues BlackRock, State Street, and Vanguard for Illegally Conspiring to Manipulate Energy Markets, Driving Up Costs for Consumers

Attorney General Ken Paxton sued BlackRock, State Street Corporation, and Vanguard Group, three of the largest institutional investors in the world, for conspiring to artificially constrict the market for coal through anticompetitive trade practices.
www.texasattorneygeneral.gov www.texasattorneygeneral.gov
 
  • Like
Reactions: just bob
#2,808
#2,808
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols, Orangeburst, UT_Dutchman and 1 other person
#2,814
#2,814
LouderVol said:
I buy a lot of it because I work in an adjacent field, studied this in college under some of the OG "greenies", actually spent 2 years in school to compete in the Solar Decathlon https://www.solardecathlon.gov/past/2011/team_tennessee, and actually take the time to read some of the studies. a good bit of my issue usually comes down to "lies, damn lies, and statistics".

as a good for instance. an article on the last page said the study said it was 11 units of carbon dioxide produced by wind turbines, but yours said 9 units. the second one doesn't quote its source, and I haven't seen anything saying 9 units, all has been 11. the 9 is either undocumented (that I can find), a projection, or parsing the 11 to be more favorable. This happens quiet a bit amongst green studies, and if you get back to the methodology its not apples to apples.

the studies done on coal, natural gas, and so forth FF carbon dioxide studies were all done decades ago, and are just referenced as if nothing has changed with those. it also includes EVERYTHING, including the fuel, maintenance, and the transmission systems. The "green" studies never include EVERYTHING. they assume the existing transmission/distribution system is enough, and no upgrades are needed, and that the green system doesn't "take on" any of those carbon emissions, they were all sunk when the FF system went in.

one thing that was mentioned in the clip, but not in either article, or any study I have seen, is the maintenance costs, particularly on the wind turbines de-icing. similar with the PV panels cleaning. those chemicals/water/fuel are NOT considered as part of the regular maintenance costs for the green tech, while the comparable systems were considered for the FF sources. Does it make a huge difference? No. are the green systems still less impactful to nature? yes. but it is very rare to find an honest comparison.

another impact that is never mentioned are the ecological costs of the wind turbines. they absolutely have an impact on the native bird populations, and can be really problematic if in a migratory path. it would be similar type of impact to the oil spills in the ocean.
Click to expand...
I wonder what de-icing fluid does to ocean life when it is sprayed on those turbine fields that are in the water. I'm sure it's OK though. Nothing to see there.
 
#2,815
#2,815
LouderVol said:
the issue is that what makes them "renewable" resources means they aren't "reliable", or convenient resources.

the other problem is the people who push the bs aren't actually serious about it. It became just another political issue. I am pretty sure I have said it before, but the worst thing to happen to the "green" movement in this country was Barack Obama. particularly because he politicized it.

without his mouth most of the people who are the biggest critics of it, would be the biggest supporters of it. you tell a bunch of redneck rubes they can have access to free energy, get off the government power lines, water lines, and overall be more self supportive every farm out there would be near net zero, at least when it comes to energy consumption. same for every backwoods, swamp, mountain etc folk who just want to be left alone.
Click to expand...
But what about us redneck Earls?
 
#2,816
#2,816
hog88 said:
Agreed, Obama’s green energy push is an example of how not to do things.
Click to expand...
It is one of many examples as to how ineffective a 'leader' he was. It isn't unique to him, but anytime the .gov mandates that the people do something, there will be resistance. We don't like being told what to do. You offer a challenge, and Americans will rise to it. To wit: Putting a man on the moon. The solar cram down will go down as a huge blemish on Soetoro's presidency.

But at least he fixed health care. Right?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top