Re: "Companies not responding to our pressure!"
It's just your standard extortion mixed with greenwash-
So a bunch of people who owe(d) their living to utilising products from the petrochemical industry. Now they want to ban petrochemicals. And-
Fiscally Sponsored by Social Good Fund
who take a 6-8% cut of revenues generated. Then-
James is a director of Regen and an advisor for a small number of NGOs in Europe including the Club of Rome.
Oh. Club of Rome? Where's my tinfoil? But wait, there's more-
Lydia sits on the advisory group of the Banking on a Just Transition initiative run by the Grantham Institute at London School of Economics
The LSE's always had a... certain reputation, as does the 'bubble king' Jeremy Grantham, who basically rents space for the 'Institute' off the LSE and possibly rents naming rights from the LSE. That's run by Nick Stern, and his trusty side kick, Bob Ward, who has a.. certain reputation for misinformation when it comes to accurately communicating climate science. At least if the number of his rejected complaints to various newspapers that dare to publish anything vaguely sceptical is anything to go by.
Founded by members of the Rockefeller family, the mission of BankFWD is to accelerate the transition to a just, zero-carbon economy by influencing banks to align their business strategies with the 1.5° target of the Paris Climate Agreement
So.. Rockefellers. Can't really get much more 'big oil' funded than the founding family behind Standard Oil. Plus their statement is, of course false-
1. This Agreement, in enhancing the implementation of the Convention, including its objective, aims to strengthen the global response to the threat of climate change, in the context of sustainable development and efforts to eradicate poverty, including by:
(a) Holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2 °C above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels, recognizing that this would significantly reduce the risks and impacts of climate change;
(b) Increasing the ability to adapt to the adverse impacts of climate change and foster climate resilience and low greenhouse gas emissions development, in a manner that does not threaten food production;
(c) Making finance flows consistent with a pathway towards low greenhouse gas emissions and climate- resilient development.
Ok, there's some wriggle room there based on what 'well below' means, but the target is <2°C. Insisting it actually means <1.5°C has become more popular for a number of reasons. One's relatively climate scientific, ie you can't get there from here. Dogma assumes around 1.3C per doubling of CO2, with a logarithmic relationship between temps and CO2 levels. That's the ECS (Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity) argument, ie the more sensitive the planet is to CO2, the faster the temperatures will rise. So using various assumptions in assorted climate models, anything from no warming, to 11°C.
But science often isn't static. So if ECS is high, we'd need to keep CO2 levels low (or reduce them) to keep the temp increase <2°C. If it's low, and there's negative climate feedbacks, we can burn all the fossil fuels we want, and we'll miss the 2°C target. So if temperatures aren't rising as fast as models with high ECS assumptions predicted, obviously that strongly suggests ECS is too high in those models. One can test this via reanalysis, so comparing model predictions against observations.
So basically on current trends, we've already achieved the goal of <2°C warming because ECS is low, so we won't get there. So in typical climate 'science', simply move the goalposts. Now, we must keep it below 1.5°C for... reasons. Mostly financial, namely it'll cost trillions, and that money will flow into the Green Blob represented by these clowns.
Oddly enough, the 'renewables' lobby these people represent aren't immune to reality, so cost of production, transportation, installation and operation of massive bird slicers has also increased. Which is bad, especially when people are asking when they'll see cost reductions passed through from the 'renewables' blob. They keep telling us 'renewables' are now sooo cheap, yet our energy bills continue to rise.
By far the biggest red flag should be that none of these astroturfers actually bother to publish their accounts, or even 501(c)3 details in their 'About Us' pages. There's usually 2 reasons for this, either to conceal their overheads, or conceal their funding sources. Or sometimes to obscure political campaigning and lobbying, which may be prohibited based on their 'charitable' status.