Pirate's Cove

It’s a very weird thing how so many people (cultists) get so upset that some people (the Rich) aren’t using the money they earned (The Rich) the way they should be per the cult. It’s not their (the cultists) money. They didn’t earn it. Why should they have any say it the matter? And somehow there is actually an article about this

The ultra-rich are not just the worst polluters–their donations to climate action are also another way of hoarding money and gaming the system

Everyone should know that we’re heading to a climate disaster that can best be modified by immediate actions addressing the causes. But it doesn’t appear that the excessively rich are feeling the heat and stepping up to the plate. Their philanthropic foundations announce commitments to fight climate change but in reality, they are building up endowments to save for the future.

Over $200 billion are sitting in donor-advised funds and over $1.3 trillion in private foundation endowments. Charitable giving to fight climate change, estimated by the ClimateWorks Foundation at $7.5 billion last year, is only 0.5% of the money sitting in private foundations and donor-advised funds–and amounts to about 0.04% of the assets of the ultra-rich.

It is estimated that it could take $3 to 10 trillion (twelve zeroes) per year to avoid climate disaster. Even if they wanted to fix the climate problem, it would require extraordinary collective action for philanthropists to pony up enough money to fix the climate problem. Only governments (funded by taxes on these very ultra-wealthy donors) can effectively do that. In short, the philanthropic investments now being made are necessary but insufficient.

We need to hold the ultra-rich responsible for the role their investments play in worsening the climate crisis, call out their insincere philanthropic efforts aimed at “addressing” climate change, and hold them accountable for paying their fair share of taxes to provide funding for clean energy.

Why? Why is it always someone Else who has to pay? Imagine a world where every Warmist, or even just the full on cultists, gave up their own use of fossil fuels. No more fossil fueled cars, trucks, or planes. If they gave up meat, only bought second hand clothes, stopped streaming so much, and moved into a tiny home, for starters. If CO2 is actually the control knob (it’s not) per their talking points, just that reduction of carbon pollution would solve the climate crisis. Why is it they cannot make more than token changes in their lives? Why can’t they all give a bunch of their money? I’m not defending The Rich, a goodly chunk are selfish scumbags who certainly could do more with their money, but, I wouldn’t be in favor of forcing them or shaming them.

Extreme inequality and wealth concentration undermine humanity’s ability to stop climate breakdown. The richest of the rich play the largest role in driving and accelerating the climate crisis with out-of-control carbon footprints due to extravagant lifestyles, excessive wealth-hoarding, corporate greed, and investments in polluting industries. Poor and middle-class communities who share the least responsibility for the problem will bear the brunt of climate change and suffer the most as shifting weather patterns, destructive storms, floods, wildfires, and heat waves wreak havoc across the globe, with the potential to displace 216 million people from their homes (and countries) by 2050.

Why does this look less like a science and more like politics? Typical Progressive (nice Fascism) take from the rich and give to the poor government who spread some to the poor for votes.

Read: Climate Cult is Very Upset That Uber-Rich Aren’t Using Their Money For Climate Cult Priorities »

This is making Warmists very excited, failing to realize that if the government forces this on the private sector it’ll mess with their own lives

Climate change is about to play a big role in government purchases – with vast implications for the US economy

Each year, the federal government purchases about 50,000 new vehicles. Until recently, almost all of them ran on diesel or gasoline, contributing to U.S. demand for fossil fuels and encouraging automakers to continue focusing on fossil-fueled vehicles.

That’s starting to change, and a new directive that the Biden Administration quietly issued in September 2023 will accelerate the shift.

The administration directed U.S. agencies to begin considering the social cost of greenhouse gases when making purchase decisions and implementing their budgets.

That one move has vast implications that go far beyond vehicles. It could affect decisions across the government on everything from agriculture grants to fossil fuel drilling on public lands to construction projects. Ultimately, it could shift demand enough to change what industries produce, not just for the government but for the entire country.

But, remember, this is not authoritarian at all. They’ll actually refer to it as a “free market” plan, rather than Socialist/Marxist interference in the economy, picking winners and losers which then forces this on you the citizens, who are supposed to be in charge, with elected officials doing your bidding, rather than dictating everything.

Of course, when it comes down to it, will government employees really want to give up their cushy vehicles and food and perks and stuff?

The federal vehicle fleet is a good example of how the social costs of greenhouse gases add up.

Let’s compare the costs of driving an electric Ford Focus and an equivalent conventional-fuel Ford Focus.

Assume each vehicle drives an average of 10,000 miles (about 16,000 kilometers) per year – that’s less than the U.S. average per driver, but it’s a simple number to work with. The damages from emissions in dollars from driving a conventional Ford Focus 10,000 miles are between $133 and $484, depending on whether you use a social cost of carbon of $51 per metric ton or $185 per metric ton.

Except, Ford no longer makes either Focus. They’re switching to expensive EVs, which cost quite a bit more than either Focus, meaning that the costs will pretty much never be recouped. Not the best example.

Much of the U.S. government’s spending goes toward carbon-intensive goods and services, such as transportation and infrastructure development. Directing agencies to consider and compare the social cost of purchases in each of these sectors will send similar signals to different segments of the market: The demand for less carbon-intensive goods is rising.

How about restricting all of the federal government’s travel, starting with Biden and the agency executives?

Read: Good News: Biden Regime To Force Social Cost Of Carbon On Government Purchases »