NY Times Notices That All These Companies Proclaiming They’re Doing Something On ‘Climate Change’ Mostly Aren’t

Seriously, most companies who climavirtue signal don’t actually do much in practice, because it’s expensive and idiotic. It doesn’t cost that much to patronize climate cultists, right? Well, the NY Times digs behind the scenes, forgetting to mention what the NY Times corporation is actually doing themselves with their big old building. Will they move ahead with only getting their power from solar and wind? How about doing away with the use of fossil fuels to gather and deliver the news?

What’s Really Behind Corporate Promises on Climate Change?

For the past several years, BlackRock, the giant investment firm, has cast itself as a champion of the transition to clean energy.

Last month, Laurence D. Fink, BlackRock’s chief executive, wrote that the coronavirus pandemic had “driven us to confront the global threat of climate change more forcefully,” and the company said it wants businesses it invests in to remove as much carbon dioxide from the environment as they emit by 2050 at the latest.

But crucial details were missing from that widely read pledge, including what proportion of the companies BlackRock invests in will be zero-emission businesses in 2050. Setting such a goal and earlier targets would demonstrate the seriousness of the company’s commitment and could force all sorts of industries to step up their efforts. On Saturday, in response to questions from The New York Times, a BlackRock spokesman said for the first time that the company’s “ambition” was to have “net zero emissions across our entire assets under management by 2050.”

As the biggest companies strive to trumpet their environmental activism, the need to match words with deeds is becoming increasingly important.

Household names like Costco and Netflix have not provided emissions reduction targets despite saying they want to reduce their impact on climate change. Others, like the agricultural giant Cargill and the clothing company Levi Strauss, have made commitments but have struggled to cut emissions. Technology companies like Google and Microsoft, which run power-hungry data centers, have slashed emissions, but even they are finding that the technology often doesn’t yet exist to carry out their “moonshot” objectives.

“You can look at a company’s website and see their sustainability report and it will look great,” said Alberto Carrillo Pineda, a founder of Science Based Targets, a global initiative to assess corporate plans to reduce emissions. “But then when you look at what is behind it, you’ll see there is not a lot of substance behind those commitments or the commitments are not comprehensive enough.”

I’m shocked, shocked, I tell you! This is like most cities and countries: lots of talk, little action. The majority of Paris Climate idiocy signers aren’t doing much of anything. Most companies, the same. Like the NY Times company.

President Biden is also placing a big emphasis on climate change and has rejoined the Paris agreement. But determining how hard companies are really trying can be very difficult when there are no regulatory standards that require uniform disclosures of important information like emissions.

“Regulatory standards.” I wonder if the Times realizes this would affect themselves? And who’s shocked that the notion of even more Big Government is being mentioned? It’s a long piece, let’s skip to the end

“If we are going to achieve a net-zero carbon economy for real, we will need everyone to act,” said Lucas Joppa, Microsoft’s chief environmental officer. “And that means action can’t be voluntary. We need requirements and standards that everyone is expected to meet.”

Why can’t it be? If you believe, do all the things required, like doing away with the use of fossil fuels and operate only on renewables. Simple. Nope, because this is about forcing everyone to be in the Cult of Climastrology, whether they want to or not.