Climategate

Corporate America Can’t Keep Up with All the Sustainability Demands

score cardThe competition in corporate America to show who is “Greenest” or “most sustainable” has spun out of control, with the Alinskyite effect that drives corporations to spend vast amounts of time and money trying to address the whims and requests of every Leftist niche group that waves some kind of scorecard in their faces.

IPCC Propaganda is the Best ‘Science’ WWF’s Coke Money Can Buy

white Coke can

Last week, the sequel to 2009’s Climategate scandal was introduced to the global Internet audience, and preliminary reviews show it to be potentially more explosive than the original. Gems include iconic Hockey Stick scientist Michael Mann advancing a “cause” and admitting “we certainly don’t know the GLOBAL mean temperature anomaly very well,” and University of East Anglia scientist Phil Jones advising colleagues involved in the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change “to delete all emails at the end of the process,” so to avoid being subject to any Freedom of Information Act requests.

White Coke Cans Fund Polar Bear Myths

white Coke canFor years Coca-Cola has given millions of dollars to eco-extreme group World Wildlife Fund, whose alarmism and perpetration of falsehoods are unmatched among its cohorts in climate activism. Now Coke has initiated a new campaign with WWF that features its iconic advertising species in an effort to drive more funding to the international nonprofit group to “protect the polar bears’ Arctic home.”

Green Pressure Groups Want More Corporate Climate Disclosure

Ceres logoEnvironmental pressure group Ceres, whose primary activity is to drive corporations to report their greenhouse gas emitting activities and disclose climate risk in their Securities and Exchange Commission filings, recently released a report that outlines exactly what companies should be disclosing.

Goldman Sachs Ripped on Embrace of Global Warming

Goldman Sachs logoMy remarks at Goldman Sachs annual meeting today:

I regret that management opposes our resolution asking for a report on the science behind Goldman’s public positions on global warming. In 2005, Goldman Sachs established its “Environmental Policy Framework,” which stated:

“Goldman Sachs acknowledges the scientific consensus, led by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), that climate change is a reality and that human activities are largely responsible for increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases in the earth’s atmosphere.”

PepsiCo’s Lobbying for Cap and Trade Hit at Annual Meeting

Nooyi photoNLPC is the sponsor of a shareholder proposal that asks PepsiCo to report on its lobbying priorities. Here are my remarks today at the PepsiCo annual meeting in Plano, Texas:

I regret that PepsiCo opposes this resolution asking for a report on the company’s lobbying priorities. I would think that management would welcome the opportunity to explain its priorities.

PepsiCo is a member of the U.S. Climate Action Partnership a coalition of corporations and environmental groups. USCAP’s mission is to “quickly enact strong national legislation to require significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.” The House of Representatives has obliged in the form of the Waxman-Markey bill. According to the Heritage Foundation, this bill would destroy over 1.1 million jobs, hike electricity rates 90 percent, and reduce the U.S. gross domestic product by nearly $10 trillion over the next 25 years.

Goldman Sachs Challenged on Global Warming in Wake of ‘Climategate’

Goldman Sachs logoNLPC has filed a shareholder proposal asking Goldman Sachs to report on the science behind its embrace of global warming in the wake of the ‘Climategate’ scandal.

Goldman’s ‘climate policy’ is more than corporate public relations. In 2007, Goldman participated in the buyout of energy firm TXU. The transaction resulted in the cancelation of 8 of 11 planned coal-fired power plants after pressure from environmental activists.

It might make wealthy financiers in New York City feel good about themselves to scotch electric generation in the name of environmentalism, but it has negative consequences for ordinary people. Electricity is a basic need, like food and medical care. Cancelling plants while parts of the country face regular power shortages, and raising the cost of electricity for consumers, is positively immoral.

Syndicate content