Earlier this week left-wing shareholder activist Andrew Behar (pictured above), CEO of As You Sow (we refer to the group as “As You Soros“), gave an interview to Reuters sustainability reporter Ross Kerber, who has capably covered a number of NLPC’s activities in the past.
Kerber’s interview mostly addressed the consequences of the Securities and Exchange Commission‘s decision to stop acting as a referee between shareholders who submit proposals for consideration by their fellow investors, and companies that want to keep them from a vote at their annual meetings. But among the noteworthy comments from the 23-minute discussion with the gaslighting Behar was this revelation, in response to Kerber’s question about why companies are supporting climate-related shareholder proposals less than they used to:
The companies I believe are reframing. It’s no longer…you just don’t just call it “climate.” You call it “supply chain risk.” Like the example I gave you earlier — you’ve got to figure out where your raw materials are coming from.
If you need coffee, you’re not getting it from the usual sources because it can’t grow. If you’re getting chocolate, you can’t grow chocolate in Ecuador…
Climate has had such an impact on arable land and what can be grown where. I mean, you can’t grow oranges in Florida; You can’t grow peaches in Georgia.
So, this affects your supply chain. So the companies are looking at supply chain risk. And that’s…what it ultimately is, is it’s really, it’s the same thing as climate.
Got that? The climate hoax perpetrators need to change their terminology again. “Global warming” was left behind long ago. Variations on “climate change” (climate “crisis,” “emergency,” “catastrophe,” “upheaval,” etc.) now only provoke eye-rolls. “Net Zero” is out the window.
So what’s left? It appears the left’s tactic is to abandon any references to anything to do with weather or atmospheric phenomena. The sell job must now have to sound like it has to do with a legitimate business function, like “supply chain risk.” The alarmists, of course, will still try to justify it by tethering it to their debunked climate hoax, but most voting shareholders only read the titles of the proposals, so preventing “Supply Chain Risk” should do the trick.
At least for now.
