Money IS the bottom line
A friend posted:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/science/05/29/exxon.climate.reut/index.html
"Exxon Mobil Corp. shareholders this week voted down proposals concerning global warming and renewable energy, as the head of the global energy giant said profits take precedence over social causes."
My response:
1. CNN is in a grim battle with the New York Times to be the least reliable major news source on the planet. Trusting CNN spin is akin to investing your retirement funds in the Powerball, without the possibility of a jackpot.
2. Exxon Mobil Corp. shareholders are primarily composed of incredibly highly paid stock analysts who have a vested interest in producing returns on investments. The above statement is much less of an indictment of the shareholders or corporate officers than it is a denial on the value of global warming and renewable energy proposals. The science of global warming is so heavily compromised by political agendas that no sane investor would put money in it, regardless of their interest in the environment. Bad science is simply not a bankable commodity. The overwhelming number of renewable energy proposals (apart from hydro-electric and breeder reactors) are simply not competitive with fossil fuels. It is incredibly telling that one of the major proponents of renewable energy sources is Enron, the perpetrators of several of the greatest securities frauds in history. With that kind of backing, what investor would put money in a proposal?
Money is the bottom line here, and the problem people concerned with the environment need to face is that dispassionate analysis reveals that global warming and renewable energy are deeply in the red. Show a meaningful return for your concerns, not Enron style speculation, and the investors will commit. Unless and until environmentalists can show facts with verifiable sources and repeatable results, investors will continue to treat greens as perpetrators of securities fraud.
Let me drive this point home for the doctrinally impaired: If your proposals have no real value sane people will not support them with their own money. Politicians are always playing with somebody else's money, so their support of a policy is no endorsement of its real value. If you cannot prove the value of your proposals using verifiable science and tangible proof, your proposals have no value. If you want to help the environment, throw out all the propaganda and transparently show economic value for improving the environment. If all you want to do is bang on drums and engage in group gropes, go ahead. Look at how well that stopped the war in Iraq.
