LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL

U

Search

Many Voices, One Freedom: United in the 1st Amendment

June 15, 2024

M

Menu

!

Menu

Your Source for Free Speech, Talk Radio, Podcasts, and News.

Featured Offer      Link to our SHOP

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Imagine if farmers had to fulfill government regulations that required them to track the greenhouse gases (GHG) emitted when the potatoes they grow are transported to the store. Then, they had to track the emissions caused by the people who bought their potatoes while traveling to and from the store. Also, the emissions produced when the potatoes are washed, peeled, baked, or fried in an oven or over a fire. Then, determine exactly what potato consumers do with the bags in which the potato was sold so that GHG emissions can be determined for bag disposal.

In other words, what if farmers became responsible for recording and reporting to the government for use by financial institutions deciding on loan applications to farmers, the greenhouse gas emissions caused by every downstream (and upstream) activity needed to bring potatoes from the farm to the mouth of the consumer?

What if energy companies, especially coal, oil, and natural gas producers, were subjected to the same rules? They would have to track down, record, and report how their products were used by everyone who bought and used them. And what if the same requirements applied to every publicly traded company on the stock exchange?

That would obviously be a nightmare, of course. All this expensive, time-consuming, and useless activity would inevitably lead private businesses who could be re-located to flee to jurisdictions where such onerous reporting requirements were not needed… if that is, they did not go broke first as their bank loans dried up when their financial institutions insisted on a low ESG score, based largely on the companies’ successes in reducing GHG emissions, not only that they produce directly, but also that everyone who supplies them or uses their products produces.

Unbelievably, all this is soon coming to Canada, the European Union, and even the U.S. if our over-active woke standards bureaucrats get their way. This approach of being responsible for the reporting of not only “Scope 1 GHG emissions” (direct emissions from owned or controlled sources) and “Scope 2 emissions” (indirect emissions from the generation of purchased energy) but also “Scope 3 emissions” (all other indirect emissions in a company’s value chain, including upstream and downstream activities) is one of the ultimate outcomes of the 28th United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP28), that took place at the end of 2023 in Dubai, United Arab Emirates.

To understand this evolving situation, we need to get into the weeds a bit on two of the initiatives that came out and were boosted at COP28.

During COP28, the formation of the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) was announced by the Trustees of the London, UK-based International Financial Reporting Standards Foundation (IFRS Foundation, which is responsible for developing and maintaining the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS)), which oversees financial reporting standard-setting. The ISSB’s primary mandate is to develop sustainability-related financial reporting standards that will give investors, including banks and pension fund managers, the information they need to rate companies based on their environmental footprint and GHG emissions.

Also highlighted during COP28 was the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero (GFANZ), “a global coalition of leading financial institutions committed to accelerating the decarbonization of the economy.” Included in those institutions are asset owners, asset managers, banks, and insurance companies, each of which has its own sub-group under the GFANZ umbrella. To get into this club, the financial institution needs to have a net-zero by 2050 commitment. GFANZ was actually initiated in April 2021 by UN Special Envoy on Climate Action and Finance Mark Carney along with the COP26 presidency, “in partnership with the UNFCCC Race to Zero campaign, to coordinate efforts across all sectors of the financial system to accelerate the transition to a net-zero global economy.” In other words, GFANZ is based on the scientifically unfounded idea that we must reduce our GHG emissions to save the world from a climate change disaster.

In June 2023, the International Sustainability Standards Board issued two IFRS Sustainability Disclosure Standards, both of which became effective at the start of 2024:

IFRS S1, General Requirements for Disclosure of Sustainability-related Financial Information

IFRS S2, Climate-related Disclosures

Here is how the IFRS describes IFRS S1. (Yes, I know this is tedious, but we need to understand all this properly if we are to stop it before all this is turned into binding regulations by various national regulators (more on that later)):

“The objective of IFRS S1 is to require an entity to disclose information about its sustainability-related risks and opportunities that is useful to users of general purpose financial reports in making decisions relating to providing resources to the entity.

“IFRS S1 requires an entity to disclose information about all sustainability-related risks and opportunities that could reasonably be expected to affect the entity’s cash flows, its access to finance or cost of capital over the short, medium or long term (collectively referred to as ‘sustainability-related risks and opportunities that could reasonably be expected to affect the entity’s prospects’).

“IFRS S1 prescribes how an entity prepares and reports its sustainability-related financial disclosures.

“It sets out general requirements for the content and presentation of those disclosures so that the information disclosed is useful to users in making decisions relating to providing resources to the entity… and so on.

Here is how IFRS describes IFRS S2, Climate-related Disclosures:

“The objective of IFRS S2 is to require an entity to disclose information about its climate-related risks and opportunities that is useful to users of general purpose financial reports in making decisions relating to providing resources to the entity.

“IFRS S2 requires an entity to disclose information about climate-related risks and opportunities that could reasonably be expected to affect the entity’s cash flows, … and so on, similar to IFRS S1 with “requirements for disclosing information about an entity’s climate-related risks and opportunities.”

They define climate-related risks to which the entity is exposed as:

    1. “climate-related physical risks,” [namely risks caused by climate change forecast to occur in the future by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports and those of other official bodies]
    2. “climate-related transition risks,” [namely risks caused by the transition to a low carbon economy]

The purpose here is that lenders, investors, and insurers can assess an entity’s ability to adapt to climate risks (and take advantage of opportunities caused by climate change). The problem is, of course, that the scenarios used to forecast what climate change risks the entity will be subjected to are in themselves problematic. In her June 2022 report, “Counting Carbon Molecules,” UK-based strategic energy analyst Dr. Tammy Nemeth wrote:

“The ISSB also admits that the preparers of the Draft Exposures raised concerns regarding ‘the speculative nature of the information that scenario analysis generates, potential legal liability associated with disclosure (or miscommunication) of such information, data availability and disclosure of confidential information about an entity’s strategy.’ Despite those concerns, the requirement for scenario analysis was included.

“Dr. Peter Wells, an expert on financial reporting regulation and financial statement analysis, wrote in his letter of comment that it was inappropriate to include scenario analyses in a reporting standard because they were subject to value judgements and not quantifiable. He expressed similar reservations about anything beyond Scope 1 reporting as Scope 2 and Scope 3 were impossibly unverifiable.”

The new ISSB standards, IFRS S1 and IFRS S2 are not mandatory. However, many countries are producing their own standards based on the ISSB standards, and regulations based on those standards will likely become mandatory for entities operating within those jurisdictions.

For example, in Canada, the Canadian Sustainable Standards Board (CSSB), a body appointed by Canadian financial and accounting industry insiders, deliberated on the IFRS S1 and S2 standards for about 9 months and concluded that nothing had to be changed except adding a year of relief for filing Scope 3 emissions accounting and conducting climate scenario analysis. So, in March 2024, the CSSB produced draft versions of its own standards (both of which are open to public comment until June 10), essentially identical to IFRS 1 and 2:

Interestingly, Canada’s Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions (OSFI), which supervises federally regulated financial institutions and pension plans, was told Scope 3 emissions accounting was essentially impossible when it solicited comments on its B15 Guidelines for climate risk, but they mandated it anyway. So, the banks, insurers, and pensions must do Scope 3 emissions accounting starting next year. CSSB is apparently hoping this will be made mandatory for all companies.

Next week, I describe the disastrous impact all this will have on you the consumer and further discuss what is happening on this front in the U.S. and how we can fight back.


Please share this article and help us offset our costs by supporting the International Climate Science Coalition through its GiveSendGo crowdfunding webpage at GiveSendGo – THERE IS NO CLIMATE EMERGENCY!: The Leader in Freedom Fundraising.

MANY VOICES, ONE FREEDOM: UNITED IN THE 1ST AMENDMENT

Join our community: Your insights matter. Contribute to the diversity of thoughts and ideas.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
2 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Harley Moody, D,V.M.
Harley Moody, D,V.M.
17 days ago

All of the extreme bureaucratic regulations that would destroy sound economic policy and freedom are based on the false assumption that there is a climate emergency. There is no climate emergency. Carbon dioxide levels have no measurable or significant effect on the temperature, which in turn drives climate change.

John Clauser, recent Nobel laureate and quantum physicist, will soon present his analysis of the Climate Fraud at the DDP (Doctors for Disaster Preparedness) meeting to be held in El Paso, Texas, on July 5 and 6, 2024. A short version of Clauser’s analysis can be found in the most recent newsletter published by SEPP (Science and Environmental Policy Project).

If the assumption that CO2 is a pollutant causing a rise in atmospheric temperature that is apocalyptic is false, then hundreds of trillions of dollars will be wasted on a non-problem instead of advancing human and environmental welfare. The time to stop this nonsense is now.

James Everett
James Everett
Reply to  Harley Moody, D,V.M.
17 days ago

There needs to be a massive war against woke. Woke, defined as irrational propaganda under a pretense of nonexistent or over-inflated problems, as an EXCUSE to increase the POWER of it’s proponents.
Nearly everything the Left pushes falls under this definition – basically racketeering. We must use the same tools the Left uses, because they are not only the most effective, but work to expose the source along with it’s techniques, where argument alone only tends to acknowledge, and thus validate the lies in the minds of those who have already accepted them.

The problem with argument is that it assumes the proponent of the lie actually believes it, which also assumes that there must be legitimate grounds for believing it, which in it’s own way, only pours gas on the fire while trying to put it out.

This is why the Left rarely ever tries to argue, but usually only ACCUSES the Right of having corrupt motives, being immoral or seeking power, i.e. exactly what they are doing, while the Right plays directly into their hands when it tries to argue the logic or truth of the Lefts claims, rather than point out their corrupt motives for power.

We do this because the Left’s technique of accusing their opponent of exactly what THEY are doing is designed to make it awkward for their opponent to turn around and do the same. But we should not let their technique work on us, but simply expose the technique they are using and it’s crafty purpose, and keep repeating it, which is the most powerful of all, and why it was used so successfully by the 3rd Reich and the communists as well.

Repetition is the main staple technique of the Left, and they rely almost completely on it, rather than waste any effort on arguments. We can nullify the claims of the woke by simple repetition of the fact they are using their lies for power and no other reason. Simple repetition – in spite of feeling like a Neanderthal- should be the bulk of our communication, with argument as only an incidental side note.

We should know by now that those who accept woke, care nothing for argument or reason. Their blowhorn of repetition of falsehoods must be met with the same COUNTER blowhorn of exposing and simply reiterating their motives.
This is what they MOST FEAR – their own technique used on them, in spite of how pedantic it may seem. Because they know the superior power of simple repetition over reason. The Left wins in the long race because they have learned to use what WORKS rather than rely on the decency of trying to be reasonable. They don’t mind being shamed. They have no qualms over being caught in a lie, while shame works 100% of the time on the Right.

Sitewide Newsfeed

More Stories
.pp-sub-widget {display:none;} .walk-through-history {display:none;} .powerpress_links {display:none;} .powerpress_embed_box {display:none;}
Share via
Copy link