5 Comments
Aug 31Liked by Thomas J Shepstone

I'm glad corporations are getting a little more realistic, but I don't understand something: What is the difference between "purchasing offsets to counterbalance emissions from its operations" and "investing in more expensive carbon-removal credits"? Is it that they get subsidies for 'carbon removal' but 'offsets' are a straight expense?

Expand full comment
Aug 31Liked by Thomas J Shepstone

As the Brits say, "the truth will out". Keep on patiently sharing the truth, and the lies will eventually unravel. An example in point is the Ford Lightning. No amount of doublespeak at Ford can hide the fact that their EV group is losing billions of dollars per year. Sooner or later, the survival instinct becomes dominant and the green fantasy will have to be abandoned. For Germany and the UK, a lot of people will suffer at the hands of their governments.

Expand full comment
Aug 31Liked by Thomas J Shepstone

Your aim is true again, Tom.

Expand full comment
Aug 31Liked by Thomas J Shepstone

Glorious piece of writing. If we had a remotely honest mass media, zet zero would have been eviscerated a decade ago and the brain dead, pandering jackass in the WH and his idiotic henchwoman at the Naval Observatory would never have begun lying about climate Armageddon.

Expand full comment
Aug 31Liked by Thomas J Shepstone

And virtue signaling in almost every example noted comes with higher costs for corporations and institutions who are virtuous enough to not eat their added costs from purchasing credits, etc. They simply pass the costs along in their products to end-users so that customers can share in their virtuousness. I feel so virtuous!!

For example: It’s great to use a search engine service or a social media platform that is carbon virtuous while that same service or platform is participating in deceitful activities like say…lying about the HB laptop or supporting certain narratives from the feds.

Expand full comment