Russ Steele
The Atlantic has written an article about why business are supporting AB32 and opposing Proposition 23. Full article is here.
Let’s take a look at some to the reasons given in the article and see if we agree with my analysis. My comments are in brackets. [ ].
Part of this enthusiasm for robust government action on climate change undoubtedly springs from the fear that companies will be subjected to more vexing regulation if they do not participate. If you're not at the table, the saying goes, you're on the menu. But there are three additional factors forcing change: employee demand, changing business models, and increasing CEO engagement in policy.
Employee Demand: As younger workers in forward-looking companies begin to assume management positions, they demand that their employers be ahead of the curve. Recruiting the best talent means presenting your company as an innovator, a leader of the future. [ Right now youth employment in California is above 20% and college graduates are being advise to consider starting their own companies, rather an seeking jobs in industry. Plus may of Caifornia’s leading companies are moving to less costly locations, including aerospace, banking, and high tech companies. Lockheed has left the state. Adobe is expanding in Utah. Bank of America’s HQ is now in Charlotte, North Carolina. Young people will soon taking any job offered regarless of the companies going green policies, that if there are any jobs at all. ]
Changing Business Models: Companies like General Electric and Google view the clean energy boom as a business opportunity, and must rationalize their policy positions with their business objectives. As new analyst groups, like the Goldman-Sachs Sustain framework, gain more prominence, companies that have more of their portfolio hedged against commodity shocks and climate change will become more highly valued. [ One might want to ask Google why they are moving their server farms to Oregon and Washington where power is cheaper and more reliable than California with its unreliable solar and wind power. As for Goldman-Sachs, they were major investors in the Chicago Carbon Exchange, with a 10% stake in carbon trading which has crashed. A BBQ briquette costs more than a ton of carbon today. GE has invested in wind and solar alternative energy and is one of PG&E’s major SmartMeter manufactures and providers of appliances that are controllable by those smart meters. They lose big time if AB32 is delayed.]
CEO Engagement: CEOs are personally driving corporate advocacy of climate change regulation. For some it's a way to curry favor with particular board members, for others it's a personal belief, often encouraged by their children, for others it's a way to move their reputation from technocrat to statesman. [Any CEO that believes in the global warming hoax is setting his company up for a huge disaster. As I have pointed out in pervious posts many of the green companies are withdrawing their planned IPOs, as the investment community is not convinced that once the subsidies are withdrawn, the whole green industry will crash just like the high tech bubble did. With Conservative Republicans poised to take over the house, they will soon dry up the global warming subside river. Crap will happen and these CEO supporting AB32 for the promised subsidies will be soon looking for a new job. One thing that stockholders will not stand is stupid leadership.]
I am sorry, but this whole article was just wishful thinking by the liberal press. Now, I think you can see that many businesses that are supporting AB32 have major investments in California going green. It is in their self interest, it has nothing to do with the validity of the global warming hoax. But, once the hoax is exposed guess who is going to get hurt, the investors in these foolish companies led by feel good CEOs.
