Al Gore: “Sustainable Capitalism Is Key To Prosperous Future” Or Something

It’s long been noted that the “climate change” movement is really all about far Left Progressivism (nice fascism), not science, with one of the goals being to completely change the economic system away from capitalism. Al Gore provides more proof of this

Taking a look at the link, which leads to a PDF, we can learn about sustainable capitalism

Trending: The 15 Best Conservative News Sites On The Internet

Sustainable Capitalism is an economic system within which business and capital seek to maximise long-term value creation, accounting for all material ESG (environmental, social and governance) metrics.

Integral to this framework is the consideration of all costs and benefits, regardless of whether they are currently attributed with an economic “price tag” by society.

While this framework is designed with a long-term horizon, it also has meaningful short-term implications, providing a process for identifying current risks and opportunities.

Sustainable Capitalism aims to address real needs in all economic, business and policy decisions.

It transcends borders, industries, forms of ownership, asset classes and stakeholders. Indeed, it exists at the intersection of business, science, politics and market forces. Consequently, it is necessary to coordinate across disciplines and sectors in order to inspire and catalyse the innovation and lasting change that we believe is urgently needed.

So much of “sustainable capitalism jibes very well in bringing in all the typical complaints from progressives. We further learn

A Sustainable Business does not borrow its current earnings from its future earnings and provides goods and services in a manner that is consistent with the transition to a low-carbon, prosperous, equitable, healthy and safe society.

Making money doesn’t seem to be part of the equation.

For example, much work remains to be done to further our recommendation to align compensation structures with long-term sustainable performance.9 The investment community has yet to adopt the changes that are necessary to align compensation structures with long-term sustainable performance, though there are mounting pressures on the financial services industry to rethink its approach to remuneration. Not only does it make economic sense to anchor rewards in comprehensive long-term performance metrics, grassroots movements (like “Occupy Wall Street”) and other global calls to address untenable levels of wealth inequality10 have highlighted the need to revise compensation structures. (While inequality is a necessary condition for capitalism, and is not undesirable in and of itself, hyper-inequality is corrosive to both capitalism and democracy and is simply not sustainable over time.) The investment community must urgently reconsider the need for this recommendation and the pace appropriate for its implementation. For our part, we will continue to seek ways in which we can catalyse sustained positive change on this topic.

Interesting. Compensation based on Cult of Climastrology goals, rather than actual performance. This is a way to fundamentally transform current economics.

We read on page 11 about the Warmist’s need to “enforce a carbon budget”, ie, the silly divestment movement (will an enterprising reporter ask Al Gore if he has divested all his own holdings from fossil fuels?).

One of the things they’re calling for is for “key actors in the global economy to (eventually be Government mandate):

  1. Assess carbon risk and price carbon in all capital allocation decisions
  2. Use sustainability analysis to enhance investment frameworks
  3. Uphold the full remit of fiduciary duty

Much of the complaints are aimed at fossil fuels, of course, but Gore and this group want everything within the economy to be changed to asses the “carbon” risk. Again, unscientific, since we are discussing CO2, not C. Specificity matters.

Incorporating sustainability considerations into the capital allocation process is not only permissible for fiduciaries; we would argue that the active decision to ignore sustainability factors may in fact be a breach of fiduciary duty. This is especially true when assessing the impact of ESG considerations on the financial performance of investments.

So, they’re evil if they do not take “carbon risk” into account. In the Conclusion, we see

If we redefine societal wealth to mean “the range of human problems it has solved and how available it has made those solutions to its people”61 then we must not only continue the journey towards a more sustainable form of capitalism, but we must also quicken our pace. Implementing the recommendations outlined in this report could radically transform the global economy by 2020. Financial markets would incorporate the price of externalities like unabated carbon emissions that are currently treated as nearly free resources and allocate capital accordingly.

In other words, they want to change the entire economic system, replacing capitalism with their far left ideas. Well, hey, people like Al Gore have already obtained their own massive largess using the current economic system.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.

Share this!

Enjoy reading? Share it with your friends!