The games that climate-change activists play with language are an interesting sub-genre of the propagandist’s art — from the introduction of the term “denier,” and all the implications that came with it, to the way that “global warming” evolved into “climate change” and then “climate change” became the “climate crisis,” the “climate emergency,” or even “climate chaos.”
Now here’s another example, from (inevitably) Bloomberg:
BlackRock Inc. expects commitments to curb greenhouse-gas emissions will rise significantly by 2030, with most of its assets invested in companies and sovereign debt issuers that have specific targets for arresting global warming.
In the first public estimate of its kind by the world’s biggest asset manager, BlackRock said Thursday that the share of its assets invested in corporations and sovereign governments with science-based targets will rise to 75% by the end of the decade from 25% now.
Science-based targets.
Dissect that phrase for a moment, and its essential meaninglessness becomes all too apparent. Countless manufacturers, say, have targets that are based, one way or another, on science, yet it is a testimony to the effectiveness of the propaganda of climate activism that most readers will understand what this meaningless phrase, well, means. “Science-based targets” are targets that, one way or another, relate to the greenhouse gas emissions attributable to a company.
Because the #science is climate science.
Meanwhile, elsewhere in the same article:
BlackRock, with almost $10 trillion of assets under management, had about $1.8 trillion of investments meeting that description as of Sept. 30. The latest projection also reflects a major change in investor demands, with clients citing the transition to a net-zero economy as a top concern and a rapidly growing number of them wanting their portfolios aligned to the goal.
Then again, I’ll just repost this again from the Financial Times:
Climate-related financial risks are getting growing attention — but a new survey from BCG casts doubt on how seriously institutional investors are taking them. Just one in 20 investors polled by the consulting firm said that climate and ESG-related issues were among the three risks they took most seriously. And only 11 per cent of the 150 investors polled indicated that ESG is a primary consideration in day-to-day investment decisions.
#math