On May 30th, Reuters headlined “Insurers’ climate alliance loses nearly half its members after more quit” and reported:
Three more insurance companies including Tokio Marine have left a United Nations-backed net-zero climate alliance, leaving the group with about half the number of members it counted two months ago as insurers take fright at U.S. political pressure. …
The remaining members of the NZIA, which include Britain’s Aviva (AV.L), Italy’s Generali (GASI.MI) and France’s Credit Agricole Assurances, are set to hold more calls this week to decide whether and how the alliance can continue given so many members have quit, sources familiar with the discussions say.
The NZIA is one of several industry climate alliances that exist under the U.N-backed Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero (GFANZ) umbrella group. GFANZ was launched in 2021 ahead of the U.N. climate summit, COP26, in Glasgow.
Ever since the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement was reached and became signed by some governments, its lack of any enforcement provisions made clear to the world that this was just a political show by liberal governments but nothing that had any chance to achieve any of its announced goals; and, after that, only fools have continued to believe that liberal politicians were sincere about the necessity to take real action to address the problem.
By contrast, conservative politicians lie and say either that global warming is not happening, or that it’s not caused by humans if it is happening, or that nothing should or can be done about it if it is happening; and, so, for the public, there is a choice only between either liberal fraudsters or conservative fraudsters, and nothing is being even so much as PROPOSED about the problem that would have any CHANCE to succeed — such a proposal (if it even can EXIST) has either not been forthcoming, or else it has been 100% censored-out by not only politicians but also the press, and therefore isn’t even being discussed, at all.
I previously documented this when I headlined “You want to know how to stop global warming? Here is how:” and opened by describing what the actual solution is, if a solution is still possible:
Outlaw the purchasing of any stock or bond — any investment securities — in fossil-fuel extraction companies, such as ExxonMobil and Peabody Coal: any such company at all.
The article went on to argue that all proposals which, like the Paris Climate Agreement, rely upon international consensus in order to have any chance at succeeding will inevitably fail because any nations that either don’t sign it or that do sign it but then violate it, will thereby gain international competitive advantage against any nations that do sign it and that fulfill its commitments.
Furthermore, it pointed out that all of the proposals to restrain global warming that are appealing to the public to “do your part” such as to reduce consumption or install solar panels, are intrinsically fraudulent because global warming (if it exists and if humans are certainly a cause of it, even if not the sole cause of it — and over 90% of the climate scientists endorse this viewpoint) is a global problem and therefore DOES require SOME sort of global solution to it.
The reason why ‘solutions’ such as the Paris Agreement can’t succeed is that it can’t even be functioning effectively unless everyone signs onto and fulfills it — which can’t and won’t happen. By contrast, as my article argued (and documented in its linked-to evidences): Even if only a single major nation will “Outlaw the purchasing of any stock or bond — any investment securities — in fossil-fuel extraction companies, such as ExxonMobil and Peabody Coal: any such company at all,” then that will immediately have an immense global impact, which will cause many fossil-fuel-extraction corporations to go out of business, and all other such corporations to be doomed to their market-valuations declining until they, too, do. The result of this forced decline in fossil-fuels supplies will be skyrocketing research and development to find alternative energy sources that maybe CAN solve the problem before the problem itself grows so big as to be runaway and totally unsolvable — the world will then be engulfed by it.
All of the documentation, for all of that, is in my article. And that’s also where the fraudulence of the ‘solutions’ that liberals support is demonstrated.