Sony, Kyocera, and others have terminated their relationships with the 10:10 campaign - and they may represent just the beginning of the recarbonization of the private sector and the return of sensible reasoning to the business world.
However, you may be sure that there still exist people on the fringes of the commercial sector who are faithful to the values of radical alarmism. You are welcome to open a website, Green Chip Stocks dot com, that writes about "a new way of life" and "a new generation of wealth".
R.T. Jones has contributed an article called
According to Jones, what's really offensive is not that the folks were blown to pieces. What's offensive is that we still "entertain climate change deniers". In other words, the offensive fact (for Mr Jones) is that the movie has not yet been realized in the real world.
Also, we're offered three images that are supposed to be more offensive than the detonation of the indifferent kids and adults:
Click images to zoom in.
These are the three images that Mr Jones finds more offensive than this story:
I have spent quite some time looking at the three "offensive" pictures but I still don't get it. What do I see?
The first picture shows a modern city with skyscrapers. There are also some ships or bridges or oil tankers on the river or ocean or whatever it is. The only offensive thing I can see on the picture is the bad weather. Or is it smog? Be sure that ordinary clouds look just like this. Whatever it is, the colors don't look great.
The second picture shows one dead fish near a pond, or whatever it is. The weather was arguably dry. While the demise of the fish may be sad, such a thing has occurred billions of times during the Earth's history so it can hardly be offensive to someone who has an idea about the life on Earth.
The third picture shows a high density of cars on a huge superhighway. I don't even have a hypothesis what can possibly be offensive about this picture - except for the cloudy weather (or smog?). This is what the superhighway was built for. It's good to build highways because they allow cars to get from A to B in shorter time - and, by the way, eliminate pollution from most of the Earth's surface. This particular highway is clearly reaching its capacity which may be an argument to build more highways, rather than fewer highways.
Have I missed something offensive about the pictures? I simply have no clue how someone could compare these totally innocent pictures to the detonation of kids and adults who were just indifferent to mad plans of others to regulate carbon all over the world.
And if Mr Jones says that the three pictures are even more offensive than the sequence of ideologically motivated assassinations, I am simply left speechless.
Moreover, even if you happened to find some - or all - of these three pictures offensive, they have nothing to do with the debates about climate change or with carbon dioxide. People would (hopefully) build skyscrapers and ships even if they eliminated all fossil fuels from their lives.
Also, droughts would sometimes kill some fish, just like they have been doing it for hundreds of millions of years. And lots of cars - possibly electric cars - would still be often clumped on the superhighways because superhighways with a large capacity and high density of cars are simply an efficient way to organize transportation (both from economic and even environmental viewpoint).
So the opinions of Mr Jones just leave me puzzled. There is not a glimpse of an argument that I could recognize as a rational argument. And there is no glimpse of values and priorities that I could expect from someone who may deserve to be called an investor. Are the "new investors" supposed to be offended by every sign of the human economic activity? How is it supposed to work? For all practical purposes, Mr Jones belongs to a different species.
Those organisms may resemble humans but they obviously can't be human in the conventional meaning of the word. They hate humans, their ordinary activitties, and their achievements and they're amused by the murder of the humans. As far as I can say, Mr Jones is just a pollutant in the human society. While Mr Jones likes to obscure this fact, I love carbon dioxide but I dislike genuine pollutants. Sulfur dioxide and Mr Jones are just two examples.
After the fall of communism, we managed to eliminate the former pollutant - almost all of it - from the Czech economy. The same thing holds for many other common pollutants. That doesn't mean that we have removed all things that annoy us or that threaten our health of the economy.
Hat tip: Marc Morano