My problem with this is that nothing is being put forward from your camp on the nature explanation. If it is nature, what specifically is the mechanism by which the earth is warming. Saying nature is too vague.
It could, but there isn’t anything suggesting otherwise. Whereas we have really good evidence that humans are increasing methane and CO2 at really high rates that nature can’t adapt too with the usual carbon sinks.
We aren’t doing “nothing” though, and there is a lot of argument saying “we got to do something” while we are doing things.
It’s just not getting done fast enough for them with the alarmist attitude.
I used to work in this warehouse, they had no AC, and bunch of machinery it was 150 in there all day
I agree. Humans don’t need to pollute the environment and destroy it.
Most companies do it because it’s cheaper than the fines.
The solution to that problem is obvious.
I will say that we’ve come along way since we were setting rivers on fire
We should continue to strive to do better and use technology to make life better for all, even the plants animals and our oceans and rivers.
but what about the shareholders 
Most shareholders don’t mind ESG policy, contrary to what FOX News says.
In the long-term green investments generally save companies money as it becomes more affordable to manufacture and produce.
If we ever let them out of prison they will need those jobs at the landfill to pay for the fines their bank accounts couldn’t cover. They can bunk at the landfill sorting facility. Should be enough space under the conveyer belt.
Your mom or dad (or maybe even you) are most likely shareholders if they have a 401k or an IRA.
the fearmongers stopped using global warming and have all gone to climate change. You can’t call them out on it.
Not every corp. in the world shares your ideals obviously, that’s why we still have these problems.
There are some, not nearly enough though.
No they don’t need to go full monty “New Green Deal”. Just need to not dump toxic sludge in the river that feeds the water towers of every town downstream would be fine.
In part it probably is.
Climate change is a natural phenomenon, otherwise we’d still be living in an ice age or whatever monstrous jungles had existed in the ages before Man.
The hoax part is the idea that heaping legislation upon the populace of nations already more environmentally conscious than either China or India, pushing our grids toward the likes of wind and solar primarily rather than as a backup, and not investing heavily into nuclear will help much.
Nuclear alone would be a big step toward halting such pollutants as ostensibly concern politicians, but we all know their pockets are as slick with oil as their greasy hair. That and people still distrust it for reasons like Chernobyl, which itself was constructed so wildly off-spec compared to modern reactor designs they’re not even comparable, or Fukushima, which was hit by a tsunami if memory serves and had an almost uselessly short storm-wall to boot.
Then there’s a bunch of stuff about thorium reactors, which could provide many years of energy on top of having a decay chain that doesn’t lead to the necessary components of a nuclear bomb.
My comment was on being a shareholder, I don’t think most people understand what that term means. If you own shares in a company you are a shareholder. That’s completely independent of whether or not a company pollutes or adheres to ESG policy.
Any umbrella policy has to come from the Federal Government, not corporations.
Chernonobyl was constructed to top of the line specs so this is false.
Chernobyl’s reactor housing was essentially a hospital building.
As opposed to the many tons of reinforced concrete used to house reactors today.
It was garbage.
Let’s hope nuclear winter cancels it out
I used to work in a rope factory that was the same. they had AC. But refused
to turn it on due to costs. I even ran a machine that you had to go inside it.
It was 170 inside the machine.
I know what a shareholder is.
Personally I would rather the punishment for corps that choose the “just pay the fine” route to be so severe not even market investors would get near them. If one is financing the problem, one is part of the problem. So should share in the punishment.
the DOL is currently going in the wrong direction on that front!
I’m not sure you do understand what a shareholder is, because by your definition, anyone who participates in an 401k or has a IRA or any investment vehicle should be punished for the corporations decisions. Good environmental policy is not set by corporations, it should be set by the Federal Government and the corporations should adhere to it.
To my knowledge infractions of these fines are generally severe if it involves the EPA.
Any move away from nuclear is the wrong choice.