This is the Precise Moment Bloomberg Covered Up My Climate Whistleblowing (3)

Grievance “investigation” that became a cover up
–Please share this using the weblink — so I get the hits — and support me if you can by speaking with your friends and family about my plight — or click the GoFundMe


Feb. 10, 2022 (LONDON) — I’m trying to keep hold of my sense of humor, about this. It’s hard.

It was just before August 9, 2019, 5:37 p.m., New York time.

On the same day, a landslide from torrential rain kills 59 in Mon state, Myanmar, with 80,000 in emergency evacuation sites.

An investigating editor at Bloomberg News had finished reading several random oil-market and crude-oil industry expansion stories I had sent to be analysed, as part of a process designed to investigate whether I had a point when I said the firm’s news coverage of the climate crisis wasn’t good enough.

“Investigating Editor A” (I shall call her because the litigation hasn’t finished) concluded that at least some of the stories she investigated were indeed flawed. 

She was preparing to send an email to the investigation team.

She found of the specific crude oil-market / oil-industry-expansion stories I had sent:

“It’s true some of the stories could have benefited from that context,” she wrote in the email to a human resources officer at the firm, “HR Officer A”

In other words, the specific stories would have been better had Bloomberg included the climate-impact context

She was agreeing with me!

But she never chose those words for the grievance investigation outcome report (which rejected “my” grievance btw).

I contend the investigation of the “grievance” that Bloomberg talked me into filing wasn’t really independent and was carried out in a slip-shod way. 

Basically, it was a cover up.

When writing sentences specifically for use in the grievance outcome report she twisted the words slightly but importantly from the specific to the banal.

The words for the outcome report didn’t include that crucial, specific conclusion.

Words matter.

For the outcome report, she said that Bloomberg’s reporting could benefit from vague climate context in some vague future: 

“I’ve reviewed our coverage and while I believe certain oil industry stories could benefit from more context on climate, there’s no evidence that such information was omitted intentionally because of a bias or conspiracy.”

“We have sufficient coverage related to climate change and its impact and, perhaps more importantly, have a whole department in editorial & research dedicated to new energy finance. We also are preparing to establish a robust team focused entirely on climate issues globally. The input is constructive and worth considering but I don’t believe reflects an institutional bias favoring fossil fuels.” 


It’s also nuanced and clever, and what she effectively did was change the subject to something else — from the specific stories to vague “certain oil-industry” stories.

I’ve been in a two-year unfair dismissal / whistleblowing legal dispute that could have been avoided and a seven-year employment dispute that could have been cut short, right there — had she been honest about what she found. 

To be fair on “Investigating Editor A,” in that 5:37pm email she was asking “HR Officer A” whether the words were appropriate.

The HR officer said: “This is great. One other thing that would be helpful is a brief description [of your role].”

I’ve reached out for a comment from “Investigating Editor A” and will let you know if she responds.

For the time being, that was it. White paint was briefly put back away in the cupboard.

But it has been hauled back out multiple times since.

Because I kept thinking investigating managers would investigate / read evidence properly , (and more recently that employment Tribunals would do the same), I wasn’t willing to just walk away.

I appealed the grievance outcome, which was also denied. And I’ve been in dispute ever since.

Now, I’ve lost the litigation in the London Central Employment Tribunal and Employment Appeal Tribunal and I’m thinking of appealing — I’m being chased to pay 40,000 British pounds of Bloomberg’s legal costs (see below), I contend, to distract me from the “whether to appeal” decision / preparation.

I guess I should feel lucky. The Tribunal warned me I might face a 100,000 pound cost order.

As I said at the top. It’s hard to laugh, right now.

Please help if you can. Sharing is caring. Paying even 1 pound is great, too.


Note One: HERE’S WHAT I HAD SAID, IN PART FROM 2019; emphasis added; I’m leaving story codes in brackets {} for completeness; they are not clickable here; explainer from 2022 in square brackets []:


[Dear investigating managers]

You asked for examples of bias toward fossil fuel in our reporting. There’s no big example, nor a huge smoking gun. Like the probable retaliatory behavior, it’s more like a constant drumbeat of questionable decisions that potentially add up to future grief for Bloomberg News as the transition away from fossil fuels unfolds. Here are some.

Aramco IPO Bankers Question Whether Deal Is Worth Their Effort, July 21, 2019 {NSN PUZ52Q6K50XS <GO>}

This story initially seems to be critical of Aramco, but it even admits it might be a tool for trying to get Aramco to pay higher fees to the IPO advisers. Where does it mention that Aramco’s value hinges on a market cartel that’s under threat because of climate protection, a glut, electric cars and plateauing demand? Why does it not mention that a year ago there was limited appetite for Aramco shares by pension funds, many of which want to invest in clean energy? Where’s mention of the conflicted Saudi Arabia — the de facto leader of OPEC — as energy competition intensifies, will the Saudis protect Aramco’s new shareholders and oil prices, or will they protect Saudi Arabia’s share of the global oil market?

A quick search on Saudi Aramco’s ticker showed three pages of news this month alone that mentions IPO. Only two of those stories mention “cartel.” It’s pretty clear climate risks are coming — including massive drops in stock values (see p22 ) — and we should be flagging them now much more clearly. Did we not learn from the global financial crisis? Are people soaked in fossil fuels REALLY best to lead in this situation?

Here are some recent stories about OPEC’s struggles that fail to mention the word “climate”: {NSN PV6TYJDWX2PT <GO>}OPEC+ Mission to Buoy Oil Market Enters Make-or-Break Phase {NSN PV1VNK6TTDS0 <GO>}Libya’s Oil Production Set to Recover as Largest Field Restarts {NSN PUSXV06KLVR6 <GO>}Oil Fades as U.S. Raises ‘Red Flags’ With Slump in Fuel Demand {NSN PUR5RIT0G1L4 <GO>}Oil Slides on Prospect of Easing Geopolitical Risk, More Supply

Of course we REPORT IN A MORE BALANCED WAY sometimes too:
Trump Washes His Hands of Climate Change: Liam Denningand {NSN PU5XRA6KLVR5 <GO>}

QuickTake: Saudi Aramco and {NSN PMTN9E6TTDS7 <GO>}Oil’s Twilight? Here’s One Investor View on How It Plays Out

Here are some companies undertaking IPOs or considering it; our stories fail to mention climate risks…or climate at all. In the future such stories might be seen as lacking balance or worse–misleading the buyers:

Lekoil{NSN PUDNVU6KLVR4 <GO>}Switchback Energy Acquisition{NSN PU0SAQSYF01T <GO>} Oriental Energy Co{NSN PUTHPJ6JTSE9 <GO>}

Vista Oil & Gas{NSN PV9CJ7DWLU68 <GO>}
BR Distribuidora{NSN PV5H57DWX2Q5 <GO>} Socar Turkey Enerji{NSN PTP9Q96JIJUO <GO>} Rattler Midstream LP{NSN PT38HM6JIJUU <GO>}

And overall, we don’t publish near enough news on power, clean energy policies and carbon pricing, even though that’s where the energy transition is clearly headed.

Bloomberg Law apparently got beaten by the UK Guardian by more than 8 hours on this story:
A Climate Bill in Oregon Triggers a Manhunt as Republicans Flee {NSN PTEX3P6K50XS <GO>}

Guardian’s earlier version:

I don’t think Bloomberg News covered it until 6 days later{NSN PTPWSP6TTDS0 <GO>}

It should be investigated why our news team structure still seem (sic) to be biased toward fossil fuel, despite the Paris climate deal and the transition. In Europe: about 31 oil and gas reporters/eds, three times those on power/clean energy/policy (and the policy/power people cover coal and fossil fuel policy)

Is this structure effectively delaying climate action rather than covering the transition in a neutral way? Power market terminal sales are a massive opportunity if we nail the news…which by its nature might be a little “inside baseball” because every country has different rules.

Our coverage of power networks, trading, policy is basically not that great …even though that’s where our pension and hedge fund customers want to invest – they want insight about where the opportunities lie, what policy is coming. We are not that good at giving it to them.

We often use the excuse that customers don’t want to read detailed stories about policy, but I don’t buy that.

The [redacted] acknowledged we needed to address some of these issues in a July 17 team meeting.

It needs to be investigated whether we are unfairly biased toward our fossil fuel customers (and bank service providers) at the expense of power customers/pension-fund customers.

Does our structure and focus amount to predatory delay of climate protection, even as Mike Bloomberg says he seeks to tackle the climate emergency?

At the July 17 meeting, my team leader announced Bloomberg News was planning to boost the focus on climate at an unspecified time. Unclear why this is taking so long given Paris climate deal was signed in 2015. See also my emails to John Micklethwait [head of news] and [redacted] in recent years on this topic — or I can provide them.

It should be investigated why we curtailed a very successful daily carbon report just before carbon prices surged last year/end of 2017. The report was swapped into a daily power wrap, which is now getting very few hits.

On July 17, [REDACTED] said in the team meeting that the issue would be addressed, in part by making our reporting more complete and focusing on generation-profit spreads (which include carbon-allowance costs).

It should be investigated whether the ratio of travel budget taken for fossil fuel coverage vs power/carbon industry is appropriate.

Pension funds are very frustrated at the level of public discourse on the energy/economic transition, and as the world’s most influential (?) news service don’t we need to take some responsibility for that low quality?

Just because our rivals are doing a bad job too, does not excuse us. That’s because we know better but for some reason we seem to be pretending we don’t.

It should be investigated why the Financial Times keeps beating us to climate stories.

eg this one
EU reforms and tilt to green energy drive carbon prices to record high, July 17, 2019


I had filed this story many hours before the FT one was published…
Carbon Price Nears 30-Euro Level That Bites Into Polluter Profit, July 21, 2019 {NSN PUZ7826S9728 <GO>} But it never got published until four days after the FT version
–And note this — I received a warning for being insubordinate when I complained after we got beaten by the FT on it. My team leader and HR rep declined to specify precisely which of my words/behaviors was insubordinate, so that makes it more difficult for me to avoid situations like that in the future.

It could be investigated whether this was the appropriate response from my team leader or part of a retaliatory pattern? Who decided on this response and why?

Also, I’ve filed a pitch on the coming potential huge drops in asset values and the Bank of England stress tests (see p22 of link above) and while the story will benefit from more reporting of course, I’m astonished my editors are not treating the story with more urgency, given the FT has not noticed yet I think.

Here’s my pitch: ******************************************************

Bank of England Sees Oil Stocks Plunging 42% in Climate Scenario [Note my editors didn’t like this headline — said it was misleading. Yet it’s clear to me today in 2022 it’s just one scenario that was being looked at by the bank]

British insurer stress test includes climate-change scenarios Electric vehicle company values seen advancing 15% in 3 years

By Mathew Carr, [redacted]
(Bloomberg) —
Insurers in the U.K. are about to test how the climate transition might impact the value of the stocks and bonds they hold.

The Bank of England is including climate scenarios for the first time in its stress tests of general and life insurance companies over the next few months, including a dramatic situation that assumes nations begin to achieve emission-reduction trajectories contained in the 2015 Paris climate deal.

Under that scenario, oil stocks drop 42%, coal generators 65%, while renewables and nuclear power stocks rise 10%. Internal combustion engine auto companies fall 30%, while electric vehicle equities advance 15%. Asia Pacific real estate could drop 20%.

“What’s most interesting is the way the stress test will change the way the insurers will think about these particular sectors,” said Mark Lewis, global head of sustainability research at BNP Paribas SA’s asset management unit.

The scenarios might cause insurers to apply different risks to various industries and set off some deep thinking about how other investors will react during the next months and years, Lewis said by phone.

“It becomes a sort of game-theory thing. Do you think Insurer X will sell? Do you think Insurer Y will sell? All of a sudden you are thinking I don’t want to be the last guy holding this stuff.

The set of assumptions by the Bank of England’s Prudential Regulation Authority on climatic and financial impacts cover three scenarios, but are “purposely non-exhaustive as the goal of this scenario analysis is investigatory in nature,” the regulator said. “The PRA recognizes that for different portfolios, the materiality of natural catastrophe perils and asset classes affected will differ.”

The first scenario covering shifts though 2022 is a sudden transition that results in achieving a temperature increase being kept below 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 Fahrenheit) relative to pre-industrial levels, “but only following a disorderly transition.”

A second orderly transition covers impact in 2050, while a third scenario covers temperature rises of 4 Celsius and focuses on 2100. The deadline for submissions in Oct. 31.

The PRU does not intend to disclose the results of the tests for individual insurers but it will publish a “ summary of overall results.”

“If a policymaker gives you a guideline as clear as this, it will change the way you think about it,” Lewis said. “ Once you put something out there like this, the market starts to follow its own dynamic and this is a further example of the momentum increasing and accelerating and intensifying.”

************************************************ By the way, [redacted] still is behaving erratically.

See for example the grammatical mistakes and garble in this important Centrica story he handled. Even though I pointed out the mistakes, he STILL hasn’t fixed them, though has covered them up with an update.

Centrica CEO to Step Down After First Dividend Cut Since 2015

Happy to discuss/provide more, cheers


Note Two: See here for how Bloomberg is now chasing me for 40,000 pounds.

It Feels Like Lawfare: Bloomberg Seeks £40,000 of CarrZee’s Depleted Funds to Pay its Jubilant Legal Team (5)

By Mathew Carr (CarrZee)

Feb. 4-9, 2022 (LONDON):

I was hoping not to ask this favor — I’m raising funds to pay legal costs after an application to a court by my previous employer.

Bloomberg LP, one of the world’s richest media groups, is asking the UK Employment Tribunal to make me pay 40,000 British pounds ($54,000) for its legal costs…

National Union of Journalists

Search on for “Bloomberg” for more context

(Updates March 21, 2022 with links; earlier to say i reached out to “Investigating Editor A” for comment, adds possible 100,000 pound cost order, smooths language, adds landslide)


  1. Well sir this is the retort . . . . You are the man who refuses to see two sides of a story . . .

    You are truly obsessed with YOUR views of ‘The Environmental crisis’ that you omitted Fact counterintuitive Science and History along the way. Obsessive compulsives ALWAYS do . . .

    Batteries, Renewable Energy and EV’s

    The Ultimate in Environmental Destruction and

    ‘Carbon Allowances’ . . . A one Trillion Dollar Scam . . .

    What is a battery? Tesla said it best when he called them ‘Energy Storage Systems’. They do not make electricity inside . . . they store electricity produced somewhere else. Primarily by coal, uranium, natural gas, bio-fuel or diesel-fueled Electric Power Plants. Therefore, to say an Electric Vehicle (EV) is a Zero Emission vehicle is not even remotely true! Since about forty percent of the electricity generated in the United States comes from coal-fired generating stations . . . you could say that forty percent of the EVs on the road are Coal-Powered . . . Interesting . . . OH, and let’s not forget OHM’s law on resistance . . . at least 28% of the electricity produced is lost as Heat getting the electricity to EV batteries. At least 128-kwh of electricity is produced for every 100-kwh used. Average US CO2 emissions per kwh from ALL sources including line loss and charging EV’s is 1.19 lbs. per kwh. At least 15% MORE CO2 Per mile driven. (PDF) Tesla Versus Toyota Camry | Jim Le Maistre –

    Einstein’s formula, E=MC2, tells us it takes the same amount of energy to move a five-thousand-pound gasoline-powered automobile one mile as it does an Electric Car. The only question remaining is what produces that power? Again, it does not come from the battery. The battery is only the storage system, like any gas tank in those gas-powered cars.

    There are two types of batteries, rechargeable, and single-use. The most common single-use batteries are household batteries like A, AA, AAA, C, D. 9V, or lantern batteries. These ‘Dry-Cell Batteries’ use zinc or manganese or lithium or silver oxide, or zinc and carbon to store electricity chemically. Please note . . . they all contain highly toxic, heavy metals. ‘Rechargeable’ batteries for Electric Cars are only different internally by way of their contents and they are re-chargeable, usually lithium-ion or nickel-metal oxide or nickel-cadmium.
    Americans use three billion of these two types of battery every year. The vast majority do not get recycled. Most end up in landfill sites. California is the only state requiring all batteries be recycled. When we throw our small, used batteries into the trash, this is what happens to them. The battery continues to run down long after it can no longer power a smoke alarm, toy or light . . . we think of them as dead. Well, that is not true. They continue to leak small amounts of electricity. Then, as the chemicals inside run out of electricity, pressure builds inside the battery’s metal casing, and eventually, they rupture. Then, those ‘toxic heavy metals’ left inside will ooze out. The ooze is environmentally toxic. All that ooze that will leak from every battery into every landfill. The only difference with rechargeable EV batteries or tool batteries . . . they take longer before they end up in the landfill.

    For those of us who are getting all excited about Electric Cars and the ‘Green Revolution’, We must ALL take a much closer look at Batteries and Wind Turbines and Solar Panels and EV’s. These technologies all share environmentally destructive ‘Embedded Costs’, that rarely ever get discussed. Everything manufactured has two costs associated with them, ‘Embedded Costs’ and ‘Operating Costs’ . . . both must be examined by their merits . . . and by their failures . . .

    One Lithium-Ion battery in one Electric Car weighs about 1,000 lbs. They each contain at least 25 pounds of lithium, 60 pounds of nickel, 44 pounds of manganese, 30 pounds cobalt, 200 pounds of copper, and about 400 pounds of aluminum, steel, and plastic. In those batteries there are about 6,800 individual lithium-ion cells.

    This should concern us all ! These toxic components all come from mining. While manufacturing each Electric Car battery, we process about 25,000 pounds of brine to make the lithium. 30,000 pounds of cobalt ore. 5,000 pounds of nickel ore, and 25,000 pounds of copper ore. All told, we dig up 85,000 Lbs of the earth’s crust . . . for just . . . ONE . . . Electric Car Battery.
    Let that one sink in . . . Oh, did we mention toxicity, disease or child labor. 68% of the world’s Cobalt, a very important part of every EV battery, comes from the Congo. Their mines have no pollution controls. Furthermore, they employ children who often get sick and even die from handling this toxic material. Should we take these diseased children into account as part of the cost of driving an electric car? . . . Dam straight . . . we must!

    The ‘Embedded Costs’ come from Energy use producing those components as well. Embedded Costs also come from environmental destruction, pollution, radiation, disease, child labor, and the inability to recycle those Used Batteries or Wind Turbine Blades or Solar Panels. No Excuses!

    The main problem with Solar Panels is the Heat and the chemicals needed during processing using the Czochralski method turning all that silicate into the silicon used to make these panels. Producing pure Silicon requires the processing of raw silicate. Including the 1,425o Heat required to melt the quartz crystals, usually by burning coking coal. What about the CO2 going up the chimney’s where that quartz was melted? Then we use hydrochloric acid, Sulfuric Acid, Nitric Acid, Hydrogen Fluoride, Trichloroethane, and Acetone. Do we recycle that waste? What happens to all the ‘left-overs’ from using these highly toxic chemicals? Solar Panels need gallium-arsenide, copper-indium, gallium-diselenide, and cadmium-telluride. All of which are highly toxic even radioactive. Furthermore, Silicon dust is a hazard to workers where silicone is made and where it used. Oh, and last, the Silicone infused Solar Panels cannot, as yet, be recycled. What happens to all the by-products from making and processing all these chemicals? It has been suggested that the energy input to build solar panels exceeds their energy output in their lifetime of output.

    Wind Turbines, these are The Ultimate in Embedded Costs and Environmental Destruction. Each one weighs about 1,688 tons (equivalent to 23 houses) and they contain 1,300 tons of concrete and 295 tons of steel for the masts (Concrete and Steel = 15% Global CO2). 3.5 tons of copper, 48 tons of iron, 24 tons of fiberglass Then there are the rare earth minerals . . . 800 lbs. of neodymium-boron per turbine, praseodymium, and dysprosium. The leaching into the environment from tailings ponds, the radiation released into the environment and the mining of these minerals are all Embedded Costs. Where are all the calculations for all of these in The Environmental reports? Each blade weighs 81,000 pounds and will last about 15 to 20 years, then, it must be replaced. Oh, we cannot recycle used blades yet either! That is why we see them lying on the ground at wind farms after they have been replaced. What about the coal burned and electricity used at all the production facilities processing these essential components and the CO2 generated during their production? Somehow is this ‘Green Magic’ without pollution because it will be used to produce green energy? Not likely! It all gets brushed under the ‘Big Green Rug’ and seems irrelevant because ‘It’s for a Good Cause’ . . . Absolutely NOT !!

    There may be a place for these technologies in our economy, but first we must look beyond the myth and The Propaganda of the ‘Zero Emissions’ lies, long before we declare them ’Emissions Free’. I predict that EV’s, Wind Farms and Solar Farms will be abandoned . . . once the full story of the Embedded Environmental Costs for processing, manufacturing, building infrastructure, replacing components and recycling all become part of the up-front analysis.

    We ALL should take a good hard look at what we are being Told is . . . ‘Green Technology’ . . . What are ‘The Embedded Costs’ of Going Green? . . . Sadly, no one ever seems to ask! . . . Why Not? . . . Where are the governments in all of this? . . . Where is the Media? . . . Where is the Public Outrage?
    OK . . . That said, now . . . What Is Carbon Emissions Trading?

    Emissions trading, sometimes referred to as ‘Cap and Trade’ or ‘Allowance Trading’, is an approach to reducing pollution. This system was designed to protect ‘Human Health’ and ‘The Environment’. Emissions trading programs have two key components. 1 . . . to limit or put a cap on pollution, and, 2 . . . To provide ‘Tradable Allowances’ equal to the limit that authorized ‘Allowance Holders’ can use so they can emit a specific quantity of a pollutant (one ton of CO2). This limit governs how environmental targets, set by governments, can be met. ‘Tradable Allowances’ provide some flexibility for ‘Emissions Generating Companies’ to set their own ‘Compliance Path’ within government guidelines. These ‘Allowances’ can be bought or sold on ’Carbon allowance markets’. These programs are referred to as ‘Market-Based Carbon Emissions Trading Exchanges’.

    The Kyoto Protocol of 1997 and the Paris Agreement of 2015 were International Accords laying out the international CO2 emissions goals. The Paris agreement was ratified by all except six countries. These ‘agreements’ have given rise to all the international Emissions targets and all the regulations supporting them.

    With these new regulations in place, the pressure on businesses to find ways to reduce their ‘Carbon Footprint’ has grown. Most of today’s solutions involve the buying and selling of credits on ‘Carbon Markets’. What the carbon markets do is turn CO2 emissions into a commodity by creating a price for CO2 emissions. Emissions fall into one of two categories. Carbon Credits or Carbon Offsets, and they can both be bought or sold on a ‘Carbon Market Trading Exchange’. These ‘Exchanges’ seen as a simple idea that provide market-based solutions to a complex problems.
    What are Carbon Credits and Carbon Offsets?

    The terms are frequently used interchangeably, but carbon credits and carbon offsets operate on different mechanisms. Carbon Credits, also known as Carbon Allowances, work like ‘Permission Slips’ for Excess Pollution. When a company buys a carbon credit, usually first from the Government then ‘Carbon Markets’, they gain permission to generate one ton of CO2 emissions. With carbon credits, carbon revenue flows vertically from companies to Regulators. Companies who end up with ‘Excess Credits’ like Electric Car companies and Wind Farms or Solar Farms they can sell them to excess polluters for a profit.
    How are carbon credits and offsets created?

    Organizations with operations that reduce the amount of carbon already in the atmosphere, say by planting more trees or investing in renewable energy like Wind Farms, Solar Farms, Bio Fuel or Electric Cars have the ability to issue carbon offsets in an ‘Open Market’. . . for profit.

    The offset advantage: New revenue streams

    There’s one more big advantage of carbon offsets. If you’re the company selling them, they can be a significant revenue stream! The best example of this is Tesla. Yes, that Tesla we all know and love, the electric car maker, who sold Carbon Credits on the ‘Market-Based Carbon Emissions Trading Exchanges’ to the tune of $518 million in just the first quarter of 2021. That is over 2 Billion dollars worth of credits because their automobiles are declared ‘Emissions Free’ . . . Emissions Free? . . . With what we learned above? . . . is that so . . .??

    Herein lies the rub . . .

    ‘Carbon Allowances’ are A One Trillion Dollar Scam

    Carbon Trade is Already Covering the Equivalent of One Half of World Energy Emissions of $1 Trillion

    Intercontinental Exchange Inc. (ICE) has said that trading in ‘Carbon Allowances’ has reached a record volume in 2021 on its various markets — the volume of Buying and Selling reached the equivalent of about one half of ALL global energy emissions. A total of 18 billion tons of ‘Carbon Allowances’ were traded in 2021. Equivalent to an estimated 1 trillion in US dollars. ICE trades by far the biggest market share in the Global market, although other exchanges including the European Energy Exchange (EEX) also handle sizable volumes, as well.

    This is a reflection of how companies are using these markets to manage and price their ‘Climate Risk’, as well as meet their ‘Compliance Obligations’. The traded contracts have included a record 15.2 billion tons of EU carbon allowances and a record 2.4 billion tons of California carbon allowances as well as 346 million tons of Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative allowances. Then also, following its launch in May 2021, there is the new 255-million-ton U.K. carbon allowances.

    This year ICE will be expanding their carbon credit markets to value and support the preservation of ‘natural assets’, as well as launching their first carbon futures index on contract to provide access to the global cost of emissions in one trading instrument. This from . . . Gordon Bennett, Managing Director of Utility Markets at ICE.

    Who will stand against this injustice? . . . Who will go on the record? . . . Where is the Media?
    The Truth . . . The Environment as a subject is, Explosive! You speak against its Edicts at your Peril. Accept the truth as prescribed from upon high, or suffer the Scorn and the Ridicule among your peers. Not to mention by society as a whole. When that one stone gets overturned proving Collusion and Willful Deception. The un-scientific foundations supporting the Environmental Movement since its inception will render it . . . Null.

    Sadly, to date, no self-respecting Media Representative wants to risk the Ire of their Peers or the Mandarins ruling the Environmental Movement or The Purveyors of Globalization in our New Social Construct. For they are ‘Brothers-in-Arms’, so to speak. Who wants to be the ONE to open Pandora’s Box? . . . It would be like pulling Hans Brinker’s finger from the Dyke or Killing the Goose that Lays the Golden Egg . . . The old adage . . .

    There are none so blind as those who will not see . . .

Leave a Reply