Study blames CEO pay for fueling climate change

If it isn’t Halloween candy or canola oil that are blamed by the political Left (that environmentalists belong to) as being major contributors of climate change, there aren’t any number of human activities that will be immune from scorn. This is evidenced by a recent report issued by the liberal think tank Institute for Policy Studies (IPS). According to Wired, the group’s study focuses on the one thing that the political Left uses to exact guilt on the private sector and their sole reason for focusing on carbon emission controls: greed. According to the manuscript, drastically rising CEO pay at fossil fuel companies is likewise adding to environmental change, on the grounds that it gives these leaders enormous economic incentive to build their fossil fuel capital by any means necessary.

In 2014, the report shows, CEOs at the main 30 fossil fuel organizations made, by and large, 9-percent more than the S&P 500 CEO Average. Since quite a bit of this remuneration is tied up in value, the report contends, corporate executives are personally motivated to put resources into short term gains over long haul moves to renewable energy sources (like wind and solar power). Furthermore, these pay rates have expanded even as the coal business endures. The report’s authors take this to imply that notwithstanding when the business is moving toward renewable energy, CEO’s aren’t feeling the pinch.

Note that given the biased origin of the report, a recent poll states global warming is a politically divisive issue. That is especially true given that there’s presently some confirmation demonstrating that climate change is the most debated political topic in the U.S., with Americans equally split on it than they are on gun control or abortion.

However, according to associate professor of public policy at University of California, Berkeley Solomon Hsieng, it is basic to break down CEO impetuses, as they straightforwardly affect whether they lead the organization through a long or short term vantage point. Yet, Hsieng, who was not included in the IPS study, says more vital than how much corporate executives are paid is the means by which how secure they feel in their occupations.

If CEO turnover is high, then they will likely try to earn all they can quickly and that will lead to decisions that have a more short-term view, rather than investing in the future, he says. If CEOs feel more committed to their specific firm in the long run, then they have more of an incentive to make decisions that are good for the long-term trajectory of the company. They won’t just write those problems off as ‘the next guy’s problem.’

One thing is certain — the study issued by the IPS and the political solutions furthered by environmentalist groups to address climate change is nothing more than an extension of the political Left’s attempt to destroy Western civilization. Condemning CEO’s is condemning to condemn a person’s ability to benefit from their own productive labor. This latest manuscript fits right in to Naomi Klein’s blunt admission that global warming (now known as climate change) is not about science but destroying capitalism.

5 thoughts on “Study blames CEO pay for fueling climate change

      1. Thank you for our feedback but my use of the term jihad is appropriate and correct since in Islam jihad (i.e. holy war) is central to your faith.

        As I am sure you are aware, Islam has a well developed doctrine, theology, history and law that mandates Muslims to make war against non-believers (i.e. non-Muslims). It does not mean every Muslim (including yourself) will do so but the reason Muslims become violent is because of Islam and no other reason.

        In the case of my blog it describes another religion (environmentalism) conducting holy war (jihad) against mankind. Your request is duly noted, but declined.


      2. Your biased opinion is understandable due to the media playing a big part in our lives. I’m going to take a logical guess here and say you do not know Arabic.
        Jihad means to “strive/struggle”. In Islam, The Prophet said, “The greatest Jihad is to fight against ones immoral desires”

        ” ………. If they leave you alone, refrain from fighting you, and offer you peace, then God gives you no excuse to fight them” 4:90

        “If they resort to peace, so shall you, and put your trust in God. He is the Hearer, the Omniscient.” 8:61

        “do not aggress; God dislikes the aggressors.” 5:87

        “There shall be no compulsion in religion …” 2:256

        “You have your religion and I have mine” 109:6

        “Had your Lord willed, all the people on earth would have believed. Do you want to force the people to become believers?” 10:99

        “The expansion of the Arab Empire in the years following Prophet Muhammed’s death led to the creation of caliphates, occupying a vast geographical area and conversion to Islam was boosted by missionary activities particularly those of Sufis, who easily intermingled with local populace to propagate the religious teachings.” –

        Liked by 1 person

      3. Very interesting but not accurate. All of those verses you point to are abrogated by the verse of the sword. The violent texts where Mohammed lives in Medina and goes on his violent rampage with his Muslim army (jihad) are the texts that are considered valid.

        The peaceful verses of the Quran where Mohammed was living and preaching in Mecca are nullified in favor of the violent ones. You are either intentionally misrepresenting Islam or know nothing about your religion or your religion’s texts. Jihad is the highest calling in Islam and if you are attempting to make your religion into something it is not that is an act punishable by death.


Comments are closed.