In polite society, we are required to pretend that the Earth faces an existential crisis because of increasing levels of atmospheric CO2; that global warming will destroy the planet, that the oceans will rise and storms will batter the sea coasts; that fossil fuels are the devil’s spawn, and in a short time–by 2050, say–all civilized societies will have banned their use, and we will be living in a solar- and wind-powered Nirvana.
But does anyone over the age of 16 actually believe this nonsense? I doubt it. A case in point is Saudi Arabia’s sale of five percent of Aramco, the world’s largest oil company. The London Times reports:
Saudi Aramco has become the world’s first $2 trillion company as shares in the oil giant rose again on its second day of trading.
$2 trillion is the implied market value based on the revenue generated by selling five percent.
The valuation puts Aramco well ahead of the next biggest listed company, Apple, which became the world’s first $1 trillion company last year and is now worth about $1.2 trillion.
Saudi Aramco is the world’s biggest oil company and generated net income of $111 billion last year.
So the price to earnings ratio is around 18 to 1, which is about average in today’s booming stock market.
Analysts debate the $2 trillion valuation:
International analysts remained sceptical over its valuation. Bernstein Research, one of the few banks to publish research on Aramco, formally initiated coverage last night with an “underperform” rating, describing it as “too much, too soon”.
The analysts reiterated their belief that the company was worth only $1.36 trillion and “should trade at a discount rather than premium to international oil majors” given the corporate governance risks arising from the kingdom’s continued ownership of more than 98 per cent of the shares.
But the point is obvious: if investors seriously believed that the world is going to abandon fossil fuels, starting now and concluding circa 2050 (or whatever), they wouldn’t be interested in paying top dollar for Aramco shares. Or, perhaps, paying much of anything.
The Wall Street Journal’s liberal news operation comments on the Aramco IPO:
Can an oil-and-gas company count as a sustainable or ethical investment? In Saudi Aramco’s case, the obvious question of its carbon emissions may not even be the main problem for the increasing numbers of investors who focus on environmental, social and governance (ESG) criteria.
Aramco supplies one-eighth of the world’s oil and has sidelines in gas, chemicals and other petroleum products. These carbon-producing products are exactly what the world—except the U.S.—has committed to cut back on as part of the Paris accord.
Commitments aside, the U.S. has actually reduced its CO2 emissions more than any other country, as a result of fracking. But the point is that investors don’t seem to take the world’s “commitments” seriously.
Liberals pay lip service to global warming dogma, but they apparently don’t believe it, as they continue to live large, emitting massive quantities of CO2. Al Gore is a classic example, but his hypocrisy is the rule, not the exception. Greta Thunberg is similar, burning up vast quantities of fossil fuels as she travels around the world (by yacht, while multiple handlers fly) preaching the global warming dogma.
Another data point similar to the Aramco IPO is the price of coastal properties. Liberals allege that sea level is rising alarmingly–it isn’t, in fact–and you likely have seen images of the Statue of Liberty half-way under water.
If people actually believed these claims, prices of coastal properties would be plummeting. But the opposite is happening. Buyers apparently have no fear that their coastal homes and businesses will soon be under water, or that a decade or two from now global warming theory will have been confirmed so that they won’t be able to sell their properties. Thus, we saw Barack and Michelle Obama pay $15 million for an estate on Martha’s Vineyard, just feet above sea level. Do as I say, not as I do.
In short, liberals have browbeaten most people into pretending to believe in their unscientific global warming ideology. But, as the crude adage holds: Money talks, bulls**t walks. I will give the last word to today’s paper of record, the Babylon Bee:
Poll Finds Most People Would Rather Be Annihilated By Giant Tidal Wave Than Continue To Be Lectured By Climate Change Activists https://t.co/IzjWOXoVEc
— The Babylon Bee (@TheBabylonBee) December 12, 2019
UPDATE: A reader sends a Dilbert cartoon to accompany this post:
All too true.