Meet Professor Lisa Sachs – Watt?

from masterresource

Robert Bradley Jr.

“One-sided argument/advocacy instead of intellectual rigor is fraudulent and morally wrong. It expresses despair in a dark moment. Your climate course should be reorganized or terminated. At the very least, a new reading course is required.”

Lisa Sachs, director of the Columbia Center for Sustainable Investment and director of the Master of Climate Finance Program at the Columbia Climate Institute, recently wrote on social media:

As I hear increasingly incredible applicants and practitioners, the official launch of the Columbia Climate School is not exciting for the official launch of the new MS of Columbia Climate School.

I replied that climate finance produces net zero for investors, Sunni is the most recent example. She deleted the comments and sent me this personal exchange:

Rob, I haven't found any comments on my post that you're very helpful to anyone. If you want to discuss it at some point, I'm glad. I connect as a cooperative contact, but if it's just for posting, it's better not to connect.

My answer:

Hi Lisa. Have you deleted my comments on climate investments, resulting in “net zero” investors, and Sunnis are the latest example? The experience record is clear. But the bigger problem is intellectual diversity and the obvious need for climate finance programs to give fair speeches on climate science, carbon dioxide science, climate economics and energy policy. Cases against climate alerts and forced energy conversion are politically powerful. Net Zero (“immoral” doe head Chris Wright is dying for predictable reasons. So my question is: Is your master’s program sympathetic to these views or is it openly debated on campus about these issues? If not, why not?

No response. I asked her again:

Lisa: I hope to get a response. Is there no room in climate financing for different views on climate alerts and forced energy conversion?

She responded to the lawyer:

Our program focuses on providing students with tools to understand the risks, impacts and opportunities of climate financing – which is not a political standpoint, but a necessary basis for determining decision-making. There are extensive international agreements on the reality of climate change and transition, which also bring economic and energy benefits, including cost efficiency, stability and independence. We welcome a wide variety of perspectives and if you have a rigorous and constructive case, I would love to participate.

My answer:

DOE head Chris Wright attended the CERA meeting yesterday before thousands.

In your statement, there are many very high-level qualified persons who object to all of your seven assumptions:

“There are extensive international agreements on the reality of climate change and transition, which also bring economic and energy benefits, including cost efficiency, stability and independence.”

Are there any professors on campus who can make these arguments? Can a series of debates be held at Columbia Climate Schools about the benefits of CO2 enrichment and the fallacy of “energy transition”?

After no answer, I asked:

Have you any response to my previous communication? Are there no two aspects of the debate about climate alerts and forced energy conversion?

Again, there is no answer. For her, there is no debate on fundamental issues, just a “obvious” need for “climate investment” that is “sustainable” (my characteristic).

Earlier communication

Professor Sax posted two days ago:

Well, we are getting closer to a more coherent and honest conversation about climate finance and net zero…it takes time to deprive the level of chaos, chaos and misrepresentation over the past few years!

She then outlines five points, all of which assume that what is in the debate (climate alert) is falsely optimistic about the retreat area. (Did all this come from academic professors?)

1. “Net Zero” is a global greenhouse gas accounting concept – not a concept that can be atomized at the entity level. We must systematically reduce emissions from energy, transportation, industrial and land use, and then permanently delete and store any residual emissions….

2. This is not to say that transformation will not and will not happen – they must, must, and they will. Individual participants and financial institutions play an important role….

3. It is absolutely true that those who invest in the future will win in the future… Those with competence, leadership and insights into future investments will receive economic and diplomatic rewards; for now, this is clear to China….

4. Many important sectors (finance, energy, industry, transportation, etc.) respond decisively to (and in some ways depend on) policy frameworks…. In the United States and the European Union, this has led many sectors to invest in our destiny and bets with a sustainable future gambling way – because policy makers are doing the same.

5. But the energy transition is happening and shows unprecedented opportunities. Climate impacts are real and present huge risks. Leadership is possible. The truth helps. Policy and politics respond to powerful voices (for good or bad). Vision paid off.

My answer:

Your assumption is that carbon dioxide is a pollutant, and worse, net zero is a worthwhile goal. Maybe it's just the opposite! Do you allow debates about the Columbia Center? Students should hear voices from both sides, especially when the overlooked party wins business and politically.

Other critics joined:

David Brattain: “Banks are lowering their targets because Netzero is a loser. Climate cult is a loser, and the U.S. government is out of the fantasy funding business!”

Sax's allies questioned her belief in China:

Nicole Reynolds: “In China’s electricity market design, coal is still valued and continues to build coal factories and the commitment to decarbonize renewable energy… The nation always defends its own interests, so don’t pretend to be technological advances when China’s actions may well drive our past introduction points.”

Final Comment:

“The stricter and honestly map the transition pathways and challenges (actually), the more we can help shape the solutions,” said Lisa Sachs. “For those, it's a fair game.” Opposite view. Looking at the windows, reading the room, Lisa. Your naive view is wrong about climate government subsidies and climate bullying. The failed Podesta-Biden-Harris era is over. It's Trump's time, unleashing the best energy for taxpayer-neutral consumer choice.

Unilateral arguments/advocacy to replace intellectual rigor is fraudulent and morally wrong. In the dark moments, it expresses despair. Your climate course should be reorganized or terminated. At least a new reading course is needed, which is the subject of tomorrow’s post.

Related