The Guardian breathlessly peddles an “internal BHP memo”, as if there were such things as external memos, that reveals that a major mining firm has bailed on its pompous decarbonization plans. The difficulty, once again, is that promises of grand achievements decades from now were easy to make but are suddenly looking hard to achieve when the deadline is years away, and it’s easier, albeit awkward, to climb down. And it’s not just BHP. Bloomberg Green reports that “Burberry Group Plc postponed its goal of cutting emissions to net zero by a decade to 2050, in a setback for the British luxury brand’s bid to become an industry leader in sustainability.” A more realistic view would be that it’s a setback for Net Zero that even the most woke of firms are backpedaling frantically from commitments they now realize were wildly unrealistic. And it’s not just companies. Canary Media laments (the email subject line) that “Climate goals die in New York”. While Bloomberg Green also reports, remarkably, that the Bezos Earth Fund, which had promised to blow $10 billion on whatever would fix the weather by 2030, has only managed to allocate $2.8 billion. The problem? Finding things that are actually worthwhile.

The problem is not that, as Canary Media claimed regarding New York, the goals have died. What has died is a belief that the proposed methods can work, and increasingly that other methods are available that will. Which is a situation hard to grasp for those who believe that good intentions can move mountains.

Even those doing it seem a bit baffled. As the Burberry story continues:

“The company, known for its tartan scarves and garbardine trenchcoats, said it shelved an original net zero target of 2040 due to a more detailed understanding of its supply chain and the plans of industry rivals. The new timeline puts it in line with peers in the sector like Kering SA and LVMH. ‘We believe our revised targets reflect a pragmatic response to external factors, while allowing us to maintain a level of ambition in line with our assessment of climate change as a principal risk facing our business,’ Burberry wrote in its 2025-2026 annual report published Thursday.”

Which arguably constitutes bafflegab, declaring continued ambition while admitting to reduced ambition. But also the revealing admission that “peers in the sector” aren’t moving faster and it would not be a competitive advantage to do so given a “more detailed understanding” of its supply chain. You mean you only just learned what’s in your supply chain? Like stuff is made with hydrocarbon energy and not infrequently from hydrocarbons including those trenchcoats that retail for a mind-boggling CAD$3,350?

As for the public sector, it’s always a bit amusing to see people who had put their faith in politicians realize what a bad bet it was. And Canary Media is bitter about the Empire State:

“Seven years ago, New York passed what leaders touted as one of the nation’s most ambitious climate laws. Now, the state has kneecapped it ahead of a crucial end-of-decade deadline. On Tuesday, the Democratic-controlled legislature approved a budget bill that effectively vaporizes a 2030 mandate to slash planet-warming emissions by 40% from 1990 levels. Instead, the new legislation says, New York should aim for 60% by 2040 – but the target should be pursued only ‘to the maximum extent [that it’s] feasible and cost effective.’ The measure also alters how New York calculates the global warming impact of methane, which will align its methodology with that of most other states but deemphasize the potent greenhouse gas’s near-term effects on the planet. And New York will no longer account for emissions from importing fossil fuels into the state. The new calculus – which has drawn criticism from climate scientists – will make it look like New York has accomplished greater emissions reductions than it has.”

And yes, the latter is unquestionably jiggery-pokery. But if you really didn’t know politicians fib, even ones doing things you like, you should not be allowed to go to the store by yourself let alone the voting booth. (China has just pulled a massive trick in this regard; don’t look for it in the MSM though.)

We also find “kneecapped” and “vaporizes” harsh. Although possibly Canary Media thinks “feasible” and “cost effective” are even worse words. And then there are the scientists who say. But what there isn’t is a recognition that Gov. Kathy Hochul and her Democratic colleagues have not suddenly put on MAGA hats and had rocks transplanted into their chests in place of hearts. They still care as much as they ever did. But reality is coming for them.

Not Canary, which still thinks it’s all in the mind:

“That has frustrated advocates who say clean energy is actually a tool to improve affordability and quality of life.”

But at some point you have to stop saying it and start demonstrating it if you have to meet a payroll or, say, face voters concerned about that there affordability. And of course New York, like many other jurisdictions that plunged in from sincere and passionate conviction, has demonstrated the reverse and it’s about to bite them right in the ballot box.

Heatmap was also appalled, shocked and indignant that Hochul admitted “‘We cannot meet the current timelines without driving energy costs higher.’” But reality shmeality:

“Local environmental groups were widely critical of the deal, with New York Renews calling it a ‘major blow for New Yorkers and for the country’ that would set ‘a dangerous precedent,’ and Environmental Advocates NY deeming the rollbacks ‘bad politics and bad policy.’… Hochul’s budget deal doesn’t change the renewable electricity targets or the overall trajectory of the original law. Instead, it delays the regulations that would make the economy-wide emissions reductions possible to achieve.”

No. The whole point is that they were not possible to achieve.

Then there’s the explanation from the Bezos Earth Fund that um this game is hard:

“In interviews and statements, Earth Fund executives reaffirmed their plan to spend $10 billion by the end of the decade. ‘Many of our strategies remain the same,’ a spokesperson said, citing a range of existing efforts to transform food systems and protect 30% of land and sea, as well as newer programs in sustainable fashion and AI.”

Yay us! Everything from food to sustainable fashion. We’re the best. But uh:

“‘We take the time before getting into an area to understand it and make sure we’re having the greatest impact that we possibly can,’ said Kelly Levin, chief of science, data and systems change at Bezos Earth Fund. ‘Are we supporting the right organizations at the right time? Can we measure the impacts in terms of the benefits to nature and the climate?’”

Note the last bit. Not just the question of whether there are benefits but the vexing, if detail-oriented question, of whether we can measure them. By no means a mean-spirited, or soft-headed, thing to be considering before handing out billions of dollars, especially given the strange accounting of politicians and carbon credits. The Bloomberg writer seems to take the never mind if it works, just spend attitude, worthy in a 1950s Soviet planner but a bit behind the times.

Companies are having a similar experience with practical difficulties. Thus there’s a strange sense of déjà vu about part of the Guardian BHP story:

“In the middle of 2019, London was sweltering through a heatwave. Temperature records tumbled. Frail, ill and elderly people died in their hundreds. In a city not built for heat, trains were brought to a halt. Railway lines threatened to buckle and sagging power lines caused spot fires along the tracks. Across the channel, Belgium, the Netherlands and Germany also hit record temperatures.”

If you read the Guardian today, you’ll have the impression that London is sweltering through a heatwave, temperature records are tumbling, the elderly are dying in droves, trains are melting and so forth while Europe recooks. But here’s the interesting bit:

“During the hottest week in late July, the then global chief executive of one of the world’s worst polluters was preparing to take the stage at a high-profile London event. BHP’s Andrew Mackenzie stood before a collection of Britain’s most powerful – lords, MPs and diplomats – and gave a climate speech that made the world take notice. Mackenzie warned that the world’s dependence on fossil fuels was causing risks that ‘could be existential’. Global heating was indisputable, he said, and would have catastrophic consequences.”

No, wait. That bit is boring too. How many business executives have loudly proclaimed their devotion to the climate cult that wants their firms and industries destroyed, only to learn that making enemies of friends does not make friends of enemies? Or that, as Charlie Chan once put it, making bedfellow of serpent no protection against snakebite.

So here’s the really interesting bit. Following Mackenzie’s speech BHP:

“pledged to reduce emissions from its operations, largely from energy and diesel use at its mines, by 30% by 2030 and had already set a goal to reach net zero emissions by 2050. It also sought to curtail indirect emissions – from the use of its iron ore and coal by others – which at that stage were the equivalent of pollution from roughly 126m cars.”

Evidently it didn’t work. Mackenzie moved on and so did BHP. In the usual modern bafflegab favoured by politicians and many large organizations, a May 2025 memo about the company’s plans to decarbonize its Australian operations said hang on, we’re nuts. Or rather, it said the urgency to source renewable energy had “diminished” and that it’s 2025 Net Zero plans for Pilbara featured “low probability of success”. So send more euphemisms:

“To preserve optionality … alternate pathway decisions have been preserved and will continue to be assessed.”

If they were trying to keep the memo secret because nobody wants it known that they talk in this manner, we sympathize. But if they did it because they wanted to keep pretending and keep their shirts, we don’t. It was a big deal when they said they could and would do it, so it’s important if they’ve realized they can’t.

Instead, and again this part we can understand their not wanting to publicize, they had three scenarios. One was to delay this nonsense for seven years, to 2035. Another was to delay it until 2040. Which carried the risk of losing a big government subsidy, not really how you want companies making major decisions. The third was to do nothing, which was flagged as carrying “reputational risk”. Aka we might look like finks. Which is how you say it in English.

There is also the risk that you might look like cowards. As the story continues:

“In a statement to the Guardian, BHP said it has already made huge strides in reducing emissions by 36% from 2020 levels by 2025, and pointed to analysis suggesting it is the second best performer on emission reductions among Australia’s largest listed industrial companies. It blamed the slowdown on progress towards its net zero goal on the lack of availability of battery-electric trucks, something it says no Australian miner is currently using because ‘the technology is not advanced enough to scale to an operational fleet’.”

Why not say we’re not doing it because the dang tech doesn’t work? Why not say there is no climate crisis? Because this isn’t winning them any friends.

The Guardian quotes one “climate policy expert” that it reveals the weakness of what the paper calls “one of the Australian government’s flagship climate policies, the safeguard mechanism”, and that:

“We are miles away from where we need to be... We’re literally wasting time. If anyone was mildly serious about climate change, they would be hitting the panic button.”

The problem, of course, is that everyone has been hitting the panic button for decades. And it went “Awooga! Awooga! Awooga!” but didn’t do anything about the fact that burning reliable fuels releases CO2 and not burning them leaves you in the economic dumpster.

BHP has apparently realized it’s true. But not that it should say so because acting on it while pretending you’re not and it isn’t makes you like a fink, a dunce or both.