In What Are Building Societies For? I took aim at my local building society (the Cumberland) for its ongoing campaign to persuade customers to sign up to the Cogo app. The aim was to persuade customers to allow a third party organisation (Cogo) to have access to their accounts in order to assess their spending patterns:
The app highlights ways for you to improve and compensate for your climate change impact by using Open Banking to view your bank transactions and access real-time information about your carbon footprint, enabling you to become a more conscious consumer.
I was annoyed about this, because I didn’t think that small and local building societies should be embarking on a campaign to inveigle its customers into such political behaviour. Even more importantly, I didn’t think they should be doing anything which might increase the risk (however slightly) of their financial information being misused or their accounts being hacked.
It seems that this behaviour on the part of the Cumberland’s board of directors was not a one-off. Today I received the papers for its annual general meeting, and this included a special resolution to amend its Memorandum and Rules, so as to allow the society to apply for B Corporation certification. Members were told that “a B Corp is an organisation which has been verified by B Lab, a global nonprofit network, to meet high standards of social and environmental performance, transparency and accountability.”
Furthermore:
To become certified an organisation is required to demonstrate high social and environmental performance; make a legal commitment by changing the corporate governance structure to ensure that it is accountable to all stakeholders; and exhibit transparency by allowing information about its performance to be measured against B Lab’s standards.
I was none too happy about this development either. Why on earth would the society’s board take it upon itself to allow a third party organisation, accountable to nobody, to sit in judgement on its activities? Worse, why would it invite its members to agree to amend its constitution to allow this external interference to take place? So far as I am concerned, I expect the board of directors to behave in an ethical way, to act in the best interests of its employees and members, and I expect it to comply with the laws of the UK, as an organisation operating in England and Scotland. I also expect its activities to be supervised by the Financial Conduct Authority, and by any other governmental or regulatory authorities in the UK with the remit to ensure it complies with the law and all financial regulations governing its activities. But that’s it.
Anyway, who/what on earth is B Lab? After all, the Cumberland Building Society AGM papers enlighten us no further than telling us that it is “a global nonprofit network”. To my mind this is inadequate information to supply to members when inviting them to agree to such a far-reaching step as the amendment of the organisation’s constitution in this way. And so I went in search of the information that should have been supplied by the Cumberland’s board of directors. I tracked down its website, and particularly its “about” page which tells us that it is a US-based charity (or nonprofit organisation):
We began in 2006 with the idea that a different kind of economy was not only possible, but necessary — and that business could lead the way towards a new, stakeholder-driven model. B Lab became known for certifying B Corporations, which are companies that meet high standards of social and environmental performance, accountability, and transparency.
But we do much more than that. We’re building the B Corp movement to change our economic system — and to do so, we must change the rules of the game. B Lab creates standards, policies, tools, and programs that shift the behavior, culture, and structural underpinnings of capitalism. We mobilize the B Corp community towards collective action to address society’s most critical challenges.
By harnessing the power of business, B Lab positively impacts companies around the world, helping them balance profit with purpose. Together, we are shifting our global economy from a system that profits few to one that benefits all: advancing a new model that moves from concentrating wealth and power to ensuring equity, from extraction to generation, and from prioritizing individualism to embracing interdependence.
We won’t stop until all business is a force for good.
Which is all well and good, and I suppose I’m vaguely on board with that, but how dare the Cumberland Building Society’s board of directors think that its constitution should be amended so that these values are imposed on its members? By the way, the board knows that the special resolution will be passed, since it achieves approval levels at AGMs that would make Putin and Kim Jong Un envious. Its membership is usually harangued on attendance in-branch in the run-up to the AGM by put-upon staff to let them deal with the AGM paperwork by putting a X in the box that appoints the board’s nominee as proxy to vote on all of the resolutions. I wonder if this behaviour complies with B Lab’s standards? But I digress.
Elsewhere on B Lab’s website we find this:
As the climate crisis intensifies and societal inequality grows, the need to bring about systemic change is clear. That’s why B Lab has strengthened its standards for business impact, equipping companies to drive meaningful, sustainable change….
…B Lab’s new standards require businesses to take meaningful action across key social, environmental, and governance Impact Topic areas….
Again, I don’t think this sort of political stance is remotely something that a small regional UK building society should be involving itself with. Worse still for a self-confessed climate sceptic, is this:
…the new Climate Action Impact Topic requires larger companies to set science-based targets for their Scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions… To set credible science-based targets and ensure claims are accurate, companies must have their GHG inventories verified by an accredited third party. Additionally, their targets must be validated by the Science-Based Targets Initiative or verified by an independent third party.
Acting on climate change is not just an environmental imperative—it’s also becoming a business necessity. Given the urgency of the climate crisis, it’s crucial for smaller companies (Small and Medium Enterprises – SMEs) to take action now, rather than delaying efforts in the pursuit of perfecting emissions measurement. Measuring GHG emissions can be particularly resource-intensive for smaller companies. These businesses may also face the risk of greenwashing if they set targets without relying on accurate and verified emissions data.
Therefore, this Impact Topic emphasizes action and requires smaller companies to have a climate action plan with measurable targets that don’t rely on GHG measurements but still demonstrate their commitment to the Paris Agreement. The key expectation is that companies demonstrate real, tangible actions and track their progress, without necessarily needing perfect GHG data. Likely focus areas for smaller companies include business travel, purchased goods/services, and transportation….
…Additionally, SMEs are required to publicly share their climate action plans and progress, ensuring their efforts are credible and accountable to stakeholders….
B Lab’s 2023 Annual Global Report tells us that it “helps rewrite the rules of the game. In 2023, our community mobilized to advocate for policies aligned with our social, environmental, and governance standards in…” various countries around the world, including the UK. It brags about “Nudging Behavior Change, Turning Climate Awareness into Action”.
We also find overlap with my research in Avarice in Funderland when it comes to finding out who funds B Lab. The biggest donor (in 2023) was Reid Hoffman, the founder of LinkedIn. He was followed by, inter alia, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation; Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (a search of its website brings up 45 separate articles referencing climate change); Porticus (“our climate is no longer ‘changing’, it’s a full-blown emergency.”); the Rockefeller Foundation, and many, many more.
Its 2024 Global Annual Report includes information like this:
In December 2024, B Lab U.S. & Canada celebrated a major policy win with the passage of New York’s Climate Change Superfund Act—a groundbreaking law that will hold major polluters financially responsible for the cost of climate damage. As part of the New York Businesses for Climate Justice coalition, B Corps across the state helped push for this legislation, which is projected to raise $75 billion over 25 years from the largest oil and gas companies. The funds will support infrastructure upgrades to enhance New York’s climate resilience, including stormwater and sewage systems and grid modernization. The success of this work in New York has also inspired work in 2025 on a similar bill in California.
I may be alone among the members of the Cumberland Building Society in not being happy about this, or others might be unhappy too, if they knew what it was all about. But they don’t, because the information supplied by the board was limited, to say the least. And I’m angry about that. Needless to say, I have voted against the proposed rule change and I have also voted against all the directors, for having the audacity to propose this nonsense to its membership. I want directors who are interested in the day job rather than in saving the planet.
As I asked, rather plaintively, at the end of my earlier article about the shenanigans at the Cumberland Building Society:
Remind me. What are building societies for?
Climate Scepticism 
Mark, I am sorry that matters have come to this. But is it time to move your funds elsewhere as, sadly, it seems the Cumberland has been captured (and is not going to be released any time soon)?
If you conclude that you would like to move your funds elsewhere, are there (m)any alternative uncaptured building societies that you could choose?
Regards, John C.
LikeLike
It’s a dilemma, John. There are other building societies where I could put my money, but the Cumberland BS has two advantages – first, it provides a current account facility, which not all building societies do; second, it has a wide network of branches, with no plans to close them so far as I am aware. It is now the only financial institution with a branch left open in my small market town (the last bank – Barclays – closed its branch here in April).
Basically, the board knows it can act with impunity, due to apathy on the part of its members (as regards what it gets up to), and members who know they have nowhere else to go. For instance, anyone living where I do would probably face a 50 or 60 mile round trip to utilise the facilities of a branch operated by any other financial institution, and even then there’s no guarantee that any such branch won’t close before too long.
LikeLike
Cumberland Building Society is a small and localised financial institution, serving the needs of small towns in rural areas. Some of the branches are located in very picturesque places like Keswick and Ambleside. But others are in places like Whitehaven and Maryport, where the town centres have seen better times. Either way, CBS is serving those communities. To continue to do so requires keeping head office overhead as low as possible. Taking on B Lab will do the opposite.
We should ask what are the marginal benefits to climate of taking on B Lab and what are the marginal costs to the organisation.
I could put some numbers down to show that the marginal impact on global warming is insignificantly small. Instead I will ask what will be the marginal difference an organisation of less than 800 people and emitting less than 200 tCO2e make in a country of over 57,000,000 and emitting 385,000,000 tCO2e? That is the marginal impact on top of the already substantial efforts of central and local governments.
The real reasons for taking on B Lab are to stop CBS being outed as a climate-denying organisation. Avoiding the manure of ideological activism justifies the costs.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Kevin, I suspect that “Avoiding the manure of ideological activism justifies the costs” has been a short- to medium-term motivator for many organisations when confronted by the many-headed Green Blob. However, as is increasingly apparent, the long-term costs are often far higher than a few piles of manure – sometimes existential.
So will they fight or will they die? The future of several Western societies depends upon the answers. Regards, John C.
LikeLike
Mark,
I’m so glad that I am a retired dinosaur now. With my quality control / health and safety / security management / environmental management / auditor’s hat on, I’m sure my employer would have turned to me to oversee the introduction of all of this corporate governance nonsense. And that’s before we get started with preferred pronouns…
LikeLike
The comments here are reflective of my own perplexity at this bizarre move by the Cumberland Building Society. Financial organisations, such as a building society, are – rightly – already highly regulated. As a mutual society, many of the sorts of things that B Lab requires of organisations that aspire to B Corp status, should already be part of the Society’s DNA.
That being the case, why would you impose additional obligations on your organisation, for no obvious benefit? Kevin Marshall (aka Manic) speculates that avoiding the manure of ideological activism justifies the costs, but John C mentions the long-term costs, while John R points out that the task of implementation will be delegated to some poor sod like him (or like me in my former life – I share John R’s happiness at being retired, safe from all this nonsense).
I still can’t understand what has happened to the Cumberland Building Society board. I put the earlier fling with Cogo down to being an aberration, but this latest development suggests that the problem is deep-seated within an activist board which I regard as being ill-suited to an organisation of this type.
The CEO is a Non-Executive Director at North Cumbria Integrated Care NHS Foundation Trust – has some public sector dogma infected his thinking? The current Chair holds positions with two universities, and is quoted on the Society’s website as saying:
…The Cumberland’s central purpose is to ‘create a banking experience that’s kinder to people and the planet’.
Central purpose? Really?
The Senior Independent (non-executive) Director is Anna Barsby. She is the founder and Managing Partner of, Tessiant. Her activities there are suggestive:
https://tessiant.com/tessiants-journey-to-becoming-socially-responsible-sustainable/
...BCORP Status – we are currently working towards qualifying to becoming a certified B Corporation (BCORP). This way we can be recognised for our commitment but also ensure continuous focus on considering the impact of our decisions and operations upon workers, clients, associates, partners, competitors, community and the environment….
Is that where all this has come from?
LikeLiked by 1 person
John,
The ability to fight depends on having the tools to fight with. Getting a more shouty movement than climate alarmists is not possible, and any way not conducive to getting a better future.
My thrust is to recognise that our collective power to change things is limited. For instance, those who want to achieve net zero do not rule the world, just a small, often insignificant part of it. So the global 1.5C target will never be achieved. However, they have the power to impose useless and harmful policies on some people. So, regardless of the climate problem, the best course of action, if you value humanity, is to get rid of the useless and harmful policies.
Even if climate mitigation policies would work, there is still a positive role in getting the most effective policies for the least amount of cost. But that means saying no to a lot of pet projects and managing others with a firm financial hand, along with the drive to get things done.
But what is the role of climate scientists? If meaningful climate mitigation is not possible, they should help with climate adaptation. That is to identify, with the greatest degree of accuracy possible, the timing, place and magnitude of the coming disasters. Furthermore, they should submit their findings to critical cross-examination. The greatest role as genuine experts in their field, is to out highly speculative nonsense as such. Lenton et al 2008 “Tipping elements in the Earth’s climate system” would be a good research example of speculative nonsense.
Of course there will be opposition, but for the intellectually curious climatologists there is the opportunity to achieve real understanding of the climate. For policy-makers there are opportunities to make governments better serve the needs of the people, rather than slavishly follow ideologies. For economists, there are opportunities to inform about the limits of our collective power to achieve what is desired, whilst showing that people left largely to their own devices can adapt to changing conditions.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thanks for sharing this Mark.
It prompted me to have a look at Rathbones Group website where I have retirement funds invested (was with Investec Wealth & Investment but Rathbones have now taken them over).
You can guess what I found – Our environmental impact | Rathbones will not bore readers, so a shortish relevant NZ quote –
“Our net zero commitment Rathbones Group Commitment
In July 2021, the group announced its intention to be a net zero emissions business by 2050 or sooner. This ambition aligns with the need to limit warming to no higher than 1.5oC above pre-industrial levels. Using 2020 as our baseline year, and having undertaken a full emissions inventory, we used the Science-Based Targets initiative (SBTi) methodology to set our operational and investment targets. Our near-term targets were validated by SBTi in October 2022. To deliver on our commitment we need to reduce emissions across our business, including the investments we make on behalf of our clients.
Whilst our commitment to becoming a net zero business by 2050 or sooner includes both our direct operations and our investments, we recognise that the majority of our greenhouse gas emissions and other climate-related risks are focused on the investments we hold. However, reducing our operational footprint remains a core focus for the business.
Our SBTi validated target is to reduce our scope 1 and 2 emissions by 42% by 2030, from a 2020 base. We believe that the investment in digitising our business and completing the transition of our offices to renewable energy sources by the end of 2025 will help us to meet our 2025 internal target of a 21% reduction across our scope 1 and 2, and scope 3 emissions (excluding investments).#
Our near-term target for our Scope 3, category 15 emissions, commits 35% of our listed equity and bonds holding, by invested value, to committing to or setting SBTi aligned targets by 2025, 57% by 2030, and 100% by 2040. Achieving 100% portfolio coverage by 2040 is the SBTi requirement. This allows 10 years for companies to deliver on their net zero commitments.”
“This allows 10 years for companies to deliver on their net zero commitments.” – how magnanimous.
LikeLike
I should stress that there is more to becoming a “B Corp” than simply adopting net zero-type policies, but the focus on climate change is the part I chose to highlight. It also strikes me as strange that the Cumberland Building Society has chosen this moment to go down a road that is being largely abandoned globally – Carney’s GFANZ seemingly going into reverse just now.
LikeLike
Mark, as you point out (e.g. GFANZ) this route is apparently going into reverse at the highest levels in the West, and most of the rest of the non-Western world is not interested in such matters anyway. So why is B Corp trying to “lead the way towards a new, stakeholder-driven model” that is being abandoned or was never adopted in the first place?
I have a feeling – which is, I hope, misplaced – that this stakeholder-driven model is a variant of Orwell’s ‘Animal Farm’ where all stakeholders are equal … but some stakeholders will be more equal than other stakeholders. [I must confess, though, that this is my sentiment about much of the Green Blob generally.] Regards, John C.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Kevin, you have made a number of very interesting points. Let me comment upon a couple:-
a) Regarding the concept of democracy, you wrote, “For policy-makers there are opportunities to make governments better serve the needs of the people, rather than slavishly follow ideologies.” While that is true in principle, I fear that, in much of the West, the democratic process has been reversed.
The naive/ideal democratic principle that I grew up with was that the people elect their representatives to do the people’s bidding, albeit with due consideration for minority interests. I fear that ‘woke’ ideology has helped to invert that process so that minority interests are of primary concern to many politicians because the latter have (at least until recently) been able to rely upon the support of their core demographic voters. In this way majority interests are now often largely ignored or even denigrated. Thus we are still, in principle, representative democracies. However, who our representatives represent is much less obvious than it was, say, a generation ago.
b) Regarding the role of climate scientists, you wrote, “Furthermore, they should submit their findings to critical cross-examination.” I absolutely agree. Too much motivated reasoning emanating from climate scientists has, over the decades, been passed into the public domain without adequate scrutiny by other scientists, the press/media and then swallowed unquestioningly by Western politicians.
In summary, we in the West are in a bad place, largely of our own making. Fortunately, I think the situation would be much improved if we could (i) revert to the traditional ways of democracy and (ii) we ensured that the climate science community is (at last!) subjected to rigorous challenge as per the traditional scientific method. Unfortunately, there are many vested interests standing in our way: battle has been joined (now that the public is at last beginning to comprehend the issues), but the battle will probably be long given the breadth and depth of the forces ranged against us [although, IIRC, Robin has pointed out elsewhere on Cliscep that a fairly rapid collapse of the Blob is possible in some scenarios]. Regards, John C.
LikeLiked by 1 person
John @ 03 Jul 25 at 8:55 am
I see that we are thinking along similar lines. I would like to flesh out a little more of my developing thinking.
The ‘woke’ ideologies are not just pushing minority opinions onto everybody else. Rather, they are belief narratives. All evidence is filtered through those beliefs. The climate narrative is that humans (or a group of them) are responsible for worsening global climate conditions that can be solved by cutting emissions.
By pushing a narrative, they ignore the problem of underdetermination. That is the available evidence can support any number of alternative conjectures / hypotheses.
Climate alarmists also ignore the obvious fact that they do not control the whole world. So whilst UK emissions are falling in line with the 1.5C pathway, global emissions are still rising, making UK net zero policies useless from a climate perspective.
There is also the problem of adverse consequences. UK net zero policies are extremely costly and will make life harder for most people.
Finally, I believe that the traditional scientific method – that is, disproving the null hypothesis – should be applied to policy. The null hypothesis is that policy will make no significant difference. For instance, according to the IPCC AR6 WG3, “historical cumulative net CO2 emissions from 1850 to 2019 were 2400 ± 240 GtCO2” at the 68% confidence interval. At the 95% confidence interval the uncertainty is doubled. (& how a confidence interval of 10% of the mean value arrived at?)
For a 50% chance of constraining warming to a 1.5C temperature rise by 2100 emissions need to be 320 GTCO2 (-110 to +250 range).
The difference between the UK having (a) constant emissions 2020-2100 and following the 1.5C pathway is about 3 GTCO2. So orders of magnitude below making any significant difference to climate.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Kevin, thank you for mentioning in the same posting both the importance of narratives and the problem of causal underdetermination. You have stimulated me to take up these issues … but it will take me some time to assemble my arguments. So I will be back with a proper posting, but it may take me a few days. Regards, John C.
LikeLike
Kevin (at 04 Jul 25 at 3:12 pm), when discussing the importance of narratives here on the Cliscep site we should probably first refer to our own Andy West’s work in his “The Grip of Culture” [Ref. 1]. In a work of well over 430 pages he mentions ‘narrative’ over 450 times.
Andy writes at page xii, “I was by then quite familiar with the power of cultures; given enough latitude they can overwhelm reality in the public consciousness, and their grip can subtly extend into organisations of all kinds before anyone notices their fundamental irrationality.” At page xiv he continues, “Unless anyone can think of a better explanation, the measurements (now greatly expanded for this book) do indeed robustly confirm a culture of climate catastrophism across global publics.”
Thus Andy’s work shows the huge (and sometimes overwhelming ) influence that cultures and their associated narratives can have on societies. It is notable that, in the context of climate, the narrative of catastrophism has overwhelmed large sections of the Western world (especially media and governments) but, fortunately for them, societies less closely linked to the West are largely free of such tunnel vision.
I propose to take what I think is a different but complementary view to Andy’s which will be based upon bureaucracies because so much of human activity is directed by organisations that have some form of internal structure (e.g. hierarchy) and which may reasonably be called bureaucracies. Specifically, I am concerned with (i) how they may operate internally, and (ii) how they may interact with other actors in the public (especially political) arena. I will start with the latter:-
The Iron Triangle of Bureaucratic Operation
I have previously mentioned this mechanism elsewhere on Cliscep but it bears repeating in this context where, in the UK, in addition to our continuing CCA/NZ challenges, we have just passed through the majority of the Covid event.
The Iron Triangle is a well-known phenomenon related to policy making. It is shown in diagram form in [Ref. 2] and is described in written form by Endress in [Ref. 3]. It is worth quoting at length from the latter. After describing the first- and second-best levels of policy making, Endress continues:-
“Third-best is the world of political economy, wherein costs and benefits directly influence the formation of coalitions that compete for political and economic advantage in society. The pursuit of such advantage is called “rent-seeking” in economics and typically involves activities such as lobbying, public relations campaigns, political contributions, and, sometimes, outright bribery. Unfortunately, the expansion of government that accompanies intervention on second-best grounds can facilitate rent-seeking at the third-best level … A particularly powerful type of rent-seeking coalition, long studied in political science, is termed “the iron triangle” because of the strength of the collaborative relationships among a triad of actors: politicians who seek campaign contributions, votes and reelection; government bureaucrats who aspire to expand fiefdoms and budgets; and private sector interest groups who seek special privileges in the form of political access, favourable legislation, subsidies, protection of monopoly positions, and lucrative government contracts. The iron triangle is durable and impenetrable because it functions as a highly efficient, three-cornered, rent-seeking machine.
Nowhere (except perhaps in healthcare) do third-best politics sink first-best and second-best economic considerations as deeply as in the realm of energy policy. In assessing energy policy in Europe and the United States, Helm (2012) is especially critical of policymakers’ obsession with current technology renewable energy, which is not yet commercially viable without government subsidies and mandates … Consequently, renewables have remained ineffective in lowering energy prices, creating green jobs, and reducing carbon emissions worldwide. The result is high costs for little gain. In a review of Helm’s book, “The Carbon Crunch,” The Economist … highlights Helm’s observation that the entire renewable sector has become an “orgy of rent-seeking.” This outcome is not compatible with the sustainability criterion.” End of Endress quote.
I find it telling but not surprising (given the importance of these topics to humanity) that Endress is here describing (a) not the best approach to governance but the third best form, and (b) he has noted that energy and health policies are particularly susceptible to influence under the lower standards of governance.
The Iron Law of Oligarchy [Ref. 4]
Given that the Iron Law of Oligarchy was proposed by Robert Michels well over a hundred years ago I am somewhat surprised that it is not known much more widely given its potential for explaining much of the behaviour of some bureaucracies over the years, and in particular those behaviours that favour outcomes which are very different from those originally sought.
Ref. 4 states that the Iron Law of Oligarchy “asserts that rule by an elite, or oligarchy, is inevitable as an “iron law” within any democratic organization as part of the “tactical and technical necessities” of the organization … [A]ll complex organizations, regardless of how democratic they are when started, eventually develop into oligarchies. Michels observed that since no sufficiently large and complex organization can function purely as a direct democracy, power within an organization will always get delegated to individuals within that group, elected or otherwise. As he put it in Political Parties, “It is organization which gives dominion of the elected over the electors. […] Who says organization, says oligarchy.” … Far from being servants of the masses, Michels argues, this leadership class, rather than the organization’s membership, will inevitably grow to dominate the organization’s power structures.”.
Ref. 4 also describes the possible implications of the Iron Law in these terms, “The “iron law of oligarchy” states that all forms of organization, regardless of how democratic they may be at the start, will eventually and inevitably develop oligarchic tendencies, thus making true democracy practically and theoretically impossible, especially in large groups and complex organizations. The relative structural fluidity in a small-scale democracy succumbs to “social viscosity” in a large-scale organization. According to the “iron law”, democracy and large-scale organization are incompatible.”
Taken together, the Iron Triangle and the Iron Law form a potentially very powerful disruption to the correct operation of bureaucracies as conceived by their creators. In the extreme, those bureaucracies could, in principle, be completely redirected from their original purposes. To what extent has complete redirection or misdirection taken place in reality?
Effects in the Real World?
It is interesting, but somewhat depressing, to speculate as to what effects the Iron Triangle and the Iron Law may have had – and may still be having – on our lives today. For example, if catastrophist narratives influenced the oligarchies operating within large swathes of Western governments and their quangos, plus within major media organisations, major businesses and charities then, to consider just two thought experiments, some of the following perverse outcomes might occur:-
Suppose a major bird protection charity starts to believe that current renewables technology must be adopted in order “to save the planet” then perhaps the charity (i) would promote farms of solar panels where wildfowl would mistake them for water surfaces, and (ii) would advocate the erection of wind turbines in areas where these turbines could, throughout the life of the wind farm, mince up large numbers of birds, bats and insects.
Or suppose that governments, their public health agencies and large pharmaceutical companies collectively came to believe that a deadly pandemic was in progress and from which the only escape would be the rapid development of a “safe and effective” vaccine. In such an instance perhaps the vaccine’s safety might be inadequately tested due to the rapid development timescale required in order to release the population from repeated pandemic lockdowns. What then would be the medical effects of the premature application of a potentially unsafe vaccine?
Correcting Narratives and Improving Governance
The Iron Triangle model suggests that moving to a ‘first best’ model of governance would improve matters for the populace (i.e. moving away from a semi-failed state model back towards competent government), while the Iron Law suggests that continual vigilance (followed, where necessary, by corrective action) of major national and international organisations (and treaties with them!) would help to avoid countries being suborned internally and compromised internationally. However, many vested interests will oppose such improvements; group-think, tunnel vision and motivated reasoning are the dependable allies of vested interests.
In an era of 24-hour news (which, in the absence of severe censorship, will likely continue indefinitely) then avoiding panicked, snap decisions at senior levels, although very difficult, may lead to better long-term outcomes.
However, looking back at British history over decades the list of state failures is long; the Establishment has protected (and is protecting) itself at every turn. Thus the sine qua non of better governance in the British context is probably the election of a government that sees itself primarily as serving the electorate, probably through root and branch reform, rather than serving those unelected and anti-democratic forces which, for far too long, seem to have inhabited the corridors of power.
Causal Underdetermination
Thus far I have not addressed in this note the issue of the fundamental scientific causal underdetermination which you raised, Kevin. As this note has been concerned primarily with the possible misdirection of the efforts of Western organisations (both within and without nation states) I will not here switch horses to discuss in detail the very different but very relevant issue of underdetermination.
For now it is sufficient to note that the narrative adopted by many Western states, namely that of dangerously rising temperatures driven mainly or exclusively by unabated CO2 emissions, gravely hobbles the economies of those nations which try, at all costs, to mitigate any such climate change, while harming not at all those nations which reject (and perhaps even laugh at) the catastrophist CO2 narrative.
References
Regards, John Cullen.
LikeLiked by 3 people
“HSBC becomes first UK bank to quit industry’s net zero alliance
Campaigners condemn ‘troubling’ move that follows departure of six of largest US banks after Trump’s election”
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/jul/11/hsbc-leaves-net-zero-banking-alliance-climate-crisis
HSBC has become the first UK bank to leave the global banking industry’s net zero target-setting group, as campaigners warned it was a “troubling” sign over the lender’s commitment to tackling the climate crisis.
The move risks triggering further departures from the Net Zero Banking Alliance (NZBA) by UK banks, in a fresh blow to international climate coordination efforts.
HSBC’s decision follows a wave of exits by big US banks in the run-up to Donald Trump’s inauguration in January. His return to the White House has spurred a climate backlash as he pushes for higher production of oil and gas...
It looks as though the Cumberland Building Society may be swimming against the tide.
LikeLiked by 1 person