Larry Fink owes investors an apology. Credit: Carolyn Cole/Los Angeles Times/Getty Images
![](https://unherd.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Blue-thumb-hgnail-example-100x100.jpg)
As February turns to March, the finance world is waiting with bated breath for one of its most dubious annual traditions: The Larry Fink Annual Letter to CEOs. Since 2012, when the BlackRock chief executive wrote his first letter, the occasion has come to symbolise the growing threat both to shareholder capitalism and American democracy posed by investment houses’ crusade to force the principles of ESG, or “environmental, social, and governance” investing, down the throats of companies, investors, and the public.
ESG first entered the investment and banking mainstream as a survival strategy. In 2009, BlackRock had acquired Barclay’s Global Investors Ltd, making it the largest investment firm in the world with almost $3 trillion in assets under management (AUM), a sum larger than the total revenue of the US federal treasury. Politically speaking, BlackRock’s emergence as an investment superpower could hardly have come at a worse time. Amid the wreckage of the 2008 Financial Crisis and then the ululations of the “Occupy Wall Street” movement, public suspicion of big banks and corporations was at an all-time high. Finance, in particular, became a morality play: financial institutions were the greedy villains, while policymakers played the heroic civic advocates reining them in. For BlackRock, the chances of continuing to grow freely in such a hostile policy climate seemed remote.
But BlackRock’s leaders had an epiphany — one that would repeat itself in the C-suites of several of its competitors in the early 2010s. What if big investment houses could rebrand themselves as so unimpeachably virtuous and civic-minded that their virtue outshone even their regulators themselves? Such a strategy would be game-changing. Not only would it afford investment houses a mile-wide road to limitless growth; it could even, if played judiciously, accord the companies themselves quasi-governmental power.
The ESG principles underpinning that strategy had already been written. The 2004 United Nations report “Who Cares Wins,” which introduced the principles of ESG to a worldwide audience, suggested that investors would make higher long-term profits if they put more emphasis on environmental and social progress. The small print was that the task of defining these impossibly broad categories (“environmental” or “social”) would be left to international institutions. Per those institutions’ priorities, “environmental” would mostly focus on implementing CO2-reduction goals, while “social” would mean anything related to the UN’s stated social goals on issues such as gender parity, racial justice, and poverty reduction. In other words, from the very beginning, the goal of ESG was to harmonise the priorities of political elites with those of business leaders. This approach was nothing new in Europe, where Klaus Schwab and his World Economic Forum (WEF) had long blurred the lines between business and government. But in the US, where the WEF ethos had failed to take root and the shareholder remained king, it was a radical departure.
When the UN invited global financial institutions to sign onto the Principles for Responsible Investment (PRI) in 2007, the total global assets managed by ESG-minded investing vehicles was around $10 trillion. By 2020, a mere 13 years later, that has grown to more than $30 trillion worldwide and more than $17 trillion in the US. New private equity firms and investment outfits devoted purely to ESG — such as Al Gore’s Generation Investment — were springing up every year, and most large US investment firms began offering ESG-mandated mutual funds, leading Bloomberg in 2021 to project $53 trillion invested in ESG by 2025.
As the ESG agenda took hold, the individual investor increasingly found himself shunted aside. Admittedly, the roots of this shift lay in the early Eighties, when federal proxy voting rules were changed to allow fund managers such as BlackRock to vote on behalf of their clients. The idea was a good one at the time, in that it recognised that few individual investors have the time to attend shareholder meetings or the wherewithal to make their views known to company leadership. But it handed vast power to investment companies — admittedly under the understanding that they would vote on behalf of their clients for one purpose only: the maximisation of profits and shareholder returns. It was, however, only a matter of time before this power was exploited.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeAn excellent article, imo, that summarizes the true motivations behind ESG.
I was interested to read that Ramaswamy recently filed paperwork for a presidential run. I suspect he’s too little known to succeed, but he’ll certainly highlight the massive hypocrisy behind corporate ESG and DEI initiatives. More power to him.
VR has seen behind the curtain and decided to speak up…the corporate media will attempt to destroy him…
VR has seen behind the curtain and decided to speak up…the corporate media will attempt to destroy him…
An excellent article, imo, that summarizes the true motivations behind ESG.
I was interested to read that Ramaswamy recently filed paperwork for a presidential run. I suspect he’s too little known to succeed, but he’ll certainly highlight the massive hypocrisy behind corporate ESG and DEI initiatives. More power to him.
I wonder if it’s possible to sue if your pension fund is not trying to maximize ROI. I think this would shut down the ESG market pretty quickly.
In general people don’t like companies who crash oil tankers, leave toxic chemicals behind, spread DDT and general screw people over by poor pay and conditions. They don’t like it when the tax payer picks up the bill for cleanup or social welfare and they don’t have the time or own any shares to vote down management at big corporations who aren’t improving the share price or dividends but are increasing board and senior management pay and bonuses and sending off retiring CEO’S with golden handshakes measured in millions of $/£
So asset owners take note and vote against pay increases for companies that aren’t producing increasing dividends or higher share prices and have widening pay ratios between the Board and the workers.
This is where the G in ESG began.
Then it grew as people get sick of fires, floods, hurricanes and child labour, water taps that catch on fire and old white haired me in private companies doing as they please.
ESG isn’t really the cause of your whining, its a reaction and likely over reaction to the greed and single minded focus on profit above all else.
And FYI your pension fund isn’t trying to maximise ROI, first and foremost they are trying not to lose you money. Then they try to grow it positively in a risk adjusted way, as little bits of your salary drip in each month. Thats why they don’t put all the chips on black or buy crypto.
Credulous rubbish that misses the obvious point that ESG does not in fact prevent companies behaving in the negative ways you describe, but that existing civil law and market forces do actually achieve this.
Credulous rubbish that misses the obvious point that ESG does not in fact prevent companies behaving in the negative ways you describe, but that existing civil law and market forces do actually achieve this.
In general people don’t like companies who crash oil tankers, leave toxic chemicals behind, spread DDT and general screw people over by poor pay and conditions. They don’t like it when the tax payer picks up the bill for cleanup or social welfare and they don’t have the time or own any shares to vote down management at big corporations who aren’t improving the share price or dividends but are increasing board and senior management pay and bonuses and sending off retiring CEO’S with golden handshakes measured in millions of $/£
So asset owners take note and vote against pay increases for companies that aren’t producing increasing dividends or higher share prices and have widening pay ratios between the Board and the workers.
This is where the G in ESG began.
Then it grew as people get sick of fires, floods, hurricanes and child labour, water taps that catch on fire and old white haired me in private companies doing as they please.
ESG isn’t really the cause of your whining, its a reaction and likely over reaction to the greed and single minded focus on profit above all else.
And FYI your pension fund isn’t trying to maximise ROI, first and foremost they are trying not to lose you money. Then they try to grow it positively in a risk adjusted way, as little bits of your salary drip in each month. Thats why they don’t put all the chips on black or buy crypto.
I wonder if it’s possible to sue if your pension fund is not trying to maximize ROI. I think this would shut down the ESG market pretty quickly.
I sold a small investment in a large insurance company recently, chiefly because I was fed up with the climate crap on their website. I don’t suppose they notice that I’ve gone, but if my feeling is common to others, it might have some effect.
Good for you. That is how things change.
Depends if others who invest in that company agree with your or Mary hypothesis. I’m all for investors being proactive so sell those shares or don’t buy in other firms.
If they are a general insurance company and insuring homes in the US hurricane or forest fire areas, they are probably taking a hammering on claims anyway
Depends if others who invest in that company agree with your or Mary hypothesis. I’m all for investors being proactive so sell those shares or don’t buy in other firms.
If they are a general insurance company and insuring homes in the US hurricane or forest fire areas, they are probably taking a hammering on claims anyway
Many of us would really appreciate a company that would rate companies on their wokeness, or not, etc so that we could make informed decisions about what to buy/invest in.
Anyone know one?
Good for you. That is how things change.
Many of us would really appreciate a company that would rate companies on their wokeness, or not, etc so that we could make informed decisions about what to buy/invest in.
Anyone know one?
I sold a small investment in a large insurance company recently, chiefly because I was fed up with the climate crap on their website. I don’t suppose they notice that I’ve gone, but if my feeling is common to others, it might have some effect.
Comapnies can get slapped with millions in fine for discriminating against black people or failinmg to prevent discrimination.
I am sure that slapping millions on fines for anti white discrimination at Black Rock would make the ESG mob revise their judgement very fast
Problem, who is going to be brave enough to do that?
Problem, who is going to be brave enough to do that?
Comapnies can get slapped with millions in fine for discriminating against black people or failinmg to prevent discrimination.
I am sure that slapping millions on fines for anti white discrimination at Black Rock would make the ESG mob revise their judgement very fast
As the class divide widens all across the Western world so the wealthy become increasingly strident in their campaign to change the subject and divide the opposition to their predations.
“By 2020, a mere 13 years later, that has grown to more than $30 trillion worldwide and more than $17 trillion in the US.”
I’d say they have plenty of resources to change the subject to whatever they wish the subject to be.
G was happening before it became ESG and voting against pay increases for senior management of average or poor performing companies was how asset managers started on the path
“By 2020, a mere 13 years later, that has grown to more than $30 trillion worldwide and more than $17 trillion in the US.”
I’d say they have plenty of resources to change the subject to whatever they wish the subject to be.
G was happening before it became ESG and voting against pay increases for senior management of average or poor performing companies was how asset managers started on the path
As the class divide widens all across the Western world so the wealthy become increasingly strident in their campaign to change the subject and divide the opposition to their predations.
The problem with the E in ESG is that many companies such as those in agriculture will actually benefit from increased CO2 in the atmosphere while most companies will be unaffected. To require everyone to treat a 1-2 degree planetary warming in the next century as a short term environment risk to be declared is to compel their management to become virtuous fiction writers.
The problem with the E in ESG is that many companies such as those in agriculture will actually benefit from increased CO2 in the atmosphere while most companies will be unaffected. To require everyone to treat a 1-2 degree planetary warming in the next century as a short term environment risk to be declared is to compel their management to become virtuous fiction writers.
BlackRock is not a threat to democracy as long as people vote the way BlackRock wants them to.
To aid in understanding this, can you please say who the words ‘people’ and ‘they’ designate?
MH, your edit has made your meaning clearer. Thank you.
In communicating via writing, I have found that it’s worth scanning what’s been written to see if there any way to misread it – because someone inevitably will! 🙂
Avoiding pronouns (which can be linked to the wrong subject/object) in favour of direct references is always a good start.
In communicating via writing, I have found that it’s worth scanning what’s been written to see if there any way to misread it – because someone inevitably will! 🙂
Avoiding pronouns (which can be linked to the wrong subject/object) in favour of direct references is always a good start.
Plonker.
MH, your edit has made your meaning clearer. Thank you.
Plonker.
Some of my pension was invested in Black Rock funds, their performance was appalling.
See you’ve got it all wrong. You are just a dirty peasant expecting reasonable return on your investment. What you should do is just be grateful you are funneling money to your betters for their pet social projects and private yachts. BlackRock is making the world a better place for everyone including you, even if they have to destroy your retirement to do so.
Seriously, I hate these people.
See you’ve got it all wrong. You are just a dirty peasant expecting reasonable return on your investment. What you should do is just be grateful you are funneling money to your betters for their pet social projects and private yachts. BlackRock is making the world a better place for everyone including you, even if they have to destroy your retirement to do so.
Seriously, I hate these people.
To aid in understanding this, can you please say who the words ‘people’ and ‘they’ designate?
Some of my pension was invested in Black Rock funds, their performance was appalling.
BlackRock is not a threat to democracy as long as people vote the way BlackRock wants them to.
It’s all completely hypcritical, performative rubbish. Fink is no greener than Dame Emma Thompson or Prince Harry. I have twice been on boards that have moved their fund management from BlackRock; both times they were far more concerned with the appearance of the portfolio than with its actual content. Their stance on ESG is entirely consistent with this.
It’s all completely hypcritical, performative rubbish. Fink is no greener than Dame Emma Thompson or Prince Harry. I have twice been on boards that have moved their fund management from BlackRock; both times they were far more concerned with the appearance of the portfolio than with its actual content. Their stance on ESG is entirely consistent with this.
Larry Fink is Satan’s right hand man, he is evil.
You fink so?
Good one. Never met the real devil, met some who could be devilish (which I partook in on occasions), but know of ‘evil’ people and they are frightening. What I have read and heard about Fink, his surname says it all! He should never have been allowed to grow BlackRock into the behemoth it has become.
Where were the gatekeepers? Anti-Trusts and the rest. Global village se moer!
“By 2020, a mere 13 years later, that has grown to more than $30 trillion worldwide and more than $17 trillion in the US.”
This is the gatekeeper.
Abominable!
Abominable!
“By 2020, a mere 13 years later, that has grown to more than $30 trillion worldwide and more than $17 trillion in the US.”
This is the gatekeeper.
So Larry Fink is really a ‘Fink’?
Good one. Never met the real devil, met some who could be devilish (which I partook in on occasions), but know of ‘evil’ people and they are frightening. What I have read and heard about Fink, his surname says it all! He should never have been allowed to grow BlackRock into the behemoth it has become.
Where were the gatekeepers? Anti-Trusts and the rest. Global village se moer!
So Larry Fink is really a ‘Fink’?
With a name like that you are probably CORRECT!
You fink so?
With a name like that you are probably CORRECT!
Larry Fink is Satan’s right hand man, he is evil.
The clue is in the numbers. Actively managed funds charge higher fees than passively managed funds. So the more we minions invest in the passive stuff, the harder it is for the likes of Fink to prosper. ESG is no more and no less than a collection of intellectually flimsy, fashionable, vaguely lefty aspirations. In short, a bit of a con. The news that this tommyrot emerged at the UN surprises me not one bit.
Unfortunately, unless there are some active investors, there can’t be any indices for passive funds to track.
Passive funds are cheap to run so the fees are lower. You just copy a benchmark and automate processes as much as you can so you need less people to run things. The punters like cheap products.
Active management takes more people so it costs more.
The investment firm is still making the same margin.
Unfortunately, unless there are some active investors, there can’t be any indices for passive funds to track.
Passive funds are cheap to run so the fees are lower. You just copy a benchmark and automate processes as much as you can so you need less people to run things. The punters like cheap products.
Active management takes more people so it costs more.
The investment firm is still making the same margin.
The clue is in the numbers. Actively managed funds charge higher fees than passively managed funds. So the more we minions invest in the passive stuff, the harder it is for the likes of Fink to prosper. ESG is no more and no less than a collection of intellectually flimsy, fashionable, vaguely lefty aspirations. In short, a bit of a con. The news that this tommyrot emerged at the UN surprises me not one bit.
Unelected power is always a threat to individual liberty; sometimes it takes a while to become apparent. John Masko makes a good argument about the power of Blackrock and Larry Fink, BUT, one of the reasons that ESG is popular is that unrestrained, or unguided, capitalism has sometimes been at too high a social cost and/or with unacceptable and/or unintended consequences. A framework is necessary; the question is how to implement it without handing unaccountable power to the framers or regulators.
I do not want to invest directly or through managers in companies which oppress their workers, employ children or are careless of their environment, even if such might well offer the highest RoI. But neither do I want to invest in companies which restrain free speech, or interfere in the private lives and beliefs of their employees in the name of social progressiveness.
Even elected power is a threat to individual liberty. After all, an election means the majority (or plurality) is ruling over all the individuals that make up the rest of the population. I think it was Churchill who said that democracy was the worst form of government … except for all the rest.
The US in particular was based on the idea of a small and constrained federal government where even the majority could not trample on the rights of the minority without a difficult and drawn out process of amending the Constitution.
But, as human nature has proven over and over, given enough time, power always grows and centralizes. Not only does power corrupt, it attracts the already corrupt and easily corruptible.
Important to remember as well that democracy is NOT the best form of Government. We have it because it SHOULD NOT be the worst and the worst can be really terrible!
Unfortunately democracy is very unlikely to be the best possible (at least in the short term, until the tolerant dictator goes mad) and, as we can currently discern, even democracy can go insane (and yes I know our democracy (just like communism) has never been pure.)
Important to remember as well that democracy is NOT the best form of Government. We have it because it SHOULD NOT be the worst and the worst can be really terrible!
Unfortunately democracy is very unlikely to be the best possible (at least in the short term, until the tolerant dictator goes mad) and, as we can currently discern, even democracy can go insane (and yes I know our democracy (just like communism) has never been pure.)
Even elected power is a threat to individual liberty. After all, an election means the majority (or plurality) is ruling over all the individuals that make up the rest of the population. I think it was Churchill who said that democracy was the worst form of government … except for all the rest.
The US in particular was based on the idea of a small and constrained federal government where even the majority could not trample on the rights of the minority without a difficult and drawn out process of amending the Constitution.
But, as human nature has proven over and over, given enough time, power always grows and centralizes. Not only does power corrupt, it attracts the already corrupt and easily corruptible.
Unelected power is always a threat to individual liberty; sometimes it takes a while to become apparent. John Masko makes a good argument about the power of Blackrock and Larry Fink, BUT, one of the reasons that ESG is popular is that unrestrained, or unguided, capitalism has sometimes been at too high a social cost and/or with unacceptable and/or unintended consequences. A framework is necessary; the question is how to implement it without handing unaccountable power to the framers or regulators.
I do not want to invest directly or through managers in companies which oppress their workers, employ children or are careless of their environment, even if such might well offer the highest RoI. But neither do I want to invest in companies which restrain free speech, or interfere in the private lives and beliefs of their employees in the name of social progressiveness.
BBC4 radio ‘Start The Week’ prog this week was 45 mins on Capitalism of which of the 3 guests Martin Wolf is a Woke, Capitalist,Kate Raworth is a believer in all firms being Green Co-Operatives and the third was American Socialist Bernie Saunders .Needless to say the BBC presenter Tom Sutcliffe was just part of the echo chamber.
BBC4 radio ‘Start The Week’ prog this week was 45 mins on Capitalism of which of the 3 guests Martin Wolf is a Woke, Capitalist,Kate Raworth is a believer in all firms being Green Co-Operatives and the third was American Socialist Bernie Saunders .Needless to say the BBC presenter Tom Sutcliffe was just part of the echo chamber.
Clearly this manipulation will reliably, and predictably deliver returns in sectors that directly benefit from ESG driven investment eg renewable energy, DEI consultancy etc. It would be interesting to assess the corellation between Blackrock’s ROI in those ESG fueled sectors and the growth of ESG investment over the same period. A positive correlation might suggest market manipulation (through the bullying of CEOs) to make ESG investments in those same sectors in which Blackrock already hold substantial long positions.
Clearly this manipulation will reliably, and predictably deliver returns in sectors that directly benefit from ESG driven investment eg renewable energy, DEI consultancy etc. It would be interesting to assess the corellation between Blackrock’s ROI in those ESG fueled sectors and the growth of ESG investment over the same period. A positive correlation might suggest market manipulation (through the bullying of CEOs) to make ESG investments in those same sectors in which Blackrock already hold substantial long positions.
A powerhouse of a piece from the new guy.
A powerhouse of a piece from the new guy.
I did see BlackRock begin to slow down in forcing ESG onto companies. Exxon was a target, was required to add green board members but has now ignored any new direction.
I did see BlackRock begin to slow down in forcing ESG onto companies. Exxon was a target, was required to add green board members but has now ignored any new direction.
ESG = Big Business vs Small Business
Big business may be listed in the main indexes (S&P, Nasdaq, FTSE) and there are listing rules and the ability to vote.
Smaller companies avoid all that trouble and costs and aren’t investable by the asset managers.
But smaller companies especially newer ones make a virtue of there ESG credentials and if the punters like their product or service they buy it and the company may grow
Big business may be listed in the main indexes (S&P, Nasdaq, FTSE) and there are listing rules and the ability to vote.
Smaller companies avoid all that trouble and costs and aren’t investable by the asset managers.
But smaller companies especially newer ones make a virtue of there ESG credentials and if the punters like their product or service they buy it and the company may grow
ESG = Big Business vs Small Business
Larry Fink and his ilk are probably motivated, in large part, by the idea that if they publicly sign onto large parts of the ‘woke’ agenda, the woke faction (who lean heavily towards socialism) will then ignore their ideological ‘allies’ – who can then get on with the business of transferring an even larger share of everyone‘s wealth into their own pockets.
The woke faction is, of course, too clueless to work this out.
Larry Fink and his ilk are probably motivated, in large part, by the idea that if they publicly sign onto large parts of the ‘woke’ agenda, the woke faction (who lean heavily towards socialism) will then ignore their ideological ‘allies’ – who can then get on with the business of transferring an even larger share of everyone‘s wealth into their own pockets.
The woke faction is, of course, too clueless to work this out.
I bet all the push in companies for DEI comes exactly ftom the same place. At the end we are just getting the policies that Blackrock wants not what we asked for.
Division Inequality and Exclusion.
Division Inequality and Exclusion.
I bet all the push in companies for DEI comes exactly ftom the same place. At the end we are just getting the policies that Blackrock wants not what we asked for.
Find out how “woke” is your fund manage (or your state pension fund). We graded them based on their vote in the Exxon proxy battle (should exxon continue to be an oil company?). Would you believe that Texas state pension funds graded a “D”?? Even worse than BlackRock!!
https://www.insight-esg-energy.com/
Find out how “woke” is your fund manage (or your state pension fund). We graded them based on their vote in the Exxon proxy battle (should exxon continue to be an oil company?). Would you believe that Texas state pension funds graded a “D”?? Even worse than BlackRock!!
https://www.insight-esg-energy.com/
I have a simple way to assess the quality of a Company management or it’s prospects.
Get hold of however it expresses its priorities and strategy and ask yourself; is this about winning money at the expense of able competitors, or is it predominantly stuff that nobody will oppose, like having ESG aspirations?
if it’s the former, you have a management that is engaged with the really tough business of persuading people to part with their money in their direction rather than competitors. That’s hard, you’ve got to be smart to pull that off and if they’re doing it well they are people to take notice of. They’ll talk about share, value, growth, investment.
If it’s the latter then you’ve got weak ones who haven’t got the brains or balls for a fight but will set self-appointed simple targets that nobody else is interested in obstructing. They’ll talk about stakeholders, social purpose, etc. They’ll often be conspicuous by making very big shows of their “successes” which they’ll flamboyantly celebrate. Their competitors will let them get on with it, while taking their money off them.
I have a simple way to assess the quality of a Company management or it’s prospects.
Get hold of however it expresses its priorities and strategy and ask yourself; is this about winning money at the expense of able competitors, or is it predominantly stuff that nobody will oppose, like having ESG aspirations?
if it’s the former, you have a management that is engaged with the really tough business of persuading people to part with their money in their direction rather than competitors. That’s hard, you’ve got to be smart to pull that off and if they’re doing it well they are people to take notice of. They’ll talk about share, value, growth, investment.
If it’s the latter then you’ve got weak ones who haven’t got the brains or balls for a fight but will set self-appointed simple targets that nobody else is interested in obstructing. They’ll talk about stakeholders, social purpose, etc. They’ll often be conspicuous by making very big shows of their “successes” which they’ll flamboyantly celebrate. Their competitors will let them get on with it, while taking their money off them.
Great article
Great article
Go Woke, Go Broke being proved yet again.
Go Woke, Go Broke being proved yet again.
Can someone explain why the tech industry had had a bad year in 2022. I had thought covid had given them a huge boost.
I think 2022 was the downslope following that boost. Slower demand (who buys Peloton now?)
But I also think that the jump in interest rates would have forced a reckoning after years of cheap debt.
I think 2022 was the downslope following that boost. Slower demand (who buys Peloton now?)
But I also think that the jump in interest rates would have forced a reckoning after years of cheap debt.
Can someone explain why the tech industry had had a bad year in 2022. I had thought covid had given them a huge boost.
This scheme sounds like an excuse to do what elites always do during a collapse which is to funnel all money and wealth to themselves.
I don’t think the author and people here get this at all. Medium term investing is about anticipation, and rarely do you moderate strategies in response to short-term market results. The fact is that world must wean itself off fossil fuels, must bring the welfare of natural capital into its calculations, not only for the sake of the planet we inhabit but to reduce risk. Any fund manager not thinking hard about environmental risk right now is sleep-walking into quicksand – this is mainstream thinking.
While I can’t stand BLM and its derived wokery, if we want our children to live in a better world (and equally to the point, extremely poor children elsewhere) is it not good that powerful investors are prepared to do right by them wherever possible? The article and most comments seem to emerge from a world view in which nothing but money matters (usually their money). Governments need to change business calculations to encourage responsible investment that is also more profitable than the horrendously damaging paradigm it has operated in for the last 200 years. But I’m four-square behind the person who hasn’t the patience to wait for this in a world on the brink, and does everything they can to hasten the day that carbon emissions plunge, nature begins to recover, and poor people have enough food on their plate. Like any top investor, Larry Fink is ahead of the game, and it may not be long before his critics wished they’d got on board and reaped the environmental, societal – and yes – juicy financial rewards to come.
Finally I find a sensible comment, thank you.
The danger here though is when politically powerful agents behave in a way that puts ecological welfare ahead of human well-being. The planet is here for our benefit and not the other way around. Besides, I”d rather not put my pension funds in the hands of American CEOs who, let’s face it, don’t have a great track record of treating people very well.
Finally I find a sensible comment, thank you.
The danger here though is when politically powerful agents behave in a way that puts ecological welfare ahead of human well-being. The planet is here for our benefit and not the other way around. Besides, I”d rather not put my pension funds in the hands of American CEOs who, let’s face it, don’t have a great track record of treating people very well.
I don’t think the author and people here get this at all. Medium term investing is about anticipation, and rarely do you moderate strategies in response to short-term market results. The fact is that world must wean itself off fossil fuels, must bring the welfare of natural capital into its calculations, not only for the sake of the planet we inhabit but to reduce risk. Any fund manager not thinking hard about environmental risk right now is sleep-walking into quicksand – this is mainstream thinking.
While I can’t stand BLM and its derived wokery, if we want our children to live in a better world (and equally to the point, extremely poor children elsewhere) is it not good that powerful investors are prepared to do right by them wherever possible? The article and most comments seem to emerge from a world view in which nothing but money matters (usually their money). Governments need to change business calculations to encourage responsible investment that is also more profitable than the horrendously damaging paradigm it has operated in for the last 200 years. But I’m four-square behind the person who hasn’t the patience to wait for this in a world on the brink, and does everything they can to hasten the day that carbon emissions plunge, nature begins to recover, and poor people have enough food on their plate. Like any top investor, Larry Fink is ahead of the game, and it may not be long before his critics wished they’d got on board and reaped the environmental, societal – and yes – juicy financial rewards to come.
Perfectly encapsulates why any attempt to mitigate the negative affects of climate change quickly meet a brick wall of economic protectionism.
Will this change? Maybe. People now understand the impacts of industrial pollution, resulting in it becoming socially and ethically unacceptable, perhaps the same will happen with carbon emitters, eventually, although it’s too late anyway.
Whether one believes ESG is there only for cynical purposes makes no difference to that goal.
Putting aside detailed science/model arguments re myths spread by, and destructive influence of, the ‘Climate Change Fanatics’ particularly on the scientific method, hence Science. (ie There should be no such thing as a ‘denier’ in science, as Feynman pointed out and as any Scientist worth his salt should accept – ‘
“Science is the organized skepticism in the reliability of expert opinion.”
IF you have to revert to ‘denier’ as your only argument, then your argument isn’t worth the model it was based on.)
A more general reading of news raises a number of points. One is, why should this arbitrary point in time & climate be “ideal” and be preserved at catastrophic human cost? Would the Greens have demanded preserving the Ice Age? What about this intriguing era.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/385SHpTG5M25Xr6G3FSMJTG/seven-things-that-happened-when-the-planet-got-really-really-hot
The irony is the current Cult leader announced to day
“It’s too late to save the Planet.”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-64815875
How on earth can any rational person believe this guy? The planet doesn’t give a toss. The former and late doyen of the Greens, Prof Lovelock (his Gaia hypothesis promoting him to Godlike status – a sort of real life ‘The Man Who Would be King.” drama. Though in his case it wasn’t a woman, but his scientific principles depriving him of that position, twice over. The first time when he espoused Nuclear Power, and the second when he ‘Recanted’ his Alarmist Views’
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/gaia-scientist-james-lovelock-i-was-alarmist-about-climate-change-flna730066
Here is some Lovelock recanting
“We will have global warming, but it’s been deferred a bit,” Lovelock said.
‘I made a mistake’
Then when asked why no others were being so outspoken (other than the fact IF they were, the BBC at least would usually censor them!) he pointed out what most of us sceptics already know – “Follow the money.” – always a useful starting point in any investigation.
As “an independent and a loner,” he said he did not mind saying “All right, I made a mistake.” He claimed a university or government scientist might fear an admission of a mistake would lead to the loss of funding.(Hmm, now where else might such fears lead to ‘junk science’ and mask mandates?)
The we get to another issue, a word. “Fossil” – the clue to it all? Perhaps we should be thanking gas/coal/oil burners for ‘releasing imprisoned Carbon’. Carbon that the malignant planet kept sequestering to eliminate life (Try a CO2 free atmosphere in your models and see how well that works out) currently few dispute the 15% increase in planetary greening thanks to CO2.
As the first BBC link points out (I”m amazed this remains on the BBC) all that Carbon, those 7c higher temperatures not only didn’t fry the planet, but they were when Mammals evolved. Life was abundant and all that carbon was ‘sequestered’ after being fixed by living organisms.
Net Zero is impossible, and insane. It will kill millions if not billions, BUT they’ll not include Al Gore, Obama, Greta or any of the leading Green lights of the rich west. (PS Look up who lost out to Europe when LNG was bid for in the last winter and who lost out when Europe went looking to assuage its Veg shortage – I’ll give a clue for the search , Pakistan, Bangladesh and West Africa.)
Lomborg is who we should listen to NOT Greta.
Finally to paraphrase a well known saying,
“Be fearful of global financiers bearing ESG gifts.”
I won’t seek to change your mind on the issue since you and an element of the audience here are clearly embedded with unwavering confirmation bias. On that note, Lomborg is the perfect example of a narrator selecting certain stories and data similar to your post, all of which come under the heading of denial dogma.
What we will agree on is that ‘net zero’ is impossible, the reason however is economic protectionism. Hedge funds want profits, governments want growth. That won’t change.
The snippit I will add however, and is often misunderstood by the layperson, is that CO2 persists in the atmosphere for two hundred years – if you can understand the implications of that, then perhaps one is not lost entirely.
Here, here! Well done chap!
I especially like the reference to the last ice age, which we are still getting over, hence the melting of the remaining glaciers. All perfectly normal and expected by the reasonably informed. If these same-minded people were around during the previous extremely warm era, they would decry the death of the dinosaurs and complain about how cold the earth was becoming. Simply ludicrous.
face/palm
Who is paying you? Kerry? And do you also fly around the world in an awesome jet spewing your BS?
Believe it or not that are opinions outside of your normal echo chamber.
What echo chamber is that? The one where CO2 is a hazardous pollutant that will undeniably cause a Climate Armageddon that’s pushed incessantly everywhere, all the time, by mainstream “reporters” and clueless socialites? Oh wait, that’s the story you can’t ignore no matter how hard you try…and thus the only possible “echo chamber” one could reasonably inhabit.
CO2 is not a pollutant, it’s a greenhouse gas.
CO2 is not a pollutant, it’s a greenhouse gas.
What echo chamber is that? The one where CO2 is a hazardous pollutant that will undeniably cause a Climate Armageddon that’s pushed incessantly everywhere, all the time, by mainstream “reporters” and clueless socialites? Oh wait, that’s the story you can’t ignore no matter how hard you try…and thus the only possible “echo chamber” one could reasonably inhabit.
Believe it or not that are opinions outside of your normal echo chamber.
Who is paying you? Kerry? And do you also fly around the world in an awesome jet spewing your BS?
face/palm
I won’t seek to change your mind on the issue since you and an element of the audience here are clearly embedded with unwavering confirmation bias. On that note, Lomborg is the perfect example of a narrator selecting certain stories and data similar to your post, all of which come under the heading of denial dogma.
What we will agree on is that ‘net zero’ is impossible, the reason however is economic protectionism. Hedge funds want profits, governments want growth. That won’t change.
The snippit I will add however, and is often misunderstood by the layperson, is that CO2 persists in the atmosphere for two hundred years – if you can understand the implications of that, then perhaps one is not lost entirely.
Here, here! Well done chap!
I especially like the reference to the last ice age, which we are still getting over, hence the melting of the remaining glaciers. All perfectly normal and expected by the reasonably informed. If these same-minded people were around during the previous extremely warm era, they would decry the death of the dinosaurs and complain about how cold the earth was becoming. Simply ludicrous.
Putting aside detailed science/model arguments re myths spread by, and destructive influence of, the ‘Climate Change Fanatics’ particularly on the scientific method, hence Science. (ie There should be no such thing as a ‘denier’ in science, as Feynman pointed out and as any Scientist worth his salt should accept – ‘
“Science is the organized skepticism in the reliability of expert opinion.”
IF you have to revert to ‘denier’ as your only argument, then your argument isn’t worth the model it was based on.)
A more general reading of news raises a number of points. One is, why should this arbitrary point in time & climate be “ideal” and be preserved at catastrophic human cost? Would the Greens have demanded preserving the Ice Age? What about this intriguing era.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/385SHpTG5M25Xr6G3FSMJTG/seven-things-that-happened-when-the-planet-got-really-really-hot
The irony is the current Cult leader announced to day
“It’s too late to save the Planet.”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-64815875
How on earth can any rational person believe this guy? The planet doesn’t give a toss. The former and late doyen of the Greens, Prof Lovelock (his Gaia hypothesis promoting him to Godlike status – a sort of real life ‘The Man Who Would be King.” drama. Though in his case it wasn’t a woman, but his scientific principles depriving him of that position, twice over. The first time when he espoused Nuclear Power, and the second when he ‘Recanted’ his Alarmist Views’
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/gaia-scientist-james-lovelock-i-was-alarmist-about-climate-change-flna730066
Here is some Lovelock recanting
“We will have global warming, but it’s been deferred a bit,” Lovelock said.
‘I made a mistake’
Then when asked why no others were being so outspoken (other than the fact IF they were, the BBC at least would usually censor them!) he pointed out what most of us sceptics already know – “Follow the money.” – always a useful starting point in any investigation.
As “an independent and a loner,” he said he did not mind saying “All right, I made a mistake.” He claimed a university or government scientist might fear an admission of a mistake would lead to the loss of funding.(Hmm, now where else might such fears lead to ‘junk science’ and mask mandates?)
The we get to another issue, a word. “Fossil” – the clue to it all? Perhaps we should be thanking gas/coal/oil burners for ‘releasing imprisoned Carbon’. Carbon that the malignant planet kept sequestering to eliminate life (Try a CO2 free atmosphere in your models and see how well that works out) currently few dispute the 15% increase in planetary greening thanks to CO2.
As the first BBC link points out (I”m amazed this remains on the BBC) all that Carbon, those 7c higher temperatures not only didn’t fry the planet, but they were when Mammals evolved. Life was abundant and all that carbon was ‘sequestered’ after being fixed by living organisms.
Net Zero is impossible, and insane. It will kill millions if not billions, BUT they’ll not include Al Gore, Obama, Greta or any of the leading Green lights of the rich west. (PS Look up who lost out to Europe when LNG was bid for in the last winter and who lost out when Europe went looking to assuage its Veg shortage – I’ll give a clue for the search , Pakistan, Bangladesh and West Africa.)
Lomborg is who we should listen to NOT Greta.
Finally to paraphrase a well known saying,
“Be fearful of global financiers bearing ESG gifts.”
Perfectly encapsulates why any attempt to mitigate the negative affects of climate change quickly meet a brick wall of economic protectionism.
Will this change? Maybe. People now understand the impacts of industrial pollution, resulting in it becoming socially and ethically unacceptable, perhaps the same will happen with carbon emitters, eventually, although it’s too late anyway.
Whether one believes ESG is there only for cynical purposes makes no difference to that goal.