News is popping up about multiple banks and other financial institutions backing out of ESG groups. This is good news… or is it? On a recent episode of The JD Rucker Show, we discussed how they’re not really making changes. They’re just rebranding ESG. Here’s the clip and one of the stories we discussed…
BlackRock Exits Climate Activist Group After Pressure From Republicans
BlackRock announced this week that it was leaving a major climate activist group after Republicans criticized its involvement with the group.
The company said in a letter that it would be leaving the Net Zero Asset Managers (NZAM) initiative, an organization of asset managers committed to “supporting the goal of net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 or sooner.” At one point, NZAM boasted its members controlled over $57 trillion in assets.
BlackRock’s announcement comes after 11 Republican attorneys general, led by Texas AG Ken Paxton, filed a lawsuit in November against the asset manager over its involvement with groups like NZAM. Texas’ lawsuit accused BlackRock of violating antitrust laws by allegedly engaging in a conspiracy with other asset managers to constrict the market for coal. BlackRock has denied the allegations and said the suit is without merit.
BlackRock’s letter, first obtained by Bloomberg, acknowledged that its involvement with NZAM “caused confusion regarding BlackRock’s practices and subjected us to legal inquiries from various public officials.” […]
— Read More: www.dailywire.com
big pharma needs only permitted to provide needed antibiotics. the slew of killer drugs they push along with killer vaccines need stopped.
There is nothing wrong with ESG, per se. The problem is what and how they identify. Let’s go backwards and start with governance. I was a trustee for a pension plan for 14 years. Good governance was essential for the plan to survive through the 2001 and 2008 meltdowns. There is nothing wrong with good governance. As for the social aspect, if you can invest in something that provides an acceptable rate of return at the level of risk you are prepared to take and benefits a particular area or population, there is nothing wrong with that, particularly if the investment is local. Environment? Investing in something environmentally harmful is like pissing in your soup. How much are you prepared to tolerate?