Fink, Larry brg

related to koch flak?

see black rock gp

SEE ESG HE HAS BECOME Target, caved anti-sem

===

---

// vanguard net zero

https://www.triplepundit.com/story/2022/anti-esg-office-holders/761261

the anti-ESG movement and the “woke capitalism” canard has many U.S. political observers scratching their heads. Instead of the traditional Republican Party support for big business, a growing number of Republican office holders are leveraging their legislative power against corporate efforts to align with ESG (environmental, social and governance) principles. Nevertheless, the pieces of the puzzle are beginning to come together.

The usual suspects: Fossil energy lobbyists

The anti-ESG movement focuses primarily, though not exclusively, on stemming the flow of investor dollars to the renewable firms that that are involved in clean energy and related fields.It’s no surprise, then, to find the Heartland Institute front and center in the anti-ESG movement, which it also calls “anti-woke.” The organization is well known for developing media and legislative playbooks in support of the fossil energy and tobacco industries. The organization is apparently applying the same methodology to stem the flow of investment dollars to renewable energy.

Last June, Heartland catalogued its anti-ESG playbook in a long-form article under the title, “Woke Investing Gets Well-Deserved Pushback.”

“The Heartland Institute has written extensively and testified about the dangers of government agencies mandating banks, companies, and portfolio funds adopt and report on Environment, Social, and Governance (ESG) standards,” noted the article’s author, H. Sterling Burnett.

“Heartland has also provided detailed critiques of efforts by a cabal of large, multinational banks and gigantic financial companies to force every business to adopt ESG goals,” Burnett continued.

The use of the word “cabal” is not a one-off. Burnett continues to deploy coded words that evoke the anti-Jewish canard of an all-powerful financial cult that pulls the strings of the global economy.

Editor's note: Be sure to [subscribe to our Brands Taking Stands newsletter, which comes out every Wednesday.

“The woke, billionaire corporate elites who run these corporations do this by threatening to withdraw banking or financial services or by applying pressure through their control over large amounts of a company’s stock,” he added.

Burnett also emphasized that Heartland can take partial credit for the growing number of states that have proposed or enacted anti-ESG legislation. “In a joint effort with likeminded nonprofit organizations, The Heartland Institute’s government relations professionals have pushed back against this by working with legislators in various states to shape and adopt model legislation blocking use of ESG scoring in deciding whether to offer banking and investment services. These efforts have borne fruit,” he wrote.

The other usual suspects: Trump supporters

It’s also no surprise to find investor, former Facebook board member and political kingmaker Peter Thiel involved in the anti-ESG movement. He was instrumental in former U.S. President Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign for office. He also publicly backed two candidates for U.S. Senate this year, both of whom deployed anti-ESG rhetoric during their campaigns.

In addition, Thiel has launched a new financial venture that is apparently aimed at providing an outlet for anti-ESG investors.

Reporters Liz Hoffman and Charley Grant picked up that thread for the Wall Street Journal last May in an article titled, “Woke, Inc.’ Author’s Startup to Take On BlackRock” and subtitled, “Backed by Peter Thiel and Bill Ackman, Vivek Ramaswamy’s Strive will tell CEOs to stay out of politics.”

“An upstart financial firm backed by Peter Thiel and Bill Ackman has a message for American corporations: Focus on making money, not taking stands,” they observed. “Mr. Thiel invested both personally and through his Founders Fund, joined by Palantir Technologies Inc.”

“Vivek Ramaswamy, who made his fortune in pharmaceutical startups before writing a book last year called ‘Woke, Inc.,’ says he has raised $20 million to start a fund manager that would urge companies not to wade into hot-button social or environmental issues,” they added.

The idea seems to be catching on. Last August, reporters Katherine Greifeld and Elaine Chaim of Bloomberg noted that the firm filed for four more equity ETFs. “The filings land just two weeks after the Strive US Energy ETF (ticker DRLL) launched, which has already accumulated nearly$250 million in assets,” they wrote.

The anti-ESG movement embraces Elon Musk and the religious right

Another leading element in the anti-ESG movement that has recently come to light is the nonprofit organization State Financial Officers Foundation. The group reportedly claims that it is not involved in advocating for elected officials. However, its financial “team” is staffed exclusively with Republicans, many of whom hold elected office, according to research by David Armiak of the Center for Media and Democracy. At least four members of the group are elected officials in Texas, West Virginia, Arizona and Kentucky who are known for promoting anti-ESG policies.

Nonpartisan or not, the Foundation has advocated on behalf of the fossil energy industry, as expressed in a public letter to President Joe Biden last April. It has also publicly aligned itself with high-profile personalities and organizations in the anti-ESG movement.

On Tuesday, for example, the organization’s home page featured a tweet from newly minted Twitter owner Elon Musk that read, “ESG is the devil.”The brief message is of a piece with Musk’s earlier anti-ESG pronouncements, as reported by the New York Times.

The day before that, the Foundation's home page highlighted a tweet from the Washington Stand, a publication of the Family Research Council, an evangelical activist group. The tweet linked to an unattributed commentary that described a Foundation conference in November, in which “conservative leaders made it clear that, moving forward, they plan to be woke capital’s worst nightmare,” the Family Research Council wrote.

As with other anti-ESG manifests, the piece leveraged anti-Jewish sentiment by repeatedly focusing attention on the financial firm BlackRock and its Jewish CEO.

Advertisers are already bailing from Twitter on account of Musk’s tolerance for hate speech on his platform. Issues related to his other business ventures may also come into play. Now that the anti-ESG movement has embraced his rhetoric, the likelihood of additional advertisers fleeing from Twitter has grown.

As for the State Financial Officers Foundation, its embrace of Musk’s “free speech” policy should be a red flag to any remaining corporate sponsors and donors that continue to support the organization, and a clear signal that business leaders can no longer count on the safe haven of Republican policy-making to support their interests.

---

https://www.alternet.org/2661884531/

caves an 6 23

no lnx

for decades, Republicans slammed liberals and progressives for their criticisms of Corporate America — arguing that large corporations and the ultra-wealthy were job creators. "Are you going to get a job from a rich guy or a poor guy?" was a ubiquitous GOP talking point.

But that was before Donald Trump's presidency and the MAGA movement. These days, far-right Republicans ranging from Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis to Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) angrily rail against "woke capitalism."

One of the MAGA movement's corporate targets has been the New York City-based asset management giant BlackRock, whose CEO, Larry Fink, has been encouraging investors to consider climate change in their investing decisions. And MAGA Republicans have responded by attacking BlackRock as "woke capitalism."

READ MORE: 'They don't speak for your voice or mine': DeSantis to propose bill that would block 'woke' investments

Now, Fink — who co-founded BlackRock in 1988 — is swearing off the term ESG, which is short for "environment, social and governance."

At the Aspen Ideas Festival in Colorado on Sunday, June 26, Fink told Axios, "When I write these (investment) letters, it was never meant to be a political statement.… They were written to identify long-term issues to our long-term investors…. I do believe in conscientious capitalism. I'm not going to use the word ESG because it's been misused by the far left and the far right."

BlackRock, according to Axios reporter John Frank, presently "manages $9.2 trillion."

During the interview with Axios, Fink didn't say that BlackRock would avoid addressing climate change with investors — only that he won't be using the term ESG going forward.

READ MORE: Texas Lt. Gov. vowed to punish a firm for discriminating' against fossil fuels — but was a shareholder: report

Fink told Axios, "We talk a lot about decarbonization, we talk a lot about governance.… or social issues, if that's something we need to addressed."

READ MORE: How fossil fuel lobbyists are pushing the right-wing campaign against 'woke capitalism': report

Axios' full report is available at this link.

FROM YOUR SITE ARTICLES

The corporatization of just about everything from climate change to outer space ›

Can capitalism solve capitalism’s problems? ›

The 'Big Con' revealed: Report details the fossil fuel industry's deceptive 'net zero' strategy ›

Two recent policies to keep Florida underwater

The first policy enacted by DeSantis in Florida is what Food & Water Watch called “the most extreme energy preemption bills in the nation.” Signed last year, these bills ban Florida cities and towns from adopting 100 percent clean energy goals, reasoning that those goals “discriminate” against fossil fuels.

That means municipalities in the literal Sunshine State are being forced to keep using fossil fuels even if they don’t want to. It doesn’t matter if a climate change-fueled hurricane destroyed your town and now you want to be part of the solution. Sorry, honey. DeSantis said no.

The second policy came about a month ago, when DeSantis adopted measures to ban the state’s $186 billion pension fund from making investment decisions that consider climate change. DeSantis did this because he said such decisions constitute an “ideological agenda."

the pension measure is particularly mind-boggling given the staggering economic damage of Hurricane Ian, which scientists have already confirmed was made worse by climate change. That excess rainfall contributed to massive economic damage, which could total between $100 billion and $120 billion, according to AccuWeather. Many Florida insurance companies will likely go bankrupt.

Climate change is also just generally very costly, both to Florida and the world. Locally, Florida homes have lost $2.4 billion to floods since 2005, and $2.86 trillion of insured state property is vulnerable to hurricanes. Globally, the insurance provider Swiss Re predicted climate change could reduce global GDP by 11 to 14 percent by 2050 compared with a world without climate change, amounting to a $23 trillion loss.

It is obviously not “ideological” to consider climate change in investment decisions. This is why BlackRock, the world’s largest asset manager, said it would make climate change central to its investment decisions in 2020.

But DeSantis is not trying to make financially prudent decisions. He’s trying to make politically prudent ones. After all, this is what all the other Republican governors are doing. And hopping on the oil train is known to have its perks.

Courting the oil industry for political gain

For DeSantis to make a successful 2024 run, he needs to have the oil industry on his side. To that end, there’s nothing better he can do than push their priorities—which just so happen to be the two policies described above.

“DeSantis is following political trends,” said Dan Cohen, an energy researcher for the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis. “Republicans across the country are trying as hard as they can to move the funds they have control over to stand against the tide”—the tide being toward clean energy and a safe climate.

Indeed, Florida is just one of 17 Republican-led states that have proposed or adopted legislation limiting the ability of the state government to do business with entities that are moving away from fossil fuels. DeSantis is also part of a coalition of 19 Republican-led states that sent a strongly-worded letter to BlackRock CEO Larry Fink, threatening legal action against him for investing with a clean energy future in mind. 19 other Republican-led states have adopted laws that prohibit cities from banning natural gas and other fossil fuels.

If legislation like this were adopted nationally, effective action to slow climate change would be near-impossible. Both governments and financial institutions would be forced to fund fossil fuels, financial risks of climate change be damned.

“This is the Republican’s latest version of climate denial, where all of a sudden climate science is out the window,” said Jackie Fielder, co-director of the Stop the Money Pipeline coalition. “Ultimately, the people who will pay for it are the folks in Florida having to repair their homes, and so many other victims of climate change.”

So stupid that it probably won’t work — for now

Republicans like DeSantis are trying their best to prevent financial institutions from moving away from fossil fuels. But it turns out that, at least for now, their best is not very good.

DeSantis’s new policy to ban Florida’s pension fund from considering climate risk, for example, “doesn’t actually change much,” said Cohen. “He's making a big show of it, but Florida law already says that investments must be made for the sole, exclusive purpose of providing benefits to members and beneficiaries.”And if you want to get the best investment benefit, you actually have to consider climate change.

This is the problem with all these Republican states’ efforts to ban investments that move away from fossil fuels and toward clean energy: they’re not actually in the states’ best financial interest. “In order to believe [DeSantis is] right, you have to agree that climate risk is not an investment risk,” said Cohen. “But climate risk is an investment risk, and Florida just got bombarded again. They’re trying to make you forget that that’s a real thing.”

Because of this reality, the Republican states’ threats to sue financial firms like BlackRock for investing with climate change in mind are likely empty. Last month, Martin Lipton, the founding partner of one of of the world's most influential corporate law firms, agreed, accusing Republicans of spreading “misinformation” about environmental risks in order to “politicize” them.

Of course, this could all change if Republicans continue their coordinated drive to appoint judges that are against climate action. And if a Republican like DeSantis wins the presidency, there’s no telling how far these financially stupid actions could go.

For now, though, some climate advocates are just taking it as a sign that the tide is truly turning against fossil fuels.

“I view this as a sign that the divestment movement is winning,the fact that DeSantis and all these Republicans are suddenly engaged on this topic,” said David Arkush, the policy director of Public Citizen’s climate program. “Of course, I would like them to not do these things, not hurt their own citizens … But these are ultimately fossil fuel lobbying dollars that are behind this push. So if they’re pushing money here, it's because they feel themselves losing.”

florida’s Statewide Climate Change Response Ignores Cause.Tampa Bay Times, March 2022.

-The Deranged Demands of the “Anti-ESG” Movement. The New Republic, August 2022.

-Rightwing Lobby Group ALEC Driving Laws to Blacklist Companies That Boycott the Oil Industry.The Guardian, February 2022.

-How the Natural Gas Industry is Freezing Climate Action in its Tracks. Vox, September 2021.

---

an 922

In 2021, Republican Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick angrily railed against Wall Street investment firms that he claimed were unfairly discriminating against fossil fuels and showing a bias for green energy, and he vowed to support legislation that would require Texas’ state government to stop doing business with such firms when it came to retirement programs for state employees. Patrick, a vocal supporter of Texas State Senate Bill 13, singled out BlackRock as “the worst offender.” But according to a report in the Texas Monthly, Patrick continued to own BlackRock shares for months after he vowed to take on Wall Street firms he claimed had decided to “boycott” fossil fuels.

Moreover, Patrick “also owned BlackRock mutual funds, along with shares in other companies that have pledged to stop using oil and natural gas,” journalists Russell Gold and Dan Solomon report in a Texas Monthly article published on September 8.

“In recent years,” Gold and Solomon explain, “Wall Street has started to embrace socially responsible ‘ESG’ — environment, social, and corporate governance — investing. In general terms, this means considering factors beyond financial performance, such as commitment to sustainability and good working conditions. BlackRock and its chief executive,Larry Fink, are leading voices in the movement. In a letter to shareholders on January 17, Fink argued against the notion that ‘going woke,’ as he wrote, was the driver of the movement. Rather, he suggested, gradually moving investments away from fossil fuels and toward green industries such as wind and solar power is a sound investment strategy for growing resilient businesses that are viable for the long term.”

According to Gold and Solomon, Patrick “hoped that through SB 13, which charged the Comptroller’s Office with compiling a list of offending firms, Texas could use the weight of its large retirement funds — the Teacher Retirement System of Texas has nearly $200 billion under management — to turn Wall Street against ESG investing.”

On January 19, Patrick wrote to Texas Comptroller Glenn Hegar and specifically asked him to include BlackRock on the list of firms he considered anti-fossil fuels. Patrick told Hegar, “As you prepare the official list of companies that boycott energy companies, I ask that you include BlackRock…. BlackRock is capriciously discriminating against the oil and gas industry…. Texas will not do business with those that boycott fossil fuels.”

But according to Gold and Solomon, Patrick has not practiced what he preached.

“At the end of 2021, according to annual financial disclosures Texas Monthly obtained from the Texas Ethics Commission, Patrick owned between one share and 100 shares in BlackRock, potentially worth as much as $91,000,” the Texas Monthly journalists report. “On top of that, Patrick and his wife owned shares in three BlackRock mutual funds, which together, were worth between $15,000 and $58,000. The lieutenant governor also owned, either directly or with his wife, shares in several other companies that have taken pledges to use only renewable energy in the near future — including Apple, Meta, Microsoft and Walmart.”

Gold and Solomon continue, “At the end of 2021, these holdings were worth between $92,000 and $460,000. Why such a wide range? Despite multiple attempts to ask for more details about how Patrick’s personal investments diverged from the laws he championed, no one from his office or campaign returned Texas Monthly’s calls. We also asked if he still owns those shares, or if he sold them at some point in 2022, but did not receive an answer. We may find the answers when Patrick’s next disclosure is filed, but that won’t be until next January…. (Patrick) seems to have decided that what was best for Texas wasn’t necessarily best for him.”

---

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/27/climate/republicans-blackrock-climate.html

wAPO no lnx

How an Organized Republican Effort Punishes Companies for Climate Action

Legislators and their allies are running an aggressive campaign that uses public money and the law to pressure businesses they say are pushing “woke” causes.

Protesters at the Glasgow climate summit last year. A number of banks, investors and companies pledged at the talks to cut their greenhouse gas emissions.

By David Gelles and Hiroko Tabuchi

May 27, 2022

:{:{In West Virginia, the state treasurer has pulled money from BlackRock, the world’s largest asset manager, because the Wall Street firm has flagged climate change as an economic risk.}:

In Texas, a new law bars the state’s retirement and investment funds from doing business with companies that the state comptroller says are boycotting fossil fuels. Conservative lawmakers in 15 other states are promoting similar legislation.}:

And officials in Utah and Idaho have assailed a major ratings agency for considering environmental risks and other factors, in addition to the balance sheet, when assessing states’ creditworthiness.

Across the country, Republican lawmakers and their allies have launched a campaign to try to rein in what they see as activist companies trying to reduce the greenhouse gases that are dangerously heating the planet.

“We’re an energy state, and energy accounts for hundreds of millions of dollars of tax revenue for us,” said Riley Moore, the West Virginia state treasurer. “All of our jobs come from coal and gas. I mean, this is who we are. This is part of our way of life here in the state. And they’re telling us that these industries are bad.”

“We have an existential threat here,” Mr. Moore said. “We have to fight back.”

In doing so, Mr. Moore and others have pushed climate change from the scientific realm into the political battles already raging over topics like voting rights, abortion and L.G.B.T.Q. issues. In recent months, conservatives have moved beyond tough words and used legislative and financial leverage to pressure the private sector to drop climate action and any other causes they label as “woke.”

“There is a coordinated effort to chill corporate engagement on these issues,” said Daniella Ballou-Aares, chief executive of the Leadership Now Project, a nonprofit organization that wants corporations to address threats to democracy. “And it is an effective campaign. Companies are starting to go into hiding.”

:{:{The pushback has been spearheaded by a group of Republican state officials that has reached out to financial organizations, facilitated media appearances and threatened to punish companies that, among other things, divest from fossil fuels.}:

They have worked alongside a nonprofit organization that has run television ads, dispatched roaming billboard trucks and rented out a Times Square billboard criticizing BlackRock for championing what they call woke causes, including environmentalism.}:

These efforts come after years during which many in the financial sector boasted that they were prioritizing environmental, social and governance issues, also known as ESG, rather than pure profits.

That activism has often put companies at odds with the Republican Party, traditionally the ally of big business. In 2015, Salesforce and other big employers threatened to leave Indiana after the state passed, and then quickly rolled back, a law that would have allowed businesses to refuse service to gay customers. Nike faced a fierce backlash for its 2018 ad featuring Colin Kaepernick, the former N.F.L. quarterback who knelt during the national anthem to protest racism and police brutality.

:{:{}:

As the signs of a warming planet have grown more apparent over the past five years — in the form of more destructive storms and fires, record heat and drought — and as pressure has grown from consumers and liberal groups to take action, corporations have warmed to the notion of using capital and markets to create a cleaner economy. Faith-based groups, universities and foundations have divested from oil, gas and coal. New York State’s pension fund plans to start shedding its fossil fuels holdings, and Maine became the first state last year to require both its Treasury and its public employee pension fund to divest from fossil fuels.}:

When President Trump declared in 2017 that he would pull the United States from the Paris climate accord, more than 2,000 businesses and investors — including Apple, Amazon and Mars — signed a pledge to continue to work toward climate goals.

The Biden Administration’s Environmental Agenda

President Biden is pushing stronger regulations, but faces a narrow path to achieving his goals in the fight against global warming.

Resource Protection: The Environmental Protection Agency has moved to restore authority to states and tribes to stop energy projects that could pollute local waters.

Defining ‘Habitat’: The Biden administration is doing away with a Trump-era definition of the term that was at odds with the conservation purposes of the Endangered Species Act.

Electric Vehicles: The transportation secretary outlined proposed regulations that would require charging stations built with federal dollars to be located no more than 50 miles apart.

Solar Tariffs: The Biden administration announced it wouldn’t impose new tariffs on the solar industry for two years, in an effort to encourage broader adoption of solar energy.

Then, in 2019, a group of senior business leaders promised to redefine “the purpose of a corporation” and prioritize the environment, workers and communities.

And a record number of banks, investors and companies at the United Nations climate talks in Glasgow last year committed to reaching net zero (the point where their activities no longer add greenhouse gases to the atmosphere) by 2050. Several said they saw opportunity in investing in new kinds of technology needed to power an economy that is not based on oil, gas or coal.

Larry Fink, the chief executive of BlackRock, has been among the most outspoken executives, using his annual letter to corporate leaders to implore them to look beyond the bottom line and make a positive contribution to society.

Larry Fink, the head of BlackRock, in a TV appearance in March. “Every company and every industry will be transformed by the transition to a net-zero world,” he has said.

In his most recent letter, issued in January, Mr. Fink made the case for what he calls “stakeholder capitalism,” saying there is a sound business rationale for taking up the fight against climate change and imploring other companies to act.

“Every company and every industry will be transformed by the transition to a net-zero world,” Mr. Fink wrote. “The question is, will you lead, or will you be led?”

Other executives also say they are unbowed by the brewing conservative backlash.

“It’s not going to stop me,” said Marc Benioff, the co-founder and co-chief executive of Salesforce and one of the most outspoken business leaders on social and political issues. “It’s pretty hard to restrict or control how a C.E.O. creates the culture of his company.”

Mr. Benioff dismissed many of the actions of conservatives as theatrics. “Politicians have to do what politicians do, which is try to get elected,” Mr. Benioff said. “It’s a lot of posturing for the base.”

[The Texas legislature last year, which passed a bill that would block state agencies from doing business with financial firms that divest from fossil fuels.

Republican lawmakers, however, are becoming more organized in their efforts to slow corporate progress on climate issues.

Mr. Moore, the West Virginia state treasurer, coordinated a letter in November from 16 state treasurers and comptrollers to banks across the country, threatening “collective action in response to the ongoing and growing economic boycott of traditional energy production industries by U.S. financial institutions.”

“It is our sincere hope that no financial institution will be rendered ineligible to provide banking services to our states,” the letter said.

And in January, Mr. Moore pulled about $20 million out of a fund managed by BlackRock because the firm has encouraged other companies to reduce emissions. BlackRock still manages several billion for West Virginia’s state retirement system. “We’re divesting from BlackRock because they’re divesting from us,” Mr. Moore said in an interview.

In private, elected officials in conservative states have been even more blunt.

“These big banks are virtue signaling because they are woke,” Gary Howell, a West Virginia state representative who sponsored a bill that would blacklist companies that have divested from fossil fuels, wrote in a Feb. 8 email to Mr. Moore. The message was obtained by Documented, a corporate watchdog group, under a Freedom of Information Act request. “They either shut up or get on the list, that is my goal,” he wrote.

Mr. Howell did not respond to a request for comment.

Idaho’s top elected officials, including the governor and the entire congressional delegation, sent a letter last week to the chief executive of S&P Global, the ratings agency, objecting to the company’s use of ESGmetrics in its rankings of states. “It is impossible for the State of Idaho not to conclude that S&P has adopted a politicized ratings system,” the Republicans wrote. Officials in other states, including Utah, have sent similar letters.

Curtis Loftis, the South Carolina state treasurer, emailed senior executives at JPMorgan on Sept. 1 and warned banks “to stay out of political culture wars and particularly abstain from the petty, ‘woke’ cancel culture.”

Mr. Fink of BlackRock has emerged as a main target of conservatives. Last June, BlackRock joined with Vanguard and State Street to help an activist hedge fund, Engine No. 1, win three seats on the board of Exxon with the goal of pushing the energy giant to reduce its carbon footprint.

Months later, a nonprofit group called Consumers’ Research received an influx of funding from undisclosed donors and began running ads attacking Mr. Fink.

Will Hild, executive director of Consumers’ Research, told CPAC, the Conservative Political Action Conference, in February that Mr. Fink and BlackRock had “helped vote on three radical environmentalists to the board of directors of Exxon whose stated goal is to get that company not focused on serving American consumers affordable gas but on Larry Fink’s personal politics.”

BlackRock seemed to backtrack this month when it said it was likely to support fewer shareholder proposals calling for climate action.

People familiar with BlackRock said the pressure was not changing the firm’s investment strategy. But the company has scrambled to limit the fallout in states like Texas, stressing that it is following the wishes of its clients and investing broadly.

“We are perhaps the world’s largest investor in fossil fuel companies, and, as a long-term investor in these companies, we want to see these companies succeed and prosper,” BlackRock’s head of external affairs, Dalia Blass, wrote in a letter to Texas regulators in January.

BlackRock, on behalf of its clients, had $259 billion in assets invested in fossil fuel companies around the world, with $91 billion invested in Texas fossil fuel companies alone, Ms. Blass stressed, listing BlackRock’s sizable holdings in Texas energy companies, including Exxon Mobil, ConocoPhillips and Kinder Morgan.

BlackRock also this month said it would support fewer shareholder proposals calling for climate action because “we do not consider them to be consistent with our clients’ long-term financial interests.”

In a statement, BlackRock said it was “committed to engaging with all stakeholders to ensure they understand our investment decisions are driven by just one thing: our fiduciary duty to our clients.”

Casey Harrell, a senior strategist at The Sunrise Project, a climate advocacy group, said “BlackRock is trying to have it all ways, acting like it is trying to please everyone.”

The efforts appear to be having an impact beyond BlackRock, as well. At the annual meetings of big banks and oil companies — including BP, ConocoPhillips, and Citi — shareholders voted down climate proposals that would have slowed investments in fossil fuel projects.

As the stock markets sink and concerns about inflation grow, the pushback against environmental, social and governance concerns is spreading.

Elon Musk, the richest man in the world, waded into the debate. “ESG is a scam,” he said on Twitter on this month. “It has been weaponized by phony social justice warriors.” Shortly after that he shared a meme that declared an ESG score “determines how compliant your business is with the leftist agenda.”

And last week, the global head of responsible investments for HSBC Asset Management, Stuart Kirk, made a provocative presentation titled “Why investors need not worry about climate risk” at a Financial Times event in London.

Describing climate risk as a problem in the far-off future, Mr. Kirk said, “Climate change is not a financial risk that we need to worry about,” adding, “Who cares if Miami is six meters underwater in 100 years?”

That view is at odds with the findings of the world’s leading climate scientists. A major United Nations report warned last month that the world could reach a threshold by the end of this decade beyond which the dangers of global warming — including worsening floods, droughts and wildfires — will grow considerably. In 2021, there were 20 weather or climate-related disasters in the United States that each cost more than $1 billion in losses, according to the federal government.

On social media, Mr. Kirk was celebrated by some and derided by others. Top executives at the bank said his words did not reflect HSBC’s position.The Financial Times reported that Mr. Kirk had been suspended, pending an internal investigation, something HSBC would not confirm. In a LinkedIn post, Noel Quinn, HSBC’s group chief executive, repeated the bank’s commitment to combating climate change.

“Our ambition is to be the leading bank supporting the global economy in the transition to net zero,” he said.

---

https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/citing-climate-change-blackrock-will-start-moving-away-from-fossil-fuels

---

4/27/20

aha sys fail insanity: no brainer to stop subsidizing ?! banks keep loaning $ to frack tho NEVER MADE A PROFIT?! NOW GOV'T BAILOUT HAMM ETP KELCY; EXXON AND CHEVRON LOOKING TO BANKRUPT SMALL INDEP [THAT DJT CLAIMS TO CARE ABOUT] BUY UP ASSETS CHEAP METHANEWHICH ARE FRYING THE PLANET; MEANWHILE COVIS DEMOS FAIL OF LIBTARD, WE HAVE WINDOW GND, WAY CHEAPER THEN CLEAN UP COVID MESS WHICH HIT US B/C WE TAKE OUT HABITAT AND EAT WILD ANIMALS

icn 420

super-Polluting Methane Emissions Twice Federal Estimates in Permian Basin, Study Finds

BY: PHIL MCKENNA

The methane is a byproduct of fracking for oil, often burned off at well heads or emitted into the atmosphere instead of being captured for use as fuel.

covid bail bill

cf antonia juhaz bakken bailout? oil -40$ bakken, 200b$ debt; in 2008 oil 150$, many poor cty could not afford, helped trigger Gt Recession?

amazonwatch 320

Last week, we released a groundbreaking report exposing five major financial institutions – JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, BlackRock, HSBC and Goldman Sachs – which continue to pour billions into oil extraction in the western Amazon despite their recently celebrated climate commitments.

---

eco update 320 larry fink meets macron; black rock, huge in pensions

https://theintercept.com/2019/08/30/amazon-rainforest-fire-blackrock-jbs/

...FINK, the influential chief executive of BlackRock, which manages more than $6 trillion in investments, wants the public to know that he is using his enormous power to press companies to “serve a social purpose.” Fink — a Democratic donor who reportedly promised to help Joe Biden get elected president — wrote to businesses his firm invests in last year to urge them to consider their “impact on the environment” and the threat of climate change.

“Stakeholders are pushing companies to wade into sensitive social and political issues,” Fink wrote in a follow-up letter this year, “especially as they see governments failing to do so effectively.”

That desire to be seen as an ethical investor has not, however, stopped BlackRock from contributing to the climate crisis by providing significant financing to the world’s biggest meatpacker, JBS, which has been caught year after year buying cattle raised on illegally deforested Amazon land.

At least some of the thousands of fires burning huge swathes of the rainforest in Brazil, eroding a crucial safeguard against climate change, appear to have been started by cattle farmers. Cattle ranching is “the largest driver of deforestation in every Amazon country, accounting for 80 percent of current deforestation rates,” according to researchers at the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies.

As Christopher Ingraham of the Washington Post reported this week, cattle ranchers in Brazil “have been pushing their herds into the Amazon, clear-cutting and burning the forest as they go” to meet the surging demand for beef exported by Brazilian agribusiness firms to mainly China, Iran, Egypt, Russia, and the United States.

A Top Financier of Trump and McConnell Is a Driving Force Behind Amazon Deforestation

About a third of that beef is exported by JBS, the spectacularly corruptBrazilian meat-packing conglomerate BlackRock is heavily invested in. But even as Fink publicly urged business leaders to consider their environmental impact, BlackRock increased its stake in JBS by $41 million between 2016 and 2018, according to research conducted for Friends of the Earth.

The Bureau of Investigative Journalism, The Guardian, and Repórter Brasil revealed in February that a giant ranching company that was fined for using deforested Amazon land delivered hundreds of heads of cattle raised in the Amazon to other farms the firm owned for fattening. Cattle was later sent from those farms to slaughter at JBS plants.

It’s not just private American capital that is funding the destruction of the Amazon. Public money is at work, too. President Donald Trump has been compensating American farmers hurt by his trade war to the tune of billions of dollars, and $62 million of that has gone to JBS, because the company has an American subsidiary.

As Colorado’s Greeley Tribune reported in May, “JBS USA secured nine contracts for federal purchases of JBS pork since mid-January, totaling nearly 18.5 million pounds of pork for $40.1 million. That’s in addition to previously awarded contracts for nearly 9.8 million pounds of pork for $22.3 million. In total, the company, a subsidy of Brazil-based JBS SA, will receive $62.4 million from the program, which is meant to mitigate trade war impacts to local farmers.”

In 2016, Fink was angling to become treasury secretary under Hillary Clinton.Fink was on the short listto replace Tim Geithner as President Obama’s treasury secretary, and in 2013, hired Cheryl Mills, a close aide to Clinton, at BlackRock. Just ahead of the 2016 election, he was endorsed for the position by Steve Schwarzman,a top Republican donor and the co-founder and CEO of Blackstone. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., had promised to work to block any Clinton nominees from BlackRock.

BlackRock began as a fund inside of Blackstone, but Fink and Schwarzman had a falling out in the 1990s that led to a split. As The Intercept reported earlier this week, Blackstone is also heavily involved in deforestation of the Amazon, through its financing of highway and port projects that facilitate agribusiness.

According to a recent study by Amazon Watch, a nonprofit monitoring group, AgroSB, the JBS supplier, was fined in 2017 and 2018 by Brazil’s main environmental agency, known by its Portuguese acronym IBAMA. That agency has lost a quarter of its funding since January, when Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro, a far-right former army captain, took office promising to roll back protection for the Amazon to boost agribusiness. Government data provided to Reuters by opposition lawmakers showed that the cuts to IBAMA’s budget included a 23 percent reduction in funding for the prevention and control of forest fires.

This summer, the New York Times reported, “Ibama was unable to carry out operations in the state of Pará, where deforestation has been soaring, because the local police officers would not provide backup.”

As the Amazon burns, Bolsonaro has mocked environmentalists for nicknaming him “Captain Chainsaw,” disputed data from Brazil’s National Institute for Space Research showing that deforestation in the Amazon was up 88 percent in June compared to the same month in 2018, promised “to develop this wonderful region called the Amazon,” and even promoted a conspiracy theory that local environmentalists, not ranchers, had started the fires there.

...

https://www.alternet.org/local-peace-economy/why-vatican-meeting-larry-fink

pope’s June 9 meeting with Larry Fink—CEO of the investment firm BlackRock—and other executives on the issue of climate change couldn’t be more timely. Back in 2015, the pope issued an encyclical on climate change, highlighting that unchecked consumption and greed cause massive devastation to our planet. The pope has repeatedly brought climate change to the forefront of international discussions, including connecting the issue of worldwide hunger with war and climate change.

Forced migrations, hunger, water pollution/scarcity, increased poaching, escalating global insecurity, and the lack of political will to find sustainable solutions are just a few of the common connections between war and climate change. Considering the countless conflicts that have raged across the world and the continued threat of climate change, it’s well past time to hold institutions accountable for profiting on the backs of global destruction.

In October 2017, BlackRock CEO Larry Fink announced that he was going to start holding companies accountable to be good corporate citizens. BlackRock is the world’s largest investment firm, controlling more than $3 trillion in assets. Some of these assets are linked to weapons manufacturers such as Lockheed Martin, meaning that Mr. Fink should follow his own advice and set an example for Wall Street. C ODEPINK has been calling on BlackRock to stop investing in weapons of war. There should be no profit in war (or climate destruction). The pope has been meeting with financial and oil executives because their leadership is needed to pull us out of a spiraling climate crisis. We also recommend that the pope speak to corporate leadership about ending war, as it compounds and escalates the impacts of climate change. In the pope’s 2015 Climate Encyclical he states, “The environment is one of those goods that cannot be adequately safeguarded or promoted by market forces.”

Peace, like the environment, should not be dictated by market forces. When a company’s bottom line is driving decisions, its executives are not considering the impacts of their products on others. BlackRock invests in companies like Lockheed, Raytheon, General Dynamics, Northrop Grumman, and Boeing. These companies make the bombs, missiles, tanks, and warplanes that destroy other communities. Their legacy of environmental contamination includes polluting groundwater and leaving behind depleted uranium in soil for generations.

The legacy of war and climate change also includes the destruction of families. Whether through forced migrations or death, families are ripped apart. Pope Francis raised the issue of refugees and forced migrations during his 2018 World Peace Day address. There are over 65 million forcibly displaced people in the world. U.S. military interventions and U.S. produced weapons have played a leading role in displacing millions around the globe. Conservative estimates state that since 2001, U.S. interventions in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan have displaced 10 million people.

The impacts of war and climate change disproportionately impact those who have less, while an elite few let profits drive their decisions and line their pocketbooks. This is why we must Divest From War and invest in solutions like renewable energy. Our investments—personal and public—should reflect the needs and priorities of our local communities, not the bottom lines of Wall Street.

Learn more about how you can be a part of the solution at www.divestfromwarmachine.org.

Larry Fink is the chairman and CEO of BlackRock. Blackrock is "far and away the largest money manager on the planet" with $3.3 trillion in assets and $9 trillion of clients' money for which the firm provides services.^[1] According to Vanity Fair, "Fink watches funds equal to a little less than four times the current U.S. budget."^[2] At the time of the Deepwater Horizon blowout, Blackrock was the single largest shareholder of**BP**.^[3]

Larry Fink and BlackRock both gained from the 2008 financial crisis and the bailouts that followed. According to Vanity Fair:^[4] "Indeed, it is hard to argue that anyone, or any firm on Wall Street, gained as much stature from the economic crisis as did Fink and BlackRock. At the height of the disaster, when the American economy was on the brink, it was to Fink that Wall Street’s C.E.O.’s—including J. P. Morgan Chase’s Jamie Dimon, Morgan Stanley’s John Mack, and A.I.G.’s Robert Willumstad—turned for help and counsel. As did the U.S. Treasury and the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, whose top officials turned to Fink for advice on the financial markets and assistance on the $30 billion financing of the sale of Bear Stearns to J. P. Morgan, the $180 billion bailout of A.I.G., the $45 billion rescue of Citigroup, and those of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac at $112 billion and growing."

Contents[hide]

1 Articles and resources

Articles and resources

References

↑ Graydon Carter, "Wild on the Street", Vanity Fair, April 2010, Accessed August 8, 2010.
↑ Graydon Carter, "Wild on the Street", Vanity Fair, April 2010, Accessed August 8, 2010.
↑ John Collins Rudolf, "Just How British is BP?", New York Times, June 14, 2010, Accessed August 8, 2010
↑ Suzanna Andrews, "Larry Fink’s $12 Trillion Shadow", Vanity Fair, April 2010, Accessed August 8, 2010

External resources

External articles

Graydon Carter, "Wild on the Street", Vanity Fair, April 2010.
Suzanna Andrews, "Larry Fink’s $12 Trillion Shadow", Vanity Fair, April 2010

This article is a stub. You can help by expanding it.

Categories: Stubs | Deepwater Horizon