ESG 2 bak

===

8 22 primary on SEC rule massive ctr-attack, 1st amend compelled sp BS

NO MERRI

anti-esg being retooled to flight Climate lawsuits? 4 26 Alec LEO

SEE KOCH AFP TPPF ALEC

MILLOY MORANO HERITAGE

RAGA SFOF

see corp bad actor

see coal e&e thinktanks

1 25 TRUMP ATTACKS, JAMIE D BACKS OFF THEN DAVOS

musk vendetta on stock hit --> fashionable/cool/derigeur to attack? fear of empirical fail //free ent pjt?

related to CSR?

bak 9 22 html endit1

===

PEAK ATTACK CAMPAIGN 2023, --> TRUMP KNEECAPS AS CEO’S BROLIARCHS CAVE --> DAVOS 180

note always defensive, we did not start fight [but will end it]

CMD 5 25

...Americans for Prosperity Priorities

Koch-controlled organizations were busy advancing a number of priorities in the realms of policy, lawsuits, and social issues in 2023. Much of this was conducted through AFP and its affiliated 501(c)(3) foundation and super PAC, which spent a combined total of $207 million that year:

AFP Action, an FEC-registered super PAC, spent $30 million in 2023 as it warmed up for the 2024 elections, an effort that ultimately cost over $138 million during the two-year election cycle. The overwhelming majority of these funds were spent supporting Republican candidates and opposing Democrats.

AFP endorsed staunchly anti-environmental gubernatorial candidates such as West Virginia’s Patrick Morrisey, Indiana’s Mike Braun, and Louisiana’s Jeff Landry, a climate change denier.

As the fleet’s hub for “grassroots” activism, AFP continually orchestrated statements, reports, petitions, and events blaming then-President Biden for inflation, which many economists dismissed.

AFP continued a long tradition of attacking worker’s unions. It encouraged Florida’s Republican Governor Ron DeSantis to “hold unions accountable,” fought against a repeal of the decade-old “right-to-work” anti-union law in Michigan, and condemned a strike by the United Auto Workers by unionized employees in Michigan and Ohio.

2023 was the busiest year in the anti-ESG (environmental, social, and governance investing) trend in the states, with 26 of the 48 total anti-ESG laws passed that year in 31 states. AFP, along with other heavily Koch-funded groups like the Texas Public Policy Foundation (TPPF), the Heritage Foundation, and the American Legislative Exchange Council, led a state and federal crusade against “ESG” risk assessments in investing as a means of shielding the fossil fuel industry from accountability for the investment risks posed by climate change and pollution.

AFP celebrated a Supreme Court ruling in favor of a small business that refused to serve gay people. The ruling was opposed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). The Koch-funded Alliance Defending Freedom -– an extreme Christian hate group known for its discrimination against the LGBTQ population -– represented the plaintiff in the case.

:{:{AFP released a statement praising Elon Musk’s “3 best changes” at X (Twitter), without noting the platform’s increased use by hate groups and its resulting drop in use and revenue. Koch has financed several organizations that are involved in a lobbying effort to shield big tech companies from antitrust laws.}:

AFP’s Pennsylvania chapter continued to attack the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) -– a regional cap-and-trade partnership designed to reduce carbon emissions -– while Koch Supply and Trading was participating in RGGI trades.

===

an 1 25

The World Economic Forum begins its 54th annual confab of CEOs and billionaires this week in Davos, Switzerland. Among its attendees are some who attended Trump’s inauguration yesterday to kiss his derriere, and then promptly private-jetted to the Swiss Alps.

Since its inception, the Davos confab has justified itself — and thereby sought to justify global corporate capitalism — by embracing “corporate social responsibility.”

The basic idea is that big global corporations can — and should — be good for everyone. Sure, they may make a few CEOs and big shareholders fabulously wealthy. But they can and should also protect the planet and spread their financial gains.

Hence, Davos attendees’ annual commitments, in myriad sessions and presentations, to “ESG” (environmental, social, and governance — that is, sustainability), “DEI” (diversity, equity, and inclusion), and global and social responsibility in general.

In recent years, Davos has become a choice venue for splashy corporate announcements of such commitments.

In 2020, Marc Benioff of Salesforce issued a goal to plant a trillion trees. The same year, Larry Fink of BlackRock (which manages more than $10 trillion in investments) announced a series of initiatives to invest in ways that better protect the environment. The CEOs of JPMorganChase and Goldman Sachs trumpeted their Net-Zero Banking Alliance.

Other corporate poobahs have used the venue to make grand promises to share profits with their workers, their communities, and the less fortunate around the world. Jamie Dimon, then head of the Business Roundtable, touted his and the Roundtable’s pledges to their workers, their neighborhoods, and the nation as a whole.

But wait. These are exactly the goals Trump and MAGA have railed against, calling them “woke” capitalism.

Now that CEOs of the largest corporations in the world are demonstrating cringe-worthy cowardice when it comes to all things Trump, what’s to become of corporate social responsibility?

Presto! Davos has gone through an ideological cleansing. This time, few if any sessions will be devoted to ESG or DEI. The perennial theme of “corporate social responsibility” has almost vanished.

The CEOs who used to trumpet their corporate social responsibility won’t be doing so this year. (BlackRock’s Fink has already expressed regret over becoming the face of ESG). JPMorganChase and Goldman Sachs have departed their Net-Zero Banking Alliance.

Instead, after years of calling for “responsible” global corporate capitalism, the CEOs gathering in Davos are now openly focusing on their bottom lines.

In other words, the jig is up. The pretense is over. The blather about corporate social responsibility is revealed for what it really is and always has been — PR designed to make the public believe that big global corporations care about anything other than making as much money as possible, as soon as possible.

I, for one, think this is a good thing.

All the artifice about corporate responsibility, echoed year after year at Davos and by the Business Roundtable and in business schools, gave lawmakers who wanted one an excuse to sit on their hands, because, they’d say, big global corporations can be trusted to do what’s right.

The truth is, they can’t. They never could. They won’t sacrifice shareholder returns to tackling climate change or social injustice.

Anyway, these are jobs for governments responsible to the people, not for corporations responsible to shareholders.

The Trump regime won’t do a damned thing about these problems, of course. If anything, it will take us and much of the world backward. (Trump is expected to appear at Davos via videoconference, and god knows what he’ll say.)

But at least we will know where the blame lies. And we will have the chance in future years — I fervently hope — to elect governments that tackle them head-on.

---

===

AN 1 25

Big Wall Street banks are hoping that President-elect Donald Trump will kill several major regulations imposed on the financial industry — including one set of rules aimed at preventing another 2008-style financial crash.

That's according to a Saturday article in the Guardian, which reported that banks are optimistic about the incoming administration's regulatory agenda. Some bankers are particularly eager about the possibility of Trump taking an axe to the Basel III rules, which were put in place in response to the global banking crisis that preceded the Great Recession of the late aughts.

In a 2024 article, Investopedia described **Basel III as an international set of guidelines developed by 28 countries that established "minimum capital, leverage and liquidity requirements to ensure major banks could survive another upheaval." This was a response to the forced bailouts of banks deemed "too big to fail," requiring an infusion of hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars to keep financial institutions afloat.

In addition to Basel III, Trump could undo some of the anti-too-big-to-fail provisions in the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial reform act. This includes a mandatory "stress test" from the Federal Reserve imposed on all financial institutions with more than $50 billion in assets. Dodd-Frank also requires banks to put forth a "living will" that serves as a plan in the event a bank should fail.

A.J. Bell investment analyst Dan Coatsworth told the Guardian that big banks are optimistic about their treatment under Trump's second term given his promises to roll back corporate regulations. He said banks' surging stock prices in the wake of the election symbolizes Wall Street's bullish attitude toward the incoming administration, but emphasized that the industry didn't want so much deregulation that it would risk future instability.

“Trump wants to make things easier for banks, but he won’t want to risk any damage to the financial system,” Coatsworth told the Guardian. “That means being more lenient with rules but not having them too loose."

Financial institutions are also excited about Trump's stated opposition to the environmental, social and governance (ESG) movement in which investors are encouraged to hold their wealth in industries deemed to be more sustainable. JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon has already suggested he would roll back the company's previous commitments to address climate change, and "use the word ‘commitment’ much more reservedly in the future" in regard to pro-environment pledges.

note RW xian? hedge funds free mkt etc always fail

an 11 24

Trump's children aren't wasting any time launching new money-making opportunities after their father was elected to a second term in the White House.

According to the Daily Beast, Lara Trump – the Republican National Committee co-chair who is married to the president-elect's son, Eric — is now launching a new clothing line. Her company, LT Brand by Lara Trump Collection, is labeled "a celebration of strength, resilience and patriotism." She wrote on Instagram that it would help "American workers and factories" and that her products will be "handcrafted in the USA because I believe in bringing jobs back home and making a difference where it matters most."

The Wall Street Journal recently reported that Trump's eldest son, Donald Jr., is now going into business with a former supporter of Florida Republican Governor Ron DeSantis to specifically fund companies eschewing ESG (environmental, social and governance) philosophy. His new business partner, Omeed Malik, is a former Bank of America executive who was fired in 2018 over allegations of making unwanted advances toward female employees and was in relationships with female subordinates.

Their new firm, 1789, is now seeking $100 million in startup capital with a promise to exclusively fund American companies in "response to the weaponization of capital by foreign entities." Some of the more notable board members of the company include failed Arizona U.S. Senate Republican nominee Blake Masters and Jamie McCourt, who was the U.S. Ambassador to France during Trump's first term in office.

Virginia Canter, who is the chief ethics counsel for the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, told the Journal that the Trump children's businesses raise numerous questions about how their private sector work will benefit from their familial connections.

"If it is a regulated entity, will it be given less oversight? Will they be treated differently than other regulated industries?" She said.

According to the Journal, Trump Jr. and Malik first got acquainted while doing business with the company PublicSquare, which was expressly focused on marketing to conservatives who felt alienated by more mainstream brands. Trump Jr. said on a 2023 episode of his podcast that he wanted to help PublicSquare "really get that dual economy going until the other side is willing to not be political, to not hate your guts, to not hate your freedoms, your religion, your values, until they’re willing to not jam their woke bulls— down your throats."

READ MORE:['If he was on The Apprentice right now he'd be fired': Analyst explains why Trump Jr.'s deposition matters

However, PublicSquare has yet to show any definitive proof of success. Despite having a valuation of roughly $200 million in February of 2023, the Journal reports that it has since seen its value plunge by approximately 90%, trading from around $29.80 per share down to around $2 per share in late 2024. In the first three quarters of 2024, PublicSquare posted revenue of $16 million, but losses of nearly $37 million. And the company recently laid off more than a third of its workforce.

Trump Jr. is no stranger to launching failed businesses. He's coming off of a failed cryptocurrency venture called World Liberty Financial, whose signature "gold paper" currency has an image of the president-elect's face on the front. After being unable to tap into a mass market of buyers for its tokens that can't be resold, it reduced its sales targets by 90% after just launching in September.

Lara Trump and Donald Jr. aren't the only Trump relatives to try their hand in business. Trump's son-in-law, Jared Kushner (who is married to his eldest daughter, Ivanka) runs the firm Affinity Partners out of Miami, Florida. That company has attracted billions of dollars in investments from foreign governments including Saudi Arabia and Qatar, along with money from Taiwanese billionaire Terry Gou, who founded the manufacturing giant Foxconn.

Ivanka also had her own clothing line during Trump's first term. However, she eventually shuttered it, with the Beast reporting that the Trump heiress opted to instead focus on supporting her father's administration. The Journal noted that Ivanka's decision to shut down her business was also "tired of the extra restrictions and scrutiny."

Click here to read the Beast's article about Lara Trump, and click here to read the Journal's full report about Trump Jr. (subscription required)

heated mail 3 24

One of the biggest challenges in holding corporations responsible for the climate crisis is that we have no idea how much they’re polluting. And corporate America is fighting tooth and nail to keep it that way.

Sure, there are corporations that try to earn green points by voluntarily disclosing their greenhouse gas emissions—ExxonMobil is one, Walmart is another. But currently, under federal law, there is no rule requiring companies to accurately calculate or divulge their full impact on the planet. Nor is there a rule saying that companies have to report how the climate crisis is impacting their business, and hurting their bottom line.

All that was set to change when the most powerful financial regulatory body in the country decided that the climate crisis was a “significant risk” too big to ignore. In 2022, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) proposed a climate disclosure rule that would have forced public companies to report their greenhouse gas emissions—from their direct emissions (also known as Scope 1 emissions), to emissions from their energy use (Scope 2), to emissions from their supply chain (Scope 3). It also would have required that companies report how climate change is impacting their bottom line.

But that’s not what happened. Instead, on Wednesday, the five-person SEC voted to adopt aclimate disclosure rule that was significantly watered down. It is no longer mandatory for companies to report their emissions; instead it says that companies should disclose their greenhouse gas emissions if they consider them “material”—in other words, of significant importance to their investors. It made no mention of Scope 3 emissions, which are the largest portion of any company’s pollution (For example, 80 percent of Exxon’s emissions are Scope 3).

The changes are the result of a two-year pressure campaign by corporations, anti-climate conservative foundations, anti-ESG lawmakers, and the agriculture lobby. These well-funded groups met with the SEC, wrote letters, and submitted some of the 24,000 comments on the climate rule—the most comments the SEC has ever gotten.

HEATED is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support our work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

If you’re not familiar with the SEC, here’s how powerful it is: the SEC effectively put Martha Stewart in jail for insider trading, bankrupted Enron for fraud, and found cryptocurrency FTX founder Sam Bankman-Fried guilty of fraud. The SEC is not afraid of corporate America. So why did it cave to interest groups here?

The answer lies in the conservative Trump-appointed judges all over the country— many of whom are Trump-appointed—striking down federal climate regulations. According to Clara Vondrich, senior policy counselor at consumer advocacy nonprofit Public Citizen, the world’s most polluting industries and GOP lawmakers threatened to sue if the SEC required them to report all their emissions. Those were not empty threats—within hours of the final rule being adopted, 10 Republican-led states had sued the SEC for overreach.

This chilling effect by “a radical judiciary is not the way democracy is supposed to work,” Vondrich told me in an interview on Tuesday. We spoke about the myriad forces holding back corporate climate accountability—and talked about an “astounding” conversation she had with the SEC chairman last week.

When asked what she thought of the SEC’s changes, Vondrich said, “You know how a human has a beating heart? Without the beating heart, the person dies. It's a very stark metaphor, but essentially that's what the SEC has done.”

Arielle Samuelson: You talked to SEC Chair Gary Gensler on the phone last Friday. What did he tell you?

Clara Vondrich: Well, he told us a very interesting anecdote about pinball, which really left me astounded. ...

{{---

ymail 1123

Public Citizen has been attacked by a far-right entity associated with Mark Meadows, Donald Trump’s former chief of staff and one of the MAGA operatives charged in Georgia for conspiring to carry out Trump’s attempted coup.

Please stick with me for more about this attack.

The Supreme Court’s absurd and anti-democratic Citizens United ruling in 2010 has allowed corporations to spend literally as much as they want bankrolling political candidates and distorting our elections.

In response, Public Citizen launched a nationwide campaign for a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United.

We also brought together a broad network of local and national organizations to push government agencies, corporations themselves, and shareholders for disclosure of corporate political spending.

That network — which Public Citizen leads to this day — is called the Corporate Reform Coalition.

Here’s where Mark Meadows comes in.

Meadows — amidst being one of Donald Trump’s chief lackeys and sorting through legal difficulties arising from the plot to overthrow the 2020 election — has found time to be part of a far-right outfit that has sponsored an array of reactionary enterprises in Washington, D.C.

One of those extremist entities is the American Accountability Foundation (AAF), which claims to be “the one new conservative organization the Left fears most.”

To give you a taste of how the AAF spends its time, after President Joe Biden nominated Ketanji Brown Jackson to the Supreme Court, the group loudly repeated a Republican lie that she had called the judicial system “unfair” to sexual predators.

The Meadows-backed AAF also went after Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland and his wife, Sarah Bloom Raskin — who had been nominated for a position within the Federal Reserve, and who has the temerity to think that fossil fuel companies have something to do with climate change — for missing a paperwork deadline when they were reeling from their son’s suicide just two weeks earlier.

And now the Mark Meadows-backed American Accountability Foundation has attacked Public Citizen through the Corporate Reform Coalition that we lead.

The Meadows-linked AAF issued a 79-page screed that denounces the Public Citizen-led Corporate Reform Coalition as a “motley crew” that is “ideologically motivated to suppress the speech of conservatives.”

But it is not a violation of anyone’s “free speech” rights to want to know how much billionaires and Big Business are spending to essentially buy politicians — Republicans AND Democrats — and to overrun our democracy.

In fact, the Supreme Court justified its travesty of a ruling in Citizens United in part by alleging that the way to address concerns about corporate money in politics is requiring disclosure of that spending.

The Court’s majority seemed to think that existing law required disclosure of corporate political spending. That was wrong. And Public Citizen has been working to mandate disclosure of corporate political spending ever since.

Of course, Public Citizen is not intimidated by — or afraid of a fight with — Donald Trump, MAGA zealots like Mark Meadows, or obscurely named right-wing front groups.

===

---

Exclusive: Circuit Court Ruling on Biden DOE's Appliance Regulation 'a Win' for Americans

PJ Media

Climate Depot's Marc Morano called the DOE's revoked regulations “a complete bypassing of democracy through the unelected regulatory state” and ...

Exclusive: Circuit Court Ruling on Biden DOE’s Appliance Regulation ‘a Win’ for Americans

CATHERINE SALGADO | 6:52 PM ON JANUARY 09, 2024

The Biden Department of Energy (DOE) just lost a case on its heavy and damaging regulation of laundry and dishwashing machines, and a consumer advocate is celebrating the move as “a win” for Americans’ “consumer choice.”

Fifth Circuit Court judges Clement, Wilson, and Oldham ruled on Jan. 8: “In 2022, the Department of Energy tightened the regulatory regime surrounding America’s dishwashers and laundry machines. Petitioners sued. The Department’s actions were arbitrary and capricious. So we grant the petition and remand to the Department.”

The Biden administration has been attempting to wage a war on appliances on multiple occasions and fronts, partly due to its radical and unscientific climate alarmist agenda.

Consumers’ Research Executive Director Will Hild is one expert who sees the court ruling as a victory. Consumers’ Research is a consumer advocacy organization that says it is “focused on educating consumers on the policies, products, and services of concern to them and to promote the freedom to act on that knowledge and understanding.”

This new ruling against the DOE appears to be pro-freedom and pro-consumer. “This is a fantastic ruling for American consumers,” Hild said in exclusive comments to PJ Media.

Hild explained that the DOE appliance regulations came out of the Biden administration’s Environmental, Social, and Governance goals (ESG, or woke standards poisoning our government and businesses). “These regulations were part of Biden’s ESG agenda, that was more about pushing a radical environmentalist agenda than protecting and serving consumers, and today is a win for consumer choice and our standard of living,” Hild said.

*For Our VIPs:I’m So Glad I Have a Gas Stove Right Now

---

*SFOF Exposed

cmd armiak

In recent years, the State Financial Officers Foundation (SFOF), a group of Republican state treasurers and auditors committed to promoting “free-market, pro-growth policies,” has been weaponized by right-wing operatives and organizations to amplify a manufactured crisis around environmental, social, and governance (ESG) investing and diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs that work to address the climate emergency and promote a fairer and more just society. SFOF Exposed provides an easily accessible resource for journalists, researchers, and citizen activists to identify the financial officers, operatives, groups, and funders involved in the politicized effort.

Contributors to this project include: David Armiak, Liisa Silander, Edgar Valles, Juliana Broad, Connor Gibson, Ansev Demirhan, Evan Vorpahl, and Arn Pearson.

This project was made possible with a grant from the Sunrise Project.

american-accountability-foundation

CMD

The American Accountability Foundation (AAF) is a nonprofit launched by the far-right Conservative Partnership Institute (CPI), which refers to itself as a “government oversight and research organization” that uses “aggressive research and investigations to advance conservative messaging, rapid response, and Congressional investigations.”

However, much of AAF’s work is actually focused on discounting and discrediting President Biden and his executive nominees through opposition research and negative, often factually inaccurate narratives. The organization uses the X handle @ExposingBiden to push its point of view. During the confirmation hearings for Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown-Jackson, for instance, AAF “put forward [the narrative] that she had supported lighter sentences for people who had been involved with child pornography,” according to journalist Maggie Severns.

AAF has released a number of reports to assist right-wing attacks on “woke capitalism” and ESG investing. In July 2023, it published Naming and Shaming: The ESG Movement’s Efforts to Defund Trade Associations and Put the Advocacy Community Out of Business. The report argues that ESG-related shareholder resolutions at public companies are actually “ideologically motivated to suppress the speech of conservatives and business groups,” specifically through defunding corporate lobbying.

In July 2023, AAF also produced Proxy Wars: Glass Lewis,a report claiming that the proxy advisory company Glass Lewis has an “overwhelmingly liberal” bias that has fueled the “implementation of ESG policies at major corporations.”

In April 2023, AAF published what it calls an investigative report titled None of It Is Our Money: An Introduction to the Leftist Activists and Liberal DC Insiders at BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street Using Your Money to Advance Their Political Agenda.The report has been publicized by other anti-ESG groups such as the Independent Women’s Forum.

DocumentCloud

Page: 7 THE ESG MOVEMENT ORGANIZATIONS BEHIND NAMING AND SHAMING POLICIES

While any shareholder who meets the requirements can submit a shareholder resolution, there are three groups that have an outsized influence on pushing and organizing lobbying, election spending, and values congruence resolutions – the Corporate Reform Coalition, the Proxy Preview triad, and the Center for Political Accountability. Each of these groups are each ideologically motivated to suppress the speech of conservatives and business groups.

CORPORATE REFORM COALITION The Corporate Reform Coalition is a loosely organized group of 85 investors, non- profits, unions, and academics that support forcing companies to disclose lobbying, trade association, and political spending. The group is not itself an independent entity, but rather housed within the liberal non-profit group, Public Citizen. Public Citizen was founded by Ralph Nader in 1971...

Page: 10 To put it plainly – Proxy Preview makes no effort to hide the fact that they are an arm of the ESG Movement and the organized Left. As You Sow As You Sow is first among equals in the Proxy Preview triad. As You Sow is also a particularly radical organization that filed 106 shareholder resolutions during the 2023 proxy season. As You Sow: • Supports resolutions to “adopt a policy/report on linking executive compensation to ESG metrics.” • Supports resolutions to “adopt a policy to establish net-zero GHG reduction targets.” • Supports resolutions to “report on direct and indirect lobbying included payments, memberships in tax-exempt organization that write legislation, and management decision-making process.” • Scores companies on a racial justice scorecard “to hold corporations accountable for implementing policies and practices aligned with their corporate statements — or lack thereof — on racial justice.” • Engages companies “on the egregious income disparity related to CEO pay that has polarized the US economy and created wage injustice.” Since 2020, As You Sow has received $1.7 million from George Soros’ Open Society Foundations:8

tides....

AAF’s anti-ESG research support was also cited in the March 2023 Consumers’ Research report titled Defeating the ESG Attack on the American Free Enterprise System.

In February 2023, AAF joined other major anti-ESG groups in signing a group letter calling on U.S. senators to “stop Biden’s ideological embezzling of Americans’ retirement accounts.” The following month, it signed onto an Advancing American Freedom letter thanking senators who opposed President Biden’s “woke 401(k)” rule.

AAF is led by Tom Jones, a former legislative director for Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI) and was head of opposition research for Texas Senator Ted Cruz’s 2016 presidential campaign. According to the Wall Street Journal, AAF has received funding from Leonard Leo’s Marble Freedom Trust, but the Center for Media and Democracy has not been able to document this.

Operatives

President Tom Jones
Research Director Jerome Trankle

Top Funders

Conservative Partnership Institute: $335,100 (2021)
Goldman Sachs Charitable Gift Fund: $25,000 (2021)
Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund: $17,500 (2021)
Institute for Citizen Focused Service: $10,000 (2021)
Swenson Family Foundation: $5,000 (2022)

Core Financials

Total revenue: $551,544
Total expenses: $530,360
Net assets: $21,184

---}}

https://www.alternet.org/fossil-fuel-2662235056/

https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2019/01/31/the-long-view-us-proxy-voting-trends-on-es-issues-from-2000-to-2018/

7 23 an no lnx

Inside the fossil fuel industry’s insidious plan to end responsible investing

Jessica Church, Common Dreams and Inequality.org July 06, 2023

In a recent Gallup poll, the vast majority of Americans surveyed said they were not even “somewhat familiar” with the term “ESG.” But on Capitol Hill, Republicans have developed a fixation on the issue, holding not one but two intensely partisan hearings on the topic.

“Republicans Are Losing Their Minds Over ESG” read one headline.

“Anti-ESG talk leads to partisan fireworks” read another.

Now you may be wondering, what the heck is ESG? What’s anti-ESG? What the heck is “woke” capitalism? And why should I care?

What Is ESG?

ESG stands for “Environmental, Social, and Governance,” which are categories of metrics that businesses use to assess performance and risk on a range of issues.To reduce risk and create value over the long term, businesses may seek to reduce carbon emissions (Environmental), improve working conditions for workers through racial equity and other measures (Social), or take steps to bring executive compensation closer in line with the company’s median salary (Governance).

Companies’ practices on ESG metrics can have an impact on future performance, so there is tremendous value in understanding long-term risks associated with environmental, social, and governance factors.

The simple concept that businesses should care about their communities and their workers and govern themselves accordingly is not new. In the 1980s, some companies and banks stopped doing business in South Africa to protest racial Apartheid. In the 1990s, a number of institutional investors divested from the tobacco industry as a way to take a stand against the harmful and deceptive practices of companies like Phillip Morris and R.J. Reynolds. And in the 2000s and 2010s, support for environmental shareholder proposals grew substantially in response to the worsening climate crisis.

Who’s Against It?

This leads us to the current backlash. “Anti-ESG” efforts, promulgated by long-time conservative organizations like theHeritage Foundation and American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) and newly prominent groups like the Committee to Unleash Prosperity, Consumers’ Research, and the State Financial Officers Foundationall have one things in common—connections to conservative big money donors in the oil and gas industry.

“The anti-‘woke investing’ movement was not created by financial experts,” observed environmental reporter Emily Aktin, “It was created by two of the fossil fuel industry’s most notorious climate disinformers.”

The anti-ESG movement is a well-funded and well-organized campaign led by top conservative political operatives.

Big Oil wants to end ESG investing and ESG business practices because they’re at odds with the continued growth of the fossil fuel industry. Big Oil would rather let our planet burn and increase short-term profits than adjust its business practices to stave off the worst of the climate crisis and invest in long-term profits.

Big Oil also wants you to think that this “anti-ESG” movement is organic, that it emerged from the conservative grassroots, but that could not be further from the truth. The anti-ESG movement is a well-funded and well-organized campaign led by top conservative political operatives. I recently corresponded with Meaghan Winter, author of All Politics Is Local, who explained that:

“Ideological donors and their foundations and think tanks have deliberately chosen to push their agendas through obscure-seeming front groups that work incrementally on the state level because they don’t want to call attention to the profound (and very unpopular) changes they are initiating. This strategy is decades-old, it has worked against unions and abortion and more, and the anti-ESG effort is just one of the latest incarnations.”

One shining example of this is the recent House Oversight Subcommittee hearing on ESG, where the majority witnesses (those called by the GOP, because Republicans control the House of Representatives right now) wereMandy Gunasekara from the Independent Women’s Forum, Jason Isaac from the Texas Public Policy Foundation, and Stephen Moore from the Heritage Foundation. These organizations have a long history of receiving financial support and carrying water for the oil and gas industry, including Koch Industries, ExxonMobil, and Chevron.

Watch Congresswoman Summer Lee lay it out for us, plain and simple.

Why Does This Matter?

While the right wing foments a culture war crusade and attempts to make ESG the next critical race theory (“CRT”), the fear mongering campaign has real-world impacts on investors and companies who are scared of being caught in the backlash. For example, some private companies are now backpedaling on their climate commitments.

To be clear, this is what the funders of this movement want.

In December, Vanguard, the world’s second largest asset management firm, pulled out of the Net Zero Asset Managers initiative, which was a voluntary industry-led effort to reach net-zero emission targets by 2050. This was a major setback for anyone who cares about the health and shape of our environment, because Vanguard manages roughly $7 trillion in assets. In order to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement—less than 1.5°C of global warming above pre-industrial levels—global markets must shift capital away from the fossil fuel industry and toward renewable energy systems.

But this goes beyond the climate crisis. In recent years, workers and shareholders have been demanding more corporate accountability on workplace safety, workers’ freedom of association, data privacy, racial equity, and executive compensation, among other issues that fall into the Social and Governance categories of ESG. The right-wing campaign against ESG is a campaign to roll back these victories.

How Do We Fight Back?

My organization, Take on Wall Street, is organizing with unions, public interest groups, and grassroots groups to fight back against this regressive movement. But it’s not just about playing defense. We also need a forward-looking vision for worker power, climate justice, and racial equity. Watch this space.

FROM YOUR SITE ARTICLES

1,300+ scientists urge JPMorgan shareholders to vote for ending new fossil fuel financing ›

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

Fossil fuel lobbyists acting as 'double agents' at institutions fighting against climate change: report ›

:{Republicans' anti-ESG attack may be silencing insurers, but it isn't ...:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;font-optical-sizing:inherit;font-kerning:inherit;font-feature-settings:inherit;font-variation-settings:inherit;vertical-align:top;display:inline-block;max-width:100%;text-wrap:nowrap;overflow:hidden;text-overflow:ellipsis"):}:

6 days agoRepublicans' anti-ESG attack may be silencing insurers, but it isn't changing their pro-climate business decisions Published on 09/06/2023, 8:52am. Republicans are pressuring insurers out of climate coalitions but won't change their pro-climate business decisions .

:{https://www.exposedbycmd.org:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;font-optical-sizing:inherit;font-kerning:inherit;font-feature-settings:inherit;font-variation-settings:inherit;vertical-align:baseline"):}::{ › 2022 › 09 › 06 › esg-companies-bankroll-gop-ags-the-very-officials-retaliating-against-their-climate-goals:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;font-optical-sizing:inherit;font-kerning:inherit;font-feature-settings:inherit;font-variation-settings:inherit;vertical-align:baseline"):}:

:{ESG Companies Bankroll GOP AGs—the Very Officials Retaliating Against ...:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;font-optical-sizing:inherit;font-kerning:inherit;font-feature-settings:inherit;font-variation-settings:inherit;vertical-align:top;display:inline-block;max-width:100%;text-wrap:nowrap;overflow:hidden;text-overflow:ellipsis"):}:

Sep 6, 2022But the beer giant is one of the largest corporate funders of the Republican Attorneys General Association (RAGA), ... Other evaluations of ESG investing are mixed, but when researchers from the New York University Stern Center for Sustainable Business and Rockefeller Asset Management analyzed over 1,000 relevant research papers from 2015-20 ...

:{https://www.forbes.com:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;font-optical-sizing:inherit;font-kerning:inherit;font-feature-settings:inherit;font-variation-settings:inherit;vertical-align:baseline"):}::{ › sites › chriscarosa › 2023 › 03 › 27 › who-supports-esg-investing-and-whos-against-it-and-why:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;font-optical-sizing:inherit;font-kerning:inherit;font-feature-settings:inherit;font-variation-settings:inherit;vertical-align:baseline"):}:

:{Who Supports ESG Investing And Who's Against It (And Why) - Forbes:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;font-optical-sizing:inherit;font-kerning:inherit;font-feature-settings:inherit;font-variation-settings:inherit;vertical-align:top;display:inline-block;max-width:100%;text-wrap:nowrap;overflow:hidden;text-overflow:ellipsis"):}:

Mar 27, 2023"Explained in simplest terms, 'ESG' stands for environmental, social and governance which is an investing strategy that takes into account a business's environmental and social risks as part of a...

https://newrepublic.com/article/172480/barre-seid-leonard-leo-dark-money-king

...The amicus curiae brief is one of the network’s favored weapons. ProPublica has identified at least six groups funded by Leo’s network that have filed amicus briefs supporting a Colorado web designer, Lorie Smith, who wants to refuse to work for gay people, and whose lawsuit, now at the Supreme Court, would overturn Colorado’s anti-discrimination law. Twenty Republican attorneys general have also filed an amicus brief in support of the case through the Republican Attorneys General Association. RAGA has received huge tranches of Leo’s largesse for years. In 2022, a Leo-connected group donated $6.5 million to RAGA, according to ProPublica. RAGA money went into PACs targeting Democrats in the midterms. RAGA coordinates Republican attorneys general in pro-corporate, anti-progressive legal action. Those include 19 attorneys general who are pressuring investors like BlackRock to abandon environmental, social, and governance, or ESG, investments aimed at curtailing climate pollution. RAGA money has also been traced to organizations involved in the January 6 insurrection, and the group filed anamicus brief in support of dismissing federal criminal charges against Michael Flynn,the Trump administration’s former national security adviser who pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI.

Other organizations linked to Leo, including the Judicial Crisis Network and the Republican State Leadership Committee’s Judicial Fairness Initiative, are pouring money into state judge races. A Grid News investigation found that Leo-connected groups have put “$31 million in campaign funds into at least 42 races for seats on state Supreme Courts or other high-level state judgeships in 15 states since 2010.” These obscure, low-interest races are increasingly critical as the Supreme Court tosses decisions about everything from abortion to elections down to the states.

Senator Whitehouse has devoted himself to tracking dark money, especially money aimed at reshaping the law and court-packing. He has given much thought to what motivates a man to leave his entire fortune to a regressive, dark money funnel. “Poor man wanna be rich, rich man wanna be king,” Whitehouse said, quoting Bruce Springsteen. “That’s the song. If you are a creepy right-wing billionaire and you know the public hates your view of the world, the only way to be king is to work your way around democratic processes, go clandestine, and find a scamp like Leonard Leo who knows how to move levers secretly.”

What $1.6 Billion Means

Seid’s bequest is believed to be the largest dark money donation in U.S. history. Charitable nonprofits are required to disclose their major donors, but the IRS class of political recipients defined as “social welfare” groups like Leo’s Marble trust are not. “Seid’s donation seems to be one of the largest, if not the largest, single political donation ever given,” said Kathleen Enright, president of the Council on Foundations, a nonprofit association of philanthropic entities. “But to be clear, this is not a charitable contribution by any means. It is a political contribution made to support a political agenda.”

How it works is: If Warren Buffett sets up a charitable foundation, a 501(c)(3) organization under IRS rules, it must spend transparently. Political action committees engaging in candidate support also must disclose donors. But when a billionaire throws a fortune at a “social welfare,” 501(c)(4) status organization, the IRS doesn’t require donor disclosure. Beyond Leo and his coterie, nobody knows how the money is being spent, or whether Seid put any restrictions on it. If Leo’s past is precedent, the money will support cherished right-wing goals: expanded gun rights, further erasure of the wall between church and state, rollbacks of civil rights on various fronts, and federal and state judges who will rule favorably on those issues.

Some of the money might wind up in the pockets of Leo and his pals. In March, Politico published an investigation finding that Leo-controlled nonprofits moved $43 million into his for-profit political consultancy, CRC Advisors, which he has been running since around the time of the Seid donation. The investigation dated the start of Leo’s “lifestyle upgrade,” with real estate and other perks, to 2016, the year he became Trump’s judge-picker.

In the wake of the Politico report, Senator Whitehouse and others are calling for an IRS investigation. “Leonard Leo’s new lavish lifestyle appears to be his reward for helping anonymous right-wing billionaires capture our Supreme Court,” Whitehouse said in a statement to The New Republic. “But questions remain about how he is getting paid and by whom, and who is behind the front groups communicating instructions to the justices through amicus briefs. People need to understand the level of coordination among dozens of supposedly independent groups that are played like piano keys by a manipulative donor elite. It’s an operation, not a coincidence.”

Whitehouse cited “Republican political battering of a previous IRS Commissioner” for the agency’s oversight “ineffectuality.” Kathleen Enright concurred. “The charitable sector has always valued and supported fair oversight,” she said. “However, the IRS division that regulates these organizations has been hollowed out in recent years, so the mechanisms to ensure the checks and balances that preserve the credibility of nonprofits, and the people and organizations that fund them, is woefully inadequate. Rebuilding that accountability and enforcement capacity is an important first step to rebuilding trust in the sector.”

Besides the question of what to spend Seid’s pile on, Leo can also decide how long to hold on to the money. He could spend Seid’s money all at once, essentially dropping a billion on a candidate or cause on one or a few cycles. Or he could treat it more like an endowment, invest it, and spend the income. That choice is not available to most charitable entities, since they rarely receive such large gifts, Enright said. “An operating nonprofit that received a gift of this size would be wise to put some portion into an endowment for future needs, given that it’s unlikely they will receive similar gifts in the future.”

Gara LaMarche is a past president of Democracy Alliance, a group of liberal donors, and no stranger to allocating big money. In his previous position as president of Atlantic Philanthropies, LaMarche spent half a billion dollars a year in the process of doling out a $4 billion fund according to the wishes of billionaire Chuck Feeney, who made his fortune in duty-free shops. Feeney had mandated that the money be spent over a short time on four program areas: population health, aging, disadvantaged youth, and human rights and reconciliation. Atlantic laid a great deal of grassroots groundwork for the passage of Obamacare.

Still, LaMarche is impressed by the Seid donation, which he compared to the endowment of a very significant charitable foundation. The Democracy Alliance has never spent more than $100 million a year, he said. He wouldn’t hazard a guess as to what Leo plans to spend it on, but LaMarche suggested several possible spending styles. Leo could spend it fast—say, $400 million over four election cycles. “Shorter time, bigger impact,” said LaMarche. “Or he could save it and spend it as an endowment. It’s enough money so you could have a very significant program just off the interest of the endowment—hundreds of millions of dollars without touching the nut. My guess is it will be a combination.”

Besides legally saving him hundreds of millions in taxes, Seid’s structuring the gift as a stock transfer increased the size of the gift by 20 to 25 percent over what it would have been if Seid first sold his shares and then made the donation. “Under current law, that approach just makes sense,” Enright said. “However, the broader questions remain of whether this scale of influence on our elections is good for our democratic system, and whether donors to political causes should be able to reap tax benefits by structuring gifts in this way. If you believe unchecked political giving is unhealthy, as we do, that requires changes to the law.”

Philip Hackney is associate professor of law at the University of Pittsburgh, specializing in nonprofits and their tax exemptions. Hackney explained that the IRS has been battered from the right, first in 2014, after a manufactured scandal alleging that the Obama IRS targeted conservatives, and further with a Trump-era IRS decision to stop requiring recipients of political dark money to reveal the names of donors. “The system is allowing people to completely avoid wealth tax on future generations and accomplish political goals,” Hackney said. “Then the IRS moves in 2019–2020 made it very hard to see these wealth games happening. We are ensconcing dynasties and giving federal money to accomplish that. Why would you allow a billionaire to use this system to get more money from government to accomplish their goals?” Hackney offered an answer to his own question: “There is a part of our institutional structure that believes wealthy people are brilliant and deserve the right to ample political speech.”

The Barre Seid bequest should alert all Americans to the extent of the damage Citizens United does to democracy. So far, it has only caused ripples of fear through the political junkie class on the progressive side. But it should freak you out, and here’s why.

The Federalist Society, with an annual expenditure of around $20 million, remade the Supreme Court and seeded the federal bench with enough extremists to overturn gun control laws in places like New York and Chicago, chip away at the Affordable Care Act, and overturn the Food and Drug Administration when it comes to approval of an abortion pill. Leo’s people spent a mere $6.5 million to gin up an amicus curiae machine that, for example, aims to ensure that discriminating against gay people is federally protected.

...

https://www.mediamatters.org/greg-gutfeld/fox-news-host-claims-climate-change-improves-peoples-lives

mma 4 23

GREG GUTFELD (CO-HOST): The green movement is tied up in knots right now.Electric cars exploit cheap human labor in Africa and in China. The climate predictions are falling apart. The smart folks are flocking to nuclear andidentity politics stole the thunder from the climate agenda. And how do you know that?

You've got to look atESG, right? Equity [sic] social governance. Why are they packed together like that at companies? It's because you couldn't do climate on its own because no one bought it. So what they did is they married it to race and they married it to gender, so if you come out against ESG, it's about you being a bigot, not about you being smart about the climate.

None of their predictions have come true. None of them. They are fighting. They are forcing America to do this crap over one -- less than a percent Celsius, less than a percent Celsius. It has no effect.

And in fact, as this climate gets warmer, people's lives improve. That's a fact. That's a fact.People die from cold weather more frequently than warm weather, so give me your cancer B.S.

https://www.mediamatters.org/foxdominion-lawsuit/foxs-anti-woke-campaign-has-network-attacking-its-own-shareholders

esg blackrock

ingraham?

an 3 23

A recent Teneo fundraising email laid out how the group can bring its members' influence together in service of a cause.

To “confront” what he dubbed “woke capitalism,”Jonathan Bunch, a longtime Leo deputy and now Teneo board member, wrote that the group had brought together a coalition of Teneans “working with (or serving as) state attorneys general, state financial officers, state legislators, journalists, media executives and best-in-class public affairs professionals” to launch investigations, hold hearings, pull state investment funds and publish op-eds and news stories in response to so-calledenvironmental, social and governance, or ESG, policies at the corporate level.

“Our members were in the rooms where it happened,” Bunch wrote.

Another project underway, Baehr explained in a 2020 presentation, was a “surreptitious and exciting” effort to map key institutions in major cities — private schools, country clubs, newspapers, Rotary and so on — and find ways to get Teneo members inside those institutions and help members connect with each other. The initiative has begun by mapping Atlanta and several cities in Texas....

gmail 3 23 morano

The Epoch Times

February 25, 2023 EpochTV Live

Is Climate Change or Policy the True Issue? 15th ICCC Keynote Speech by Marlo Oaks

EpochTV Live

Is climate change or climate policy the real issue? Experts, advocates, and common sense politicians give their thoughts and ideas at the 15th International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC) held by the Heartland Institute in Orlando, Florida.

Utah state Treasurer Marlo Oaks will speak about the “dangers of ESG” in his keynote speechat breakfast at 8:00 a.m. ET on Feb. 25.

huh?? some fox sponsor, some big FF funders?!

mma 3 23

Fox News published an article Feb. 27, titled “These 51 big businesses target conservatives. Here’s what you can do to stop them,” that calls out several of its own advertisers as being “at war with conservatives” and suggests readers boycott as well.

The February 27 article by Justin Haskins, director of The Heartland Institute’s Socialism Research Center, complains that “over the past decade, hundreds of large U.S. corporations have adopted woke policies, regularly injecting left-wing ideals into their products, services and employment practices.” The article cites a “new project launched by the 1792 Exchange, a nonprofit organization,” that “assesses more than 1,000 companies’ ‘policies, practices, and other relevant criteria to determine the likelihood a company will cancel a contract or client, or boycott, divest, or deny services based on views or beliefs,’” sorting them into “lower risk,” “medium risk,” and “high risk” categories. (Media Matters has written extensively about the Heartland Institute, particularly around its climate denial.)

The list includes 147 companies that the 1792 Exchange has identified as “high risk.” The author chose to spotlight “51 of the most impactful for this article” and suggested that readers should “switch” away from these companies “whenever possible.” He also suggested conservatives should “send a letter to businesses that are engaging in discrimination to tell them that you’re considering leaving because of their actions.”

The 51 companies listed are: Ally Financial, Amalgamated Bank, Bank of America, Berkshire Bank, BMO Harris, Citigroup, Deutsche Bank, Eastern Bank, Fifth Third Bank, First Republic Bank,JPMorgan Chase,Morgan Stanley, PNC, Royal Bank of Canada, Scotiabank, TD Bank, Bancorp, Trillium Asset Management, Truist, US Bank,Wells Fargo, Alaska Airlines, American Airlines, Southwest Airlines, United Airlines, XPO Logistics, Best Buy, Home Depot,Kohl’s, Lululemon, Macy’s, Madewell, Target, Walmart. Alibaba, Amazon, Chewy, eBay, Etsy, Shopify, Warby Parker. Altria, Ben & Jerry’s, Cargill, Coca-Cola,HelloFresh, Kellogg’s, McDonald’s, PepsiCo, Starbucks,and the JM Smucker Company.

Here are some of these companies which have advertised on Fox News over the past year, according to Media Matters’ internal database.

Amazon

Amazon and its subsidiaries have advertised on Fox News over 100 times in the past year.

Bank of America

Bank of America and its subsidiaries have advertised on Fox News over 800 times in the past year.

Chewy

Chewy has advertised on Fox News over 100 times in the past year.

Citigroup

Citigroup has advertised on Fox News over 100 times in the past year.

JPMorgan Chase

JPMorgan Chase and its subsidiaries have advertised on Fox News over 900 times over the past year.

PNC Financial Services

PNC has advertised on Fox News over 300 times over the past year.

Walmart

Walmart has advertised on Fox News over 200 times in the past year.

ref no lnx vid

These 51 big businesses target conservatives. Here’s what you can do to stop them

Banks, transportation firms, retail giants and food companies make up 51 businesses at war with conservatives

Justin Haskins By Justin Haskins | Fox News

Fox News Flash top headlines for February 24

Fox News Flash top headlines are here. Check out what's clicking on Foxnews.com.

NEW

You can now listen to Fox News articles!

It is not a secret that over the past decade, hundreds of large U.S. corporations have adopted woke policies, regularly injecting left-wing ideals into their products, services and employment practices. But some of these businesses have recently gone much further than merely promoting social justice causes; they have chosen to target conservative customers and employees, coercing or forcing Americans to abandon their deeply held beliefs in order to receive important goods or services or to stay employed.

Although many conservatives have heard stories about corporate discrimination in recent years, they have often struggled to keep track of which businesses have been part of this movement, and which have largely stayed on the sidelines. A new project launched by the 1792 Exchange, a nonprofit organization, seeks to shed light on this important problem.

The 1792 Exchange recently launched its Spotlight Report, which assesses more than 1,000 companies’ "policies, practices, and other relevant criteria to determine the likelihood a company will cancel a contract or client, or boycott, divest, or deny services based on views or beliefs."

HOUSE GOP VOTES NEXT WEEK TO KILL BIDEN’S ‘WOKE’ ESG INVESTING RULE

The 1792 Exchange team then used those assessments to assign businesses to three categories — "Lower Risk," "Medium Risk," and "High Risk."

According to the group's website, "‘High Risk’ companies have generally canceled or denied business relationships based on viewpoint disagreements or pose a high risk of canceling people and businesses who do not share their views." Out of the more than 1,000 companies evaluated, 147 are currently classified as "High Risk," which means they are much more likely than other businesses to engage in direct discrimination.

I have carefully reviewed the assessments produced by the 1792 Exchange and have selected 51 of the most impactful for this article. Those companies are grouped by category and listed below.

Banks

Perhaps the most influential groups of woke companies in the report are banks. Numerous large banks are using their financial might to effectively force business customers into adopting climate change policies, even when it will require that those customers dramatically change their business practices.

Many of these banks have also weaponized their operations to promote social and ideological views favored by the left. For example, Bank of America vets its vendors based on their commitment to LGBTQ views, and it has ceased lending with some gun manufacturers. It has also provided funding to Planned Parenthood, as well as the Southern Poverty Law Center, which has a long track record of targeting conservative groups.

Report rates companies based on likelihood they will go 'woke'Video

Bank of America and its CEO, Brian Moynihan, as well as many of the other banks that have been assigned a "High Risk" score by the 1792 Exchange have been some of the biggest supporters of the radical environmental, social, and governance (ESG) movement. ESG is a kind of social credit scoring model that aims to fundamentally transform the global economy so that it’s more in line with the United Nations’ left-wing Sustainable Development Goals.

The 1792 Exchange identified 21 "High Risk" banks: Ally Financial, Amalgamated Bank, Bank of America, Berkshire Bank, BMO Harris, Citigroup, Deutsche Bank, Eastern Bank, Fifth Third Bank, First Republic Bank, JPMorgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, PNC, Royal Bank of Canada, Scotiabank, TD Bank, Bancorp, Trillium Asset Management, Truist, US Bank, and Wells Fargo.

Transportation

The 1792 Exchange determined that five large transportation companies fall into its "High Risk" category — Alaska Airlines, American Airlines, Southwest Airlines, United Airlines, and XPO Logistics.

Although the transportation companies listed in the 1792 Exchange report do not regularly refuse to do business based on ideological or religious considerations, they have engaged in left-wing activism and even promoted partisan legislation.

American Airlines is one of five airlines on the ‘High Risk’ list. It fought against the Florida Parental Rights in Education Act.

For instance, American Airlines publicly fought against the Florida Parental Rights in Education Act — commonly and falsely labeled the "Don’t Say Gay Bill" by liberals. The legislation prevents public schools from teaching young children, kindergarten through third grade, about topics related to sex and gender identity.

Similarly, Southwest Airlines fought against state laws that sought to enhance election integrity by limiting questionable practices like mail-in balloting.

Retail Giants

The 1792 Exchange labeled 15 large businesses in the "Retailing" industry as "High Risk" companies, including popular brick-and-mortar stores Best Buy, Home Depot, Kohl’s, Lululemon, Macy’s, Madewell, Target and Walmart. The online retailers included in the report as "High Risk" are Alibaba, Amazon, Chewy, eBay, Etsy, Shopify and Warby Parker.

The reasons behind the decision to identify these companies as "High Risk" varied, but in every case, the 1792 Exchange provided significant evidence showing that these businesses have actively promoted left-wing ideological views.

Disney+ criticized for reparations-themed rap song in kids showVideo

For example, 1792 Exchange notes Home Depot "advertised flyers to its employees about confronting their ‘white privilege, Christian privilege, heterosexual privilege, able-bodied privilege,’ etc."

Target has removed books from its stores at the request of liberal activists, and it has fought against numerous legislative proposals backed by conservative lawmakers, including election integrity legislation in Georgia.

Food and Beverage Companies

Ten large food and beverage companies were given "High Risk" ratings in the 1792 Exchange report: Altria, Ben & Jerry’s, Cargill, Coca-Cola, HelloFresh, Kellogg’s, McDonald’s, PepsiCo, Starbucks and the JM Smucker Company.

Although all of these businesses engaged in troubling activities, the company with the most radical practices is, by far, Ben & Jerry’s. The famous Vermont-based ice cream company has promoted "Defund the Police" campaigns, opposed legislation meant to limit election fraud, said that the criminal justice system "must be dismantled," and openly advocated for pro-abortion policies, among many other actions.

Home Depot is one of the 15 retail giants on the ‘High Risk’ list. The woke company confronted workers about ‘white privilege, Christian privilege, heterosexual privilege, able-bodied privilege.'

Fighting Back

Unfortunately, the 51 companies mentioned throughout this article are just the tip of the iceberg. Numerous other important corporations are also actively undermining conservatives and/or discriminating against families or businesses who do not share their radical views.

The 1792 Exchange outlined nearly 100 additional "High Risk" companies in its report, including some of the most powerful in the world, like Alphabet (the owners of Google), Disney, and Apple.

How can conservatives push back against these businesses?

CLICK HERE TO GET THE OPINION NEWSLETTER

The first step is to share instances of discrimination and reports like the one produced by the 1792 Exchange with like-minded friends and family.

Conservatives should identify companies that offer similar products and services to those offered by businesses that discriminate and switch, whenever possible. If you can switch products or services, be sure to tell both the business you’re leaving and the new, non-discriminatory business why you’re making the change.

If there aren’t any good alternatives, then send a letter to businesses that are engaging in discrimination to tell them that you’re considering leaving because of their actions. Companies don’t often receive letters like these, so they do have an impact.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Finally, conservative lawmakers need to prioritize policies that reject ESG social credit scores and other systematic attempts meant to coerce companies into embracing leftist causes. The legislation proposed by Florida Governor Ron DeSantis earlier this month that would limit the use of ESG scores in banking is a great place to start.

If conservatives don’t soon make a concerted effort to fight back against woke corporations, America could soon be transformed beyond repair. We simply cannot afford to wait any longer.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM JUSTIN HASKINS

Justin Haskins is the director of the Socialism Research Center at The Heartland Institute and a New York Times bestselling author.

an bad 2 23

Appearing to confess frustration, far-right Republican governor **Ron DeSantis** says he is remaking Florida’s education system because even after turning the state’s Democratic Party into a "rotten carcass on the side of the street," the left "can still impose their agenda on my people."

That "agenda," apparently includes so-called Critical Race Theory (CRT), Environmental, Social, and Corporate Governance (ESG), and Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs, according to far-right Fox News host Mark Levin who told the Florida governor the right is "in a culture war."

"We didn't start it," Levin told DeSantis. "But what I call the Marxist left, they started it. It is devouring our institutions. It is devouring our politics. It's devouring the private sector."

DeSantis did not disagree.

As he uses the power of his office to pave the road for a likely 2024 run for the White House, DeSantis has not gone unnoticed. He has been accused of being "an Honest-to-God Semi-Fascist," turning Florida into "a laboratory for fascism," running his state "like a fascist," and being a "fascist for our time" and a "one-man civil rights wrecking ball, determined to neutralize any group that doesn't conform to his dangerously narrow view of social order."

All those accusations were before his Sunday night Fox News interview with Levin, who warned that "in the classrooms" there is "the sexualizing of little kids." Levin also said, "Disney, Walt Disney has to be rolling in his grave right now what's happened to Disneyland and Disney World and these other events in the culture."

Asked why he decided to take "the lead in taking this on as far as governors go," DeSantis bragged, "I got reelected November 2022. Largest vote than any Republican governor [in] Florida history has got, largest vote margin any governor candidates ever got. 1.5 million votes."

"I can win by 1.5 million votes. Make the Democratic Party in our state, basically, a rotten carcass on the side of the street. And yet, the left can still impose their agenda on my people if I'm not looking after fighting ESG and other woke companies and some of the stuff going on in the universities and the schools."

"And so I think I have an understanding that these fights are far broader than just one particular election. Yes, you do have to fight the woke in the halls of government and in the legislative chambers, and we have super majorities as Republicans in Florida so we will win all those fights, but you also have to be willing to defend your folks against thisagenda being shoved down their throatfrom all these otherinstitutions,where these people aren't necessarily coming up for election."

DeSantis has infamously veered into pushing his supporters into local school board positions of power.

"So you talk about things with like the young kids and with Disney, and I see that not just through the eyes of a governor but also through the eyes of a dad," DeSantis continued. "You know, we have a six, a four, and a two-year-old at home. And we just believe as parents, we should be able to send our kids to school, have them watch cartoons without having somebody's sexual agenda shoved down their throats."

"And so when this issue came up, with the sexualization of the curriculum, of course in Florida, we think that that's inappropriate. And you know what? Republican, Democrat, Independent parents agree with us overwhelmingly."

That's debatable. In October Florida Politics reported, "Majorities oppose Ron DeSantis-backed 'Stop WOKE' and parental rights laws," including his "Don't Say Gay" law.

In January, a study by UCLA School of Law's Williams Institute found a large percentage of LGBTQ parents say they are concerned their families will be negatively impacted by DeSantis' laws, including HB 1557, the "Don't Say Gay" law – with some saying they already have been.

"Almost 9 out of 10 (88%) LGBTQ+ parents are very or somewhat concerned about the impact that HB 1557 will have on them and their children, with one in four reporting they have experienced anti-LGBTQ harassment since the law was passed and one in five reporting becoming less out in their communities since the law was passed. Parents have considered a variety of coping strategies in response to the bill, including moving out of the state (56%) and moving their children to a different school (11%). Over 16% of LGBTQ parents have already taken steps to move their families to another state."

Watch a short clip or the full interview below or at this link.

https://www.eenews.net/articles/ee-subscriber-it-s-just-beginning-republican-house-to-target-esg/

https://www.eenews.net/articles/what-the-midterm-results-mean-for-esg-investing/ LCV says green wave

amy gmail 11 22

...Another sign of what's next: Milloy, Droz, E&E Legal and the Competitive Enterprise Instiute have joined the fight against Environmental, Sustainability, and Governance (ESG) guidelines in the finance industry as well. Milloy says it's a "leftist scam."And E&E Legal, Droz, Heartland and CEI teamed up on a letter to the SECrecently, arguing that: "The Commission’s current proposal [to standardize climate disclosures in finance] is similar to much previous ESG activism in that it uses the language of business and financial management in order to suggest that it seeks practical, prosperity-enhancing goals, but is actually animated by environmental theory that is hostile to hydrocarbon energy and industrial development per se for moral and ideological reasons."

Groups like CEI, E&E Legal, Heartland Institute,and various others in the free-market, libertarian universe sprung into action against ESG in 2020 after mostly ignoring it for years. It was the SEC's move to standardize climate risk disclosure and ESG guidance, to make it auditable and enforceable, to, in effect, finally make ESG real that was the problem. Prior to the Commission's finding in 2020 that inconsistencies and fragmentation in climate-related disclosures had led to just the sort of confusion amongst investors that the SEC was created to address,ESG was just a handy greenwashing tool for polluting companies and industries. It rarely, if ever, caught the attention of these groups.

No surprise to see Milloy and E&E Legal hopping onboard now though: like all of their other efforts, the :{anti-ESG push has been led and largely funded by coal. :(style="font-weight:700"):}:Earlier this year, Documented publishedits investigationinto how state treasurers in coal states became the frontline warriors in this fight. Attorneys general in those states have gotten involved now, too.

There's a small group of lone wolf climate denier dudes whose work I follow because it's a pretty decent bellwether of where the climate countermovement is headed next. Milloy is one of them,and his talking points in recent years have cycled through the following themes: climate change is a hoax, Covid (and related mitigation measures) is a hoax, ESG and renewables are a scam, and Americans should be concerned about election integrity. By connecting all of these to conservative identity, operatives like Milloy, and the various groups they work with and for, have managed to breathe new life into ideas thought to be buried in the past, from the notion that CO2 is actually goodfor the planet to the idea that wind turbines are dangerous for birds to plain old garden variety climate denial.

am acctability BS hit oppo res

Social Justice Warriors Pushing ESG On Wall Street Have Deep Ties To Political Left

A standing rule of any organization is that personnel is policy. A new investigative report released by the American Accountability Foundation shines a light on how Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) investing is not a strategy intended to increase returns, but rather is a tool for global elites who wield their enormous financial power—with other people’s money—to achieve their liberal political ends.

Blackrock, Vanguard and State Street collectively represent 80% of all passive investors, which includes 401(k) investments, IRA and brokerage accounts, and pension and institutional funds. These investment houses use your money to achieve controversial environmental and social goals like “anti-racism” training, fossil energy divestment, and instituting race- or gender-based hiring quotas. While these policies have failed to gain traction in Congress and have been struck down in the courts, they are becoming increasingly popular in the Davos jet-set crowd.

As the report suggests, the driving force behind this trend may be the new revolving door between liberal politics and Wall Street. Leaders of these investment houses, including Larry Fink who is the CEO of BlackRock, have denied that ESG is about politics or any particular social or ideological agenda and emphatically stated that ESG “is notwoke.” But the mid- to lower-level staff at these investment houses responsible for the day-to-day implementation of ESG investing suggest otherwise. Many of them have earlier careers as partisan staff for liberal politicians and leftist organizations. Given the alignment between ESG goals and the woke agenda heralded by many Democrats, it’s hard to see past the obvious coordination.

[Read the full story at IWF]

mandy g sept

standing rule of any organization is that personnel is policy. A new investigative report released by the American Accountability Foundation shines a light on how Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) investing is not a strategy intended to increase returns, but rather is a tool for global elites who wield their enormous financial power—with other people’s money—to achieve their liberal political ends.

Blackrock, Vanguard and State Street collectively represent 80% of all passive investors, which includes 401(k) investments, IRA and brokerage accounts, and pension and institutional funds. These investment houses use your money to achieve controversial environmental and social goals like “anti-racism” training, fossil energy divestment, and instituting race- or gender-based hiring quotas. While these policies have failed to gain traction in Congress and have been struck down in the courts, they are becoming increasingly popular in the Davos jet-set crowd.

As the report suggests, the driving force behind this trend may be the new revolving door between liberal politics and Wall Street. Leaders of these investment houses, including Larry Fink who is the CEO of BlackRock, have denied that ESG is about politics or any particular social or ideological agenda and emphatically stated that ESG “is not woke.” But the mid- to lower-level staff at these investment houses responsible for the day-to-day implementation of ESG investing suggest otherwise. Many of them have earlier careers as partisan staff for liberal politicians and leftist organizations. Given the alignment between ESG goals and the woke agenda heralded by many Democrats, it’s hard to see past the obvious coordination.

The rank and file ESG “stewardship teams” come from the Offices of Sens. Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders and former President Obama as well as the left-wing non-profits like the Center for American Progress. Others are serving on boards for progressive organizations, including Resource Generation, which “offers programming that encourages members to see capitalism not as a market-based equalizer promising upward mobility, but as a damaging system predicated on, ‘stolen land, stolen labor and stolen lives.’”

These are just a few examples of the many that the AAF report extensively covers. The liberal aligned goals and the outcomes lay out a clear indication that ESG is a mechanism for advancing a woke agenda that benefits the political left while producing lower returns for investors. Statements suggesting otherwise should be taken with a grain of salt.

The ESG agenda, just like the woke agenda it perpetuates is causing serious harm like lost value for retirees and broader economic degradation. While ESG acolytes will get paid their high dollar fees, either way, the rest of us will be left with the consequences.

This is why many states like Florida, New Hampshire, Texas and West Virginia are pushing back. Congress should take note as well.

### Steve Milloy on Twitter: "ESG is an illegal leftist scheme for ...

https://twitter.com › JunkScience › status

Sep 8, 2022 — ESG is an illegal leftist scheme for circumventing democratic processes to impose arbitrarily-determined standards on companies in order to ...

"The Top 10 Under-reported Climate Flops of 2021" (Steve ...

https://www.masterresource.org › top-10-climate-flops-...

Dec 28, 2021 — One is Steve Milloy, founder and proprietor of JunkScience. ... Environmental, social and corporate governance (ESG) investing is all the ...

SEC urged to tackle companies' ESG boasts

https://www.corporatesecretary.com › articles › sec-urg...

Aug 15, 2019 — The SEC has received the latest request to act on ESG-related ... risks to their businesses,' E&E Legal director Steve Milloy writes.

Conservative shareholders attack 'climate clown show'

https://www.eenews.net › Articles

Jun 10, 2022 — Conservative rabble-rouser Steve Milloy wasn't happy last year when ... They are part of a broader conservative assault on ESG investing ...

Time to separate the G from ESG, SquareWell Partners argues ...

https://valueedgeadvisors.com › 2022/04/16 › time-to-s...

In response to MSCI's recent 2022 ESG trends to watch report, which states ... for Opposing Anti-Shareholder Proposal from Oil Industry Shill Steven Milloy.

Conservative Shareholder Proposals Rise Amid Anti-ESG ...

https://news.bloomberglaw.com › securities-law › conse...

Aug 31, 2022 — At Exxon, Steve Milloy, a top proponent of anti-ESG proposals who previously worked on the Trump administration's EPA transition team, ...

How to Confront the Anti-ESG Campaign

https://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu › article › how-to...

Aug 30, 2022 — The anti-ESG or anti-woke investment movement is following the ... and Steven J. Milloy, the average level of support received was 7%.

Shareholder Proposals and ESG's Discontent - 24/7 Wall St.

https://247wallst.com › sponsored-content › 2022/07/18

Jul 18, 2022 — This year, shareholders presented 924 ESG proposals to companies in ... on ESG issues – Steven Milloy, The National Legal and Policy Center, ...

Defenders of ESG Go on the Offensive | Morningstar

https://www.morningstar.com › articles › defenders-of-...

Sep 7, 2022 — ... anti-ESG proposals filed by the National Legal and Policy Center, the National Center for Public Policy Research, and Steven J. Milloy ...

guess she got the memo

LAURA INGRAHAM (HOST): The entire ESG scheme is a complete fraud and the result will be the destruction of our energy independence, radical changesthey're planning to our food supply and the creation of what ultimately will be something akin to a racial and ethnic caste system. The free enterprise system, that made us the most powerful nation on Earth, was based on objective merit and a strong work ethic. Well this helps smash all of that.

bost herald op ed

https://www.bostonherald.com/2022/09/02/gunasekara-wall-street-buying-virtue-with-your-money/

By MANDY GUNASEKARA |

September 2, 2022

There is a new class of profiteers in the investment world, and you, the typical American, are paying the price for their virtue-filled scheme. Wall Street elites have been pushing the adoption of corporate metrics, referred to as Environmental, Social and Governance, to assess how much good or bad a company is bringing to society. Interestingly, only the far-left socialist causes qualify as “good.”

While advocates of ESG promise a better, healthi ...

divest ESG turncoat or realist? coal tobacco

https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2022/09/18/esg-stakeholder-governance-and-the-duty-of-the-corporation

Musk right to call ESG a scam - Washington Times

https://www.washingtontimes.com › news › may › mus...

May 30, 2022 — Elon Musk took to Twitter this month to speak the truth: "ESG is a scam." Attacks from left-wing "wacktivists" ensued, while Mr. Musk sat ...

https://www.exposedbycmd.org/**2022/09/**06/esg-companies-bankroll-gop-ags-the-very-officials-retaliating-against-their-climate-goals/

alex k

the Center for Media and Democracy (CMD) investigation has identified more than two dozen major U.S. companies that are publicly committed to environmental, social, and governance (ESG) principles yet have recently donated large amounts of campaign cash to a group of Republican state attorneys general that is hyper-focused on eroding air and water regulations, promoting fossil fuel companies, and using state governments to punish companies that try to limit their climate-related risks by divesting from oil, gas, and coal.

Republican attorneys general, along with fellow GOP governors and state financial officers, are weaponizing their public offices to prevent action on climate change. Their latest efforts seek to bar companies that divest from fossil fuels or employ other ESG principles from receiving government contracts.

And yet large U.S. companies such as AT&T, Cigna, Citigroup, Lowe’s, Pfizer, T-Mobile, and UPS—all of which publicly promote their commitment to ESG—have recently funded the political prosperity of these Republican AGs.

Contradictory Takes on Climate Change

“Climate change is one of the most pressing global challenges,” the multinational brewing company Anheuser-Busch InBev (AB InBev) acknowledges in its 2021 ESG report for investors. “Our evolved understanding of potential climate-related risks and opportunities across our value chain continues to inform our long-term strategy.”

AB InBev has set an ambitious climate goal for 2025, aiming to reduce its carbon emissions by 25% and purchase 100% of its electricity from renewable sources by then. In joining the international RE100 initiative to switch to 100% renewables, the company intends to achieve net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2040.

But the beer giant is one of the largest corporate funders of the Republican Attorneys General Association (RAGA), a group of powerful state officials that has long attacked environmental regulations in the U.S. Members of RAGA—which receives substantial funding from fossil fuel companies to support the reelection campaigns of these AGs—have filed legal challenges against Obama-era air and water pollution regulations. Former Oklahoma AG Scott Pruitt is among those who have worked directly with fossil fuel lobbyists to challenge these laws.

Numerous other corporations have given large sums to RAGA for this year’s elections while publicly committing to ESG principles and, in many cases, to direct climate action.

RAGA recently scored a big win in :{West Virginia v. EPA:(style="box-sizing:inherit;background-color:#ffcc66;"):}: when the right-wing justices who now dominate the Supreme Court ruled against the agency, preventing the Biden administration from regulating greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act without going back to Congress for explicit authorization.

Retaliating Against “Energy Discrimination”

As the Right gets more extreme in the U.S., climate-denying Republicans have added a new weapon to their arsenal: attacking financial firms that decrease their investments in fossil fuels.

GOP attorneys general and financial officers are joining state lawmakers in penalizing investment firms that divest from fossil fuel companies. Although they are members of a political party ostensibly committed to a free market, these GOP officials are meddling in corporate decision-making by trying to prevent executives from limiting the enormous financial risk posed by the effects of climate change—likely the biggest economic challenge of the century.

As with their outcry about critical race theory supposedly being taught in American schools, GOP politicians are attempting to cast climate action as a culture war issue, branding routine practices such as ESG disclosures to investors and divesting from a waning fossil fuel industry as “woke.”

In 2021, Texas enacted a law to root out alleged “energy discrimination,” seeking to prevent investment firms that decrease their stakes in oil, gas, and coal from managing the state’s pension and other funds. After the law passed, the energy task force of the ultra-conservative, corporate-funded American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) approved a model bill with similar language, directing state treasurers or comptrollers to maintain a list of firms that have divested from fossil fuels and to only issue government contracts to businesses with more than 10 employees that verify their allegiance to fossil fuels.

In the past year or so, similar legislation has been introduced in at least 15 states and has already passed in four. On Aug. 24, Texas released its first list of firms that allegedly “boycott energy companies,” including BlackRock, Credit Suisse, and UBS.

Dubious Claims

On Aug. 4, 19 GOP attorneys general sent a letterto BlackRock CEO Larry Finkaccusing his firm of making ESG investments that “force the phase-out of fossil fuels, increase energy prices, drive inflation, and weaken the national security of the United States.”

Claims like this are histrionic and often baseless. For example, BlackRock has invested more than $108 billion in Texas-based energy companies, and this year it plans to support proportionally fewer ESG shareholder resolutions than it did last year. And while Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) and his allies from other states claim that ESG investing hurts their pension funds, academic studies like a recent one undertaken by researchers at the University of Pennsylvania and the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago refute this. In fact, since Texas passed its anti-ESG law last year, the UPenn/Fed study indicates that it has already cost the state between $303 and $532 million, as Kate Aronoff points out in The New Republic.

Other evaluations of ESG investing are mixed, but when researchers from the New York University Stern Center for Sustainable Business and Rockefeller Asset Management analyzed over 1,000 relevant research papers from 2015–20, they found that a majority of the studies indicated ESG investing leads to either neutral or improved financial performance. The meta-analysis points out that “improved financial performance due to ESG becomes more marked over longer time horizons.”

Despite these findings, Republican state AGs and other officials have accelerated their attacks on climate action—a central tenet of ESG investing—in the past few years.

In August, Florida’s Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) and the trustees of the State Board of Administration voted to ban its investment managersfrom using ESG considerations in managing its portfolio of roughly $245 billion, primarily from the Florida Retirement System Pension Plan. Florida’s AG Ashley Moody (R) joined the governor in supporting the move.

In May, Kentucky’s AG Daniel Cameron (R) issued an opinion barring investment managers doing government business from employing ESG principles. On Sept. 1, Indiana’s AG Todd Rokita (R) did the same.

Meanwhile, right-wing entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy is cashing in on the GOP’s anti-ESG and anti-woke craze, as CMD recently reported. His firm Strive Asset Management (DRLL) is trying to pull business away from the Big Three asset managers in red states. It recently announced that it has raised $250 million thanks to large investments from far-right tech mogul Peter Thiel and his affiliated groups.

Not only are GOP AGs targeting asset managers that reduce fossil fuel investments, but they’re going after regulators and ratings agencies as well.

In June, Paxton spearheaded a letterfrom a group of 12 Republican AGs to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)opposing its proposed corporate disclosure requirements around sustainability. The rule would require firms to back up their claims of purportedly green or socially aware investments. Twenty-one GOP AGs sent another letter of opposition to the SEC on Aug. 16.

“The woke left is going full throttle in their mission to change every facet of American life… and erode our democratic institutions to suit their liberal agenda,” said West Virginia’s AG Patrick Morrisey (R).

In late July, Missouri’s AG Eric Schmitt (R) launched an investigation into whether Morningstar, a financial research and rating company, violated a state consumer-protection law by evaluating ESG issues. A few weeks later, 18 other AGs joined the probe. Schmitt and 16 other attorneys general are also trying to block California from setting its own vehicle emissions standards.

At the same time, the nonprofit State Financial Officers Foundation (SFOF) and its members are doing all they can to prop up fossil fuel companies and punish firms that divest from oil, gas, and coal. In West Virginia, state Treasurer Riley Moore told five financial companies—the banks Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan, Morgan Stanley, and Wells Fargo, as well as BlackRock—that they would no longer be eligible for state contracts because they have reduced financing for coal projects.

Corporate Code of Silence

Few of the nearly 30 companies CMD contacted responded to requests for comment.

American Electric Power (AEP), a largely fossil fuel-powered electric utility, has publicly committed to a decarbonization strategy and made JUST Capital’s list of the top 100 ESG-focused companies in 2022. Despite planning to reach net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, the company doled out $50,400 to RAGA between 2021 and 2022.

A spokesperson did not directly answer CMD’s questions about why it contributes to a group supporting state attorneys general who have repeatedly fought efforts to mitigate climate change. Instead, the response was that AEP reviews its contributions to RAGA and the Democratic Attorneys General Association (DAGA) every year and “works with leaders from both political parties on issues that affect our ability to deliver reliable and affordable electricity to our customers…. We also talk regularly with our investors and other stakeholders about ESG issues,” the spokesperson explained, “as we work to manage business risks and opportunities and identify emerging trends or issues that could impact our ability to carry out our strategy.”

Pharmaceutical giant Pfizer,which has given nearly $152,000 to RAGA since 2021, claims it is committed to ESG principles, with the internal goal of becoming carbon-neutral by 2030 and a public pledge to go 100% renewable by then, too.

“Our engagement with RAGA has focused mainly on advancing healthcare policies related to patient safety and efforts to combat counterfeit medicines,” a Pfizer spokesperson told CMD.

“Pfizer’s political giving is led by two guiding principles: preserve and further the incentives for innovation, and protect and expand access to medicines and vaccines for the patients we serve. Our contributions to RAGA are based on that criteria alone and are disbursed with the understanding that we are not going to agree with the group on every single issue.”

Mastercard did not directly answer any of CMD’s questions, but a spokesperson said that the company no longer has a relationship with either RAGA or DAGA. It is, however, a gold-level sponsor of SFOF.

Citigroup and Eli Lilly declined to comment, and roughly two-dozen other companies did not respond to CMD’s email requests.

The Companies

CMD identified the following companies that are both pursuing ESG principles and making donations to RAGA. Many made the 2022 Just 100 List compiled by JUST Capital and/or the Investment Business Daily (IBD) list of 100 Best ESG Companies in 2021. In addition, many signed on to RE100 and/or The Climate Pledge, another initiative to get corporations to commit to net-zero emissions by 2040. Links to ESG information and recent donation amounts to RAGA are indicated below.

Abbott Laboratories: $25,000 donated to RAGA from 2021–present (JUST, IBD)
American Electric Power Company, Inc.: $50,400 (JUST)
Anheuser-Busch InBev: $210,265 (RE100)
Anthem/Elevance Health: $100,000 (JUST, RE100)
Apple: $1,000 (JUST, IBD, RE100)
AT&T Services: $250,000 (JUST)
Bank of America Corporation: $25,000 (JUST, RE100)
Cigna Health and Life Insurance Company: $92,500 (JUST, RE100)
Citigroup, Inc.: $75,000 (JUST, RE100)
Eli Lilly and Company: $50,000 (IBD, RE100)
Exxon Mobil Corporation: $125,000 (JUST)
FedEx: $10,000 (JUST)
Intuit: $50,400 (JUST)
Johnson & Johnson: $50,285 (JUST, RE100)
JPMorgan Chase & Co. PAC: $25,000 (JUST, RE100)
Lowe’s: $110,870 (JUST)
Mastercard: $25,620 (JUST, RE100)
Merck & Co., Inc.: $25,400 (JUST)
Oracle: $25,000 (IBD)
PepsiCo: $25,000 (JUST, The Climate Pledge)
Pfizer: $151,785 (RE100)
RELX: $30,200 (RE100, The Climate Pledge)
T-Mobile USA: $100,000 (RE100)
Uber Technologies Inc.: $50,000 (JUST, The Climate Pledge)
UPS: $30,350 (JUST)
Vistra Corp.: $50,000 (JUST)
Waste Management: $30,000 (IBD)
Wells Fargo: $25,285 (JUST, RE100)
Yum! Brands: $15,000 (IBD)

CMD’s investigation follows a similar report by the Center for Political Accountability that analyzed companies’ political spending from 2016–20.

no lnx

the crucially important points ESG critics are missing

BY DAVID HC CORRELL, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR - 09/03/22

THE VIEWS EXPRESSED BY CONTRIBUTORS ARE THEIR OWN AND NOT THE VIEW OF THE HILL

Environmental activists rally near the U.S. Capitol on July 6, 2022. The group Climate Action Campaign organized the rally to protest against the Supreme Court’s decision in West Virginia v. EPA, which limits the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to regulate carbon emissions from power plants.

“What is a cynic? A man who knows the price of everything, and the value of nothing.”

Oscar Wilde

Recently, the notion that investment funds do good in the world by using their considerable influence to steer the for-profit firms that they invest in towards helping combat societal ills came under new and severe criticism.

The attorney general of Arizona, along with attorneys-general from 18 other states, wrote an open letter to BlackRock, the world’s largest asset manager, suggesting that its reliance on environmental, social and governance (ESG) criteria in its investment decisions puts the funds that they manage for their clients (including many state employee retirement funds) at unnecessary risk. The “Wall Street Journal” editorial board co-signed to this position in an I-told-you-so-style editorial titled, “The ESG investing backlash has arrived.” Florida governor, and potential Republican presidential candidate, Ron DeSantis even publicly presented new legislation that would prohibit Florida’s state fund managers from considering ESG information when investing state money.

For three years now, the MIT Center for Transportation & Logistics and the Council for Supply Chain Management Professionals have conducted an annual survey of global supply chain managers regarding their firms’ sustainability efforts. From what we see in the research, what critics of ESG investing get right is that (1) investors are a leading driver of pressure on firms to improve their sustainability, and (2) that ‘sustainability’ means very different things to different people.

From 2020 to 2021, we observed that investors were by far the fastest-growing driver of sustainability pressure on firms. At the same, the understanding of what exactly ESG and supply chain sustainability entails changes depending on the geography, industry and year that we ask. For instance, is corporate sustainability just climate change mitigation, or does it also include human rights protection and diversity, equity and inclusion? Put simply, executives and investors around the world are not in agreement on what business sustainability entails and how best to practice it. In that sense then, it’s reasonable to assume that some firms might feel investor pressure steering them towards an ESG vision that seems to them foreign or unclear.

But thinking more deeply, this criticism misses two important points.First, that these critics themselves disagree with BlackRock’s or others’ prioritization of ESG measures — or can imagine constituents, or readers of theirs who might disagree — does not on its own merit total rejection from investors. Nor does it merit, as some ESG critics suggest, a single-minded return to solely prioritizing bottom-line profit.

Individual attitudes about ESG and sustainability aside, inattention to supply chain sustainability leaves for-profit firms vulnerable to precisely the kinds of public relations disasters and supply chain disruptions that ESG and sustainability efforts endeavor to eliminate. These are the human rights scandals and environmental transgressions that make headlines, diminish brand value and negatively affect both stock price and continuity of supply. Critics who only see how ESG efforts cost the firm are in this sense, too myopic for modern practice. They fail to see that an equally strong case can be made that supply chain sustainability efforts actually protect a firm and its brand, and therefore, its investors. ESG investing is, in this sense, practical insurance, not some high-minded dalliance as the growing chorus of ESG critics suggest.

Second, while the cynics are correct to point out that sustainability prioritizations change with time — our survey clearly confirms their observation here — it is not necessarily correct to imply, as the cynics have, that this transience reveals that ESG and sustainability goals are themselves some kind of unserious scam. Eager critics like the attorney general of Arizona cite the example of European governments now forgoing their environmentally motivated closures of coal — and nuclear-fired power plants in order to prepare for the threat of Russia withholding its natural gas for heating this winter. This unfortunate geopolitical after-effect of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is presented by the cynics as some kind of proof that the ESG stuff is all fluff and no substance when push comes to shove. But this is an incomplete picture of how sustainability efforts appear to be affected by crisis.

For the last two years, our study has directly asked supply chain management professionals worldwide how the COVID-19 pandemic has impacted their commitment to supply chain sustainability. For two years in a row now, approximately 80 percent of respondents have answered that their firm’s commitment to supply chain sustainability stayed the same or even increased during the global pandemic. In interviews with executives, we heard repeatedly that the COVID-19 crisis brought with it important new opportunities to rethink old systems. In times of crisis, prudent managers adapt, and they innovate with sustainability and resilience in mind. Sure, European governments are currently stalling their plans to shelve coal. But they are also taking unprecedented action to rationalize their overall energy demand too by identifying and eliminating wasteful consumption where they can. The ESG critics are misreading signals here, mistakenly interpreting helpful adaptation and innovation as weakness and capriciousness.

[Dismantling cryptocurrency regulations is a step backward, not forward

A better strategy to rein in Big Tech]

In any disagreement, it is important to grant that your interlocutor comes to his or her point of view in good faith. Or, as 2nd century Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius put in his Meditations, “to take into consideration … that no one does the wrong thing deliberately.” I certainly intend the same grace here and I freely admit that the critics have a point regarding the vexing ambiguity of ‘ESG’ and sustainability. But in the end, all of us share the same plight: stuck on this imperiled planet, hoping that both our ecosystems and our retirement plans suffice for the rest of our mortal lives.

I’m sure that even those I disagree with on this point share my hope that what we have now will survive for future generations of all our loved ones too. Based on the extensive data that I’ve personally collected and analyzed, it is clear that ESG investing is an important — albeit perhaps imperfect — tool, to help us achieve that kind of long-term sustainability.

David HC Correll, Ph.D. is a research scientist at the MIT Center for Transportation and Logistics (MIT CTL) and lead investigator for the State of Supply Chain Sustainability, an annual report co-presented with the Council of Supply Chain Management professionals (CSCMP). These opinions do not necessarily reflect the opinions of MIT CTL, CSCMP, or the report’s sponsoring companies or project staff.

TAGS CLIMATE CHANGE POLICY ESG ESG INVESTORS POLITICS OF THE UNITED STATES SUPPLY CHAIN SUSTAINABILITY SUSTAINABILITY

:{https://www.wsj.com:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline"):}::{ › articles › the-esg-backlash-arrives-blackrock-mark-brnovich-strive-asset-management-attorneys-general-11660600459:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline"):}:

:{The ESG Investing Backlash Arrives - WSJ:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:top;display:inline-block;max-width:100%;overflow:hidden;text-overflow:ellipsis;white-space:nowrap"):}:

Aug 15, 2022We know what he meant after laboring in the vineyards lo these many years to draw attention in editorials to the politicized investing that travels under the bland label ESG, for environmental,...

OPINION LETTERS

‘ESG’ Is About Information, Not Imposition

The investment practice is neither left wing nor right wing.

May 16, 2022

Regarding Marlo Oaks’s op-ed “S&P Hits U.S. States With Politicized Credit Scores” (May 9): The integration of environmental, social and governance (ESG) investment practices is not left-wing or right-wing. It is an apolitical practice geared toward delivering transparency so that investors can make informed decisions.

Mr. Oaks states that ESG is a “qualitative view” that “depends entirely on the beliefs of whoever constructs it,” but the opposite is true. For example, recent proposals by the Securities and Exchange Commission to bolster ESG disclosure requirements have fairness at their core, with the simple goal of generating consistent and comparable information on material ESG issues for all investors. Enhanced disclosure provides the transparency that allows investors—both asset owners and managers—to make informed comparisons between issuers.

The factors that inform ESG ratings are just that: factors for assessment, not cut-and-dry law. Like any rating, it is up to investors to use this data as they see fit. If investors identify climate risk as a material factor with implications for the value of an investment, then they should be able to access the climate data they need to assess risk and return potential.

No law requires investors in Utah, Texas, California or anyone anywhere to make investment decisions based solely on ESG information, but it’s in their best interest to take it seriously.

Greg Hershman and Carol Jeppesen

Principles for Responsible Investment

:{https://www.heritage.org:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline"):}::{ › environment › heritage-explains › the-esg-pushback:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline"):}:

:{The ESG Pushback | The Heritage Foundation:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:top;display:inline-block;max-width:100%;overflow:hidden;text-overflow:ellipsis;white-space:nowrap"):}:

Under the umbrella of Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) activism, corporations have become unimaginably woke. They are weaponizing capital, and it is promoting nearly every left-wing ...

random

bloomberg

ESG DAILY: Trump-Tied SPAC Slumps After Executives Resign

Bailey Lipschultz and Tim Quinson, Bloomberg News

LCOE refers to levelized cost of electricity

LCOE refers to levelized cost of electricity , Source: Bloomberg

(Bloomberg) -- Shares of the shell company taking Donald Trump’s media venture public extended their selloff on a report that a pair of key executives resigned and after Elon Musk bought a sizable stake in social media competitor Twitter Inc.

Digital World Acquisition, the special-purpose acquisition company merging with Trump Media & Technology Group, fell 10% Monday to extend a losing streak for a seventh-straight day as downloads of the Truth Social app dry up

The decline was triggered by a Reuters report that Truth Social’s chiefs of technology and product development Josh Adams and Billy Boozer have resigned and as Musk became Twitter’s largest shareholder

Shares of the SPAC have lost 22% since March 25 as investors begin to doubt whether the former U.S. president will be able to create a media company to rival the likes of Twitter and Facebook

FUNCTION OF THE DAY

Click NI ESGINVNL to read Bloomberg’s weekly newsletter that focuses on the biggest themes for sustainable investors; and {NI ESGREGNL } for monthly digest of most notable ESG-related regulatory issues

For the most newsworthy ESG-focused stories, click TOP ESG; type NSUB ESG for daily highlights of ESG-related news and research

ESG MUST-READS

Environmental

JPMorgan, Citigroup, Wells Fargo and Bank of America have financed the fossil fuel industry, while “claiming to care about climate,” Senator Elizabeth Warren said

Earth is on track to warm to twice the Paris agreement’s target level

Senator Joe Manchin is calling on the U.S. SEC to reconsider a plan to require companies to disclose information about their greenhouse gas pollution

Climate change may cost the federal government an extra $25 billion to $128 billion per year by the end of the century, according to estimates from the White House

Poland signaled that it wants to use coal to produce electricity after 2049 to bolster its energy security, underscoring the challenge the European Union faces in its goal of achieving climate neutrality by mid-century

To see Bloomberg’s Climate Government Climate Risk Scores, click BI ESG GOVCLIMATE

Socialdigital world

Costs of caring for U.S. gunshot survivors come to about $2.5 billion in the first year after their injuries, according to a Harvard study

Chipotle Mexican Grill said its goal to source and sell chicken that’s certified as humanely raised has been delayed because suppliers weren’t able to make the necessary changes without disrupting supply

For more on the Bloomberg Gender Equality framework, click GEI

Governance

JPMorgan Chase said Jamie Dimon may stay on as chair of the board when he eventually steps down as CEO

Hasbro added two industry veterans to its board as the company looks to expand its digital-gaming business while fending off a proxy fight

RWE rejected a request from activist investor Enkraft Capitalto propose an alternative supervisory board candidate to Essen mayor Thomas Kufen

For more ESG news, click DAYB for Bloomberg Daybreak

SUSTAINABLE FINANCE

The New York Power Authority, the largest state-owned electric utility in the U.S., plans to sell about $600 million of tax-exempt green bonds

Lazard Asset Management is screening for stocks that are ahead in the race to exit fossil fuels, as war makes reliance on oil, gas and coal riskier than ever

More than 1,500 commitments by investors and financials were made in 2021 to phase out involvement in fossil fuels. However, not all participants are equally ambitious in their pledges

trump trashes in rallies 8 22?

:{https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline"):}::{ › esg-daily-trump-tied-spac-slumps-after-executives-resign-1.1747685:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline"):}:

:{ESG DAILY: Trump-Tied SPAC Slumps After Executives Resign:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:top;display:inline-block;max-width:100%;overflow:hidden;text-overflow:ellipsis;white-space:nowrap"):}:

Apr 4, 2022Anti-ESG Firm Strive Plans Four New ETFs After First Fund Draws $250 Million. ... Inflation Is a Terrible Bet in the Case of Linkers Plunging 17%. Stalled Stock Rally Hits Fringes First as Speculative Bets Cool. ... ESG DAILY: Trump-Tied SPAC Slumps After Executives Resign. Bailey Lipschultz and Tim Quinson, ...

:{https://www.uspresidentialelectionnews.com:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline"):}::{ › donald-trump-rally-schedule:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline"):}:

:{Trump Rally Schedule | Save America | 2022 - Election Central:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:top;display:inline-block;max-width:100%;overflow:hidden;text-overflow:ellipsis;white-space:nowrap"):}:

Mar 26, 2022Former President Donald J. Trump will have numerous rallies and events scheduled throughout 2022 in the run-up to the November midterm elections. Here is a complete list of scheduled rallies and information on how to attend. You will also find start times, location, venue, tickets, and live stream information.

:{https://thehill.com:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline"):}::{ › opinion › energy-environment › 3626173-the-crucially-important-points-esg-critics-are-missing:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline"):}:

:{The crucially important points ESG critics are missing:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:top;display:inline-block;max-width:100%;overflow:hidden;text-overflow:ellipsis;white-space:nowrap"):}:

4 days agoEnvironmental activists rally near the U.S. Capitol on July 6, 2022. The group Climate Action Campaign organized the rally to protest against the Supreme Court's decision in West Virginia v. EPA,...

:{https://www.richardcyoung.com:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline"):}::{ › investing-2 › the-virtue-of-trump-supporters-vs-antifa-and-esg-investing-is-like-this:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline"):}:

:{The Virtue of Trump Supporters vs. Antifa and ESG Investing is Like This…:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:top;display:inline-block;max-width:100%;overflow:hidden;text-overflow:ellipsis;white-space:nowrap"):}:

May 24, 2022If you've ever been to a Trump rally, you know what I'm talking about. Unlike Antifa protesters, Trump rally attendees leave the place cleaner than it was when they got there. Action Line: ESG is another movement to tell you how your money should be invested and how you should live your life. Stop.

:{https://www.greenbiz.com:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline"):}::{ › article › can-trump-trump-esg-juggernaut:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline"):}:

:{Can Trump trump the ESG juggernaut? | Greenbiz:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:top;display:inline-block;max-width:100%;overflow:hidden;text-overflow:ellipsis;white-space:nowrap"):}:

It analyzed the performance of 17 ESG-focused exchange-traded and mutual funds with more than $250 million in assets from Jan. 1 through May 15. All but three outperformed the S&P 500, widely considered one of the best representations of the overall U.S. stock market.

:{https://www.wealthmanagement.com:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline"):}::{ › regulation-compliance › dol-proposes-new-esg-rule-after-scrapping-trump-era-version:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline"):}:

:{DOL Proposes New ESG Rule After Scrapping Trump-Era Version:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:top;display:inline-block;max-width:100%;overflow:hidden;text-overflow:ellipsis;white-space:nowrap"):}:

Oct 14, 2021DOL Proposes New ESG Rule After Scrapping Trump-Era Version The Labor Department's proposed rule would remove obstacles for fiduciaries to consider ESG issues in investments, with one public policy...

:{https://www.esgtoday.com:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline"):}::{ › u-s-department-of-labor-backtracks-on-controversial-trump-era-esg-rules:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline"):}:

:{U.S. Department of Labor Backtracks on Controversial Trump-Era ESG ...:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:top;display:inline-block;max-width:100%;overflow:hidden;text-overflow:ellipsis;white-space:nowrap"):}:

Mar 11, 2021Mark Segal March 11, 2021 Marking a significant win for ESG investors and sustainability-focused organizations, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) announced today that it will not enforce its final rules, established during the Trump administration, on ESG investing and proxy voting.

:{https://news.ballotpedia.org:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline"):}::{ › 2021 › 03 › 16 › labor-department-ends-enforcement-of-trump-administration-esg-rule:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline"):}:

:{Labor Department ends enforcement of Trump administration ESG rule ...:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:top;display:inline-block;max-width:100%;overflow:hidden;text-overflow:ellipsis;white-space:nowrap"):}:

Mar 16, 2021On March 10, the Biden administration announced that it will not enforce a Trump administration Department of Labor rule warning asset managers about their fiduciary responsibilities under ERISA (The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974), specifically concerning ESG-related investment vehicles.

june 2022

https://www.vox.com/23058987/sec-climate-finance-disclosure

as drought spreads and sea levels rise, the economic impacts of climate change will run in the trillions of dollars. The insurance firm Swiss Re projects climate disasters would cost the world as much as $23 trillion by 2050, bigger than the impact from the pandemic and the Great Recession of 2009 combined.

It’s reasonable business planning to account for all this foreseeable risk — just like planning for cyberattacks or business disruptions from a pandemic. Last year, for instance, the US had to spend $145 billion dealing with floods, fires, and other climate-related disasters.

Yet somehow, climate change has fallen through the cracks of US financial regulation. Publicly traded companies are required to disclose information about “material” risks that affect their company regardless of their cause, from sanctions to supply chain chaos. But there are no uniform standards for disclosing how much fossil fuel pollution they generate or the impact that climate change could have on their future growth. Instead, companies have been left free to inflate their environmental progress, all with little scrutiny from the public.

This kind of information is, in theory, essential to a functioning free market, so investors can make decisions based on complete information. But fossil fuel interests, conservative ideologues, and corporate trade groups are striving to keep shareholders in the dark on climate risks.

The Biden administration is trying to make companies more publicly accountable for the risk of the climate crisis. A linchpin of Biden’s plan is a draft rule theSecurities and Exchange Commission (SEC)proposed in March. Over 500 pages, the SEC rule proposes that publicly traded companies disclose how climate change affects their business outlook and identify a board member or board committee to focus on climate-related risks.

Once the rule is finalized, companies will have to disclose how their operations are affected by extreme weather events and the impact of climate change on the short- and medium-term business outlook. They’ll also have to report the emissions both from their company’s operations and from how their products are used. This is particularly bad news for fossil fuel companies with business models predicated on selling pollution. Until this rule, they haven’t had to fully account for the environmental impact from things like selling gas that’s burned by consumers’ cars.

This is a rule, in other words, that helps the free market act like the free market, giving investors exactly the information they need to make the decisions,” Emory University business law expert George Georgiev said.

As the draft rule’s comment period came to a close, it’s clear any regulation on climate change faces serious headwinds. The loudest protests have come from right-wing groups and corporate-aligned nonprofits that have flooded the public comments with previews of the argument they’ll take to courts.

Plenty of businesses in the financial sector stand to benefit from this rule, like the investing giant BlackRock, which has pledged to align its assets with climate goals. But some could be hurt. The companies that benefit from greenwashing their climate commitments are doing everything they can to protect the chaotic status quo.

Financial transparency on climate change is hardly a radical idea

The SEC has required and standardized public company disclosures since 1933. In recent decades, the SEC has issued nonbinding guidance on how publicly traded companies should consider Covid-19 disruptions, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and even a feared “Y2K” meltdown at the turn of the 21st century, so the companies would meet their fiduciary duty.

But the SEC has been painfully slow on climate change. Right now, businesses disclose the risks and costs of their business on the climate on a voluntary, patchy basis with no clear standardization.

A 2020 Government Accountability Office surveyed 32 midsize and large publicly traded companies and found little consistency. Airlines, for example, used years anywhere between 1990 and 2017 as the baseline for calculating their climate footprint. Water companies have used completely different measurements for reporting water extraction. Some companies would just report carbon emissions, while others would report total greenhouse gas emissions (including sources like methane).

The proposed SEC rule cites other evidence of companies not paying attention to this risk, like an internal survey of climate-related keywords in companies’ 10-Ks between June 2019 and December 2020. They found only 31 percent mentioned climate change at all.

This information is not just to benefit climate change efforts; it is also useful to investors. It makes clearer, for instance, that a retail company’s warehouses might be threatened by increased flooding, that an airline company might have to ground more flights because of rising heat waves, or that a bank’s backing of major fossil fuel expansion has the strong chance of backfiring in a world that transitions to renewables. Without any regulation and standardization, companies will just continue to try to outshine one another on their environmental and social commitments without hard data to back it. This mismatch will become an existential risk to financial instability if, for example, extreme weather pummels a business that did not prepare accordingly.

Environmental activists have pushed for more from companies by proposing shareholder resolutions at annual meetings that ask for more transparency, but have met with mixed success in shareholder votes that don’t bind the company to taking action.

In this regulatory vacuum, voluntary global affiliations have cropped up, including the Net Zero Assets Managers Initiative, representing some $43 trillion in assets, and Climate Action 100+, representing more than $60 trillion. Another of these groups is run out of the Financial Stability Board as a Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD), a voluntary system that has grown to more than 3,000 companies. The task force’s recommendations tell companies to consider the short-, medium-, and long-term climate impacts, emissions that result from investment decisions, and their operations’ pollution, and account for the changing climate’s consequences for the business. The hundreds of companies that voluntarily comply with these standards aren’t necessarily green or good for the environment, but it’s an extra gold star for their sustainability transparency.

Eight countries, including the UK, have passed laws that will mirror the TFCD’s recommendations, but the US would remain an outlier without the SEC rule. “Investors put their money where they think there’s a good opportunity and good information,” said Steven Rothstein, managing director of the Ceres Accelerator for Sustainable Capital Markets. “If we don’t have good information, we run the risk of falling behind internationally.”

The SEC’s rule is basically the US playing catch-up, based on standards the mainstream corporate community aligned with TFCD have already backed.

Initially, companies will have to spend extra to comply with the rule — up to $530,000 a year for larger companies by the SEC’s estimate, but it will vary depending on how much companies are doing already on climate disclosure. Typically, the costs of rules shrink over time. Otherwise, the rule itself is quite modest. The SEC is “not saying you should or shouldn’t invest in climate products,” Rothstein said. “They’re just saying, tell investors what you’re doing and do it in a consistent way.”

Environmentalists and some Democratic lawmakers argue the SEC could be doing even more. The SEC does not change how companies disclose climate-related activities like PR campaigns and political influence, the kind of activities that tend to be outsourced to nonprofits that shield their activities from the public. In March, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) called it a “failure of nerve that shies away from a perfectly legal, necessary response to the climate danger we face” because political efforts remain “the single most material disclosures a company could make to achieve climate safety.”

Right-wing groups claim financial transparency is an attack on free speech

Unsurprisingly, the SEC is facing immense pressure to withdraw this rule because of the same shadowy political spending that companies don’t have to disclose in the first place. Groups like the US Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, Americans for Prosperity, and the Competitive Enterprise Institute have flooded the SEC with comments that argue company free speech would be violated.

Trade groups and right-wing think tanks have argued that requiring companies to report these emissions is akin to violating their First Amendment rights of free speech, pointing to a court case that ruled a regulation requiring the disclosure of conflict-zone minerals would amount to :{“:(style="background-color:#ff9900;"):}::{compelled speech”:(style="background-color:#ff6600;"):}: and violated the companies’ rights.

The American Petroleum Institute, the oil industry lobby, has argued the rule “could raise serious First Amendment issues under recent applying strict scrutiny to content-based laws compelling speech.”

The argument has found purchase with conservative lawmakers, like West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey,who picked up the argument in his 2021 letter to Treasury last year. In Congress, 19 Republican senators argued in their submitted comments that the rule is “not within the SEC’s mission to protect investors, maintain fair, orderly, and efficient markets, and facilitate capital formation.” Another 40 Republican representatives wrote that the rule will act to “undermine and shame public companies,” while Republican attorneys general describes the rule as a “total reordering of [the SEC’s] present disclosure regime.”

The attack on regulation under the guise of First Amendment rights has become more familiar in recent years. “Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has been steadily giving corporations more and more leeway, more and more rights,” said Ciara Torres-Spelliscy, a corporate law expert who has published several books on corporate speech.

The court also opened the door to more of these lawsuits, striking down a California law that required nonprofits to disclose their donors, siding with the Americans for Prosperity Foundation’s argument against disclosing their donors and providing IRS 990 forms to the state. Other legal challenges to campaign finance laws and unions have used the First Amendment.

Legal experts supportive of the SEC rule consider the argument a long shot in courts. “I think that argument is really far-fetched,” Emory’s Georgiev said.

But it’s still worrisome. If it succeeds, whether in courts or as a scare tactic to get the SEC to backtrack, it sets a dangerous precedent for the financial system at large. “If this climate rule is violating the First Amendment, it’s been all nine decades [the SEC has been] violating the First Amendment,” Georgiev said. “They will definitely try it out in courts. At the end of the day, a lot of far-fetched arguments succeed in courts.”

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/20892344-comments-to-sec-on-esg-rule#document/p33/a2075289

comments from acc chem, AEI, AFP, API, cato, cei heartland etc CTT, CoC, co2 coalition, conoco phillips, enbridge, inst for free speech, heritage, nam, NMA, noia, lifepoerwed TPPF, WEA western energy? US oil and gas

Comments to SEC on ESG rule

supports principles based framework p. 1

Any reporting framework adopted by the rr Commission should be conductive to flexible and diverse climate change disclosures that reflect the different factors driving a company's business. p. 2

railroad industry has already taken steps to voluntarily comply with... SASB and TCFD... Adopting an existing, widely used program would lessen transition time. p. 2

not impose strict liability. furnish separately instead of file p. 2

Supports "furnishing" approach p. 5

We believe a business-specific "materiality standard that acknowledges differences across and within industries... p. 5

ACCinvolved in development of SASB standards, ACC member companies are using for voluntary disclosure p. 5

private market standard-setters often develop climate change disclosures with an implicit bias based on their perception of an industry's reputation p. 5

The liability standard imposed on information filed with the SEC is an inappropriate standard for such forward-looking and aspirational disclosures p. 6

ESG reporting "futile" p. 8

If public companies are driven to use the same (or similar) sets of assumptions about central parameters, a very real danger would arise of more-or-less homogenous predictions inconsistent with historical, ongoing, and prospective climate phenomena." p. 9

...and there is no evidence in support of the ubiquitous assertions of a climate "crisis," whether ongoing or looming, and no evidence in support of the even more extreme "existential threat" argument. p. 10

Again, public companies conducting climate "risk" analysis will have powerful incentives to choose among assumptions on future emissions and atmospheric concentrations, climate sensitivity, and other crucial parameters so as to insulate themselves from political attack, adverse regulatory actions, and litigation p. 14

Those political pressures will lead public companies and government agencies not to consider the benefits of increasing atmospheric concentrations of GHG p. 14

...it is not easy to separate natural from anthropogenic effects on temperatures and other climate phenomena. p. 15

Accordingly, the data are unclear as to whether there is occurring an acceleration in sea level rise p. 16

The reality is that a "climate risk" disclosure requirement would be deeply speculative. p. 18

What about massive volcanic eruptions? Asteroid impacts? Powerful earthquakes? p. 19

Constitutional objection to ESG reporting p. 22

SEC Climate Disclosure Mandates Risk Compelling Speech at Odds with the First Amendment p. 23

...expressing views they may not hold or would prefer to express in different ways. p. 23

...could imply that the speaker had adopted a position on the topic of climate change... p. 24

Commissioner Hester Peirce identified some of the risk of compelled speech in this context during June 2019 remarks before the American Enterprise Institute, including public shaming and shunning based on nebulous, incomplete, arbitrary, inconsistent, and political information which would be incorporated as part of an SEC climate or ESG disclosure regime. p. 25

explain in a forthcoming article p. 25

...the evidence of ESG-certified investments -- whether by governments or third parties -- achieving financial or environmental objectives is likely overblown. p. 26

As Commissioner Peirce has articulated, the use of global, one-size-fits-all ESG and climate disclosure regimes may undermine the bottom-up, non-government innovations that respond to those investor and consumer interests p. 27

...represents a sweeping expansion of government power and mission creep for many parts of the federal government. p. 27

APIseeks to serve as a resource and an active participant p. 29

API developing framework based on EEI/AGA template p. 30

disclosure requirements beyond materiality "could raise serious First Amendment issues" p. 33

Central Hudson Doctrine p. 34

"industry issuers may be best positioned to define the standard for require climate disclosures" p. 34

API encourages SEC to view industry resources as key starting points for evaluating need to develop new reporting requirements p. 37

constitutional limitations on SEC's ability to require companies p. 38

look forward to working with SEC "through the rulemaking process" p. 40

ESG reporting "important" and AXPC is committed to "progress" p. 42

AXPCmetric framework and template p. 43

materiality is key p. 43

'neutrality'; any disclosures should not "discriminate against any economic sector or sectors" p. 44

urging adherence to procedural requirements/allowing additional input from industry p. 45

AXPC urges SEC not to include scope 3 emissions in reporting requirements p. 47

does not believe SEC should require auditing/believes companies should be able to rely on third party auditors p. 50

would urge Commission to not require certification of climate disclosures p. 51

"strong supports a 'comply or explain' framework" p. 51

unclear mandatory disclosure can provide a net benefit p. 53

the SEC is not tasked with environmental regulation p. 53

...also raises questions about the SEC's ability to evaluate prescriptive disclosure frameworks and fairly enforce compliance with them. p. 53

90% of the companies in the S&P 500 were publishing a sustainability report. p. 54

the SEC would be stepping in to pick "winners" and "losers" p. 55

Evolving understandings of climate change p. 56

Corporate environmental sustainability disclosures--and ESG disclosures more generally--have come to fruition as a result of exogenous demand for such information, and an industry has grown up around the provision of such information. p. 57

The SEC should not extend any climate change-related disclosures requirements to private companies. p. 59

"name and shame" -type of strategy p. 59

...the losses they may incur as climate policies devalue and strand their assets and courts compel them to pay compensation to climate change victims. p. 61

In practice, however, it is often hard to distinguish what component of current risks is due to climate change rather than just plain old climate. p. 62

Advocates for climate risk disclosure: p. 64

If the state of the world is improving, including in regard to cilmate-related risks, why now compel publicly-traded companies to quantify climate-related risks as though their financial lives depend on it? p. 72

Third, CO2 emissions have positive as well as negative externalities. p. 74

adaptation requires wealth, and mitigation targets that strand 42.1 percent fossil fuel industry assets by 2030 would destroy trillions of dollars of wealth. p. 77

The NetZero agenda is the political equivalent of war on the fossil fuel industry. p. 77

Death spiral p. 78

Disclosure advocates warn of a carbon bubble but the Paris treaty and NetZero agendas may be setting the stage for a green bubble. p. 85

Solyndra! p. 85

ESG exceeds powers of SECp. 93

...mission creep for the agency... p. 93

Accounting firms, consultants, and law firms with compliance practices can be expected to welcome more disclosure requirements for self-interested professional reasons. p. 97

the Scientification of Non-Knowledge p. 100

...some climate and ESG-themed disclosure mandates could become compelled speech thatconflicts with First Amendment protections. p. 100

At least some proposed climate disclosure provisions, by which companies must confess to having metaphorical blood on their hands with regard to future catastrophic effects of climate change, would face similar First Amendment concerns." p. 101

Should a U.S. firm end a contract with a textile factory in Bangladesh over the average age of its workers or will that simply cause those teenage employees and their families to fall even further into poverty when their factory closes? Isn't poverty alleviation itself a major ESG goal? p. 104

The agency should continue to defer to the materiality threshold to help continue to prevent securities from becoming politicized p. 107

companies are already required to disclose material ESG information under current law p. 108

advocating a flexible, principles-based approach with tailoring for different industries and companies p. 110

it is critical to avoid finding "fraud by hindsight" p. 110

Third-party standard setters may not be insulated enough from stakeholder and other policy agendas... important questions to answer about organizational governance, due process, and funding sources. p. 111

SEC should take a closer look at transparency and conflicts of interest [in third party ESG assessments] p. 112

SEC should allow a commensurate market-based approach to third-party assurance for climate-related reporting p. 113

Disclosure... should not be a tool for advancing political interests or achieving policy goals p. 113

Chevron has a "long history" of reporting on ESG p. 115

supports disclosure for "consistency and comparability of climate-related information" with existing frameworks and a phased approach p. 115

support for reporting times to line up with other agencies p. 116

Chevron working with API to develop 'voluntary template' p. 116

"Chevron's climate change reporting experience" p. 117

urging a "phased" approach p. 118

advocating for a principle-based approach rooted in 'materiality' p. 118

SEC should focus on "decision-useful information" p. 118

SEC should build on existing sustainability-related disclosure requirements p. 118

support for global sustainability standard; encouraging SEC to use TCFD framework/voluntary standards/private sector industry standards p. 119

Chevron offers assistance as the SEC "moves forward with Climate disclosure" p. 119

"There is no climate crisis" p. 120

"We have long recognized the need for action to address climate change" and "understand investor interest" in ESG p. 122

recommend SEC adopt existing reporting frameworks (TCDF, SASB) p. 122

standards-setting organizations and industry can successfully/should work together p. 123

phased approach / based in materiality / "harmonize" disclosure requirements with other sustainability reporting requirements p. 123

urging a "hybrid-approach" to disclosure: company specific while "minimizing categorical discrimination among industries" p. 123

data should be presented in way that is useful for investors p. 124

"materiality" for climate disclosures: "reasonable investor would consider it important in deciding how to vote" p. 124

should apply liability protections / ESG disclosures should be "furnished" not "filed" p. 125

Our members are leading the transition to the lower-carbon energy economy p. 127

brags about "recognizing the importance of climate change disclosure" p. 127

"we support the Commission's focus" p. 128

ESG requirement should be collab between registrants and investors, flexible, sector-specific p. 128

best to work with investors to disclose relevant information p. 129

"climate change data and disclosure are inherently uncertain" - companies should not be liable p. 130

"forward-looking societal climate impacts or other externalities" are not useful to investors/decision-making p. 131

should not be a one-size fits all approach p. 132

"caution against delegating the development of public-company disclosure requirements to NGOs or private companies" p. 134

"we recommend the Commission prioritize standards applicable to registrants subject to its rules" p. 139

advocating for ownEEI-AGA ESG/Sustainability Reporting Template p. 140

do not believe additional certifications or reviews are necessary p. 140

need to be careful that disclosures do not lead to additional litigation p. 141

"existing requirement to disclose material risk factors" re climate is sufficient p. 142

"our perspective is drawn from our long and sustained history of voluntary disclosure" related to ESG p. 148

ESG must remain rooted in SEC's mission "to protect investors; maintain fair, orderly and efficient markets; and facilitate capital formation" p. 149

SEC must remember "purpose of reporting": investors and materiality at forefront p. 149

need to allow degree of flexibility/customization p. 149

"harmonized and uniform global framework for climate change disclosure... seems unrealistic" p. 149

advocating for adoption of existing frameworks p. 149

disclosures "should be subject to a safe harbor or limitation on liability" p. 150

"phased approach" needed p. 150

"no statutory authority" for ESG disclosure p. 151

"compelling ESG information from companies... is the type of humanitarian and social benefit regulation that has been struck down as unconstitutional under the First Amendment" p. 151

SEC climate regulation "cannot overcome even Central Hudson intermediate scrutiny" p. 152

ESG regulation will have negative consequences p. 154

Climate Science "Highly Uncertain" p. 160

calls for policing of fund management firms for ESG fraud p. 162

arguing ESG is essentially a tax on workers p. 177

"allow for flexible disclosure" but in support of "principle based framework" p. 184

Any rule is premature p. 201

supports "new regulatory framework" p. 213

supports "a systemic approach to addressing the climate challenge" p. 216

TPPF comment through "Life:Powered" p. 217

"Risks to Human Welfare from Climate Are Decreasing, Not Increasing" p. 218

Additional disclosure requirements will result in First Amendment violations p. 220

Example of conflict minerals disclosure.p. 220

WEA and USOGA Comment p. 222

"uncertainties" on "extent of anthropogenic contributions and the amount of warming " p. 223

WEA uses paper that critiques decades long campaign to promote misinformation on climate by oil and gas p. 226

Preference for SASB on governance issues p. 229

WEA questions SEC's sincerity p. 231

Original Document (PDF) »

Contributed by Jesse Coleman (Documented)

see Document

https://www.investmentnews.com/w-va-attorney-general-threatens-to-sue-sec-over-enhanced-esg-disclosures-204490

no lnx

State attorney general threatens to sue SEC over ESG disclosures

attorney general

State and federal GOP officials continue to push back against what they call regulatory overreach. The SEC says it is trying to meet investor demand for ESG information.

March 26, 2021

By Mark Schoeff Jr.

West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey has threatened to sue the Securities and Exchange Commission if it doesn’t back off its effort to expand environmental, social and governance disclosures.

Morrisey said that mandating ESG disclosures from companies that are not related to their financial performance would represent regulatory overreach and would be unconstitutional because it would not “withstand strict scrutiny” under free speech rights.

In a letter Thursday to SEC Acting Chair Allison Herren Lee, Morrisey criticized a recent speech in which Lee said the SEC is considering expanding climate risk and ESG disclosures to meet investor demand.

“There is a significant constitutional obstacle to the unprecedented and dangerous course you charted in your remarks,” Morrisey wrote. “If the Commission proceeds down this pathway, states and other interested stakeholders will not hesitate to go to court to oppose a federal regulation compelling speech in violation of the First Amendment.”

Disclosures related to ESG issues such as diversity and corporate political spending are outside the SEC’s regulatory purview, the state’s attorney general asserted, and would only serve to provide ammunition for some customers and investors to target companies on those issues.

The SEC should concentrate on disclosures that affect financial performance rather than “statements on issues that drive a political agenda,” wrote Morrisey, a Republican. “Your proposal would in fact create a system with an unlimited number of additional mandatory statements. This is federal overreach and political activism at its worst.”

The SEC recently released a request for public comment on strengthening climate-risk disclosures, something Lee argued would meet a market demand.

“Of course, we already have an extensive public record demonstrating investor desire for the SEC to ensure better disclosure in this space,” Lee said during an online appearance at a March 15 event hosted by the Center for American Progress. “But, it’s time to move from the question of ‘if’ to the more difficult question of ‘how’ we obtain disclosure on climate.”

Over the last few weeks, the SEC has launched several ESG initiatives, including establishing an enforcement task force on climate and ESG issues.

Sen. Patrick Toomey, R-Pa. and the ranking Republican on the Senate Banking Committee, expressed concern that the task force would give the SEC a way to implement new ESG policies without going through a rulemaking process.

“It is imperative that the SEC provide fair notice, and fully comply with the Administrative Procedure Act if it is going to impose new requirements,” Toomey wrote in a March 24 letter to Lee. “The SEC also should not use enforcement actions as a backdoor for imposing new regulations on ESG and climate change issues.”

An SEC spokesperson declined to comment on Morrisey’s or Toomey’s letters.

Toomey’s worries reflected similar qualms by Republican SEC members Hester Peirce and Elad Roisman about the agency’s recent ESG focus, which has been carried out by Lee, a Democratic SEC member.

That intensity around the issue is likely to continue underGary Gensler, the Biden administration’s nominee for SEC chair, who is awaiting Senate confirmation. He voiced support for enhanced ESG disclosures at his confirmation hearing earlier this month.

Related Topics: Disclosures, Securities and Exchange Commission, Sustainable Investing

https://www.sec.gov/comments/s7-10-22/s71022-20123081-279409.pdf

april 11 2022

Vanessa A. Countryman

Secretary

Securities and Exchange Commission

100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090

RE: File No. S7-10-22

Dear Ms. Countryman:

We, the undersigned Members of Congress, have significant concerns with the Securities and

Exchange Commission’s (SEC) proposed rule on “The Enhancement and Standardization of

Climate-Related Disclosures for Investors.” This proposal would require publicly traded

companies to disclose their climate-related risks, report greenhouse gas emissions, and report

possible financial effects of climate change. We urge you to immediately table this rule.

Not only would this proposal add additional red tape and bureaucracy that would be extremely

burdensome, if not impossible, for many public companies to fully comply with, but it would

also far exceed the authority that Congress explicitly granted the SEC. The SEC cannot and

should not mandate such public disclosures of information that strays from the “core purpose of

disclosure, [which] is to provide investors with the information they need to make informed

investment and voting decisions,” which “allow[s] our capital markets to flourish.”1

It isapparent that, as we have recently seen, this information would only be used to smear these

companies. [demonize FF ceo //?]

This proposal would drastically disrupt the current disclosure regime. Current SEC disclosure

mandates are intended to provide investors with insightful material information into a company’s

performance. SEC Commissioner Peirce emphasized that this proposal, instead, would tell

“corporate managers how regulators, doing the bidding of an array of non-investor stakeholders,

expect them to run their companies.”2

This would force everyday investors to view companies

through a tinted lens, obscured by the demands of vocal stakeholders “for whom a company’s

climate reputation is of equal or greater importance than a company’s financial performance.”3

Ultimately, the SEC’s actions would act to undermine and shame public companies, not to

provide investors with necessary financial disclosures.

furthermore, at a time of global turmoil, when energy prices are at decade highs, how would this

rule be beneficial to American citizens? Simply wrapping climate activism in financial regulation

will only further exacerbate our current energy crisis and do nothing to help everyday Americans

heat or cool their homes or lower prices at the gas pump. Instead, we need to refocus our

attention on domestic energy production and wean ourselves off energy from hostile nations.

Additional “climate” regulations will only hinder our ability to achieve this goal. Given the

current global and domestic circumstances, the administration should be focused on making the

basic necessities of life less expensive, not more.

The SEC has proposed disclosures that are outside of its historical purview in order to engage in

environmental policy. It is, however, the role of Congress – and, importantly, not the role of

financial regulators – to set climate-related policy, balancing interests and engaging with

stakeholders to appropriately move us to a more energy-efficient nation. This Administration

must end its assault on American businesses and the rule of law in the name of an immediate and

expensive transition to a “Green New Deal” agenda.

Sincerely,

Ted Budd

Member of Congress

Ralph Norman

Dan Bishop

Bill Posey

Scott Perry

William R. Timmons IV

Stephanie Bice

Richard Hudson

Alexander X. Mooney

Mo Brooks

Louie Gohmert

Bruce Westerman

Debbie Lesko

Byron Donalds

John Joyce

Tom McClintock

Michael C. Burgess, M.D.

John Rose

Andrew S. Clyde

C. Scott Franklin

Ben Cline

Jay Obernolte

Rodney Davis

Ashley Hinson

Paul A. Gosar, D.D.S.

David B. McKinley P.E.

Yvette Herrell

Andy Biggs

Tom Rice

Daniel Webster

Michael Guest

Michael Cloud

Lauren Boebert

Kat Cammack

Pat Fallon

W. Gregory Steube

Nancy Mace

8 22

https://www.mediamatters.org/elon-musk/right-wing-influencers-leading-social-media-crusade-against-esg

Right-wing media figures are fueling outrage against ESG, an acronym for corporate standards and practices related to environment, social, and governance issues that Republican lawmakers and the fossil fuel industry are seeking to turn into a new bogeyman. Conveniently vague, ESG is being misleadingly cast as a tool for “elites” to force a tyrannical agenda on unsuspecting Americans, specifically investors, as part of the far-right “Great Reset” conspiracy theory.

The anti-ESG movement is gaining momentum fast. In May, former Vice President Mike Pence, seemingly gearing up for a potential 2024 presidential run, attacked ESG in a speech in Houston and in aWall Street Journal op-ed.Biotech founder and conservative influencer Vivek Ramaswamy launched an explicitly anti-ESG asset management firm called Strive that same month. More recently, right-wing media spearheaded an effort to blame upheaval in the Netherlands, Sri Lanka, and other countries on green policies supposedly forced into place because of ESG compliance, warning that if the “global elites” had their way, the United States would be next.

This right-wing campaign is now targeting corporations which are implementing ESG practices and the financial institutions which are encouraging them through investment. According to Reuters, 17 conservative-led states have pushed at least 44 bills or new laws punishing companies for taking a stance on ESG issues in 2022, compared to about a dozen of these types of actions in 2021. Notably, an August 5 New York Times investigation revealed that a dark money group with deep ties to the fossil fuel industry is working with state treasurers across the country to hinder climate action in the form of anti-ESG legislation, among other tactics.

ESG is attracting more and more attention from right-wing media influencers like Elon Musk, Glenn Beck, and James Lindsay. They are part of a growing number of conservative media figures seizing the opportunity to turn ESG into the next battleground in the culture wars, in part by fitting it into the broader “Great Reset” conspiracy theory on social media. As it relates to climate change denial, the Great Reset posits that global elites are using the climate crisis as a pretext to impose economic control on the masses.

What is ESG?

On May 18, Musk took to Twitter, writing, “ESG is a scam. It has been weaponized by phony social justice warriors.” Tesla had just been kicked off of the S&P 500’s ESG index, potentially spelling trouble for the company’s stock value, and Musk was mad. It wasn’t the first time he had touched on the topic, but the media frenzy that followed had everyone asking one question: What is ESG?

From May 17-19, Google search interest in “ESG” skyrocketed by 233%, reaching peak popularity for a relatively esoteric acronym.

ESG stands for “environmental, social, and governance” criteria that companies can meet by developing initiatives and disclosures to appear responsive to environmental concerns, workers' rights, and other pressing social issues. Independent rating agencies evaluate how well they are managing risks and growth opportunities in these different areas and how that could have material impacts on their performance. For example, a company that provides detailed reporting on its greenhouse gas emissions from direct operations and across its supply chain and has a robust plan to achieve net-zero emissions may be more likely to receive a high ‘E’ score.

Investors who want to prioritize financial returns but are seeking some level of corporate accountability are increasingly relying on ESG scores to make decisions. ESG investments are on track to exceed $50 trillion by 2025. The big three asset management firms – BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street, which have sometimes used their shareholder power to support ESG resolutions – are the main villains in the right’s anti-ESG narrative. For example, at Exxon’s annual meeting in 2021, the three firms used their voting power to help activist investors install three directors on the company's board, with the goal of building out a more aggressive strategy to transition away from fossil fuels.

But that doesn’t mean corporate ESG will save the planet. To the contrary, climate advocates have called ESG a greenwashing scam. Despite being in the S&P 500’s ESG Index, Exxon has increased its investment in oil and gas drilling and does not have a climate planthat meets the goals of the Paris agreement. But the fossil fuel industry and the lawmakers who receive lavish contributions from it aren’t concerned with legitimate criticisms of ESG.

Why ESG matters to fossil fuel proponents

It is clear that despite short-term demand rising, fossil fuels are not viable long-term investments. However, fossil fuel industry allies are clawing to keep their power and profits, discouraging any corporate commitment to climate by vilifying and even prohibiting adherence to ESG standards while advancing pro-oil and gas legislation at the state and federal levels that prohibits investment and business decisions from considering the economic and environmental consequences of fossil fuels. What’s more, Republican legislators are vowing to continue this trend if they take control of the House in the November midterm election.

In the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s decision to hamstring the authority of the Environmental Protection Agency in June, ESG opponents are now calling for the court to place similar limits on the Securities and Exchange Commission and its ability to ask public companies for disclosures about their climate impacts.

Right-wing culture warriors, conspiracy theorists, and Fox News hosts are attacking ESG

The burgeoning conservative campaign against ESG isn’t just playing out in state legislatures or financial institutions. ESG panic may be approaching critical mass, with high-profile climate skeptics like Tucker Carlson, Marc Morano, Alex Epstein, and Michael Shellenberger realizing that the acronym is ripe for manipulation and fearmongering.[vid]

Video file

Video Player

Some key media figures in the right-wing campaign against ESG, such as radio host andconspiracy theorist Glenn Beck and anti-critical theory activist James Lindsay,jumped at the chance to amplify several attacks from Musk in an effort to move ESG into the mainstream discourse.

These anti-ESG evangelists aren’t just concerned with protecting oil and gas interests. Their grievances are often focused on the social and governance aspects as well, applying the same flawed arguments to specific examples to deride and toxify ESG as a whole.

Musk: “ESG is the devil incarnate”

Musk’s vendetta against ESG is personal, and it has been building at the same time his faltering deal to buy Twitter with the goal of stopping the “woke mind virus” has transformed him into a reactionary martyr.

Musk first took to Twitter with his ESG grievances on March 8, claiming, “ESG rules have been twisted to insanity,” replying to a tweet from venture capitalist and Facebook board member Marc Andreessen.

The Daily Wire’s coverage of the comment has garnered more Facebook interactions than any other U.S.-based right-wing article mentioning “ESG” since 2020. It was also shared by Daily Wire influencers Matt Walsh and Michael Knowles.

Dark money-funded PragerU, which has denied the established science of climate change in its videos, edited the thumbnail of an older anti-ESG video to feature Musk and his tweet.

On April 3, Musk tweeted, “I am increasingly convinced that corporate ESG is the Devil Incarnate,” cueing up another right-wing media pile-on.

Several conspiracy theorists and far-right characters chimed in, with some invoking the “Great Reset” conspiracy theory. Right-wing news coverage did the same.

Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-TX), who has received well over half a million dollars from the fossil fuel industry and has a large social media following, used Musk’s statements to blame high gas prices on ESG instead of price gouging and dedicated an entire episode of his podcast, Hold These Truths, to the supposed evils of ESG.

On May 18, Musk wrote his infamous “social justice warriors” tweet, which has over 360,000 interactions.

Fox News and Fox Business both ran a variety of segments on Musk’s tweet, calling ESG a scam, defending Musk as a victim of censorship, and interviewing lawmakers pushing anti-ESG legislation.

On May 26, Fox host Laura Ingraham dedicated an entire segment of The Ingraham Angle to fearmongering about ESG, citing Musk at the outset.

Video file

Video Player[vid]:{

On Twitter, industry shills, dedicated climate change deniers, and other conservative media personalities jumped to back Musk’s statement, sometimes promoting their own content on the topic for engagement.

Glenn Beck: “Elon Musk Joins Glenn in Anti-ESG Crusade”

Beck is not new to ESG. The right-wing TV and radio host was an early adopter of the “Great Reset” conspiracy theory in 2020 following the World Economic Forum’s annual Davos summit, along with Steve Bannon, Alex Jones, and a slew of other conservative influencers. He has also been weaving ESG into this theory, which has been aptly described as a “hodgepodge of one-world-government fears.”

[twt]

In December 2021, Beck insisted that Citigroup’s implementation of ESG scores for its clients was part of “the Davos plan” to prevent individuals from getting loans.

In January, Beck claimed that the Davos elites are “designing everything – everything – in your life,” including the climate crisis, for the purpose of implementing the Great Reset, in part through ESG.

Beck worked with the fossil fuel-funded Heartland Institute, to help spread his message. Heartland has been testifying before lawmakers in several states to back anti-ESG legislation, providing them with misleading information about how financial institutions are implementing ESG strategies. Beck even wrote a book with Heartland Editorial Director Justin Haskins. In one Beck claimed that “there are now 20 states that are starting to put anti-ESG legislation in because of his book.”

In February, Beck did indeed talk to at least one state legislature in Idaho, calling ESG “CRT on steroids.” (In March, the Idaho legislature passed a bill aimed at discouraging state investment boards from making ESG considerations.)

In an April 4 video titled “Elon Musk Joins Glenn in Anti-ESG Crusade,” Beck praised Tesla as a company and noted that Musk’s provocative tweets have sparked more conversations around ESG and lent credibility to criticism, especially given his perceived commitment to addressing the climate crisis.

A true Musk fanboy, Beck has gone so far as to blame ESG and the Great Reset for roadblocks to his deal to buy Twitter.

James Lindsay: “We’re going to do to ESG what we did to CRT”

Lindsay, a critical theory opponent, has emerged as a loud ESG critic, particularly on Twitter. Lindsay is an influential figure in the “critical race theory” panic. He was also instrumental in popularizing the baseless “groomer” slur which has been used to target LGBTQ people and falsely suggest they are child predators. (Lindsay was recently permanently suspended from Twitter, where he had over 300,000 followers, for calling a trans Harvard instructor a “child sexualization specialist.”)

Now, similarly to Beck, Lindsay is using his influence to spotlight ESG as a key feature of the Great Reset conspiracy theory, becoming increasingly obsessed with the topic and anyone who he feels could give it momentum – especially Musk. More broadly, Lindsay is focused on gathering a smorgasbord of right-wing grievances under the umbrella of ESG, with the intent of building a nearly all-encompassing cause for conservative activists to rally behind. Unlike some of the lawmakers who are primarily targeting climate-conscious businesses, Lindsay’s interest is more aligned with attacking the “social” aspect of ESG, which includes Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion efforts (DEI).

He has taken aim at any efforts to combat discrimination at companies such as Starbucks, falsely labeling DEI initiatives as critical race theory or “Woke Marxism,” and writing, “DEI won’t go away until after ESG is defeated. It’s a slightly separate fight, but it doesn’t even start until ESG is in ashes.”

He has also targeted Disney and linked it to ESG in order to feed into the homophobic and transphobic right-wing false accusation that LGBTQ people are predators.

He first started writing about ESG in March 2021 on Twitter, around the same time that Beck started posting about the topic. Lately, though, he’s been writing extreme statements about ESG almost every day across social media. Many of these appeared in his tweets, which had thousands of likes and retweets, but are no longer available due to his suspension.

In May, Lindsay wrote that “we’re going to do to ESG what we did to CRT,” in response to an article from The New Republic examining ESG’s role in the broader culture wars. The article highlighted Musk’s tweets and noted that anti-critical race theory and anti-ESG groups have common funders.

Lindsay repeatedly attempted to engage with Musk about ESG on Twitter, encouraging and agreeing with his objections to ESG and praising Tesla and SpaceX. On Facebook, he invoked Musk when posting about the issue, and generally jumped to his defense in the face of any criticism

In May, he addressed the “ESG Cartel” in a short of his New Discourses podcast and appeared on I’m Right with Jesse Kelly, where he talked about having conversations with lawmakers in “maybe a dozen states” regarding ESG and DEI and linked it to the influence of the World Economic Forum.

In June, he was a guest on The Charlie Kirk Show, to discuss how ESG is part of a “Marxist theology.”

ESG is seemingly poised to continue gaining traction

If we learned anything from the rise of critical race theory to a national issue and right-wing media obsession, it’s that underestimating the right-wing media’s ability to create a moral panic out of opaque terminology has serious consequences. Musk’s tweets were all that right-wing media figures and conspiracy theorists needed to expand attacks on ESG. Now, conservative TV news outlets have picked up on the narrative. With midterms approaching, so is the opportunity to mobilize voters and shareholders against this new iteration of ever-evolving “woke” ideology.

There are legitimate concerns about ESG. But even if it isn't an effective path toward decarbonization, permitting a maliciously misleading interpretation conceived by the fossil fuel industry and its allies to dominate the media cycle certainly won’t get us there, and may even further demonize various types of climate action.

rww 8 22

right-wing commentator Glenn Beck and religious-right pseudo-historian David Barton for an event Tuesday that was organized by the Utah Eagle Forum on the dangers allegedly posed by “The Great Reset and ESG.”

The Great Reset is the name for a plan created by the World Economic Forum on how best to recover from the COVID-19 pandemic, and ESG refers to the use of environmental, social, and governance criteria by investors when determining the worth and value of potential investments. Both issues have recently become a focus of Beck’s trademark doomsday catastrophizing.

But Beck sees hope in his fellow Mormons.

As Beck does whenever he addresses a crowd made up of members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, he cited the fabled “White Horse Prophecy” while declaring that the audience has the power to call down miracles that will save this nation.

As we explained when Beck cited this prophecy in 2016 while campaigning in Utah for Sen. Ted Cruz, who was then running for president, and Sen. Mike Lee.

Back in 1843, Joseph Smith, the founder of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, supposedly delivered a message known as “The White Horse Prophecy” that declared that one day, when the U.S. Constitution was hanging by a thread, the Mormon people would rise up and save this nation.

This is how Brigham Young reportedly explained it in 1854:

Will the Constitution be destroyed? No; it will be held inviolate by this people; and, as Joseph Smith said, “The time will come when the destiny of the nation will hang upon a single thread. At that critical juncture, this people will step forth and save it from the threatened destruction.”

In 2010, the LDS church issued an official statement that “the so-called ‘White Horse Prophecy’ is based on accounts that have not been substantiated by historical research and is not embraced as Church doctrine.”

The fact that the LDS church denies the legitimacy of this supposed prophecy has never prevented Beck from promoting it, as he did when speaking in Utah earlier this week.

“Read 3 Nephi,” Beck beseeched the crowd. “I read it on the plane on the way here. You read 3 Nephi right now, and all I could see was America. We celebrate our victories, but we have not humbled ourselves in front of God. We have not asked for forgiveness for our sins.”

“Unless we humble ourselves, we will be swept off this land,” he. “I am a convert. Where are the rest of the Mormons that will stand up and say, ‘We have this information; we were given the prophecy for this land’? The time is here. It’s now!”

“Do you really not believe that the Lord could rain miracles down on righteous people and save our nation and our land and our people?” Beck asked. “I know if you’re a Christian, you believe that he rose from the dead. I think that one’s a bigger miracle than saving us. Let’s believe and live our lives in a way—I promise you—if we live our lives in the way that we need to live our lives, we will not only witness the very hand of God in our life—I mean real miracles, we will see them—but if we are a righteous people, we can call them down. We must be righteous and call them down.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/05/climate/republican-treasurers-climate-change.html

no lnx

How Republicans Are ‘Weaponizing’ Public Office Against Climate Action

A Times investigation revealed a coordinated effort by state treasurers to use government muscle and public funds to punish companies trying to reduce greenhouse gases.

Riley Moore stands in an office wearing a dark suit jacket unbuttoned with a white collared shirt without a tie. On the walls hang portraits of presidents and other officials.

Riley Moore, the West Virginia treasurer, announced last week that several major banks would be barred from government contracts with his state.Credit...Kristian Thacker for The New York Times

By David Gelles

Gelles reviewed more than 10,000 pages of documents and emails while reporting for this article.

Aug. 5, 2022

Nearly two dozen Republican state treasurers around the country are working to thwart climate action on state and federal levels, fighting regulations that would make clear the economic risks posed by a warming world, lobbying against climate-minded nominees to key federal posts and using the tax dollars they control to punish companies that want to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Over the past year, treasurers in nearly half the United States have been coordinating tactics and talking points, meeting in private and cheering each other in public as part of a well-funded campaign to protect the fossil fuel companies that bolster their local economies.

Last week, Riley Moore, the treasurer of West Virginia, announced that several major banks — including Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan and Wells Fargo — would be barred from government contracts with his state because they are reducing their investments in coal, the dirtiest fossil fuel.

Mr. Moore and the treasurers of Louisiana and Arkansas have pulled more than $700 million out of BlackRock, the world’s largest investment manager, over objections that the firm is too focused on environmental issues. At the same time, the treasurers of Utah and Idaho are pressuring the private sector to drop climate action and other causes they label as “woke.”

And treasurers from Pennsylvania, Arizona and Oklahoma joined a larger campaign to thwart the nominations of federal regulators who wanted to require that banks, funds and companies disclose the financial risks posed by a warming planet.

At the nexus of these efforts is the State Financial Officers Foundation, a little-known nonprofit organization based in Shawnee, Kan., that once focused on cybersecurity, borrowing costs and managing debt loads, among other routine issues.

Then President Biden took office, promising to speed the country’s transition away from oil, gas and coal, the burning of which is dangerously heating the planet.

The foundation began pushing Republican state treasurers, who are mostly elected officials and who are responsible for managing their state’s finances, to use their power to promote oil and gas interests and to stymie Mr. Biden’s climate agenda, records show.

The New York Times reviewed thousands of pages of internal emails and documents obtained through public records requests by Documented, a watchdog group, that shed light on the treasurers’ efforts since January 2021.

At conferences, on weekly calls, and with a steady stream of emails, the foundation hosted representatives from the oil industry and funneled research and talking points from conservative groups to the state treasurers, who have channeled the private groups’ goals into public policy.

The Heritage Foundation, the Heartland Institute and the American Petroleum Institute are among the conservative groups with ties to the fossil fuel industry that have been working with the State Financial Officers Foundation and the treasurers to shape their national strategy.

Many Democratic state treasurers support efforts to combat climate change and want banks and investment firms to be clear about risks posed to returns for retirees and others. Democratic lawmakers in California and New Jersey are working on legislation that would require their state pension systems to divest from fossil fuels. But Democrats have not mounted anything like the national campaign being orchestrated by the State Financial Officers Foundation.

The Republican treasurers skirt the fact that global warming is an economic menace that is damaging industries like agriculture and causing extreme weather that devastates communities and costs taxpayers billions in recovery and rebuilding. Instead, they frame efforts to reduce emissions as a threat to employment and revenue, and have turned climate science into another front in the culture wars.

“This is a departure from their traditional roles,” said Robert Butkin, the former Oklahoma treasurer and a professor at the University of Tulsa. “There used to be a strong nonpartisan and bipartisan ethic among treasurers, but you’ve seen a lot of that erode over the past several years.”

‘Politically motivated’

In November, as major banks and corporations at a global summit in Glasgow were promising to take climate action, the Republican state treasurers were huddling at a State Financial Officers Foundation conference in Orlando, Fla., talking about ways to stop them.

At the meeting, the group’s chief executive, Derek Kreifels, made a presentation about a new law that had been signed by Gov. Greg Abbott of Texas, a Republican. It prohibited state agencies from investing in businesses that have cut ties with fossil fuel companies.

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.

Long-Sought Climate Action: After decades of failed attempts, Congress is on the cusp of passing the nation’s first major climate law. The bill avoided the political pitfalls of past legislative attempts by offering only incentives to cut climate pollution, not taxes.

Extreme Heat: President Biden said that he would expand existing federal programs to help Americans cope with the extreme heat wrought by climate change, stopping short of declaring a national emergency.

Supreme Court Ruling: By limiting the Environmental Protection agency’s ability to regulate carbon emissions, the court made it much harder for the president to achieve his climate goals.

Within weeks, Mr. Moore was working with legislators in West Virginia to write a similar bill, which became law in March. While Texas officials have been slow to enforce their law, Mr. Moore was quick to put it into action.

Last week, he notified five major financial institutions — Goldman Sachs, BlackRock, Wells Fargo, JPMorgan and Morgan Stanley — that they are barred from doing business with West Virginia because they have intentionally wound down their dealings with coal companies.

“If a bank, for instance, decides to say they have a no-lending policy as relates to thermal coal, well, then we’ll find a bank that doesn’t have that policy,” Mr. Moore said in an interview.

Mr. Moore went on to offer a classic denial of the overwhelming scientific consensus that the continued burning of oil, gas and coal will lead to planetary catastrophe.

“The climate has been changing in the world since Earth was created,” Mr. Moore said. “Whether these greenhouse gas emissions are contributing to the warming of the globe, I’m not sure I necessarily agree with that.”

The banks targeted by Mr. Moore say they are not boycotting the fossil fuel industry. All of them still do substantial business with oil and gas companies, but in the long run, they say, moving away from fossil fuels makes economic sense. West Virginia, for example, is the second-largest coal-producing state in the country, but production has declined significantly during the past two decades.

“He’s trying to counter pressure that’s coming from progressives on the left,” said Loren Allen, general counsel of the West Virginia Bankers Association, which lobbied against the new law celebrated by Mr. Moore. “Our banks are tied up in the center of a battle that no one can really win.”

Mr. Kreifels declined an interview but said in a statement that concerns over issues like climate change were “putting politics over profits, and likely reducing shareholder value.”

Kentucky, Tennessee and Oklahoma have passed similar laws this year. “Kentucky joins our growing coalition of states that have taken concrete steps to push back against the woke capitalists who are trying to destroy our energy industries,” Mr. Moore said in a news release praising the moves by the states.

Republican lawmakers in more than a dozen other states, including New York, Oregon and Virginia, are trying to advance similar legislation.

The laws could cost taxpayers. A recent study found that Texas cities, where some financial institutions have voluntarily left the market because of laws targeting companies that embrace environmental, social and governance priorities, collectively known as E.S.G., are likely to incur up to $532 million in higher interest costs in less than a year because of the legislation.

“These officials are using the public finance market to make political statements,” said Daniel Garrett, a finance professor at the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania and one of the authors of the study. “They can use these laws as a carrot or stick as they desire, but the costs can be potentially quite large.”

The treasurers are increasingly going after individual financial institutions.

In addition to the banks targeted by Mr. Moore, the treasurers of Utah and Idaho are criticizing plans by S&P Global, the ratings agency, to integrate climate risk into its credit ratings of states. And BlackRock, which manages some $8.5 trillion, has been the target of withering attacks for its stance on environmental issues.

Larry Fink, the BlackRock chief executive, has been outspoken in his desire to steer away from fossil fuels and toward what he considers a more sustainable, greener economy.

“Every government, company, and shareholder must confront climate change,” Mr. Fink wrote in a public letter in 2020 in which he described the integration of climate risk into investment decisions as “a fundamental reshaping of finance.”

In response, Mr. Moore’s office stopped using BlackRock to help manage West Virginia’s operating funds, withdrawing about $20 million.

“Larry Fink has stated it very clearly that he thinks capitalism has the power to shape society,” Mr. Moore said. “But my state doesn’t want the same shape of society that Larry Fink does.”

Other treasurers followed suit. In March, the Arkansas treasurer, Dennis Milligan, pulled $125 million from BlackRock. And in April, the treasurer of Louisiana, John Schroder, emailed Mr. Moore and Marlo Oaks, the Utah treasurer, and boasted about withdrawing more than $600 million from BlackRock accounts. Mr. Schroder said he had also blocked Citibank, Bank of America and JPMorgan from almost $1 billion in bond financing.

“That’s excellent, John!!!” Mr. Moore replied, according to emails reviewed by The Times. “Great work!!!”

BlackRock declined to comment.

Mr. Milligan, the Arkansas treasurer, emailed a statement in which he said, “I feel a strong sense of responsibility to do my part in not allowing the liberal ‘woke’ agenda to disadvantage the very people I was elected to serve.” Mr. Schroder and Mr. Oaks declined requests for interviews.

Withdrawals by a few states represent a tiny slice of BlackRock’s business. But inside banks and investment firms, there is mounting concern that the state bans could spread to pension funds, which account for nearly $4 trillion in investments across the country.

“We already have a lot of divisions in this country,” said Noah Friend, the former general counsel for the Kentucky treasurer. “I don’t like the idea that if you’re a Republican you have to bank with this company and if you’re a Democrat you have to bank with that company. Everything becomes this politicized decision about who you do business with.”

‘A coordinated attack’

Julie Ellsworth, the Idaho treasurer, asked the State Financial Officers Foundation to distribute a memo that misrepresented the position of banks on environmental, social and governance issues.Credit...Keith Ridler/Associated Press]

Behind the treasurers and the State Financial Officers Foundation is a complex web of conservative groups linked to the fossil fuel industry, as well as some of the biggest names on Wall Street.

In March, Julie Ellsworth, the Idaho treasurer, asked Mr. Kreifels to distribute a memo about the fossil fuel boycott bills to other state treasurers, according to the emails.

The memo had been prepared using research from the Heartland Institute, a think tank with a history of denying climate science, and it misrepresented how banks and other financial institutions were implementing their E.S.G. strategies.

“If you’re a small-business owner with a gasoline powered car, you’re eventually going to be phased out of banks’ portfolios, unless you switch to electric vehicles, of course,” the memo said in a section about how banks would use E.S.G. to force businesses to change. “Similarly, if you want to buy a house in the future that runs on natural gas, you, too, won’t be able to get a mortgage until you put solar panels on the roof.”

No banks have proposed such measures. Ms. Ellsworth declined to comment.

The Heartland Institute has also worked to amplify the treasurers’ message and connect them with influential conservative media personalities including Glenn Beck, records show.

Other groups supporting the treasurers’ efforts include the Heritage Foundation, a think tank that has long opposed action to combat climate change and that has received substantial funding from the oil billionaires Charles G. Koch and David H. Koch.

The State Financial Officers Foundation this year hired CRC Advisors, a conservative strategy firm that was founded by Leonard Leo, who has led a multiyear effort to stack federal courts with judges who oppose climate action. In recent months, CRC Advisors has helped coordinate media responses for treasurers, including Mr. Oaks of Utah, according to emails reviewed by The Times.

And the State Financial Officers Foundation shares many ties with the American Legislative Exchange Council, or ALEC, a conservative group with longstanding ties to the Koch brothers.

The American Legislative Exchange Council chief executive, Lisa Nelson, is on the State Financial Officers Foundation board, and ALEC’s chief economist, Jonathan Williams, is a senior policy adviser to the foundation.

Last July, the State Financial Officers Foundation hosted a conference in conjunction with ALEC, and the two groups have even shared blocks of discounted hotel rooms for their event. Mr. Moore and Mr. Kreifels were among the treasurers attending ALEC’s annual meeting in Atlanta last week.

“The State Financial Officers Foundation is a key node in a network of political groups waging a coordinated attack on climate policy,” said Jesse Coleman, a senior researcher at Documented, the watchdog organization that obtained the emails. The group is working “to weaponize state treasurers’ offices against federal appointees, regulations, and corporate policies that address climate change,” he said.

As a nonprofit organization, the State Financial Officers Foundation is not legally required to disclose its funders. A partial list of the organization’s financial supporters on its website shows that it gets funding from not only conservative groups but also from some of the biggest companies in the world, many of which say they are committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. They include JPMorgan, Wells Fargo, Visa, Mastercard, Fidelity, Federated Hermes and SAP — all of which have publicly embraced E.S.G. principles.

Most of the sponsors declined to comment, and many of their contributions were relatively small. In a statement, Beth Richek, a Wells Fargo spokeswoman, acknowledged the bank’s support for the group. “While we may not agree with every position they take, our mutual engagement is important for our company, employees, and customers,” she said.

Blocking federal appointees

Saule Omarova, President Biden’s first nominee to lead the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, withdrew after treasurers portrayed her as a “radical extremist.”Credit...Sarahbeth Maney/The New York Times]

Mr. Biden came to office with a vision: the entire federal government would be focused on reducing the country’s emissions, with new rules implemented across federal agencies staffed by political appointees who embraced the effort.

Among the obstacles Mr. Biden didn’t anticipate were the state treasurers.

An early sign of turbulence came in May 2021, when 15 treasurers sent a letter to John Kerry, Mr. Biden’s climate envoy, raising concerns about what they said was the administration’s hostility toward the oil and gas industry.

“Reckless attacks on the fossil fuel industry ultimately cut off paychecks for workers and take food off the table for hard-working middle-class families,” the letter read.

By the end of the year, the treasurers were publicly lobbying against a bevy of proposed rules and nominees.

Among their first targets was Saule Omarova, Mr. Biden’s nominee for comptroller of the currency. Ms. Omarova was heavily criticized by Republican senators, some moderate Democrats and the banking industry for her desire to limit speculative trading by banks and to open the Federal Reserve to retail banking.

But she drew the ire of the treasurers for saying that if fossil fuel companies went bankrupt it would help fight climate change. The State Financial Officers Foundation issued a letter signed by more than 20 financial officers calling her a “radical extremist.”

When Ms. Omarova withdrew her nomination in December, Mr. Kreifels sent an email to the treasurers congratulating them. “It’s an honor to work along side you all,” he said in an email titled “VICTORY!”

Two months later, the treasurers focused on another nominee: Sarah Bloom Raskin, whom Mr. Biden had nominated to be the Federal Reserve’s head of bank oversight. Ms. Raskin, a former Federal Reserve and Treasury official, has argued that financial regulators should police climate risks more diligently.

Mr. Kreifels urged the treasurers to speak out against Ms. Raskin, describing her as an “anti-energy climate change alarmist.”

In emails to state treasurers, the foundation provided draft tweets and other messaging strategies. “We must make as much noise about this as possible,” Mr. Kreifels wrote. “Make this THE ‘kitchen table’ issue in your state for the week.”

Like Ms. Omarova, Ms. Raskin withdrew her nomination. “Sarah was subject to baseless attacks from industry and conservative interest groups,” Mr. Biden said in a statement.

The treasurers have also set their sights on new federal rules and regulations intended to strengthen the government’s ability to act on climate change.

Late last year, the State Financial Officers Foundation worked with the Heritage Foundation to respond to proposals from the Financial Stability Oversight Council, a government panel assigned to minimize risk in the financial sector, on ways to reduce the threats posed by climate change, records show.

And soon after that, Mr. Oaks, the Utah treasurer, drafted a letter opposing a potential Department of Labor rule that would allow retirement plans to consider risks from global warming in their investment strategy. Mr. Kreifels distributed the draft to the foundation’s members, and more than a dozen treasurers signed the final letter. The Department of Labor has not decided whether to implement the rule.

This year, the treasurers targeted the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency. After the agency proposed a rule to require banks to consider climate-related financial risk, executives from the Heritage Foundation sent Mr. Kreifels and Mr. Oaks a memo outlining their opposition. Within weeks, dozens of state treasurers and attorneys general from Republican-led states submitted comments objecting to the proposed rule.

“This special concern for and attention to climate-related risks is irrational,” one comment read.

And in May, Mr. Kreifels organized a call with the treasurers to discuss regulations proposed by the Securities and Exchange Commission that would require companies to publicly disclose climate risks to investors. The featured guest was a representative from the American Petroleum Institute, the lobbying arm of the fossil fuel industry.

The next month, the State Financial Officers Foundation sent a 20-page letter signed by more than a dozen treasurers, calling the S.E.C.’s proposed rule, which has not yet been enacted, “irrational climate exceptionalism, elevating climate issues to a place of prominence in disclosures that they do not deserve.”

gmail 7 22

Facebook Twitter Flag as irrelevant

What's happening in the Netherlands is 'literally a preview' of what will happen globally: expert

YouTube

On Sunday's Wake Up America Weekend, ClimateDepot.com founder Marc Morano reacted to Dutch farmers' protest government climate plans that threaten ...

Facebook Twitter Flag as irrelevant

Tucker Carlson: Fossil fuels are what make the US a rich country - but Biden doesn't care

BizPac Review

Author Marc Morano punctuated the discussion by telling Carlson that “they've been at a war on agriculture for decades, and their goal is to ...

no lnx vid biz pac rev

LATEST

Tucker Carlson: Fossil fuels are what make the US a rich country – but Biden doesn’t care

July 13, 2022 | Robert Jonathan | Print Article

Facebook

Twitter

Gab

(Video: Fox News)

Fox News host Tucker Carlson is going scorched earth, as it were, on globalists and Green New Dealmakers who allegedly would destroy domestic and worldwide economic prosperity and worsen the energy crisis in the name of environmentalism.

In one of his signature, thought-provoking editorials that contain a lot to unpack, Carlson called out the World Economic Forum, the World Bank, President Joe Biden, and Squad member “Sandy” Cortez (“Westchester County’s first socialist revolutionary,”) and others for circumventing the democratic process in imposing disastrous policies to supposedly combat climate change with the implementation of renewables.

The obsession by gatekeeping institutional investors with a high Environmental, Social and, Governance (ESG) score is also a culprit in creating energy shortages and causing the suffering of millions of people. “So, at the very moment that Biden is sending our Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which we own, he doesn’t, to his son’s business partners in China, he is vowing to end fossil fuels in this country and boost our ESG score,” Carlson asserted.

“So, the poorer you get, the more human suffering there is, the higher your ESG score, and that’s important because companies will not invest unless you have a high ESG score,” Carlson claimed.

“So, everything that’s happened in Sri Lanka, Ghana, and the Netherlands is happening at the behest not simply of ideologues, but of some of the largest financial institutions in the world,” America’s most influential pundit further claimed in the monologue embedded here in two parts in referencing civil unrest that has occurred in those countries.

Carlson lamented that these decisions are being made by left-wing bureaucrats and elitists who couldn’t figure out how to drive a stick shift or program a coffeemaker and whose knowledge of energy issues is merely theoretical and ideological.

Carlson recalled how Ghana, for example, agreed to limit its carbon emission and also switch over to organic fertilizer. “Last year, Ghana experienced a complete shutdown of its national power supply…International observers say the country is now facing severe food shortages and hunger, starvation within a matter of months…It’s not just Ghana. The same thing just happened in Sri Lanka….”

Authorities in the Netherlands, a country that is said to be the world’s second-biggest food exporter, “just ordered farmers to cut virtually all of their nitrogen oxide emissions to ‘save the environment.’ Now, doing that would shutter most farms in the Netherlands and destroy the country’s food supply and once again, that led to riots,” Carlson observed.

“Fossil fuels are the only thing that stands between the United States becoming Ghana. Fossil fuels are the only thing that make the United States a rich country and not a poor country,” Carlson explained.

“We have the largest recoverable oil reserves in the world. If we can’t tap those, we will be Ghana. We will be poor, but Joe Biden doesn’t care, and so he is clamping down on our ability to extract them and like the leaders of every other country, driven into the ground by green energy schemes thought up by morons like Sandy Cortez, he’s taking no responsibility for the damage he has caused.”

Biden, in particular, “doesn’t know anything about refining or extracting or how the grid works or anything about anything because he’s never had a real job because he’s worked for the federal government since he was in his twenties.”

Noting that energy blackouts have already occurred in California and Texas, states which rely, in part, on renewables, Carlson concluded by warning that “we’re watching countries around the world…collapsing and entering into a state of revolution because these morons tampered with their energy grids.”

Author Marc Morano punctuated the discussion by telling Carlson that “they’ve been at a war on agriculture for decades, and their goal is to literally get us to eat insects and this lab-grown fake meat.”

Get the latest BPR news delivered free to your inbox daily. SIGN UP HERE

Tucker Hosts Climate Denier, Calls Green Energy a 'War Against People'- Yahoo News

Yahoo News

Marc Morano. Political activist. Fox News. Tucker Carlson opened his Tuesday show railing against environmentally friendly means of energy ...

Carlson opened his Tuesday show railing against environmentally friendly means of energy production, and then hosted a climate change denier to discuss how green energy is part of a “war against people.”

Carlson began by discussing the ongoing public revolt against political leaders in Sri Lanka amid food and fuel shortages. The protests are the result of a combination of factors including excessive government borrowing, heavy monsoons, depleted tax and tourism revenue, the decreased value of the rupee, anda government ban on chemical fertilizers that limited harvests.Carlson honed in on this final cause.

What has happened in the island nation is an example of a country being “driven into the ground by green energy schemes thought up by morons like… [Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez] AOC,” Carlson said, marking yet another instance of the New York congresswoman’s name being mentioned derisively on the primetime Fox show.

"We are watching countries around the world… collapsing and entering into a state of revolution because thesemorons tampered with their energy grids. But they don’t care,” Carlson said. “They are going to continue doing it unless someone stops them—until exactly the same thing happens here.”

Marc Morano, a global warming denier whom Carlson did not introduce as such, had a similar point of view.

“I think green energy and this whole war on agriculture… the voters cannot support this anymore,” Morano said.

“We are seeing what’s happening in Sri Lanka, we are seeing what’s happening in the Netherlands, there are protests in other countries growing, [and] Canada is following the same line with fertilizer. This is a war against modern civilization,” he added, reminiscent of past criticisms of Ocasio-Cortez’s proposals from Fox figures.

“It is a war against people,” Carlson chimed in. Life expectancy will “drop to the floor” if decision makers even so much as “tamper with” fossil fuels, which are “our greatest blessing,” he added.

“How do we allow people like [Ocasio-]Cortez and [Joe] Biden, who do not know what a carburetor is, to lecture us about something as complex as energy policy? Like, this is insane,” Carlson huffed.

Morano responded by blaming individuals in the World Economic Forum and U.S. climate envoy John Kerry, who “can go to the CEOs of major corporations and get them to sign a climate pledge, which then commits them to all of these green goals.”

“They believe that us, the unwashed masses, if left to our own devices, will create inequity, racism, environmental destruction, [and] the climate crisis,” Morono claimed. “They literally want to regulate not just our farming but every aspect of our lives, and that is really what the World Economic Forum and the United Nations is after here, is controlling humans.”

Barking Up The Wrong Tree? California Reparations Report Wants More Trees Planted ... - MRCTV

MRCTV

According to Republican Marc Morano, head of the website Climate Depot, the presence of “heat islands” is a real phenomenon, but the solution ...

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://cei.org/blog/perspectives-on-woke-capital-and-politicized-investing/

lassman:https://cei.org/blog/dont-believe-the-hype-esg-investing-advice-hides-serious-flaws/

3/21 not by kl

spooked sparked by?

recently, the Competitive Enterprise Institute hosted a virtual book event for Political Forum publisher Steve Soukup’s new book, :{The Dictatorship of Woke Capital: How Political Correctness Captured Big Business:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}:, featuring Steve, myself, andCEI president Kent Lassman. Steve’s book raises a number of interesting issues regarding corporate governance and the role of business in the modern world. See the video below for our full discussion. [vid]

in addition, I’d like to share a few highlights that reflect on CEI’s own work on the same themes. I asked Steve during our conversation about the extent to which businesspeople have been infected by the anti-capitalist mindset of society at large, and feel the need to apologize for making money, or “buy back” their moral status by supporting a laundry list of left-wing policy positions in their roles as corporate managers.

This is a theme CEI’s founder Fred Smith has discussed frequently. Writing for *Forbes* in 2014, Fred cited earlier 20th century writers like publisher Ernest Benn and economist Joseph Schumpeter on this trend:

Businesspeople have responded weakly over the last century to [attacks on their moral legitimacy], rarely mounting any strategic moral defense. Economist Joseph Schumpeter explained this passivity as the result of the rationalistic nature of capitalism. The rational attitude of businessmen, he argued, would lead them to believe that logical arguments, emphasizing capitalism’s economic achievements, would suffice. Jobs and tax payments are noted but the role of business in advancing a moral society is rarely mentioned.

But at least one businessman responded creatively and aggressively. That man was Ernest Benn. In 1925, in an England already well down the road to socialism, he wrote the memoir Confessions of a Capitalist. The book is a clear, cheerful discussion of the creative role of business in society.

The ease with which Fred reaches back a century for examples of the current debate emphasizes how little is actually new in this discussion. The original progressive theorists of the early 20th century provided most of the theoretical basis for the demands currently being made of corporate America. Steve devotes quite a bit of time in his book to the origins of public administrative (and how government regulators are expected to know better than the rest of us), including the baleful influence of such now-controversial figures as Woodrow Wilson.

I wrote for OpenMarket in January about thenew joint ESG venture between big companies and the World Economic Forum, which had recently launched its “Measuring Stakeholder Capitalism” report. It was presented as some kind of revolutionary new initiative, but was perhaps less than the hype suggested:

There’s a long history of capitalism’s critics coming up with new systems for assessing ethical business operations. Management scholars and business executives started talking about “corporate social responsibility” as far back as the 1950s, when economist Howard Bowen coined the term in his1953 book Social Responsibilities of the Businessman. Since then, various related theories and movements have waxed and waned, including socially responsible investing, extended stakeholder management, total corporate responsibility, impact investing, and the triple bottom line, among others.

We also talked about how some big corporations are using concepts like corporate social responsibility and environmental, social, and governance (ESG) theory, less to apologize for prior bad behavior and more to secure a strategic advantage over their rivals. At CEI, we often write about the concept of “regulatory capture,” the economic process by which government rules end up being written more to benefit corporations than restrain them, as a result of lobbying and special-interest influence. We can see that when some of the biggest corporations in the world sign up to a new project that will supposedly force them to act against their own financial interests.

We see this effect all the time, including in areas like antitrust. My colleague Jessica Melugin wrote in January about how regulatory capture worked historically in the context of the state-sanctioned AT&T telephone monopoly and the Federal Communications Commission, and our friend Alex Stapp tweeted just today about how it’s working now in the context of Microsoft, Google, and Facebook. The world of ESG rules is no different, and companies can be expected to manipulate the regulations we will likely see in the near future to their own advantage.

But does all of this need to be fought out in the realm of government mandates at all? I posed this question as part of the event, and there seemed to be some light at the end of the tunnel. As I wrote for *National Review* in September of last year, private certification and voluntary governance models can provide the structure for ESG-type goals that their proponents assure us are so popular and important. If corporate American is really moving in this direction already, a flexible, decentralized framework should be just what the doctor ordered:

[ESG proponents] point out that corporate law and precedent in the U.S. generally requires boards of directors to manage their firms to maximize shareholder returns, meaning that adopting policies that are ethically desirable but not profit-maximizing could expose them to shareholder litigation. Fortunately, it is possible for those business owners and managers who are afraid of being sued for doing too much good to incorporate in most states (including business incorporation fan-favorite Delaware) as a “benefit corporation,” the structure of which explicitly lifts the expectation of shareholder primacy from its directors.

If any change is necessary, it will be in the creation of additional, competing certification bodies. Many investors and managers concerned about ESG issues support the socially liberal B Lab, but there are also many people of goodwill who don’t embrace the same ethical framework and priorities. Why not have a socially responsible business-certification entity informed by the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church? Or perhaps one based on the Adam Smith Society, which has chapters at business schools across the country?

For more on what policy makers are saying about the future of ESG and corporate governance, see the recent Federalist Society event (and my writeup of it) with Securities and Exchange Commission member Elad Roisman, former commissioner Paul Atkins, and former Delaware Supreme Court chief justice Myron T. Steele.

ccdh tox 10 #1

Followers 8,606,181 Annual Revenue $3.69 million13

Facebook 5,267,281 Monthly Visits 49.9 million

Instagram 1,479,900 Google Ads Yes

Twitter 1,510,000 Others ads RevContent

YouTube 349,000 Facebook Ads No14

Breitbart News was once described as a “platform for the alt-right” by its former chairman, the ex-Trump adviser

Steve Bannon.”15

Launched in 2007, the site has long published false and misleading claims about women and minority groups as

well as conspiracy theories about Barack Obama’s status as a US citizen. Breitbart’s writers are, according to NBC:

“nationalistic, often linking immigrants and refugees with violence and the degradation of Western values.”16

The site regularly publishes climate change denial, with US contributor John Nolte and Breitbart London’s executive

editor James Delingpole both having repeatedly referred to climate change as a “hoax” pushed by so-called “climate

alarmists”.17

In 2011, the family of hedge fund billionaire and Republican donor Robert Mercer purchased nearly half of Breitbart

for $10 million.18 Mercer has a record of funding groups that challenge the scientific consensus on climate change,

such as the Heartland Institute, the Heritage Foundation and the Media Research Center, a member of the Toxic Ten.

In 2016 alone, Mercer is reported to have given nearly $4 million to such groups.19 He also co-founded and invested

in Cambridge Analytica, which came under fire for collecting the data of up to 87 million Facebook users.20

This Breitbart article in our sample stokes fears of pro-climate policies.

It promotes a conspiracy theory about “the leftist connections between

ostensibly public-health-related lockdown decrees, the Great Reset,

and ‘climate change’ advocacy”.21 Google ads for a conference on

“environmental, social and governance (ESG)” issues for energy

companies were being promoted next to the article.22

no lnx many

Woke Companies Must Wake Up on ESG

Paul DriessenPaul Driessen|Posted: Sep 04, 2021

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com.

Growing numbers of companies, banks, universities and investment houses are adopting Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) standards and disclosure rules. They’re pressured to do so by activists, legislators and regulators. Many expect to get rich via taxpayer-subsidized “renewable” energy projects.

Nearly all hope to “greenwash” their reputations, by claiming they’ll “make the world a better place,” by reducing fossil fuel emissions, and thus planetary temperatures and extreme weather events.

They recently got a boost from the US House of Representatives. It voted 215-214 party-line to pass a bill supporting Securities and Exchange Commission plans to impose new ESG rules requiring publicly traded companies to disclose “climate risks” caused by oil, gas and coal production and use. Some think ESG climate claims and misconduct could receive greater SEC scrutiny, though that seems unlikely.

Woke organizations need to wake up to climate, ESG and renewable energy realities.

The ever-more-hysterical climate and weather claims have been roundly debunked by Dr. Roy Spencer, Gregory Wrightstone, Marc Morano, Steven Koonin and others. But what’s truly outrageous about ESG is the way it studiously ignores the massive, widespread damage inflicted by pseudo-renewable energy.

Wind and sunlight certainly are clean, renewable and sustainable. But harnessing their highly dispersed, unpredictable, weather-dependent energy to meet humanity’s huge and growing energy needs absolutely is not.That requires lands and raw materials that are anything but renewable– using fuels and processes that are absolutely not clean, green, ecological or sustainable. Because they fail to recognize this, ESG programs are dishonest, even fraudulent – and must be reformed or scrapped.

Wind, solar and battery land and raw material requirements are astronomical. Onshore wind turbines require nine times more metals and minerals per megawatt than a modern combined-cycle gas power plant. One onshore 3-MW turbine foundation needs 600 cubic yards (1,500 tons) of concrete, plus rebar.

Offshore wind requires 14 times more materials per MW.Just the 2,100 850-foot-tall offshore turbines (30,000 megawatts) that President Biden wants to install by 2030 would require110,000 tons of copper, plus millions of tons of steel, aluminum, fiberglass, cobalt, rare earth metals and other materials.

At an average of 0.44% copper in ore deposits worldwide, the copper alone would require mining and processing25 million tons of ore, after removing 40 million tons of overburden to reach the ore bodies!

Add in materials for solar panels, more onshore and offshore wind turbines, backup battery systems, electric vehicles, transmission lines, and all-electric home heating and cooking systems – to run the entire USA, Europe and world – and the “green energy transformation” would require hundreds of billions of tons of metals, minerals and plastics, trillions of tons of ores, trillions of tons of overburden, and thousands of mines, processing plants and factories. Nearly all these operations employ fossil fuels.

America’s laws and attitudes make mining in the United States nearly impossible,even to support ESG-certified “green” energy facilities. That means most mining and processing will be done in Africa, Asia and Latin America, increasingly by Chinese companies. The manufacturing is done increasingly in China, which is why that country is building more coal-fired power plants every month.

Pseudo-clean-energy activities utilize hazardous chemicals and release toxic pollutants. They require vast volumes of water, often in the world’s most water-deprived regions. They cause acid mine drainage, create mountains of waste rock, and often result in vast “lakes” of toxic chemicals from refining the ores. Most are conducted under almost nonexistent pollution control, mined-land reclamation, endangered species, workplace safety, child and slave labor, and fair wage rules.

Cobalt mining already involves 40,000 African children, as young as four! Many Chinese solar panels are made with Uighur forced labor. ESG “green” aspirations would multiply this slavery many times over.

These travesties occur overseas – out of sight and out of mind – letting ESG activists and profiteers make incessant false claims that fossil fuel replacement energy is clean and virtuous. But when wind, solar and battery facilities are installed, adverse consequences will reverberate across the United States.

Hundreds of millions of acres of scenic, wildlife habitat and coastal areas would be impacted; millions of birds, bats, tortoises and other wildlife displaced, maimed and killed. And when their short productive lives are finished, billions of turbine blades, solar panels and batteries will be sent to gigantic landfills, because they cannot be recycled; their toxic metals and chemicals could leach out into soils, streams and groundwater. The same will happen in Europe, Canada, Australia and elsewhere.

Even on windy days, Mr. Biden’s 2,100 monstrous offshore turbines won’t meet New York State peak summertime electricity needs. Meeting just US coastal city needs would require tens of thousands of turbines. Dredge-and-fill operations associated with installing them would smother mollusks and other benthic species. Vibration noises would harm whale and porpoise navigation and communication. Their mere presence would create major safety issues for aircraft and fishing, naval and commercial vessels.

A single industrial solar facility near Fredericksburg, Virginia required clearcutting thousands of acres of forest habitat. Solar installations proposed for the American Southwest would blanket millions of acres of desert habitats. Dominion Energy is planning solar facilities on Virginia acreage totaling one-fourth of Delaware. Wind and solar operations would threaten or eradicate dozens of bird and other species that environmentalists have utilized for decades to stop drilling, fracking and pipeline projects.

Connecting far-flung wind, solar and battery installations to industrial centers and urban areas would require thousands of miles of new transmission lines – and still more steel, copper and concrete. Battery fires have already destroyed electric vehicles and homes. Imagine huge warehouses filled with thousands of battery modules erupting into enormous, uncontrollable conflagrations.

Biodiesel projects have already destroyed important orangutan habitats, and thousands of acres of US hardwood forests have been turned into wood pellets for Britain’s Drax Power Plant.

Threatened, endangered, migratory and marine species must be protected –wherever mining, processing and manufacturing take place, and wherever “renewable” energy installations are contemplated. Human health impacts from infrasound and light flicker must guide decisions on how close to homes and businesses wind turbines may be installed.

Reformed ESG rules – call them Environment and Human Rights (EHR) principles – must require that all these issues are addressed for every wind, solar, battery, transmission and biofuel proposal.

People must know in advance how many turbines, panels, batteries and power lines are contemplated; how many tons of metals, minerals, concrete and plastics they will require; where those materials will come from; under what environmental, pollution, safety, wage and child labor standards. Companies and government agencies must certify that supply chains are free from child or slave labor.

Project-specific, comprehensive and cumulative US and global environmental studies must be conducted before any projects are approved, and must include regular, independent reviews of bird, bat, reptile, whale, porpoise and other wildlife displacements, injuries and deaths. Project studies must fully assess all environmental, human health, human rights and other impacts worldwide, and must not be fast-tracked.

These reality-based EHR principles will help ensure that any “green future” is founded on ethical standards that address all human and ecological consequences, and actually do make the world a better place. They can also help guide SEC investigations and prosecutions for ESG misconduct and fraud – and help spur much-needed mining in the United States, to reduce our reliance on China, Russia, Taliban Afghanistan and other adversarial countries for critical and strategic minerals.

endit1

ESG 2 bak

...Americans for Prosperity Priorities

Exclusive: Circuit Court Ruling on Biden DOE’s Appliance Regulation ‘a Win’ for Americans

Operatives

Top Funders

Core Financials

Amazon

Bank of America

Chewy

Citigroup

JPMorgan Chase

PNC Financial Services

Walmart

Related Stories

The anti-ESG movement is the climate denial movement

The original anti-ESG investing movement was not so great at investing

The new anti-ESG movement: same folks, different face

Further reading

Contradictory Takes on Climate Change

Retaliating Against “Energy Discrimination”

Dubious Claims

Corporate Code of Silence

The Companies

Financial transparency on climate change is hardly a radical idea

Right-wing groups claim financial transparency is an attack on free speech

What is ESG?

Why ESG matters to fossil fuel proponents

Right-wing culture warriors, conspiracy theorists, and Fox News hosts are attacking ESG

Musk: “ESG is the devil incarnate”

Glenn Beck: “Elon Musk Joins Glenn in Anti-ESG Crusade”

James Lindsay: “We’re going to do to ESG what we did to CRT”

ESG is seemingly poised to continue gaining traction