strive $drill thiel

see vivek<div>
</div><div><div>==<a href="https://www.triplepundit.com/story/2022/anti-esg-office-holders/761261" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">https://www.triplepundit.com/story/2022/anti-esg-office-holders/761261</a><div class="body-2tMMJ" style="font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: inherit; padding: 25px 149.238px; line-height: 1.5rem;">the anti-ESG movement and the “woke capitalism” canard has many U.S. political observers scratching their heads. Instead of the traditional Republican Party support for big business, a growing number of Republican office holders are leveraging their legislative power against corporate efforts to align with ESG (environmental, social and governance) principles. Nevertheless, the pieces of the puzzle are beginning to come together.<h2 style="box-sizing: inherit;">The usual suspects: Fossil energy lobbyists</h2>The anti-ESG movement focuses primarily, though not exclusively, on stemming the flow of investor dollars to the renewable firms that that are involved in clean energy and related fields. It’s no surprise, then, to find the <a href="https://www.triplepundit.com/story/2022/fossil-fuel-lobbyists-cop27/760741" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: inherit;">Heartland Institute</a> front and center in the anti-ESG movement, which it also calls “anti-woke.” The organization is well known for developing media and legislative playbooks in support of the fossil energy and tobacco industries. The organization is apparently applying the same methodology to stem the flow of investment dollars to renewable energy.Last June, Heartland catalogued its anti-ESG playbook in a long-form article under the title, “Woke Investing Gets Well-Deserved Pushback.”“The Heartland Institute has <a href="https://www.heartland.org/news-opinion/news/woke-investing-gets-well-deserved-pushback" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: inherit;">written extensively</a> and testified about the dangers of government agencies mandating banks, companies, and portfolio funds adopt and report on Environment, Social, and Governance (ESG) standards,” noted the article’s author, H. Sterling Burnett.“Heartland has also provided detailed critiques of efforts by a cabal of large, multinational banks and gigantic financial companies to force every business to adopt ESG goals,” Burnett continued.The use of the word “cabal” is not a one-off. Burnett continues to deploy coded words that evoke the anti-Jewish canard of an all-powerful financial cult that pulls the strings of the global economy.[Editor's note: Be sure to <a href="https://www.triplepundit.com/category/brands-taking-stands/59911" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: inherit;">subscribe</a> to our Brands Taking Stands newsletter, which comes out every Wednesday.“The woke, billionaire corporate elites who run these corporations do this by threatening to withdraw banking or financial services or by applying pressure through their control over large amounts of a company’s stock,” he added.Burnett also emphasized that Heartland can take partial credit for the growing number of states that have proposed or enacted anti-ESG legislation. “In a joint effort with likeminded nonprofit organizations, The Heartland Institute’s government relations professionals have pushed back against this by working with legislators in various states to shape and adopt model legislation blocking use of ESG scoring in deciding whether to offer banking and investment services. These efforts have borne fruit,” he wrote.<h2 style="box-sizing: inherit;">The other usual suspects: Trump supporters</h2>It’s also no surprise to find investor, former <a href="https://www.triplepundit.com/story/2016/zuckerberg-peter-thiel-brings-diversity-facebook-board/56736" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: inherit;">Facebook board member</a> and <a href="https://www.triplepundit.com/story/2016/silicon-valley-tycoon-funds-trump-agenda-tune-125-million/22051" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: inherit;">political kingmaker</a> Peter Thiel involved in the anti-ESG movement. He was instrumental in former U.S. President Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign for office. He also publicly backed two candidates for U.S. Senate this year, both of whom <a href="http://www.cleveland.com/news/2022/09/jd-vance-largely-avoids-pivot-to-center-in-ohios-us-senate-race-after-culture-war-heavy-republican-primary.html" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: inherit;">deployed</a> anti-ESG rhetoric during their campaigns. In addition, Thiel has launched a new financial venture that is apparently aimed at providing an outlet for anti-ESG investors.Reporters Liz Hoffman and Charley Grant picked up that thread for the <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/upstart-money-manager-gets-billionaires-to-back-the-anti-blackrock-11652134919" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: inherit;">Wall Street Journal</a> last May in an article titled, “Woke, Inc.’ Author’s Startup to Take On BlackRock” and subtitled, “Backed by Peter Thiel and Bill Ackman, Vivek Ramaswamy’s Strive will tell CEOs to stay out of politics.” “An upstart financial firm backed by Peter Thiel and Bill Ackman has a message for American corporations: Focus on making money, not taking stands,” they observed. “Mr. Thiel invested both personally and through his Founders Fund, joined by Palantir Technologies Inc.”“Vivek Ramaswamy, who made his fortune in pharmaceutical startups before writing a book last year called ‘Woke, Inc.,’ says he has raised $20 million to start a fund manager that would urge companies not to wade into hot-button social or environmental issues,” they added. The idea seems to be catching on. Last August, reporters Katherine Greifeld and Elaine Chaim of <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-08-24/anti-esg-firm-plans-new-etfs-after-first-fund-draws-250-million?leadSource=uverify%20wall" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: inherit;">Bloomberg</a> noted that the firm filed for four more equity ETFs. “The filings land just two weeks after the Strive US Energy ETF (ticker DRLL) launched, which has already accumulated nearly $250 million in assets,” they wrote.<h2 style="box-sizing: inherit;">The anti-ESG movement embraces Elon Musk and the religious right</h2>Another leading element in the anti-ESG movement that has recently <a href="https://www.triplepundit.com/story/2022/esg-investigations-congress-backfire/761941" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: inherit;">come to light</a> is the nonprofit organization <a href="https://www.triplepundit.com/story/2022/dol-rule-esg-investing/761151" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: inherit;">State Financial Officers Foundation</a>. The group reportedly claims that it is not involved in advocating for elected officials. However, its financial “team” is staffed exclusively with Republicans, many of whom hold elected office, according to research by David Armiak of the <a href="https://www.exposedbycmd.org/2022/11/03/republican-state-financial-officers-bring-esg-fight-to-washington/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: inherit;">Center for Media and Democracy</a>. At least four members of the group are elected officials in Texas, West Virginia, Arizona and Kentucky who are known for <a href="https://www.responsible-investor.com/federated-hermes-pulls-plug-on-us-anti-esg-organisation/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: inherit;">promoting</a> anti-ESG policies.Nonpartisan or not, the Foundation has advocated on behalf of the fossil energy industry, as expressed <a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/21975717-state-financial-officers-foundation-letter-to-president-biden-asking-him-to-promote-domestic-fossil-fuel-production" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: inherit;">in a public letter</a> to President Joe Biden last April. It has also publicly aligned itself with high-profile personalities and organizations in the anti-ESG movement. On Tuesday, for example, the organization’s home page <a href="http://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1596963130873065472" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: inherit;">featured a tweet</a> from newly minted Twitter owner Elon Musk that read, “ESG is the devil.” The brief message is of a piece with Musk’s earlier anti-ESG pronouncements, as reported by the <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/19/business/dealbook/elon-musk-tesla-esg.html" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: inherit;">New York Times</a>.The day before that, the Foundation's home page <a href="https://twitter.com/WSHStand/status/1595211450368200705" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: inherit;">highlighted a tweet</a> from the Washington Stand, a publication of the Family Research Council, an evangelical activist group. The tweet linked to an unattributed commentary that described a Foundation conference in November, in which “conservative leaders made it clear that, moving forward, they plan to be woke capital’s worst nightmare,” the Family Research Council wrote.As with other anti-ESG manifests, the piece leveraged anti-Jewish sentiment by repeatedly focusing attention on the financial firm <a href="https://www.triplepundit.com/story/2022/texas-blackrock-fossil-energy/754656" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: inherit;">BlackRock and its Jewish CEO</a>.Advertisers are already <a href="https://www.triplepundit.com/story/2022/boycotts-advertisers-twitter/760176" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: inherit;">bailing from Twitter</a> on account of Musk’s tolerance for hate speech on his platform. <a href="https://www.triplepundit.com/story/2022/crisis-management-electric-vehicle/736987" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: inherit;">Issues related to his other business ventures</a> may also come into play. Now that the anti-ESG movement has embraced his rhetoric, the likelihood of additional advertisers fleeing from Twitter has grown.As for the State Financial Officers Foundation, its embrace of Musk’s “free speech” policy should be a red flag to any remaining corporate sponsors and donors that continue to support the organization, and a clear signal that business leaders can no longer count on the safe haven of Republican policy-making to support their interests. </div><div>=</div><div>10 22 mail</div><div>
</div><div>new trend is sweeping conservative America. It’s called <a href="https://substack.com/redirect/804621fa-d96b-465a-b0b6-e1d4b849ce08?r=1n6e6" rel="" target="blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://substack.com/redirect/804621fa-d96b-465a-b0b6-e1d4b849ce08?r%3D1n6e6&source=gmail&ust=1665832387609000&usg=AOvVaw21wwCzIIhJFYlKwO5o0yWx" style="text-decoration-line: none;">the anti-ESG movement</a>, or <a href="https://substack.com/redirect/02304009-d6ba-4515-8750-c28b6b7e820f?r=1n6e6" rel="" target="blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://substack.com/redirect/02304009-d6ba-4515-8750-c28b6b7e820f?r%3D1n6e6&source=gmail&ust=1665832387609000&usg=AOvVaw0_eYhEdoRGpBX7Q5FhefN" style="text-decoration-line: none;">anti-”woke capitalism” movement</a>, and it’s one of the biggest emerging barriers to corporate action on climate change.Anti-ESG proponents want to stop corporations from following environmentally and socially conscious investing principles, commonly referred to as Environment, Social and Governance (ESG) principles. They say companies are prioritizing “left-wing” goals over the financial interests of businesses and their employees, and should be prevented by law from doing so.This movement has gained a massive following in the last six months. <a href="https://substack.com/redirect/1295f96a-9f77-42f7-9acd-161a929c268d?r=1n6e6" rel="" target="blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://substack.com/redirect/1295f96a-9f77-42f7-9acd-161a929c268d?r%3D1n6e6&source=gmail&ust=1665832387609000&usg=AOvVaw0yF4rQth1hcG5Homh8kejy" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Elon Musk</a> supports it, as do billionaire investors Peter Thiel and Bill Ackman, who are are backing a <a href="https://substack.com/redirect/71730183-0a41-4c0a-98f2-4ca58e8697de?r=1n6e6" rel="" target="blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://substack.com/redirect/71730183-0a41-4c0a-98f2-4ca58e8697de?r%3D1n6e6&source=gmail&ust=1665832387609000&usg=AOvVaw26XzbXbpCDZm8Pp2QiXGsZ" style="text-decoration-line: none;">new financial firm dedicated to anti-ESG investing</a>. Banning “woke investing” is also one of the biggest recent priorities of Leonard A. Leo, the prominent conservative legal activist who runs one of the “best-funded and most sophisticated operations in American politics,” according to a New York Times <a href="https://substack.com/redirect/4857cbac-bc2b-4f94-b1b8-e58f5687276e?r=1n6e6" rel="" target="blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://substack.com/redirect/4857cbac-bc2b-4f94-b1b8-e58f5687276e?r%3D1n6e6&source=gmail&ust=1665832387609000&usg=AOvVaw1liJWWIUZs9_u8eV0YHrpa" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); text-decoration-line: none;">investigation</a> published Wednesday. In the past year, <a href="https://substack.com/redirect/8a43dd00-a47d-4678-b7e5-222721ed545c?r=1n6e6" rel="" target="blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://substack.com/redirect/8a43dd00-a47d-4678-b7e5-222721ed545c?r%3D1n6e6&source=gmail&ust=1665832387609000&usg=AOvVaw2dLYL5b2wg-l8Yk5LxUZlK" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); text-decoration-line: none;">17 states have proposed or adopted legislation</a> seeking to bar state investments in “woke” companies[twt]the anti-ESG movement frames itself as a strictly financial enterprise. Its proponents insist it’s not political movement. They’re simply trying to get politics out of the financial system so people can make the most money as possible.But the anti-ESG movement is, at its core, a lobbying effort created by climate deniers to make money for fossil fuel companies. It did not originate with financial experts or economists, but with two prominent industry operatives who’ve spent decades spreading disinformation about the human health risks of fossil fuels and cigarettes.These former coal and tobacco operatives first started their movement to ban socially conscious investing in 2004. Only now, nearly two decades later, have they been able to get mainstream conservative America on board.<h4 style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 1.16em; margin: 1em 0px 0.625em;">The anti-ESG movement is the climate denial movement</h4>Before the anti-ESG movement was the anti-ESG movement, it was the anti-CSR movement, the acronym standing for Corporate Social Responsibility. The two leaders of the anti-CSR movement were Steve Milloy and Tom Borelli.Milloy is a former <a href="https://substack.com/redirect/1438290b-cbc0-41ec-aa9d-e7f6c74f560e?r=1n6e6" rel="" target="blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://substack.com/redirect/1438290b-cbc0-41ec-aa9d-e7f6c74f560e?r%3D1n6e6&source=gmail&ust=1665832387609000&usg=AOvVaw3WVd4Xa1DTbAWITXZT3Gns" style="text-decoration-line: none;">coal company executive</a> and paid advocate for <a href="https://substack.com/redirect/2aeced4d-8a04-42e9-ad4b-db7f1f4a7a09?r=1n6e6" rel="" target="blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://substack.com/redirect/2aeced4d-8a04-42e9-ad4b-db7f1f4a7a09?r%3D1n6e6&source=gmail&ust=1665832387609000&usg=AOvVaw1nfckJklY28Foimua475Ij" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Phillip Morris and ExxonMobil</a>. His career focus is developing communication strategies to deny or downplay the risks of tobacco and fossil fuel pollution. He is among the most prominent people “clouding the climate change debate,” <a href="https://substack.com/redirect/615040e3-e415-47ae-932a-044bc466f0fa?r=1n6e6" rel="" target="blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://substack.com/redirect/615040e3-e415-47ae-932a-044bc466f0fa?r%3D1n6e6&source=gmail&ust=1665832387609000&usg=AOvVaw0dfO_BCQaq8BzIMUuqqfEs" style="text-decoration-line: none;">according to the </a><a href="https://substack.com/redirect/615040e3-e415-47ae-932a-044bc466f0fa?r=1n6e6" rel="" target="blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://substack.com/redirect/615040e3-e415-47ae-932a-044bc466f0fa?r%3D1n6e6&source=gmail&ust=1665832387609000&usg=AOvVaw0dfO_BCQaq8BzIMUuqqfEs" style="text-decoration-line: none;">The Washington Post</a>.Borelli is “one of the best-known of the science corrupters who worked for the tobacco industry,” according to <a href="https://substack.com/redirect/bafc8b13-4c2d-4ad5-a47b-eee1fe7657c4?r=1n6e6" rel="" target="blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://substack.com/redirect/bafc8b13-4c2d-4ad5-a47b-eee1fe7657c4?r%3D1n6e6&source=gmail&ust=1665832387609000&usg=AOvVaw3bIEPRge8TrmV8aaiGDyqr" style="text-decoration-line: none;">The Center for Media and Democracy</a>. In the 90s, while working for Phillip Morris, he led the tobacco industry’s efforts to team up with other polluting industries—like coal and chemicals—to promote anti-science rhetoric. “The climate denial movement is a direct result of these coalitions,” according to CMD. (<a href="https://substack.com/redirect/ee10ede4-4fdd-4267-bf62-5d25bfde6437?r=1n6e6" rel="" target="blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://substack.com/redirect/ee10ede4-4fdd-4267-bf62-5d25bfde6437?r%3D1n6e6&source=gmail&ust=1665832387609000&usg=AOvVaw1Oyocm1hFLdOBv6DapeLMo" style="text-decoration-line: none;">He now promotes climate denial</a>).In 2004, Milloy and Borelli formed a non-profit called the Free Enterprise Education Institute. The non-profit’s purpose, according to its tax forms, was to “educate the public about the American system of free enterprise” by “maintaining a website about its research.”The website they launched was called CSRwatch.com, and was marketed as a news destination for anyone opposed to “corporate social responsibility.” CSRwatch primarily aggregated news articles attacking corporations that had climate change and other socially conscious policies, like refusing to invest in child labor.<div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 26px; margin-bottom: 16px; text-align: center;"><figure style="display: inline-block; margin: 0px auto; width: 550px;"><table width="100%" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" style="margin: 8px auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="margin: 0px; text-align: center;" /><td align="left" width="1456" style="margin: 0px; text-align: center;"><a href="https://substack.com/redirect/f58a37ae-b313-45d9-81be-a7a352d43183?r=1n6e6" rel="" target="blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://substack.com/redirect/f58a37ae-b313-45d9-81be-a7a352d43183?r%3D1n6e6&source=gmail&ust=1665832387609000&usg=AOvVaw2dpVWLqWBAvO4BVnhw6cW6" style="border: none; display: block; height: auto; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; width: auto;"><img alt="" width="550" height="290.86538461538464" src="https://ci3.googleusercontent.com/proxy/nDCVJpoa3LEs3Kj7agYYtm2VfwOrR4R3a8PGWVWblSA2ixJiVzemmZRnxrsCUd4C46gjhj7Obn_DAchro-SMSDsGmT4XhXxnrREC9j-kAPioy-ts4ai3ywFG_6Sk1KEIkOjAFv1PB0QXkvsTGIHooCrtnItY54UpQ4EbhRKAxxpkjLGGt3wfouOAB3UCNT3Vjo9_Zy0YvdZIPsOIs2FjGaXl0gJBcx92P7PnYnG-G-r9IrrqdVQyLa1XJhe8-qK0xXHHB2ZqJtG1RPxkBCCdDMEIpBIGjjbU3hraJDZLwp1EWKZgrfHdmkSQ9I8ePPrek9JIeI53nCRfQyXPWRSmKuOQtQ=s0-d-e1-ft#https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_2912,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fbucketeer-e05bbc84-baa3-437e-9518-adb32be77984.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F6ffc8cdc-f8ea-4539-ba29-72b155369752_2480x1312.png" class="CToWUd" data-bit="iit" style="display: block; height: auto; margin: 0px auto; vertical-align: middle; max-width: 100%; border: none !important; width: auto !important;" /></a></td><td style="margin: 0px; text-align: center;" /></tr></tbody></table><figcaption style="line-height: 1.4em;">A February 16, 2006 screenshot of CSRwatch.com. Source: <a href="https://substack.com/redirect/f36b4f47-d124-42de-bc3c-d8c3e7435282?r=1n6e6" rel="" target="blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://substack.com/redirect/f36b4f47-d124-42de-bc3c-d8c3e7435282?r%3D1n6e6&source=gmail&ust=1665832387610000&usg=AOvVaw1N___f1qcbnVnRqgr1JY38">Wayback Machine</a>.</figcaption></figure></div>
One article posted to CSRwatch in 2006, for example, slammed corporations that <a href="https://substack.com/redirect/5d7bb163-10ca-4926-a77d-03ef404bc61e?r=1n6e6" rel="" target="blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://substack.com/redirect/5d7bb163-10ca-4926-a77d-03ef404bc61e?r%3D1n6e6&source=gmail&ust=1665832387610000&usg=AOvVaw0LOYX15c-AfNYXeWQcfCMd" style="text-decoration-line: none;">refuse to invest in overseas sweatshops</a>, saying they deprive children in developing countries of good paying jobs. "They try to shut down so-called sweatshops as though no jobs [are] better than what they consider to be low quality jobs, as though working as a 12-year-old beggar, thief or prostitute is better than working in a garment or shoe factory,” it read.The article also slammed pro-indigenous corporate policies. "I would love to meet just one corporate social responsibility activist … who's willing to go native for even one month and live in a state-of-the-art mud hut in malaria-infested rural Africa under the indigenous conditions they extol and perpetuate,"<a href="https://substack.com/redirect/5d7bb163-10ca-4926-a77d-03ef404bc61e?r=1n6e6" rel="" target="blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://substack.com/redirect/5d7bb163-10ca-4926-a77d-03ef404bc61e?r%3D1n6e6&source=gmail&ust=1665832387610000&usg=AOvVaw0LOYX15c-AfNYXeWQcfCMd" style="text-decoration-line: none;"> it read</a>.CSRWatch was directly funded by the fossil fuel industry. From 2004 to 2005, <a href="https://substack.com/redirect/779c22cb-ba74-446c-92c1-0c9602c3975f?r=1n6e6" rel="" target="blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://substack.com/redirect/779c22cb-ba74-446c-92c1-0c9602c3975f?r%3D1n6e6&source=gmail&ust=1665832387610000&usg=AOvVaw0pVKxcgfq7y5LjMJXjb_sD" style="text-decoration-line: none;">ExxonMobil gave the Free Enterprise Education Institute $80,000</a>. The non-profit also received grants from a <a href="https://substack.com/redirect/be206150-d5ba-4336-8aed-a8a81b0e829f?r=1n6e6" rel="" target="blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://substack.com/redirect/be206150-d5ba-4336-8aed-a8a81b0e829f?r%3D1n6e6&source=gmail&ust=1665832387610000&usg=AOvVaw2kF7IcURjbisSMXZcq-e8t" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Koch family charity foundation</a>, <a href="https://substack.com/redirect/6a31dad7-47d2-428e-ae0a-6f68c99519c3?r=1n6e6" rel="" target="blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://substack.com/redirect/6a31dad7-47d2-428e-ae0a-6f68c99519c3?r%3D1n6e6&source=gmail&ust=1665832387610000&usg=AOvVaw33oF7mZyNNhhjXuwnYzL_Y" style="text-decoration-line: none;">DonorsTrust</a>, and <a href="https://substack.com/redirect/476276b0-006a-4e81-b1c1-18281aaecf8d?r=1n6e6" rel="" target="blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://substack.com/redirect/476276b0-006a-4e81-b1c1-18281aaecf8d?r%3D1n6e6&source=gmail&ust=1665832387610000&usg=AOvVaw0yBdqEvBK2S8cEkEpPKEAg" style="text-decoration-line: none;">The Randolph Foundation</a>, all conservative groups with ties to fossil fuels.<h4 style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 1.16em; margin: 1em 0px 0.625em;">The original anti-ESG investing movement was not so great at investing</h4>CSRWatch was not Borelli and Milloy’s only effort to push back against ESG investing in the mid-2000s. They also set up a mutual fund called the <a href="https://substack.com/redirect/f322d261-93c6-4101-9e59-a562e2f899f8?r=1n6e6" rel="" target="blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://substack.com/redirect/f322d261-93c6-4101-9e59-a562e2f899f8?r%3D1n6e6&source=gmail&ust=1665832387610000&usg=AOvVaw3IeYBa37NE4m60JQYPe_r2" style="text-decoration-line: none;">The Free Enterprise Action Fund</a>, designed to show that being anti-woke was also good business.The fund <a href="https://substack.com/redirect/d99297cf-25d6-4b10-bc68-54ea54411a17?r=1n6e6" rel="" target="blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://substack.com/redirect/d99297cf-25d6-4b10-bc68-54ea54411a17?r%3D1n6e6&source=gmail&ust=1665832387610000&usg=AOvVaw2jfcyAeRjZhtlEOfSGUrS4" style="text-decoration-line: none;">sought to achieve long-term investment returns</a> “while aggressively challenging CEOs who use shareholder assets to advance the liberal political agenda.” But, perhaps because neither Borelli nor Milloy had any experience managing money professionally, the fund didn’t do very well, <a href="https://substack.com/redirect/d3c72f5b-66a4-471e-9add-941705eeced3?r=1n6e6" rel="" target="blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://substack.com/redirect/d3c72f5b-66a4-471e-9add-941705eeced3?r%3D1n6e6&source=gmail&ust=1665832387610000&usg=AOvVaw3TdfDdiQWZOgImhWiIj-or" style="text-decoration-line: none;">according to a 2006 Slate piece</a>:<blockquote style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); border-left: 4px solid rgb(239, 98, 48); margin: 20px 0px;">Judging by the early returns, these free-marketers are failing the test of the marketplace. The fund has attracted a paltry $5.2 million in assets as of March 31. <a href="https://substack.com/redirect/da35d227-e10e-4f8a-9f3c-675def2578c3?r=1n6e6" rel="" target="blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://substack.com/redirect/da35d227-e10e-4f8a-9f3c-675def2578c3?r%3D1n6e6&source=gmail&ust=1665832387610000&usg=AOvVaw0gfNHUZX8WtxA-l05tjRac" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Returns</a> have lagged the S&P 500 badly. In its first 10 months in business, the fund returned 2.32 percent while the S&P 500 rose 4.72 percent.</blockquote>Of course, the fund’s poor performance could also simply have been explained by the fact that it’s <a href="https://substack.com/redirect/7e38f6af-3c27-4c72-a109-de87e20d473f?r=1n6e6" rel="" target="blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://substack.com/redirect/7e38f6af-3c27-4c72-a109-de87e20d473f?r%3D1n6e6&source=gmail&ust=1665832387610000&usg=AOvVaw0iIqbL3EuECwAGOAtnS1wt" style="text-decoration-line: none;">bad business</a> to ignore environmental and social risk factors. Indeed, this is why the bulk of <a href="https://substack.com/redirect/02304009-d6ba-4515-8750-c28b6b7e820f?r=1n6e6" rel="" target="blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://substack.com/redirect/02304009-d6ba-4515-8750-c28b6b7e820f?r%3D1n6e6&source=gmail&ust=1665832387610000&usg=AOvVaw1xq4f7Np3EVtW21up89n0d" style="text-decoration-line: none;">the financial</a> and <a href="https://substack.com/redirect/f9527c33-6096-44ea-ba43-3b37945038ea?r=1n6e6" rel="" target="blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://substack.com/redirect/f9527c33-6096-44ea-ba43-3b37945038ea?r%3D1n6e6&source=gmail&ust=1665832387610000&usg=AOvVaw2TLIcthNOc3AVDsmmpaUDD" style="text-decoration-line: none;">corporate worlds</a> don’t agree with the anti-ESG movement. They know that ESG investing, particularly investing with climate change risk in mind, <a href="https://substack.com/redirect/de358cb3-c3df-4e9a-a200-2f968e465f47?r=1n6e6" rel="" target="blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://substack.com/redirect/de358cb3-c3df-4e9a-a200-2f968e465f47?r%3D1n6e6&source=gmail&ust=1665832387610000&usg=AOvVaw029xb6bOPWD5ZULMXy8S94" style="text-decoration-line: none;">is not ideological</a>. It’s merely the smartest long-term financial decision.The anti-ESG movement doesn’t agree with this assessment for one reason, and one reason only: They’re climate deniers. And the fact that they’re climate deniers is not a coincidence. That is what the fossil fuel industry intended.<h4 style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 1.16em; margin: 1em 0px 0.625em;">The new anti-ESG movement: same folks, different face</h4>The original anti-ESG movement eventually appeared to fizzle. CSRwatch.com <a href="https://substack.com/redirect/92dd4281-85b1-43ef-9a1e-04076f7c96a5?r=1n6e6" rel="" target="blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://substack.com/redirect/92dd4281-85b1-43ef-9a1e-04076f7c96a5?r%3D1n6e6&source=gmail&ust=1665832387610000&usg=AOvVaw1MZGroohfTlWQpl_1KaGXe" style="text-decoration-line: none;">stopped being updated</a> in late 2007 and the domain expired in 2008. Shortly after, The Free Enterprise Action Fund was <a href="https://substack.com/redirect/a29abeca-a412-4770-bd07-02c1317422fa?r=1n6e6" rel="" target="blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://substack.com/redirect/a29abeca-a412-4770-bd07-02c1317422fa?r%3D1n6e6&source=gmail&ust=1665832387610000&usg=AOvVaw3iQX0-TvR7nNeTHhyOLepA" style="text-decoration-line: none;">merged into a separate mutual fund</a> that had nothing to do with anti-ESG advocacy.The Free Enterprise Education Institute <a href="https://substack.com/redirect/a6c79bc6-ef3b-4af3-8955-4a9bee19fd53?r=1n6e6" rel="" target="blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://substack.com/redirect/a6c79bc6-ef3b-4af3-8955-4a9bee19fd53?r%3D1n6e6&source=gmail&ust=1665832387610000&usg=AOvVaw0IIl4aOS-7ZagR8Am0Ie1d" style="text-decoration-line: none;">was then acquired by the National Center for Public Policy Research</a>, a much larger right-wing think tank funded by some of the similar players, <a href="https://substack.com/redirect/6b0e1905-9f09-4dd6-86d5-13fe42e55295?r=1n6e6" rel="" target="blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://substack.com/redirect/6b0e1905-9f09-4dd6-86d5-13fe42e55295?r%3D1n6e6&source=gmail&ust=1665832387610000&usg=AOvVaw3AH6eSKVs_u5NNKWrQl-Zl" style="text-decoration-line: none;">including ExxonMobil</a>. The NCPPR announced that Milloy and Borelli would remain at the head of the project, which would from then on be called the Free Enterprise Project.At the time, Borelli <a href="https://substack.com/redirect/a6c79bc6-ef3b-4af3-8955-4a9bee19fd53?r=1n6e6" rel="" target="blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://substack.com/redirect/a6c79bc6-ef3b-4af3-8955-4a9bee19fd53?r%3D1n6e6&source=gmail&ust=1665832387610000&usg=AOvVaw0IIl4aOS-7ZagR8Am0Ie1d" style="text-decoration-line: none;">said</a> the merger would “significantly enhance our ability to educate the public on emerging threats to our free enterprise system.” And though it took about 14 years, it appears Borelli was correct.The new anti-ESG financial firm backed by Peter Thiel and Bill Ackman, Strive Asset Management, is being led by Justin Danhof, the former executive Vice President of the NCPPR. In a recent interview with the <a href="https://substack.com/redirect/38d58064-1133-4785-b888-16df62c2b184?r=1n6e6" rel="" target="blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://substack.com/redirect/38d58064-1133-4785-b888-16df62c2b184?r%3D1n6e6&source=gmail&ust=1665832387610000&usg=AOvVaw2hUhMy8K4PvwMOzN3jxgYG" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Capitol Account newsletter</a>, Danhof explained his qualifications: “I ran a program called the Free Enterprise Project,” he said. “We were really at the beginning of what you would call any sort of pushback against ESG, woke capital — before it was even a term.”It may be more sophisticated today, but the anti-ESG movement is the same as it ever was: a political effort to delay climate action led by fossil fuel industry propagandists. It follows the <a href="https://substack.com/redirect/fe04c579-699b-44f4-aa42-0cbb0971d531?r=1n6e6" rel="" target="blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://substack.com/redirect/fe04c579-699b-44f4-aa42-0cbb0971d531?r%3D1n6e6&source=gmail&ust=1665832387610000&usg=AOvVaw2nLYIa4jJt1Zdj3r3Rnvsh" style="text-decoration-line: none;">classic playbook of climate disinformation</a> by trying to “both sides” the idea of climate risk. But Witold Henisz, the director of the Wharton School’s ESG program, <a href="https://substack.com/redirect/02304009-d6ba-4515-8750-c28b6b7e820f?r=1n6e6" rel="" target="blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://substack.com/redirect/02304009-d6ba-4515-8750-c28b6b7e820f?r%3D1n6e6&source=gmail&ust=1665832387610000&usg=AOvVaw1xq4f7Np3EVtW21up89n0d" style="text-decoration-line: none;">put it best</a>: “Climate risk is investment risk. There is no credible other side, only an ideological opposition cynically seeking a wedge issue for upcoming political campaigns.”“Proponents of climate science and more sustainable investing need to plan and execute their counterattack,” he added. “Silence in the face of such an attack is complicity. Which side are you on?”<h4 style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 1.16em; margin: 1em 0px 0.625em;">Further reading</h4><ul style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); margin-top: 0px; padding: 0px;"><li style="margin: 8px 0px 0px 32px;"><a href="https://substack.com/redirect/02304009-d6ba-4515-8750-c28b6b7e820f?r=1n6e6" rel="" target="blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://substack.com/redirect/02304009-d6ba-4515-8750-c28b6b7e820f?r%3D1n6e6&source=gmail&ust=1665832387610000&usg=AOvVaw1xq4f7Np3EVtW21up89n0d" style="text-decoration-line: none;">How to Confront the Anti-ESG Campaign</a>. Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, August 2022.</li><li style="margin: 8px 0px 0px 32px;"><a href="https://substack.com/redirect/de358cb3-c3df-4e9a-a200-2f968e465f47?r=1n6e6" rel="" target="blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://substack.com/redirect/de358cb3-c3df-4e9a-a200-2f968e465f47?r%3D1n6e6&source=gmail&ust=1665832387610000&usg=AOvVaw029xb6bOPWD5ZULMXy8S94" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Banks and Business Leaders Who Use ESG Aren’t ‘Woke.’ They’re Protecting Their Bottom Lines</a>. Fortune, September 2022.</li><li style="margin: 8px 0px 0px 32px;"><a href="https://substack.com/redirect/8728550d-49da-4c88-ad80-df1c2a07333d?r=1n6e6" rel="" target="_blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://substack.com/redirect/8728550d-49da-4c88-ad80-df1c2a07333d?r%3D1n6e6&source=gmail&ust=1665832387610000&usg=AOvVaw0WZtHJGBTvEP5cg4Y76Nkh" style="text-decoration-line: none;">The Republican War on “Woke Capitalism” Is Really Just a War on Capitalism</a>. Slate, June 2022.</li></ul></div><div>=</div>no lnx many<a href="https://newrepublic.com/article/167550/desantis-anti-esg-movement">https://newrepublic.com/article/167550/desantis-anti-esg-movement</a>Kate AronoffAugust 29, 2022CRT —> ESG?The Deranged Demands of the “Anti-ESG” MovementFlorida Governor Ron DeSantis is the latest Republican to claim woke capitalists are discriminating against fossil fuels.Making good on a long-promised threat, Texas State Comptroller Glenn Hegar last week announced a list of 10 financial institutions and more than 300 funds his office deems to be “boycotting energy companies,” a.k.a. fossil fuels. Accordingly, state entities—including pension funds for teachers and government workers—will be required to divest from these financial institutions as the state moves to implement Senate Bill 13, which Governor Greg Abbott signed into law last year. Under the same bill, Texas has since September required any financial company entering into new contracts or renewing contracts with state entities to affirm they do not and will not “boycott energy companies.”
Since the Texas “energy discrimination elimination” law passed last year, similar efforts to fight what’s known as “environmental, social, and governance,” or ESG, criteria in investing have cropped up in at least 15 other state legislatures and passed in four. Republicans have begun to embrace the fight as an election issue, as well, turning “ESG” into a base-rallying bogeyman much like CRT, or “critical race theory.” The conservative argument in each case, as I’ve previously reported, is that any decrease in investment in oil, gas, and coal is a form of discrimination.
“You’ve seen a rise of something called ESG—environment, social, governance—where they will grade different companies based on how they’re performing on those metrics,” Florida Governor Ron DeSantis says over ominous music in a recent video, warning that “masters of the universe” are using their “economic power to impose policies on the country that they could not … at the ballot box.” The State Board of Administration that DeSantis serves on moved this week to ban that body from considering “social, political, or ideological interests” in decision-making about Florida pensions. As the anti-ESG movement racks up state-level wins, its biggest payoff may come at the national level: kneecapping U.S. financial regulators’ ability to respond to the climate crisis.
Officials from several of the same Republican-controlled states where anti-ESG efforts have taken root are rallying to stop a proposed Securities and Exchange Commission rule that would require publicly listed companies to disclose their greenhouse gas emissions. The comment period for the rule has just ended, but not before Republican attorneys general from 21 states filed their opposition, claiming the rule oversteps the SEC’s authority and runs afoul of the Supreme Court’s recent ruling in West Virginia v. EPA. 
The attorneys general claim specifically that requiring publicly listed companies to disclose emissions would violate the “major questions doctrine,” the novel legal concept that the court’s right-wing majority, in its West Virginia v. EPA opinion, more or less invited litigants to use in challenging the administrative state. This doctrine holds that the court should review the executive branch’s interpretation of congressional statutes when such interpretations constitute questions of serious political or economic significance. 
Unsurprisingly, then, the attorneys general’s rhetoric about the proposed rule has been noticeably hyperbolic, suggesting a rule merely requiring companies to disclose information to the SEC, as they do regularly, is nothing less than all-out war on American identity. “The woke left is going full throttle in their mission to change every facet of American life,” West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey said, “and erode our democratic institutions to suit their liberal agenda. The Biden administration wants to radically transform the SEC and other agencies run by unelected bureaucrats and make them champions of climate change.” 
The comment sets the stage for a legal battle that could thwart the SEC’s and potentially other agencies’ ability to reckon with physical reality as temperatures rise. “The door may close on that before anyone realizes what’s going on,” says Sarah Haan, a law professor at Washington & Lee University. In addition to the major questions doctrine, the new rule is also likely challenged on First Amendment grounds. Republican attorneys general raised the possibility in their comment as well. If so, Haan says, it could open a “Pandora’s box” of constitutional challenges to securities regulation in general. 
There are a number of ways to insulate climate-related financial regulations from legal challenges. “The SEC should be really clear about the purpose of the rule,” Haan argues, and—per its mandate—articulate emissions disclosures as protecting the interests of both investors and the public. “The climate risk rule is a continuation of long-standing securities regulation,” she adds. “It’s not radical or new, it’s just a continuation of the kinds of security regulation that we’ve always had,” including corporate disclosures that cover the many other sorts of risks investors might face. Madison Condon, a professor at Boston University School of Law, adds that using the protections around systemic risk established by Dodd-Frank—in some ways a more natural fit for evaluating climate change’s impact on the financial system—could provide additional protections for prospective new rules at the Treasury and Federal Reserve. 
Time may be running out to get those up and running, though. Should Republicans take Congress and the White House come 2024, they could both tear up regulations enacted at the end of the Biden administration and prevent the federal government from issuing rules that are “substantially similar” in the future. The Trump administration did exactly that. Within his first year in office, Republicans used the Clinton-era statute to target 130 executive orders, Cabinet-level agency decisions, Congressional Review Acts, and even bills that would impact older laws. Seventy of those nixed rules related to the environment.Fossil fuel companies and dark-money groups have funded the recent attacks on ESG, as well as those on other efforts to regulate polluters. The Republican Attorneys General Association has accepted millions of dollars from fossil fuel interests, including a $100,000 donation last year from the American Petroleum Institute. The Texas Public Policy Foundation has taken plenty of fossil fuel cash, too, and has heartily backed the S.B. 13 push while working to export it as a model for other states. Funders for the lesser-known State Financial Officers Foundation—a network of state treasurers that’s been pushing anti-ESG measures around the country and opposed former Deputy Treasury Secretary Sarah Bloom Raskin’s nomination to the Federal Reserve—include a hodgepodge of financial institutions, including some targeted by the Texas bill and whose websites extoll their commitment to ESG principles. 
Enterprising grifters are also cashing in on the trend. “Anti-woke” money manager Strive ($DRLL), which launched this year with backing from Peter Thiel, recently announced it has $250 million in assets under management, building on a $20 million seed funding round in May. As Alex Kotch pointed out for the Center for Media and Democracy, which first reported anti-ESG efforts late last year, Hegar introduced Strive founder Vivek Ramaswamey at the American Legislative Exchange Council’s annual conference in July, where he talked about his book Woke Inc: Inside Corporate America’s Social Justice Scam.
The battle over ESG is on some level one between different arms of capital with different political leanings; the fossil fuel companies helping back anti-ESG efforts inordinately lean right and have an obvious interest in wanting to keep as much investor cash as possible parked in their industry. Banks and asset managers tend to vote blue and take a longer-term view of fiduciary responsibility, looking to insulate returns on their broad portfolios from the considerable financial risks posed by climate change. 
Condon also sees it as bigger than that. Asset managers’ prominence, she explained, is a relatively recent development. After the financial crisis, low interest rates sent institutional investors searching for the kinds of steady yields they were used to getting from U.S. Treasury securities. Asset managers—with affordable passive investment funds—were ready and eager to provide. Blackrock now controls a whopping $10 trillion of assets, up from just $1 trillion in 2009. Altogether, the Big Three asset managers (Blackrock, Vanguard, and State Street) own roughly 20 percent of the average company listed on the S&P 500. Those shares give a small handful of companies considerable sway over a broad swath of corporate America—and can in practice allow them to override the decisions of the executives who manage firms. “This has really become a fight, also, between the CEO class and the asset manager class,” Condon said. It’s the CEOs, Haan notes, who control where corporations spend their lobbying efforts. “They stand in a position to say to candidates and party officials, ‘It’s really important for us to kill ESG.’ We’re starting to see politicians stepping up on a multipronged assault on ESG from all angles,” she said.
The purpose of laws like S.B. 13 and their copycats is to prevent companies like Blackrock from using their sizable share positions to enforce a “woke” green agenda, mainly through their votes on shareholder resolutions. That’s why Texas officials have accused Blackrock of “boycotting energy companies,” despite the $108 billion the company has invested in Texan energy companies, which would seem to disqualify it. 
Jason Isaac, director of the Texas Public Policy Project’s Life:Powered Initiative, who’s led the group’s anti-ESG work, says Blackrock is “using that investment muscle to make that board adopt resolutions that are contrary to the best interest of their business” and “is more concerned about stakeholders than shareholders, and that’s not capitalism.” While they tend to behave similarly, Blackrock’s main competitors—Vanguard and State Street—were not included on the comptroller’s list. Asked why, a representative from Hegar’s office said the companies “must have responded” to their questionnaire, “and they must have succeeded in asserting an ordinary business purpose,” as opposed to an ideological one. Blackrock has criticized the list, calling it “anti-competitive.” In an emailed statement, a Blackrock representative said that “elected and appointed public officials have a duty to act in the best interests of the people they serve. Politicizing state pension funds, restricting access to investments, and impacting the financial returns of retirees is not consistent with that duty.”Ironically, the Texas comptroller’s office did not evaluate how firms actually voted in shareholder meetings when compiling its list, due “to the amount of voting data required to be reviewed.” If it had, it might have found that Blackrock backed fewer than half of environmental and social shareholder resolutions last year and plans to support “proportionately fewer” this year, according to a recent commentary the company published on its investment stewardship approach, “as we do not consider them to be consistent with our clients’ long-term financial interests.” Anti-ESG efforts have also taken aim at a number of investor-led climate initiatives, including Climate 100 and the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero, comprising the Net Zero Banking Alliance and Net Zero Asset Managers Initiative. In Arizona, Attorney General Mark Brnovich has launched an investigation into whether Climate 100 violates antitrust rules. “Wall Street banks and money managers are bragging about their coordinated efforts to choke off investment in energy,” he wrote this March in The Wall Street Journal. For climate advocates critical of the often vague label of ESG, all of this is profoundly ironic: Banks and asset managers continue to pour prodigious amounts of money into fossil fuel companies. One-third of the climate-themed funds analyzed by the U.K. think-tank Common Wealth in 2020 held oil- and gas-producing companies. As European regulators are in the midst of trying to crack down on what financial products can use the ESG label, nearly a quarter may not qualify, according to the research firm Morningstar. The German headquarters of Deutsche Bank and that of its asset management arm were recently raided by authorities for misleading investors about how “green” various investment products they offer really are. Anti-ESG measures stateside may well come back to bite the states passing them. Texas’s law barring public contracts with blacklisted companies is already estimated to have cost the state between $303 and $532 million, according to a recent study by Daniel Garrett and Ivan Ivanov, of the University of Pennsylvania and the Federal Reserve Board, respectively. That figure, they explain, accounts for just one way in which the contracting bill has cost taxpayers: big municipal bond underwriters fleeing the state. Because no state entity can enter into new contracts with firms that don’t sign a fossil fuel loyalty pledge, cities and school districts looking to raise funds on the municipal bond markets—for things like new schools or upgrading water systems—have had to seek out new partners and underwriters, generally smaller firms that can’t offer rates that are competitive and may be struggling to take on new business from the companies that walked away from Texas as a result of the bill. On average, Ivanov and Garrett find that the law saddles state entities with paying interest rates some 15 basis points higher than they would otherwise. As of the start of this year, Blackrock managed $10 billion worth of  bonds issued by the state of Texas and its various municipalities, which won’t be impacted by S.B. 13 since those contracts already exist. (Hegar’s office declined to comment on the study.)Other impacts could be far greater, leaving pensioners exposed to the many ways climate change will hit the economy—and potentially their own retirement savings—in years to come. “I think it’s already having a chilling effect,” Condon says of financial institutions’ willingness to address climate issues. Among the criteria Hegar’s office considered in compiling its blacklist was the “extent of engagement of the board of directors on perceived climate risk.” Firms that even consider the effect devastating droughts, wildfires, and storms might have on their portfolio, that is, could stand to lose business just for looking into it. “This is definitely one of the many disincentives for Blackrock or more actively managed funds to take climate change seriously,” Condon says. “You cannot look at our economy and think we’re prepared for climate change.”Kate Aronoff @KateAronoff</div><div>===</div></div>