Green capitalism on the retreat? Blackrock and other heavyweights withdraw from Climate Action 100+
By AR Göhring
According to its own statement, “Klima-Aktion 100+“ (Climate Action 100+) is an “investor-led initiative to ensure that the world’s largest greenhouse gas emitters take the necessary measures to protect the climate”.
Over 170 world-renowned companies and corporations are members of the organization, including more controversial ones such as Blackrock and JP Morgan. And many others, some of them VERY surprising:
A.P. Møller – Mærsk A/S
Air France–KLM S.A.
Airbus SE
ArcelorMittal S.A.
BASF SE
Bayer AG
Bayerische Motoren Werke AG (BMW)
The Boeing Co.
BP
Carrefour S.A.
Caterpillar Inc.
Chevron Corp.
Colgate-Palmolive Co.
Danone S.A.
Delta Air Lines, Inc.
Dow Inc.
E.ON SE
Exxon Mobil Corp.
Ford Motor Company
Gazprom PAO
General Electric Co.
General Motors Company
Heidelberg Materials AG Cement
Hardly anyone who doesn’t want to believe that financial service providers like Blackrock are seriously interested in environmental protection and improving coexistence in the world believes it anyway. But green advertising always does well in the public eye, which is why Larry Fink, the head of Blackrock, for example, decided three years ago to invest in “SEG”. This means that “social, ecological and governance” projects should be prioritized when investing.
Sounds good, but the libertarian or simply critical reader naturally suspects that the company is more interested in the ever-flowing tax money collected by coercive means, which politicians in Western countries like to throw out for SEG – keyword “bicycle paths for Peru”.
From a business point of view, this makes sense, as you have to present bait on the market that appeals to the many fish – in a state environment, you no longer have to offer a sensible product, you just have to “convince” a politician.
Membership of “Climate Action 100+” can be seen in this light – privatize the profits, socialize the costs. However, as the NGO behind it now wants to tighten the reins somewhat (“Phase 2“), the cost-benefit ratio for Blackrock, J.P. Morgan Asset Management and State Street Global Advisors has become unfavorable, which is why the three companies, which together manage around ten trillion dollars, have withdrawn in whole or in part.
Added to this was the decision by conservative states in the USA to no longer award public contracts to “green” companies.
Climate doomsday no longer taken seriously
Is the withdrawal of industry giants a warning sign for “green” capitalism? The climate conference in Dubai already showed through the behavior and statements of important participants that the doomsday story is no longer taken seriously by decision-makers and is only good as an advertising narrative.
Although corporations and billionaires such as Elon Musk will continue to happily pocket state or state-enforced transfer payments for “climate certificates” or similar, “climate” seems to have gradually become obsolete as a topic for big business.
It’s about time: the “dying forests” story was invented by a professor in 1979 and was perpetuated by politicians and the media for around ten years. It was a similar story with fairy tales about the “hole in the ozone layer” or “oil will soon run out”.
“Climate”, on the other hand, has been promoted by half- and pseudo-scientists such as Hoimar von Ditfurth since the late 1970s, and was implemented worldwide after the UN conference in 1992. The topic of the “hot age caused by CO2” has therefore been with people in Western countries for over 40 years – an astonishingly long time compared to the other alarmist rip-off stories.
Since, in the course of globalization and the self-destruction of Western countries, the Western zeitgeist with its eco-indulgence trade is becoming increasingly unpopular worldwide, it is not surprising that global corporations are increasingly evading it in order not to go under.
In other words, use fear to squeeze money out of the taxpayers, then take the money and run!
Perhaps a few of these companies have now made “back of the envelope” calculations following “skeptics” arguments and arrived at the conclusion that Net-Zero was not possible, and that “get-woke go broke” is more than just a rhyming slogan.
Still, as long as governments throw money at “green” projects, companies will continue try to get a share. Elon Musk was one of the first to realize the harvesting of subsidizes was lucrative. Legacy auto makers (and customers) paid the indulgences. Tesla was the most visible of this procedure, but Berkshire Hathaway (Warren Buffett) used wind towers to get a share.
The big money management firms mentioned in this post made the mistake of thinking that “woke” and “green” would be the same as “subsidy harvesting”. That was a costly blunder.
[…] Companies Backing Out Of ‘Climate 100’. Climate Doomsday No Longer Taken Seriously? […]
[…] Companies Backing Out Of ‘Climate 100’. Climate Doomsday No Longer Taken Seriously? […]