Posted on 09/28/2022 9:03:26 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
The Financial Post reports that major banks in the United States and Europe are threatening to withdraw from green banking and investment group committed to pursuing net zero goals due to fears of lawsuits and the impact of increasingly stringent carbon dioxide emission reduction benchmarks on the firms' profitability. This is a wise decision.
Ending the use of fossil fuels in a vain attempt to prevent climate change is bad for the economy in general and banking and diversified investment funds in particular. These banks never should have led or participated in such an effort.
According to the Financial Post, major U.S financial institutions are having misgivings about the ever more stringent climate goals pushed by the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero (GFANZ). Founded and led by Mark Carney, the former governor of the Bank of Canada and the Bank of England, GFANZ's membership consists of 450 financial firms accounting for $130 trillion of assets. It works with the United Nations to meet net zero carbon dioxide emission goals. The Financial Post writes:
Yet, now, as GFANZ and the U.N. are ratcheting up the anti-fossil fuel rhetoric and pushing stricter emission reduction goals on shorter timelines, U.S. banks including like JPMorgan Chase & Co., Morgan Stanley, and Bank of America Corp. are having second thoughts about further participation in GFANZ. The question is, can they afford it and their accountants and attorneys are increasingly answering, NO!
The banking giants "have said they feel blindsided by tougher UN climate criteria and are worried about the legal risks of participation."
One anonymous top executive at a big U.S. bank is quoted as saying, "I am close to taking us out of these global green commitments — I'm not going to allow third parties to create legal liabilities for us and our shareholders. "
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Another fact bankers are considering is that banks in China, Russia, and India, three of the world’s top carbon-emitting countries, are not party to GFANZ, a fact that both puts participating banks at a competitive disadvantage and undermines the effectiveness of carbon reduction commitments.
Of the 116 banks that joined GFANZ’s Net Zero Banking Alliance (NZBA), none is from China (33 percent of global carbon dioxide emissions) or India (nearly seven percent of global CO2 emissions), and only one is from Russia (accounting for about six percent of CO2 emissions).
By contrast, tiny Liechtenstein, with emissions totaling less than a tenth of one percent of global emissions, counts three banks as members of NZBA. If Liechtenstein’s banks’ emissions go to zero — not net zero, but zero, meaning basically they ceased all operation — it would have no measurable impact on global CO2 emissions or climate change.
It should be noted that banks are also receiving substantial pushback from U.S. states that are increasingly cutting financial ties to institutions that boycott companies in the fossil fuel industries or adopt ESG policies attempting to direct investment away from coal, oil, and gas companies for political reasons, as opposed to financial performance.
Net zero bad for business? Ya think?
Remember back when your goal was to make money for your investors?
Well, I hope the BANKS read THIS!!!!!
If management won’t pursue profits on behalf of stockholders, then they should be replaced. I’m not sure at what point their actions become legally liable as they likely reflect the ownership or board that hired them in the first place.
Jamie Dimon woke them up at the hearing that had just occurred, just my guess.
These people are SHARP.
Who was dumb or gullible enough to fall for that nonsense in the first place? Some wealthy liberals who feel superior, but also feel a little guilt from it?
ESG is a ridiculous concept only a fool would get behind.
Besides, ESG wrecks the economy taking your customers down economically, which is devastating to your loan portfolio, which leads to huge bank losses threatening bank viability and shareholder interests.
The green movement is insane BS.
Full disclosure: I am a former state bank safety and soundness examiner.
I think our state told them to take a hike
“ It should be noted that banks are also receiving substantial pushback from U.S. states that are increasingly cutting financial ties to institutions that boycott companies in the fossil fuel industries or adopt ESG policies attempting to direct investment away from coal, oil, and gas companies for political reasons, as opposed to financial performance.”
My state does this our governor stands up to libtard destruction
In general, everybody in the world is realizing that the global warming fight is futile!
It causes more environmental damage than any possible benefits resulting from it ever could.
Only our Geriatric Commander in Chief have not got the message yet.
Obama declared that government pension funds invest more in ESG friendly investments. That's a lot of government money the banks didn't want going away. So they all began to jump the loudest at proclaiming to have the bestest ESGness of any bank. Then the states jumped on the bandwagon.
Careful, Dilbert got canceled merely for poking fun at ESG
Finally! I’ve been saying this is a major breach of fiduciary duty, and should make them liable for massive lawsuits.
We need to break the monopoly hold that these woke, evil investment companies like BlackRock, Vanguard, State Street and others have on the entire financial and investment world, pushing all this ESG garbage that has nothing to do with running a profitable business. ( see recent stupid decisions by car manufacturers for current examples.) They have major investments and therefore major influence on almost all publicly held companies! James Lindsey has talked about this a lot.
We need ( if we had an ethical DOJ) to put those companies under investigations and indictments for monopoly and RICO activities.
It is beyond my comprehension that management of big banks can be so stupid that it takes them years to figure out what we have been posting here of FR since the very beginning of the climate warming hoax.
Unbelievable.
This was obvious from the start and I didn’t get their thinking that it could be of any use. When I analyze stocks there are now helpful ESG ratings for each. I look for stocks rated as “Laggards” which means they know better than to chase ESG Chimeras.
Net Zero is just STUPID
Well, look at that, someone remembered that “fiduciary responsibility” is a real thing with real legal consequences, while “ESG goals” are a fantasy with no real-world impact.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.