Essay by Eric Worrall
h/t M; Recently, a flurry of climate skepticism has begun to appear on the pages of America’s leading financial magazines. But there could be a deeper, more important reason why this is happening all of a sudden.
A very direct criticism of Biden’s climate policies;
Biden’s climate plans are unsustainable
The current White House agenda is so impractical that it risks a backlash that will damage the cause for decades.
By Stuart Gottlieb
July 31, 2022 4:48 p.m. ET…
Ironically, the greatest threat to this progress– especially in the critical climate sector – don’t come from big emitters like China and India, although they certainly play a role. It from climate and energy initiatives promoted by the Biden White Housethey themselves are not sustainable—so aggressive and optimistic that they risk a backlash that could interfere with environmental sustainability for generations. To prevent this, the administration must turn to a more pragmatic set of policies. Encouraging more natural gas production and a lunar fusion energy approach will push the US to lead the world towards a green future.
But first, the authorities need to take into account the dangers of the moment. The published US climate goals seek a transition to 100% clean electricity by 2035 and net zero emissions by 2050. This positive timeline increasingly contradicts three hard realities: economic, geostrategic and political. Each side poses a major barrier to climate action, and together they expose the unsustainability of the Democrats’ climate agenda.
…
Wall Street Journal on green transition;
The Great Fossil Fuel Fire of the Democrats of 2023
The production of solar, wind and battery power is expected to require CO2-intensive extraction and production.
Via James Freeman
August 15, 2022 6:24 p.m. ET…
Even if some increased mining is allowed to happen in the US, it will still be heavily dependent on fossil fuels. In theory, the great fire of the Democratic Party should be offset by future CO2 cuts, but what if not? What if intermittent wind and solar energy could never be reckoned with to reliably and efficiently replace the fuels we need today? Even those who tend to believe in more pessimistic climate projections, even those who think that developing economies now make more sense than relying on future technologies to address challenges. potential, the cost of environmental trust should also be considered.
…
James Meigs writes for City Magazine:
Because of their low energy density, The development of wind and solar requires large areas of land, compared to other energy sources. New York is now closed The Indian Point nuclear power plant covers an area of only 240 acres. Completely replacing its energy with wind power will require more 500 square miles turbine. That’s a huge amount of land and habitat lost to energy production.
Those upset about carbon footprints may not realize how large a supposedly zero-carbon footprint can be. And When inefficient alternative energy sources fail, people have to return to efficient sources that environmentalists have shunned. Mr. Meigs added:
…
Read more (with wall fee): https://www.wsj.com/articles/democrats-great-fossil-fuel-bonfire-of-2023-11660602262
WSJ on ESG;
Arizona protects retirees against ESG
Fund managers have a legal and social obligation to focus on financial returns for their clients’ retirement accounts, not climate or other issues.
By Mark Brnovich
August 15, 2022 1:57 p.m. ETWall Street and The social purpose of the financial industry should protect investors’ savings and retirement money. Wealth managers claim they are focused on financial returns, but they have joined with left-wing state pension funds to cram “environmental, social and governance” policies down their necks. throats of American companies and employees whose retirement funds are under the control of the asset manager. What is the real focus of waking wealth managers?
Black stones recently sent a letter to several states claiming that BlackRock is focused solely on its fiduciary duty, allowing its customers to define an “energy transition” approach and has joined climate organizations only for “dialogue”. This month, 18 of my fellow attorneys and I answered by pointing out the inconsistencies and conflicts between BlackRock’s letter and its public statements and commitments.
BlackRock’s website describes the climate organizations it has joined. Instead of “dialogue”, the focus is on taking action to “accelerate the transition to net zero”, to “ensure the world’s largest greenhouse gas emitters take the necessary action on climate change” and support “the goals of the Paris Agreement. “
…
Why is this happening?
I have a theory that something changed when HSBC Senior Managing Director Stuart Kirk, apparently for voicing his thoughts on climate change. Because the one thing the senior bankers and fund managers I’ve met can’t stand is a sacred bull of the investment industry.
The lesson that has stood out above all others over the past 30 years is lies lead to losses, including or especially flawed lies. Arguably every significant industry loss over the past 30 years has occurred because of a well-known fact, but no one dares to say.
Some of the senior bankers I spoke to before the GFC 2007-10 crash have quietly acknowledged the subprime mortgages that are being sold as pure junk, but as long as the money keeps pouring in, everyone people, including me, kept quiet. Subprime is a rogue. I may have been wrong. What is the opinion of one person, or even a handful of counter-arguments, against the wisdom and strength, the overwhelming consensus of the entire financial industry?
But the hard lesson has been learned – after the financial crisis of 2007-10, people in the financial industry started to speak their mind, and suddenly people realized that they were not alone. Lots of other people have the same doubts, it’s just that they don’t feel safe sharing those doubts with their colleagues.
Stuart Kirk’s daring sacrifice has forced the financial world to confront the possibility that the GFC nightmare, the pressure to remain silent, is about to begin again. Once again there is a golden opportunity, a sacred financial bull, which no one is allowed to criticize.
All the smoldering pain from GFC 2007-10 is still fresh in people’s minds, maybe so fresh in some people’s minds that they just stand still while their client’s money gets caught up in what could be. is a high-risk gamble, because everyone is too afraid to speak up and point out the risk. So this time the bankers are not going quietly, they are grumbling and in some cases openly revolting, like the courageous Stuart Kirk.
Related
