Citigroup, BofA, and Morgan Stanley join Vanguard, JPMorgan, BlackRock, State Street, Goldman Sachs and Wells Fargo in leaving.
Net-Zero Banking Mass Exodus
The Net-Zero Bank Alliance Has Collapsed.
The climate policy retreat is accelerating as Citigroup, Bank of America and Morgan Stanley this week joined an exodus from the Net-Zero Banking Alliance.
The NZBA alliance is part of the United Nations “Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero” effort to conscript private capital to drive the left’s climate goals. It was spearheaded by former Bank of England Governor Mark Carney in 2021. That was the year of peak climate arm-twisting.
Automakers are slowing their electric vehicle production plans. Utilities are extending the lifespan of coal plants to keep the lights on. Off-shore wind projects are being canceled because they aren’t economic. Even California last month indefinitely delayed its plan to shut down a giant natural gas storage facility.
State Attorneys General have threatened banks and asset managers with antitrust lawsuits for participating in such outfits as NZBA. The bank members are de facto committing to divest from fossil fuels by 2050, which may violate their fiduciary duty to customers and investors. Many are deciding the potential legal headaches aren’t worth it.
Vanguard in late 2022 pulled out of the Net Zero Asset Managers pledge. JPMorgan Asset Management, BlackRock and State Street Global Advisors last February retreated from a Climate Action 100+ compact. Now the big banks are joining Goldman Sachs and Wells Fargo, which quit the alliance last month. Net zero is becoming a much smaller club.
Big Names Pulling Out
The big names are pulling out. The legal headaches aren’t worth it.
The point is moot. Net Zero by 2050 isn’t happening anyway.
The Net Zero Objectives are amusing gibberish.
Net Zero Objectives
- Financial Plan Objective: “Develop globally applicable, pan-sector recommendations and guidance for transition planning by financial institutions and define the key components of a credible net-zero transition plan.”
- Transition Finance Objective: “Develop technical guidance that further defines the GFANZ four key transition financing strategies as a supplement to the transition plan framework, and outlines considerations for potential decarbonization contribution methodologies.”
- Index Investing Objective: “Develop draft guidance to help index participants develop and adopt transition-informed indices, creating a pathway for index participants to engage with companies and help support companies’ real-economy decarbonization.”
- Sectoral Pathways Objective: “Develop guidance to support financial institutions’ use of sectoral pathways in creating net-zero transition plans, aligning portfolios, and engaging with real-economy firms.”
By any chance did Kamala Harris write those objectives?
My equally understandable objective is to “Achieve global peace via strategically placed incentives that highlight the importance of faith, education, and diversity, while encompassing AI and the oceans to increase energy efficient food supply to feed everyone.”
How can anyone be against that?
All I ask is $100 million from the UN and I will be on my way to certain success.
The mystery isn’t why banks are dropping out, it’s how the hell they bought into this nonsense in the first place.
Very Unlikely Outcome
In case you missed it please see Sorry Green Energy Fans, Net Zero Is a Very Unlikely Outcome
Let’s discuss the Kyoto Protocol climate objectives and dozens of reasons why a net zero by the 2050 target has virtually no chance.
I added a line
“By any chance did Kamala Harris write those objectives?”
Here in Oz the banks are still refusing to fund coal mines.
Hey, according to the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research, achieving Net Zero by 2050 will only cost between $100-$120 Trillion.
And that figure will rise due to unforeseen complications and cost increases.
But be assured slave, the bureaucrats will invest those funds wisely.
That is not too much to ask of the masses.
We can afford it.
It will probably cost a lot more than that. Which is why it is so difficult. So global warming will keep getting much worse. The question becomes: at what point will the costs of global warming grow larger than the cost of dealing with it?
“Socialism works until you run out of other people’s money”, Thatcher.
More to the point, the solar minimum is in effect until 2030, and during that phase, there’s an increased risk of vulcanism, and the possibility of a deep freeze.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7575229/
“during solar minimum, this natural heating mechanism subsides. Earth’s upper atmosphere cools and, to some degree, can collapse.”
https://science.nasa.gov/science-research/planetary-science/solar-minimum-is-coming/
Solar minimums are insignificant. The difference in the sun’s irradiation of earth is about 0.1% less at minimum than at solar maximum.
Proof is in the article you linked. It was written in 2017 and the minimum occurred as expected in 2019/20. The lower atmosphere that affects us all on earth continued to get warmer in 2019 and 2020.
And yes, earth’s upper atmosphere is cooling as predicted by climate scientists, while the lower atmosphere keeps warming, as predicted by climate scientists. Nothing new to see here.
Margaret Thatcher, in a television interview for Thames TV This Week on February 5, 1976. Prime Minister Thatcher said, “…and Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They [socialists] always run out of other people’s money. It’s quite a characteristic of them.” It has been popularly paraphrased in various forms. (answers.com) 🪖☮️✝️
Lol.
net zero is the sum of the Intelligence of the creators of this policy. Insanity grows best in a bed of delusion and dies in the light of facts and truth.
Net zero is the solution to a problem. But it is a solution that we are almost incapable of achieving.
the solution to global warming during a period of global cooling.
can I sell you a box of masks? you never know…
A period of global cooling? Perhaps you refer to where we are in the Milankovitch cycles. They entered a period of global cooling roughly 6000 years ago. CO2 levels should be on a long slow decline from 280 ppm in 1800 to 180 ppm in another 75000 years. So they should be dropping by around 1 ppm every 700 years. Just like they have many times in the last million years.
Of course man’s emissions are preventing that from happening.
In the last 200 years we have increased levels from 280 ppm to 420 ppm. This will prevent any natural cooling from happening.
Net Zero Objectives:
– Financial Plan Objective: “Develop globally applicable, pan-sector recommendations and guidance for transition planning by financial institutions and define the key components of a credible net-zero transition plan.”
> My Re-Write: Get financial institutions to “Buy Into” and “Pay For” a net-zero transition plan. We will supply them with “Pan-Sector Recommendation’s and Guidance” for this transition. We will define the “Key Components” of this plan “For You”
– Transition Finance Objective: “Develop technical guidance that further defines the GFANZ four key transition financing strategies as a supplement to the transition plan framework, and outlines considerations for potential decarbonization contribution methodologies.”
> My Re-Write: Get financial institutions to “Pay For” a further definition of the 4-Keys of financial strategy, as a supplement to the transition.
– Index Investing Objective: “Develop draft guidance to help index participants develop and adopt transition-informed indices, creating a pathway for index participants to engage with companies and help support companies’ real-economy decarbonization.”
> My Re-Write: Get financial institutions, through developing draft guidance, and creating pathways, for them to “Pay For” decarbonization, to help support companies in their transition.
– Sectoral Pathways Objective: “Develop guidance to support financial institutions’ use of sectoral pathways in creating net-zero transition plans, aligning portfolios, and engaging with real-economy firms.”
> My Re-Write: Guide these Financial Institutions to support, through finance, a net-zero transition to full decarbonization, for the “Real Economy”
Quick Question: We’re these Objectives written by the Harris / Biden Team? I have to ask, because they are all written like Total “Word Salads” Seriously!
It is all most certainly “Amusing Gibberish” Mish!!!
We need to pay more attention to the flatulence of bankers. There are so many of them, especially in America.
For a start, you cannot pursue hegemony, and consequently wars, and climate agenda in the same breath. War negate everything else. Biden (his handlers) wanted to do both.
About the banks hopping on the agenda. Well, did you think herd mentality was confined to the hoi polloi?
All those explosions emit a lot of emissions, don’t they.
The wars in Ukraine and Israel have emitted roughly 250 million tons of CO2 (directly and indirectly) in total so far. Which is about 0.6% of annual emissions of 41.6 billion tons. Our emissions increased by 1 billion tons in 2024, so the wars were responsible for around 1/4 of the increase compared to 2023.
Yes, and imagine the enormous amount of airborne toxins released with each artillery shell, mortar, missile, rocket and carbine munition expended..
And the CO2 to manufacture those destructive devices.
Our “leaders” don’t give a sh!t about climate change/global warming/global cooling.
It is simply a scam to tax and control you.
They want you dead and if not, at least corralled in a 15 minute shitty.
Er uh, city.
Net zero emissions by 2050 is very unrealistic. We have spent trillions worldwide on renewables in the last two decades and we are still using more coal, more oil and more natural gas each year.
Our desire to grow our economies and increase our living standards requires more energy, and at this point, we cannot get enough energy from renewables to meet those growing needs.
So our emissions continue to rise. Which means global warming and climate change will continue to get worse.
There are some people who want to stop the growth in our economies and living standards, thinking that would stop our emissions. That is not true. It would reduce them slightly; just not enough to make a big difference.
For example; during the pandemic, when people all over the world stayed home, stopped going to work and travelling, and economies shrank dramatically, the world still consumed 80 million barrels per day of oil (vs the normal 100 mbpd). And since the pandemic ended, our oil demand has grown to 104 mbpd, and will grow to 110 mbpd by the end of this decade.
And there are no countries that want to deliberately shrink their economies or lower the living standards of their citizens by stopping the use of fossil fuels. Even Norway, which is held up as a model of the “energy transition”, has not been able to reduce their use of fossil fuels (though they have not grown their use either).
There is no “energy transition” at this point. We are “adding” renewables, but we are not reducing our use of fossil fuels.
My own “optimistic” prediction is that we “might” be able to reach Net zero by 2100. However, by then, we will likely have passed too many climate tipping points to be able to prevent a climate calamity.
To the last paragraph, everybody expects to do the right thing – by someone else (even if they agree what the right thing is). Even those that might think they do the right thing, will find out they were duped, and taken for fools.
The summary of human condition: it’s pointless to preach to the masses.
So blogs are pointless?
You speak to a tiny minority if you’re lucky, but that should be more rewarding than having acceptance of the masses.
Wear it as a badge.
Yes. Which is why I only spend a small amount of time here. Most of my time is spent improving my life.
Yep, just do the right thing for Gawdsakes.
Just take the “shot”.
Don’t be an asshole.
For Grandma.
The eruption and subsequent release of CO2 from Mt Pinatubo in 1991 was equivalent to all manmade CO2 emissions up to that point in time.
So, however much mankind can reduce his carbon emissions will be pointless when the next large volcano erupts.
But do not worry, our “leaders” are willing and eager to enforce carbon taxes and rationing upon us, and also lower our standard of living to the least bearable level that we will tolerate in order to fight the good fight to save the planet from our CO2 emitting frenzy!
Lol! Nope. Not even close.
You probably believe the earth is flat as well.
Here is the reality. Feel free to look it up.
Each and every year, Man’s emissions are 60x what is emitted by ALL volcanoes each year. Even major eruptions like Mt Pinatubo only match man’s emissions for a couple of hours. Certainly not 200 years of emissions as you foolishly believe.
In addition, we can see where the CO2 emissions in the atmosphere come from by measuring the different isotopes of carbon in the CO2. And essentially all the additional CO2 that is being added each year come from the burning of fossil fuels. Not from volcanoes. They are a rounding error in this case.
Feel free to look up both of these facts. Instead of trying to promote your nonsense.
Also, there will not be as many people consuming. Falling populations of consumers will bring us closer to that goal.
Currently, world population is still growing. And the world economy is still growing. So consumption continues to grow. I don’t foresee that changing anytime soon.
Mortgages were the bad investments 16 years ago bringing down the financial industry. Maybe DEI will be the bad investments this time.
Someone WOKE UP!
” … how the hell they bought into this nonsense in the first place.” Check out 1999 Kofi Annan UN speech and related UN Sustainable Development Goals. There were all laudable ideals, a crystallization of the stakeholder benefit school of governance (versus, for example shareholder value as sole corporate goals). Very pie-in-the-sky, and trendy among the Davos crowd for many years. It was easy for the rich global winners of the circa 2000 era to sound generous and idealistic. But, like early phases of crypto, this all started being gamed from a quite early time — greenwashing in investments, and so on. Then somebody figured out legal theories (and got a complicit Supreme Court) to really shift the gears. But being a trend one way or another, it will shift otherwise again some time. The SEC had started holding funds accountable for greenwashing fraud, but I expect a completely prostrate, near-dead SEC in the new regime. With regard to truth-in-whatyever, we are on our own.
Oh, and corporate executives had an incentive to play green and DEI too — because they were much less accountable that way, with all those goofy variables mixed into their performance metrics, compared to being measurably profitable.
Greenwashing subsidies made me my fortune.
They help fund fossil-fuel powered EVs… the Green Party in Germany is all about organic lignite energy, and renewable coal – it’s made from trees, so that’s why it’s green.
Climate change solution is going to have to be technological at this point. No way no how are we conserving our way out.
Some of the best news I’ve read lately, Mish. Now, if only every Marxist in the Government Educational de-industrializing Complex were to be instantly unemployed.and barred from all contact with future generations.
I may be wrong but … aren’t BlackRock, StateStreet, and Vanguard the 3 amigos of DEI? The ones who forced everyone into DEI. I figure you can’t be DEI (crazy logic-less leftist actions) and not be for every unattainable economy destroying climate initiative? Have I missed something?
DEI is officially Dead
Freaking FINALLY! White Men can work again?
Not as engineers, I’m afraid, but there are plenty of Brown Men in India that can. I’m calling it “Capitalistic DEI” because it boosts my profits.
We’re all BIPOC women now… send in your $$$ to the Doomocrats for a certificate.
I believe DEI is/was an evil monster … I never count out evil monsters. Many people said a dude with alzheimer’s was not even going to be close in 2020 … then he was (by whatever means). So while I would love to believe DEI is DEAD … I am just not sure. Costco just doubled down on DEI.
Yeah, like Dracula –
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/business/financial-health/2024/12/13/2024-has-seen-more-college-closures-last-year
Hopefully they keep DEI for the military, so that White Men – and everybody else – keep not enlisting. What if they had a war and no one came? Besides, how is it “defending your country” to go to war against Iran? Israel is not my country. MAGA not MIGA.
Those are complex topics with lots of intricacies. I would love to see our military have fewer bases and less engagement (like our founding fathers imagined). So we are in relatively close agreement overall. Although I would love to see those who are in be rewarded for merit.