• In February, State Street and JPMorgan Chase exited Carbon Action 100 (CA100 ), a group of over 700 institutional investors seeking to decarbonize the global economy by pressuring greenhouse gas emitters to act against climate change. The departures cut $14 trillion from the group’s funds.
• Earlier that month, BlackRock CEO Larry Fink co-produced an energy conference with the Texas government and announced that his company would raise $10 million for new fossil fuel-powered plants.

These decisions are unusual, because banks and institutional investors have been coercing the shift to net zero carbon emissions for several years. They do this by insisting that customers commit to environmental, social justice, and corporate governance (ESG) goals and follow ‘sustainability’ standards. Critical banking and financial services are denied to businesses that do not adhere to ESG guidelines.

It is not as if the investment giants have had a change of mind. The retreat by State Street, JPMorgan Chase, and Blackrock from ESG investment policies are likelier driven by the profit motive, for the energy markets are shifting and there has been a fall-off in ESG investments. These nods to a worldview that questions climate change can also be seen as a weak, concessive response to the backlash against the ESG agenda, especially in states with Republican governments.

For instance, BlackRock, the world’s largest investment manager, with $10 trillion in assets, faced a cease-and-desist order from Mississippi. It is accused of misleading investors by claiming to invest in “non-ESG funds” when it has “committed to using all assets under management” to pursue the “agenda of reducing carbon emissions to net zero.” Mississippi also alleges that BlackRock misled investors by saying ESG funds yield greater financial benefits than non-ESG funds, which carry high fees. In 2022, Texas blacklisted the company over allegations that it was boycotting fossil fuels.

In 2023, concerned that Americans’........

© American Thinker