JPMorgan Chase, BlackRock drop out of UN Climate Action alliance

By Kathleen Marquardt

Three financial giants took a giant step backwards in their commitment to the radical climate change cause this week. As reported on Fox News:

JPMorgan Chase and institutional investors BlackRock and State Street Global Advisors (SSGA) on Thursday announced that they are quitting or, in the case of BlackRock, substantially scaling back involvement in a massive United Nations climate alliance formed to combat global warming through corporate sustainability agreements.

These companies helped write the book on woke investing. Their favorite method, employing Environmental, Social and Government criteria (ESG) was designed to pressure companies to get with the extremist UN climate program. Back in 2017, they teamed up with many of their Big Buddies to take part in the UN’s Climate Action 100+, a climate alliance “formed to combat global warming through corporate sustainability agreements”.

Did they ever think about the implications to their own bottom lines –let alone their investors’? Perhaps just maybe there might be a backlash from those who don’t buy the crazed climate alarmist viewpoint? Guess they have now because they’re in full retreat away from it. JPMorgan Chase explains/justifies itself to its old friends by saying its in-house sustainability efforts are sufficient to fight global warming.

In a statement, the New York-based JPMorgan Chase explained that it would exit the so-called Climate Action 100+ investor group because of the expansion of its in-house sustainability team and the establishment of its climate risk framework in recent years.

BlackRock and State Street, which both manage trillions of dollars in assets, said the alliance’s climate initiatives had gone too far, expressing concern about potential legal issues as well.

The stunning announcements come as the largest financial institutions in the U.S. and worldwide face an onslaught of pressure from consumer advocates and Republican states over their environmental, social, and governance (ESG) priorities.

Why would pressure from consumer advocates and Republican states suddenly be bothering them when they’ve blatantly ignored them in the past? Maybe there’s something else they’re finally catching on to as well …

And State Street said its exit from the alliance was made because Climate Action 100+’s “phase 2” commitments conflicted with the firm’s internal investing policies. 

“SSGA has concluded the enhanced Climate Action 100+ phase 2 requirements for signatories are not consistent with our independent approach to proxy voting and portfolio company engagement,” State Street said in a statement, according to the Financial Times

Ah, now we are getting down to the crux of the issue — Phase 2. What is about Phase 2 that has these mega-rich companies running scared? Perhaps columnist David Gelles of The New York Times sheds some light …

But last year, Climate Action 100+ said it would shift its focus toward getting companies to reduce emissions with what it called phase two of its strategy. The new plan called on asset-management firms to begin pressuring companies like Exxon Mobil and Walmart to adopt policies that could entail, for example, using fewer fossil fuels.

In addition to the risk that some clients might disapprove, and potentially sue, there were other concerns. Among them: that acting in concert to shape the behaviors of other companies could fall afoul of antitrust regulations.

“In our judgment, making this new commitment across our assets under management would raise legal considerations, particularly in the U.S.,” a BlackRock spokesman said in a statement.

Getting sued and ticking off investors probably wasn’t what the big investment brokers signed up for, nor were they likely all that hip on ultimate price tag to carry out the Net Zero agenda. Again, as Fox News reported:

The global transition requires well over $100 trillion in capital and innovative financing mechanisms.

And who will be putting up that kind of dough? Who has that kind of money? BlackRock, JP Morgan, and State Street do. But do they want to shell trillions of dollars out? Probably not.

So while the climate alarm industry wasn’t thrilled by the news of the pullout, those who have been fighting against ESG investing and woke capitalism certainly were:

“Today’s decisions by JPMorgan and State Street are big wins for freedom and the American economy, and we hope more financial institutions follow suit in abandoning collusive ESG actions,” Jordan wrote Thursday in a social media post on X.

“JPMorgan, State Street, and BlackRock’s departure is a necessary step in the right direction, but consumers should wait to trust these companies again,” said Consumers Research executive director Will Hild. “By leaving the Climate Action 100+ climate cartel, they are signaling that the actions of millions of consumers and dozens of elected officials are having an effect. These asset management firms are clearly afraid of the bad press and legal actions taken against their destructive net zero push,” Hild added.

And thanks to organizations like CFACT who go through the effort of showing up at stockholders meetings and voicing our concerns. The votes don’t always go the way CFACT hopes, but investors hear them and, eventually, realize the liberal Left aren’t the only ones who care passionately about the future of the world.

So while there is cause for celebration, there is also cause to be vigilant. You can bet your bottom dollar this battle isn’t over. Many businesses around the world are locked into ESG madness, which will ruin them in the long run. But for those pushing the radical climate agenda, it’s about saving the world and ending capitalism – and with the beaucoup dollars at their disposal bankrolling their cause they aren’t likely to disappear anytime soon.

To read the Fox News article in its entirety click HERE.

From cfact.org