GOP to probe ‘cancer’ of climate-friendly investing after midterms

cigaretteman

HR King
May 29, 2001
73,054
52,723
113
Less than a week before the midterm elections, Republican lawmakers on Capitol Hill are already gearing up to investigate what they see as “woke capitalism,” a reference to Wall Street firms that treat climate change as an economic risk.

10 steps you can take to lower your carbon footprint

Polls suggest the GOP will retake the House, and Republicans there are preparing to grill the chief executives of big financial firms as well as Gary Gensler, the Democratic chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, about their efforts to curb climate change. In the Senate, where polls show a toss-up battle for control of the chamber, key senators are pushing legislation to punish businesses that prioritize environmental, social and governance causes — known as ESG — rather than pure profits.

The moves are sure to escalate the battle over ESG investing and have a further chilling effect on Wall Street, where some CEOs are scrambling to emphasize that their firms are still investing in fossil fuels.



Rep. Garland “Andy” Barr (R-Ky.) said in an interview that ESG principles “will be one of the major focuses of oversight of a Republican majority” on the House Financial Services Committee, which oversees the nation’s banking, insurance and real estate sectors.
“My view is that ESG investing is a cancer within our capital markets,” Barr said. “It is a fraud on American investors.”
The SEC “is a target of our oversight because of this 534-page monstrosity of a climate disclosure regulation,” he added, referring to a proposed rule that would require all publicly traded companies to disclose their greenhouse gas emissions and the risks they face from climate change.

Not everyone is convinced that the Wall Street firms face a real threat from a Republican takeover of Congress. Some see the GOP moves as political theater intended to satisfy the party’s base and fuel the nation’s ongoing culture wars.


The GOP is engaged in “a lot of political hay making,” said Ivan Frishberg, chief sustainability officer at Amalgamated Bank, which does not do business with fossil fuel companies. “But I don’t think this is changing what asset managers or banks are doing in terms of their approach to either their stewardship of assets in a changing climate, or participation in the climate initiatives that they’re a part of.”
Yet supporters of sustainable investing are bracing for intense scrutiny if Democrats fare badly in the midterms, leading to high-profile hearings and grilling of administration officials.

Rep. Frank D. Lucas (R-Okla.) said he would prefer to seek the testimony of Gensler and other Biden administration officials before hauling in the chief executives of big financial firms such as BlackRock, the world’s largest asset manager. Lucas said he would recommend this approach to Rep. Patrick T. McHenry (R-N.C.), who would become chair of the Financial Services Committee if the chamber changes hands.


And Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-Mo.) said he hopes to call in the heads of the three big investment advisers — BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street — that have used their economic power to curb climate change and advance other causes that are popular among liberals.
McHenry was not immediately available for an interview. The SEC did not respond to a request for comment.

 

hawkland14

HR Heisman
Gold Member
Feb 26, 2013
7,816
8,033
113
Nothing to worry about. Huey promised HROT that Team Blue will prevail and hold onto the House and extend their majority in the Senate next Tuesday.
 

franklinman

HR All-American
Apr 5, 2011
3,730
4,161
113
I believe every American should be able to invest where they want, without interference from a stink'n political party. The con party is the last voice i would listen for advice. The SEC should just ignore the con politicians.
 
Last edited:

ZachJump

HR MVP
Gold Member
May 28, 2022
1,193
1,405
113
I would hope how a private business runs its operations is not any of governments business (as long as legal).

Any investor that decides to invest in a way that priorities social stuff over profit - that is there choice. I am sure that many believe that the social responsibility stuff will someday actually make the long term money.
 
  • Like
Reactions: franklinman

Banditking

HR MVP
Apr 25, 2002
1,967
1,089
113
It’s hard to opt out of esg stuff if you have a managed account at many mainstream banks. It’s basically like dei initiatives. Can’t work in a professional space without being inundated with race and sex based discrimination and programming. Esg is market manipulation and against the fiduciary duty of investment houses. Should be opt in. Not default.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: WadeLookingbill

mthawkeyes

HR Heisman
Mar 22, 2007
7,626
13,856
113
Fourmile Creek
It’s hard to opt out of esg stuff if you have a managed account at many mainstream banks. It’s basically like dei initiatives. Can’t work in a professional space without being inundated with race and sex based discrimination and programming. Esg is market manipulation and against the fiduciary duty of investment houses. Should be opt in. Not default.
What if you look at the flip side and take the perspective that the esg stuff says that corporations shouldn't be able to externalize their costs? Failure to include the environmental costs in the price of fossil fuels makes their value artificially high? Economies exist for the benefit of societies, not the other way around.
 
Nov 28, 2010
80,086
33,337
113
Maryland
Less than a week before the midterm elections, Republican lawmakers on Capitol Hill are already gearing up to investigate what they see as “woke capitalism,” a reference to Wall Street firms that treat climate change as an economic risk.

10 steps you can take to lower your carbon footprint

Polls suggest the GOP will retake the House, and Republicans there are preparing to grill the chief executives of big financial firms as well as Gary Gensler, the Democratic chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, about their efforts to curb climate change. In the Senate, where polls show a toss-up battle for control of the chamber, key senators are pushing legislation to punish businesses that prioritize environmental, social and governance causes — known as ESG — rather than pure profits.

The moves are sure to escalate the battle over ESG investing and have a further chilling effect on Wall Street, where some CEOs are scrambling to emphasize that their firms are still investing in fossil fuels.



Rep. Garland “Andy” Barr (R-Ky.) said in an interview that ESG principles “will be one of the major focuses of oversight of a Republican majority” on the House Financial Services Committee, which oversees the nation’s banking, insurance and real estate sectors.
“My view is that ESG investing is a cancer within our capital markets,” Barr said. “It is a fraud on American investors.”
The SEC “is a target of our oversight because of this 534-page monstrosity of a climate disclosure regulation,” he added, referring to a proposed rule that would require all publicly traded companies to disclose their greenhouse gas emissions and the risks they face from climate change.

Not everyone is convinced that the Wall Street firms face a real threat from a Republican takeover of Congress. Some see the GOP moves as political theater intended to satisfy the party’s base and fuel the nation’s ongoing culture wars.


The GOP is engaged in “a lot of political hay making,” said Ivan Frishberg, chief sustainability officer at Amalgamated Bank, which does not do business with fossil fuel companies. “But I don’t think this is changing what asset managers or banks are doing in terms of their approach to either their stewardship of assets in a changing climate, or participation in the climate initiatives that they’re a part of.”
Yet supporters of sustainable investing are bracing for intense scrutiny if Democrats fare badly in the midterms, leading to high-profile hearings and grilling of administration officials.

Rep. Frank D. Lucas (R-Okla.) said he would prefer to seek the testimony of Gensler and other Biden administration officials before hauling in the chief executives of big financial firms such as BlackRock, the world’s largest asset manager. Lucas said he would recommend this approach to Rep. Patrick T. McHenry (R-N.C.), who would become chair of the Financial Services Committee if the chamber changes hands.


And Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-Mo.) said he hopes to call in the heads of the three big investment advisers — BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street — that have used their economic power to curb climate change and advance other causes that are popular among liberals.
McHenry was not immediately available for an interview. The SEC did not respond to a request for comment.

Gotta like the phrase "woke capitalism."

Despite the horrible connotation "woke" has acquired, it's hard not to think that woke capitalism would have to be an improvement over the rapacious capitalism we are used to.
 
Nov 28, 2010
80,086
33,337
113
Maryland
What if you look at the flip side and take the perspective that the esg stuff says that corporations shouldn't be able to externalize their costs? Failure to include the environmental costs in the price of fossil fuels makes their value artificially high? Economies exist for the benefit of societies, not the other way around.
This.

An appropriate carbon tax would flip @Banditking's "fiduciary duty of investment houses" away from fossil energy toward green alternatives.

That alone wouldn't solve all our climate-related problems, but it would be a huge step in the right direction.

We were poised to do that just before the Great Recession hit. Even Exxon was preparing for (and preferring) that route. Imagine if we had followed through once the economy settled. Ten years or more of a gradually increasing carbon tax would have worked out the kinks and gotten us firmly on a saner path.
 

joelbc1

HR King
Gold Member
Sep 5, 2007
74,661
39,927
113
you can’t always get what you want!
This strategy is a lot easier than dealing head up with inflation. Again...the GOP has no ideas to end inflation, other than time....this “hearings and finger pointing” strategy allows Republicans to do what they do best...,divert attention from the real issue)s) of the day and allows them to create a new boogeyman!
 

Banditking

HR MVP
Apr 25, 2002
1,967
1,089
113
This strategy is a lot easier than dealing head up with inflation. Again...the GOP has no ideas to end inflation, other than time....this “hearings and finger pointing” strategy allows Republicans to do what they do best...,divert attention from the real issue)s) of the day and allows them to create a new boogeyman!
One idea would be not to increase taxes on energy. That would likely make inflation worse. Another idea would be not to create artificial market drag against oil companies that makes them more difficult to operate (you know, like having default diversion of monies to esg funds who leave out oil companies and implement woke bs into how they determine money allocations). A third idea would be not to propose increased entitlement spending. A fourth idea would be not to have gov dictate increases in minimum wage not supported by the market. I’ve got more. But, the theme here should be clear. The problem isn’t that gop has no ideas to decrease inflation. The problem is democrats have big eyes for money and spending. And, they want to enforce their social agenda by controlling money (eg, defaulting to esg funds).

other ideas. In Florida, there’s an amendment on the ballot to allow a larger homestead exemption for property tax for firefighters, teachers, police. I voted no for this. Why? I always vote no on the ballot amendments as a rule. But also, this kind of special class of citizen policy increases the burden on other citizens. It also increases spending power of a large block of people. So, it’s potentially inflationary.

Edit: I await the very effective argument of a laugh emoji from resident progressive left idiots.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: The Tradition

Banditking

HR MVP
Apr 25, 2002
1,967
1,089
113
What if you look at the flip side and take the perspective that the esg stuff says that corporations shouldn't be able to externalize their costs? Failure to include the environmental costs in the price of fossil fuels makes their value artificially high? Economies exist for the benefit of societies, not the other way around.
Why would financial investors say that corporations shouldn’t be able to externalize their costs and factor this into investment decisions? Are there viable pending lawsuits against specific oil companies that make their profitability suspect?

Also, do you support nuclear energy expansion?
 

JRHawk2003

HR Legend
Jul 9, 2003
46,037
17,025
113
Montrose
One idea would be not to increase taxes on energy. That would likely make inflation worse. Another idea would be not to create artificial market drag against oil companies that makes them more difficult to operate (you know, like having default diversion of monies to esg funds who leave out oil companies and implement woke bs into how they determine money allocations). A third idea would be not to propose increased entitlement spending. A fourth idea would be not to have gov dictate increases in minimum wage not supported by the market. I’ve got more. But, the theme here should be clear. The problem isn’t that gop has no ideas to decrease inflation. The problem is democrats have big eyes for money and spending. And, they want to enforce their social agenda by controlling money (eg, defaulting to esg funds).

other ideas. In Florida, there’s an amendment on the ballot to allow a larger homestead exemption for property tax for firefighters, teachers, police. I voted no for this. Why? I always vote no on the ballot amendments as a rule. But also, this kind of special class of citizen policy increases the burden on other citizens. It also increases spending power of a large block of people. So, it’s potentially inflationary.

Edit: I await the very effective argument of a laugh emoji from resident progressive left idiots.

The minimum wage does not impact inflation. In this labor environment it hardly matters. Wendy's has to pay over $12 an hour to start.

The things you describe are peanuts and the real problem is monetary. QE just flooded the case. Its amazing it didn't start sooner.

ESG stuff in many cases is private. A lot of funds directors made the decisions to not invest in fossil fuels. It has nothing to do with a political party,
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman

Banditking

HR MVP
Apr 25, 2002
1,967
1,089
113
The minimum wage does not impact inflation. In this labor environment it hardly matters. Wendy's has to pay over $12 an hour to start.

The things you describe are peanuts and the real problem is monetary. QE just flooded the case. Its amazing it didn't start sooner.

ESG stuff in many cases is private. A lot of funds directors made the decisions to not invest in fossil fuels. It has nothing to do with a political party,
Min wage can impact inflation. Further, minimum wage is used as an escalator in many union type jobs, ie min wage plus x.

agree that qe floods. But, a lot of that m2 supply and qe is in part necessary to support the massive entitlement spending that currently exists.

Esg most definitely is politically driven. It’s also not limited to fossil fuels. It’s also race and gender manipulation.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/betsya...gits-history--current-status/?sh=1042f2a32cdd

This sort of garbage results in these types of discussions. I started a company. My colleagues and I invented something. Got patents for it. Investors, etc. We happen to be 3 guys. We are not the business arm. We are the science. We had two women in our early company structure. CEO was a guy. It was proposed that we make the women 51 percent owners because of various gov incentives. We did not do this. But, this is a common manipulation. Did the women do anything to warrant that? Nope. Purely by having xx genetics, there was consideration of giving them more money and power. No creative drive. No creative contribution.
 

Banditking

HR MVP
Apr 25, 2002
1,967
1,089
113
What's wrong with that?
That’s a different debate. The post I was responding to indicated that esg is not politically driven. I think it clearly is politically driven.

relative to what’s wrong with it, if one can demonstrate that dei, Democrat sjw style makes a company more profitable, that’s an important investment criterion and should be considered. As more dei laws and quotas become inculcated, this is an important legal vulnerability for companies that struggle to recruit women and urm. Obviously, this sort of consideration is a direct result of gov interference in the market. Relative to fossil fuel issue, same issue. Is there legal vulnerability to being involved in fossil fuels that might affect future profits?

beyond that, to me, it should be fully opt in by customers not investment managers unless it can be competently and reasonably argued that esg increases profits. Otherwise it’s a violation of fiduciary responsibility.

There are other other arguments.
 

JRHawk2003

HR Legend
Jul 9, 2003
46,037
17,025
113
Montrose
That’s a different debate. The post I was responding to indicated that esg is not politically driven. I think it clearly is politically driven.

relative to what’s wrong with it, if one can demonstrate that dei, Democrat sjw style makes a company more profitable, that’s an important investment criterion and should be considered. As more dei laws and quotas become inculcated, this is an important legal vulnerability for companies that struggle to recruit women and urm. Obviously, this sort of consideration is a direct result of gov interference in the market. Relative to fossil fuel issue, same issue. Is there legal vulnerability to being involved in fossil fuels that might affect future profits?

beyond that, to me, it should be fully opt in by customers not investment managers unless it can be competently and reasonably argued that esg increases profits. Otherwise it’s a violation of fiduciary responsibility.

There are other other arguments.

That is politics in a broader context. You named one isolated example of a gender thing in the tax code.

When the Catholic Church divests it's funds, it didn't have a political party platform. It has its own ethics.
 
Nov 9, 2007
1,044
2,152
113
It’s hard to opt out of esg stuff if you have a managed account at many mainstream banks. It’s basically like dei initiatives. Can’t work in a professional space without being inundated with race and sex based discrimination and programming. Esg is market manipulation and against the fiduciary duty of investment houses. Should be opt in. Not default.
ESG is most certainly not "against the fiduciary duty of investment houses." In fact, shareholder value can be driven by the same.

Some of the concepts are discussed here. Try to keep an open mind (though I'm a bit leery given your DEI rants).
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman

Banditking

HR MVP
Apr 25, 2002
1,967
1,089
113
ESG is most certainly not "against the fiduciary duty of investment houses." In fact, shareholder value can be driven by the same.

Some of the concepts are discussed here. Try to keep an open mind (though I'm a bit leery given your DEI rants).
Rants? I’m a proponent of dei. I just don’t like the modern strategy of addressing the problem. And, in my opinion I’ve encountered many illegal versions of it. I think we should do our best not to exclude people based on sex, race or ethnicity. But, I don’t think we should be implementing quotas or requiring institutions to incentivize hiring and promoting people based on race, sex or ethnicity. Equal treatment under the law. Not equity of outcomes. Some of these esg programs are investing based on whether there’s a woman on the board. That’s stupid.
 
Last edited:

Slappy Pappy

HR Heisman
Nov 24, 2007
6,222
7,404
113
Only a fool would think that you will get a bigger return in 20 years by investing in fossil fuels instead of green energy. Coal is over, oil will be in less than 10 years, and natural gas soon thereafter.

I hope whomever is called in front of the dumbasses on this committee spends all of their time explaining the coming climate change aridation and devastation it will cause to our economy, and how much more profitable green energy will become as more and more coal & natural gas plants get shut down in favor of cheaper solar and wind, and how oil demand is going to plunge as mass adoption of evs starts to take off in 2-3 years.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ree4

Banditking

HR MVP
Apr 25, 2002
1,967
1,089
113
Only a fool would think that you will get a bigger return in 20 years by investing in fossil fuels instead of green energy. Coal is over, oil will be in less than 10 years, and natural gas soon thereafter.

I hope whomever is called in front of the dumbasses on this committee spends all of their time explaining the coming climate change aridation and devastation it will cause to our economy, and how much more profitable green energy will become as more and more coal & natural gas plants get shut down in favor of cheaper solar and wind, and how oil demand is going to plunge as mass adoption of evs starts to take off in 2-3 years.
Nuclear. Not solar and wind. Wind is destructive, by the way.
 

joelbc1

HR King
Gold Member
Sep 5, 2007
74,661
39,927
113
you can’t always get what you want!
One idea would be not to increase taxes on energy. That would likely make inflation worse. Another idea would be not to create artificial market drag against oil companies that makes them more difficult to operate (you know, like having default diversion of monies to esg funds who leave out oil companies and implement woke bs into how they determine money allocations). A third idea would be not to propose increased entitlement spending. A fourth idea would be not to have gov dictate increases in minimum wage not supported by the market. I’ve got more. But, the theme here should be clear. The problem isn’t that gop has no ideas to decrease inflation. The problem is democrats have big eyes for money and spending. And, they want to enforce their social agenda by controlling money (eg, defaulting to esg funds).

other ideas. In Florida, there’s an amendment on the ballot to allow a larger homestead exemption for property tax for firefighters, teachers, police. I voted no for this. Why? I always vote no on the ballot amendments as a rule. But also, this kind of special class of citizen policy increases the burden on other citizens. It also increases spending power of a large block of people. So, it’s potentially inflationary.

Edit: I await the very effective argument of a laugh emoji from resident progressive left idiots.
Currently Big Oil is raking in record profits but choosing to buy back stocks. why? probably because the Arabs won’t allow increased production to be profitable.
Deficit spending is the big problem here. Sadly, the Republicans have shown themselves to be every bit as bad, if not worse than Dems in this area. Look at the budgets Trump and crew sent to Congress. Your blaming “big eyes of Dems” spending recklessly just does not hold water.....in short it is a bull shit statement..a falsehood.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ree4

Banditking

HR MVP
Apr 25, 2002
1,967
1,089
113
Currently Big Oil is raking in record profits but choosing to buy back stocks. why? probably because the Arabs won’t allow increased production to be profitable.
Deficit spending is the big problem here. Sadly, the Republicans have shown themselves to be every bit as bad, if not worse than Dems in this area. Look at the budgets Trump and crew sent to Congress. Your blaming “big eyes of Dems” spending recklessly just does not hold water.....in short it is a bull shit statement..a falsehood.
I agree the deficit spending is a problem, but perhaps not how you think. The increased money supply is a problem. The increased dollars chasing limited supply is a problem.

Trump's budget sucked. But, the dems have their foot pushing through the floorboard on the accelerator chomping at the bit to implement universal healthcare, universal basic income, indefinite unemployment benefits, free phones, free housing, open borders, increased minimum wage, more benefits at corporations, etc. . . Yes, the dems spend recklessly, want to keep spending more recklessly, whilst that actively campaign against the engine which enables wealth creation (Capitalism). So yeah, trump sucked. ok. but what about the dems suggests they suck less to you on spending?
 

sober_teacher

HR Legend
Mar 26, 2007
14,361
18,183
113
Nuclear. Not solar and wind. Wind is destructive, by the way.

The problem with nuclear is twofold -1) lingering fears of Chernobyl/3 mile island type events, even tho the technology for safer facilities is so much better so overcoming that stigma is the sticking point. Also 2) I think what Russia is doing in Ukraine near that one power plant is again stoking fears of vulnerability to acts of violence. There’s also questions about what to do with waste.

Solar energy I still want to see investment in, as I think there’s a lot of potential there, if only to provide flexibility to the power grid. Same with wind power, tho I do think that’s gone a bit overboard and also isn’t as cost effective just yet.
 

joelbc1

HR King
Gold Member
Sep 5, 2007
74,661
39,927
113
you can’t always get what you want!
I agree the deficit spending is a problem, but perhaps not how you think. The increased money supply is a problem. The increased dollars chasing limited supply is a problem.

Trump's budget sucked. But, the dems have their foot pushing through the floorboard on the accelerator chomping at the bit to implement universal healthcare, universal basic income, indefinite unemployment benefits, free phones, free housing, open borders, increased minimum wage, more benefits at corporations, etc. . . Yes, the dems spend recklessly, want to keep spending more recklessly, whilst that actively campaign against the engine which enables wealth creation (Capitalism). So yeah, trump sucked. ok. but what about the dems suggests they suck less to you on spending?
bandit...give it a phuquing rest. You side is NO better than my side....and the have most recently proved it! Just phuquin' admit the facts. Dems...against capitalism? You really are a phuquin' tool, aren't you, comrade? The other side of the coin is to "balance" spending and receipts the way Bill Clinton did.....you make a deal...you give a little and take a little.....If you remember, as soon as Bill left office, Newt and Junior blew up his balanced budget and deficit spending became the rule of the road. So please Bandit.....just give your finger pointing at the Dems a phuquin' rest.....you aren't talking to a piker when you're talking to me about this garbage. Both sides have proven themselves not to be trusted.
BTW......what Democrat is campaigning against capitalism? Been a life long Dem and never met a Dem who opposed capitalism. Or is this just more bull shit from your lips to my ears?
 

Banditking

HR MVP
Apr 25, 2002
1,967
1,089
113
bandit...give it a phuquing rest. You side is NO better than my side....and the have most recently proved it! Just phuquin' admit the facts. Dems...against capitalism? You really are a phuquin' tool, aren't you, comrade? The other side of the coin is to "balance" spending and receipts the way Bill Clinton did.....you make a deal...you give a little and take a little.....If you remember, as soon as Bill left office, Newt and Junior blew up his balanced budget and deficit spending became the rule of the road. So please Bandit.....just give your finger pointing at the Dems a phuquin' rest.....you aren't talking to a piker when you're talking to me about this garbage. Both sides have proven themselves not to be trusted.
BTW......what Democrat is campaigning against capitalism? Been a life long Dem and never met a Dem who opposed capitalism. Or is this just more bull shit from your lips to my ears?



 

Slappy Pappy

HR Heisman
Nov 24, 2007
6,222
7,404
113
Nuclear. Not solar and wind. Wind is destructive, by the way.
"Destructive," as in how burning coal and gas and oil causes heart and lung cancers, gives asthma to millions of children, and pollutes the soil with heavy metals like cadmium, lead and mercury that are now prevalent in the food we consume? Or "destructive," in how the state of Iowa, which now gets 81% of its electricity from wind, has been totally (as in not at all) destroyed by it?
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman

HawkRCID

HR Heisman
Nov 7, 2018
5,421
10,636
113
It’s going to be pretty great when the party of free enterprise starts looking to pass forced private investments in things like fossil fuels
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman