Haley Zaremba writes at oilprice Will Trump’s Proposed ESG Regulation Help Big Oil? Excerpts in italics with my bolds.
The ESG Push to Gamble Pension Funds on Climate Concerns
Instead of joining the financial revolution geared toward environmental, social, and governance (ESG) that many experts believe is coming down the pike (with or without the cooperation of the United States) the Trump administration has actively fought against this likely inevitability. A new proposed regulation from the United States Department of Labor would explicitly bar the department from taking ESG into consideration in decision making concerning U.S. employer-provided pension funds. Ostensibly, this move is because the government doesn’t believe that the nation’s pension fund managers are doing a good job, but many critics see this as a blatant attempt to redirect investment dollars towards fossil fuels, which are increasingly falling out of favor with investors.
[Note: The author’s bias shows, favoring subsidized wind and solar enterprises over oil and gas companies that provide reliable energy powering modern civilization, reliable returns and tax revenues.]
This week Bloomberg Green reported that in this new proposed ruling, “the language reaffirms the standard interpretation of fiduciary guidelines that only financial risks and returns can be considered in the management of U.S. employer-provided pension funds; ‘non-pecuniary goals,’ for example relating to political or public policy, should not guide pension investments.” As Bloomberg Green points out in the report, “The timing is ironic, coming as the fossil fuel industry begins to confront existential questions about its near-term future. It would almost be amusing if it wasn’t for the fear, uncertainty, and doubt the proposal leaves in its wake.”
For Balance, Consider How Risky are Wind and Solar Investments
Paul Driessen writes at CFACT Reporting renewable energy risks. Excerpts in italics with my bolds.
The whole thrust of the ESG campaign is to burden oil, gas and coal companies with additional reporting and scrutiny regarding hypothetical global warming impacts and to downgrade their worth in investors’ eyes. Driessen correctly points to the risk of renewable energy projects collapsing when public support and tax dollars are withdrawn, as is already happening in some European countries.
If efficient energy companies must disclose climate-related financial risks, so should renewables.
Replacing coal, gas and nuclear electricity, internal combustion vehicles, gas for home heating, and coal and gas for factories – and using batteries as backup power for seven windless, sunless days – would require some 8.5 billion megawatts. Generating that much electricity would require some 75 billion solar panels … or 4.2 million 1.8-MW onshore wind turbines … or 320,000 10-MW offshore wind turbines … or a combination of those technologies … some 3.5 billion 100-kWh batteries … hundreds of new transmission lines – and mining and manufacturing on scales far beyond anything the world has ever seen.
That is not clean, green, renewable energy. It is ecologically destructive and completely unsustainable – financially, ecologically and politically. That means any company, community, bank, investor or pension fund venturing into “renewable energy” technologies would be taking enormous risks.
Once citizens, voters and investors begin to grasp:
- (a) the quicksand foundations under alarmist climate models and forecasts;
- (b) the fact that African, Asian and even some European countries will only increase their fossil fuel use for decades to come;
- (c) the hundreds of millions of acres of US scenic and wildlife habitat lands that would be covered by turbines, panels, batteries, biofuel crops and forests clear cut to fuel “climate-friendly” biofuel power plants; and
- (d) the bird, bat and other animal species that would disappear under this onslaught – they will rebel. Renewable energy markets will implode.
Growing outrage over child labor, near-slave labor, and minimal to nonexistent worker health and safety, pollution control and environmental reclamation regulations in foreign countries where materials are mined and “renewable” energy technologies manufactured will intensify the backlash and collapse. As the shift to GND energy systems brings increasing reliance on Chinese mining and manufacturing, sends electricity rates skyrocketing, kills millions of American jobs and causes US living standards to plummet, any remaining support for wind, solar and other “renewable” technologies will evaporate.
Pension funds and publicly owned companies should therefore be compelled to disclose the risks to their operations, supply chains, “renewable energy portfolio” mandates, subsidies, feed-in tariffs, profits, employees, valuation and very existence from embarking on or investing in renewable energy technologies or facilities. They should be compelled to fully analyze and report on every aspect of these risks.
The White House, Treasury Department, Securities and Exchange Commission, Federal Reserve, Committee on Financial Stability, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation and other relevant agencies should immediately require that publicly owned companies, corporate retirement plans and public pension funds evaluate and disclose at least the following fundamental aspects of “renewable” operations:
* How many wind turbines, solar panels, batteries, biofuel plants and miles of transmission lines will be required under various GND plans? Where? Whose scenic and wildlife areas will be impacted?
* How will rural and coastal communities react to being made energy colonies for major cities?
* How much concrete, steel, aluminum, copper, cobalt, lithium, rare earth elements and other material will be needed for every project and cumulatively – and where exactly will they come from?
* How many tons of overburden and ore will be removed and processed for every ton of metals and minerals required? How many injuries and deaths will occur in the mines, processing plants and factories?
* What per-project and cumulative fossil fuel use, CO2 and pollution emissions, land use impacts, water demands, family and community dislocations, and other impacts will result?
* What wages will be paid? How much child labor will be involved? What labor, workplace safety, pollution control and other laws, regulations, standards and practices will apply in each country?
* What human cancer and other disease incidents and deaths are likely? How many wildlife habitats will be destroyed? How many birds, bats and other wildlife displaced, killed or driven to extinction?
* For ethanol and biodiesel, how much acreage, water, fertilizer, pesticide and fossil fuel will be required? For power plant biofuel, how many acres of forest will be cut, and how long they will take to regrow?
* What “responsible sourcing” laws apply for all these materials, and how much will they raise costs?
* How will home, business, hospital, defense, factory, grid and other systems be protected against hacking and power disruptions caused by agents of overseas wind, solar and other manufacturers?
* What costs and materials are required to convert existing home and commercial heating systems to all-electricity, upgrade electrical grids and systems for rapid electric vehicle charging, and address the intermittent, unpredictable, weather-dependent realities of Green New Deal energy sources?
* What price increases per kWh per annum will families, businesses, offices, farms, factories, hospitals, schools and other consumers face, as state and national electrical systems are converted to GND sources?
* How many power interruptions will occur every year, how will they hurt families, factories and other users – and what will be the cumulative economic and productivity damage from those power outages?
* To what extent will policies, laws, regulations, court decisions, and citizen opposition, protests, legal actions and sabotage delay or block wind, solar, biofuel, battery, mining and transmission projects?
* How many solar panels, wind turbine blades, batteries and other components (numbers, tons and cubic feet) will have to be disposed of every year? How much landfill space and incineration will be required?
* How accurately are climate model predictions of temperatures, sea levels, tornadoes, hurricanes, floods, droughts and extreme weather events that are being used to justify renewable energy programs?
These issues (and many others) underscore the extremely high risks associated with Green New Deal energy programs – and why it is essential for lenders, investment companies, pension funds, manufacturers, utility companies and other industries to analyze, disclose and report renewable energy risks, with significant penalties for failing to do so or falsifying any pertinent information.