The CO29 (The 2024 United Nations Climate Change Conference) is currently in full swing, and climate activists from across the globe are devising strategies on how to obtain your funds and utilize them to further their costly environmental agenda. This week, participants engaged in discussions about enhancing control over private investment through Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) ratings as well as various environmental bond ratings. They also presented recommendations for trillions of dollars in government "investment" in wind, solar, and other projects to steer the world towards net zero. Naturally, there were calls for increased "climate reparations" from wealthy industrialized to less industrialized nations.

ESG: A Decade-long Redirection of Investments

For decades, the ESG movement has been channeling billions of investment dollars towards preferred climate projects. When short-term interest rates in the US were below two percent, ESG-focused portfolios and indices emerged rapidly, similar to mushrooms. During the Covid crisis and the Great Reset, they received an additional boost. However, with popular and legal backlash in the US, along with poor investment returns and high fees, the flow of funds reversed. Nevertheless, ESG ratings still hold significance in the investment community. Prominent financial and consulting institutions such as Blackrock, McKinsey, and Glass-Lewis continue to advocate for more "green" private and public investment.

ESG has become a powerful force in shaping investment decisions, influencing the allocation of trillions of dollars. It has led to a significant shift in the way investors view and prioritize environmental and social factors. But as we delve deeper, we must also consider the potential drawbacks and challenges associated with this movement.

One of the key issues is the lack of clear and standardized metrics for ESG evaluations. This can lead to inconsistencies and subjectivity in the assessment process, making it difficult for investors to make informed decisions. Additionally, there is a growing concern about the potential for greenwashing, where companies may claim to be environmentally friendly but fail to deliver on their promises.

International Alliances and the Net Zero Campaign

Internationally, several alliances have been formed to build coalitions and commitments among banks and insurance companies in pursuit of net zero. A significant part of this effort involves directing funds towards green projects. However, another crucial aspect is diverting capital away from "bad" industries like coal, gas, and oil. This attempted divestiture has faced vigorous opposition from states such as Texas and Florida.

The net zero campaign also includes funneling billions of dollars into "carbon offsets." The idea is that companies can buy offsets from other entities that claim to remove a certain amount of carbon from the atmosphere. But there are many reasons to be skeptical about this approach. The effectiveness of carbon offsets is highly questionable, as they create various perverse incentives.

For instance, some carbon offset projects may not actually result in long-term carbon reduction. There is a risk of double-counting and the potential for fraud. Moreover, the focus on carbon offsets may divert attention from the need to address the root causes of climate change, such as reducing emissions at the source.

Energy Demand and the Fossil Fuel Dilemma

Demand for energy continues to rise steadily. Despite more than a decade of substantial subsidies, solar and wind power have only made a minimal impact on global energy production. Fossil fuels remain crucial for the success and prosperity of modern economies. Diverting financial capital away from fossil fuel companies for ideological reasons is not a sensible approach.

We need to recognize the importance of a balanced energy mix that includes fossil fuels along with renewable sources. Relying solely on renewable energy may not be feasible in the short term, given the current limitations and challenges. Fossil fuels provide the stability and reliability that renewable sources often lack.

Moreover, the transition to a low-carbon economy should be based on sound economic principles rather than ideological dogmas. We must ensure that the energy transition is sustainable and does not come at the expense of economic growth and job creation.

Wealth Redistribution in the Green Transition

In the "green" transition, there is a significant issue of massive wealth redistribution. Unreasonable demands for climate reparations between countries are just the tip of the iceberg. Stringent emissions standards and restrictions in Western economies have led to the exodus of industries and manufacturing to countries like China and India, which have lower costs and higher pollution levels.

This wealth transfer has a profound impact on the economies and societies of both developed and developing countries. Western countries sacrifice their own economic growth and prosperity in the pursuit of net zero goals, while their economic competitors gain an advantage.

Within countries, wealth redistribution is also evident. Subsidies for electric vehicles, solar projects, and wind projects, as well as wealthy individuals installing solar panels on their roofs, further exacerbate inequality. Ordinary Americans are forced to bear the burden of these policies, while the elites reap the benefits.

The Irony of CO29 and the Financial System

The irony of CO29, held in a major oil-producing authoritarian country, is that the participants who rely on modern technology and benefit from the economic prosperity of the West want to use financial institutions to restrain economic growth and prosperity in the future. This co-opting of the financial system should be firmly resisted.

Alternative investment managers like Strive and divestment from environmental activist funds like Blackrock, along with investigations into collusive and anti-competitive behavior by large financial institutions, have played a crucial role in slowing down the "green" transition in the US. Greater SEC oversight of investment firms and proxy advisory firms will expose more corruption in green finance.

Raising fiduciary standards will also discourage environmental activism with other people's money, as managers face greater potential legal liability. We need to ensure that the financial system serves the interests of the general public rather than being used as a tool for ideological agendas.

Exposing the Corruption within the Environmental Movement

At the end of the day, it is essential that we all take responsibility for informing people about the corruption within the environmental movement. We should make them aware that the "green" transition is more about moving dollars from ordinary people's bank accounts to the accounts of green elites.

Politically connected green energy investors and opportunistic carbon offset entrepreneurs make money not by improving our lives but by ticking the right environmental boxes. We should not allow climate activists and climate opportunists to involuntarily redirect other people's wealth to themselves.

It is time to put an end to the self-aggrandizement at UN climate conferences that masquerade as the only solution to save the world. The sooner we expand fossil fuel production in the West, the better it will be for everyone's future of greater freedom and prosperity.

Cheap energy is the key to a better future, and we must not let ideological biases cloud our judgment and lead us astray from the path of sustainable development.