From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By David Blackmon

The chances of achieving the goal of net-zero by 2050 are basically net zero

Just a few years ago, ESG was all the rage in the banking and investing community as globalist governments in the western world focused on a failing attempt to subsidize an energy transition into reality. The strategy was to try to strangle fossil fuel industries by denying them funding for major projects, with major ESG-focused institutional investors like BlackRock and State Street, and big banks like J.P. Morgan and Goldman Sachs leveraging their control of trillions of dollars in capital to lead the cause.

But a funny thing happened on the way to a green Nirvana: It turned out that the chosen rent-seeking industries — wind, solar and electric vehicles — are not the nifty plug-and-play solutions they had been cracked up to be.

Even worse, the advancement of new technologies and increased mining of cryptocurrencies created enormous new demand for electricity, resulting in heavy new demand for finding new sources of fossil fuels to keep the grid running and people moving around in reliable cars.

In other words, reality butted into the green narrative, collapsing the foundations of the ESG movement. The laws of physics, thermodynamics and unanticipated consequences remain laws, not mere suggestions.

Making matters worse for the ESG giants, Texas and other states passed laws disallowing any of these firms who use ESG principles to discriminate against their important oil, gas and coal industries from investing in massive state-governed funds. BlackRock and others were hit with sanctions by Texas in 2023. More recently, Texas and 10 other states sued Blackrock and other big investment houses for allegedly violating anti-trust laws.

As the foundations of the ESG movement collapse, so are some of the institutions that sprang up around it. The United Nations created one such institution, the “Net Zero Asset Managers Initiative,” whose participants maintain pledges to reach net-zero emissions by 2050 and adhere to detailed plans to reach that goal.

The problem with that is there is now a growing consensus that a) the forced march to a green energy transition isn’t working and worse, that it can’t work, and b) the chances of achieving the goal of net-zero by 2050 are basically net zero. There is also a rising consensus among energy companies of a pressing need to prioritize matters of energy security over nebulous emissions reduction goals that most often constitute poor deployments of capital. Even as the Biden administration has ramped up regulations and subsidies to try to force its transition, big players like ExxonMobil, Chevron, BP, and Shell have all redirected larger percentages of their capital budgets away from investments in carbon reduction projects back into their core oil-and-gas businesses.

The result of this confluence of factors and events has been a recent rush by big U.S. banks and investment houses away from this UN-run alliance. In just the last two weeks, the parade away from net zero was led by major banks like Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Citigroup, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, and, most recently, JP Morgan. On Thursday, the New York Post reported that both BlackRock and State Street, a pair of investment firms who control trillions of investor dollars (BlackRock alone controls more than $10 trillion) are on the brink of joining the flood away from this increasingly toxic philosophy.

In June, 2023, BlackRock CEO Larry Fink made big news when told an audience at the Aspen Ideas Festival in Aspen, Colorado that he is “ashamed of being part of this [ESG] conversation.” He almost immediately backed away from that comment, restating his dedication to what he called “conscientious capitalism.” The takeaway for most observers was that Fink might stop using the term ESG in his internal and external communications but would keep right on engaging in his discriminatory practices while using a different narrative to talk about it.

But this week’s news about BlackRock and the other big firms feels different. Much has taken place in the energy space over the last 18 months, none of it positive for the energy transition or the net-zero fantasy. Perhaps all these big banks and investment funds are awakening to the reality that it will take far more than devising a new way of talking about the same old nonsense concepts to repair the damage that has already been done to the world’s energy system.

David Blackmon is an energy writer and consultant based in Texas. He spent 40 years in the oil and gas business, where he specialized in public policy and communications.

From the Fraser Institute

By Jake Fuss and Grady Munro

On Monday outside Rideau Cottage in Ottawa, after Prime Minister Justin Trudeau told Canadians he plans to resign, a reporter asked Trudeau to name his greatest accomplishments. In response, among other things, Trudeau said his government “reduced” taxes for the “middle class.” But this claim doesn’t withstand scrutiny.

After taking office in 2015, the Trudeau government reduced the second-lowest personal income tax rate from 22.0 per cent to 20.5 per cent—a change that was explicitly sold by Trudeau as a tax cut for the middle class. However, this change ultimately didn’t lower the amount of taxes paid by middle-class Canadians. Why?

Because the government simultaneously eliminated several tax credits—which are intended to reduce the amount of income taxes owed—including income splitting, the children’s fitness credit, children’s arts tax credit, and public transit tax credits. By eliminating these tax credits, the government helped simplify the tax system, which is a good thing, but it also raised the amount families pay in income taxes.

Consequently, most middle-income families now pay higher taxes. Specifically, a 2022 study published by the Fraser Institute found that nearly nine in 10 (86 per cent) middle-income families (earning household incomes between $84,625 and $118,007) experienced an increase in their federal personal income taxes as a result of the Trudeau government’s tax changes.

The study also found that other income groups experienced tax increases. Nearly three-quarters (73 per cent) of families with a household income between $54,495 and $84,624 paid higher taxes as a result of the tax changes. And across all income groups, 61 per cent of Canadian families faced higher personal income taxes than they did in 2015.

The Trudeau government also introduced a new top tax bracket on income over $200,000—which raised the top federal personal income tax rate from 29 per cent to 33 per cent—and other tax changes that increased the tax burden on Canadians including the recent capital gains tax hike. Prior to this hike, investors who sold capital assets (stocks, second homes, cottages, etc.) paid taxes on 50 per cent of the gain. Last year, the Trudeau government increased that share to 66.7 per cent for individual capital gains above $250,000 and all capital gains for corporations and trusts.

According to the Trudeau government, this change will only impact the “wealthiest” Canadians, but in fact it will impact many middle-class Canadians. For example, in 2018, half of all taxpayers who claimed more than $250,000 of capital gains in a year earned less than $117,592 in normal income. These include Canadians with modest annual incomes who own businesses, second homes or stocks, and who may choose to sell those assets once or infrequently in their lifetimes (when they retire, for example). These Canadians will feel the real-world effects of Trudeau’s capital gains tax hike.

While reflecting on his tenure, Prime Minister Trudeau said he was proud that his government reduced taxes for middle-class Canadians. In reality, taxes for middle-class families have increased since he took office. That’s a major part of his legacy as prime minister.

Jake Fuss

Director, Fiscal Studies, Fraser Institute

Grady Munro

Policy Analyst, Fraser Institute