ESG Is Collapsing And Net Zero Is Going With It

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

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.

Related Topics:#DailyCaller #DavidBlackmon #ESG #NetZero EnergyPolicy feature

Up Next

Taxpayers Federation calling on BC Government to scrap failed Carbon Tax

Don't Miss

Key Trump Cabinet Nominees Face A Daunting Energy Policy Mess

Todayville

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

US Eating Canada’s Lunch While Liberals Stall – Trump Admin Announces Record-Shattering Energy Report

Business / 6 hours ago

Pulling back the curtain on the Carney government’s first budget

International / 15 hours ago

The capital of capitalism elects a socialist mayor

Business

The Liberal budget is a massive FAILURE: Former Liberal Cabinet Member Dan McTeague

Published on November 5, 2025

Dan McTeague

Prime Minister Mark Carney tabled his government’s long-overdue budget yesterday and took the same approach as his predecessor – spend, spend, spend.

Canada’s deficit is now a staggering $78 BILLION. To make matters worse, Carney doubled down on the industrial carbon tax.

Dan McTeague explains in his latest video.

Business

Pulling back the curtain on the Carney government’s first budget

Published on November 5, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Jake Fuss and Grady Munro

The Carney government will spend more, run larger deficits and accumulate more debt than was previously planned by the Trudeau government.

In the 1939 film the Wizard of Oz, Dorothy and her companions travel to the Emerald City to meet the famous Wizard of Oz who will solve all their problems. When first entering the Wizard’s chambers, the group sees a giant ghostly head that meets their expectations of the “Great and Powerful Oz.” However, later on in the film (much to their disappointment) we learn that the Wizard is nothing more than an ordinary man operating a machine behind a curtain.

Canadians might feel a similar kind of disappointment about the Carney government’s first budget tabled on Tuesday. Prime Minister Carney promised a “very different approach” than that of his predecessor regarding Ottawa’s finances, and at first glance the budget appears to be this new approach. But when you pull back the curtain, it’s simply an escalation of the same failed fiscal policies Canadians have suffered for the last decade.

For context, the Trudeau government’s approach to government finances was record-high levels of spending, persistent deficits and massive debt accumulation. The Trudeau government created a fiscal mess, and as a “responsible fiscal manager” the Carney government has promised to clean it up.

To that end, the Carney government now separates spending into two categories: “operating spending” and “capital investment.” Capital investment includes any spending or tax expenditure (e.g. tax credits and deductions) that contribute to the production of an asset (e.g. infrastructure, machinery or equipment). Operating spending includes everything else, and is supposed to represent “day-to-day” government spending.

The government plans to balance the “operating budget”—meaning it will match operating spending to revenue—by 2028/29, while leaving capital investments to be financed through borrowing. Importantly, when calculating the operating balance, the government counts revenues that are foregone due to tax expenditures that are considered to be capital investments.

To help find the savings needed to balance its operating budget by 2028/29, the government initiated a “Comprehensive Expenditure Review” this past summer—the budget reveals the review’s results. Part of the review included a long overdue reduction in the size of the federal public service, as the government will cut 16,000 positions this year, and reach a total reduction of almost 40,000 by 2028/29 compared to levels seen two years ago. As a result of this spending review, the budget projects spending in 2028/29 will be $12.8 billion lower than it otherwise would have been.

This is the fiscal picture the Carney government is focusing on, and the one it undoubtedly wants Canadians to focus on, too. When taken at face value, balancing the operating budget, initiating a spending review, cutting the federal bureaucracy, and focusing on greater investment would certainly appear to be a different approach than the Trudeau government—which made no meaningful effort to balance the budget or restrain spending during its tenure, grew the bureaucracy, and allowed business investment to collapse under its watch.

But here’s the problem. When you pull back the curtain, all the rhetoric and accounting changes are just a way to obscure the fact the Carney government will spend more, run larger deficits and accumulate more debt than was previously planned by the Trudeau government.

Both operating spending and capital investment (which represents either additional spending or foregone revenue) impact the bottom line, and by separating the two the Carney government is simply obscuring the true state of Ottawa’s finances. If we ignore the government’s sleight of hand and instead compare total government spending against the revenues that are actually collected, the true size of the budget deficit this year is expected to equal $78.3 billion. Not only is that considerably more than the “operating” deficit the government is focusing on, it’s also nearly double the $42.2 billion deficit that was originally planned by the Trudeau government.

The story is similar for years to come. While the Carney government claims it will balance the operating budget by 2028/29, the overall deficit will be $57.9 billion that year. Over the four years from 2025/26 to 2028/29, overall deficits under the Carney government will equal a combined $265.1 billion. In comparison, the Trudeau government had only planned to run deficits equaling a combined $131.4 billion during those same four years—meaning the Carney government plans to borrow more than twice as much as the Trudeau government.

Driving this increase in borrowing is a combination of lower revenues and higher spending. From 2025/26 to 2028/29, the Carney government expects to collect $70.5 billion fewer revenues than the Trudeau government had previously projected. This difference likely comes down to a combination of the economic impact of U.S. tariffs along with various tax measures implemented by the Carney government that lower revenues (including cancelling a proposed increase to capital gains taxes and cutting the bottom federal personal income tax rate).

On the flip side, the Carney government plans to spend $63.4 billion more in total than the Trudeau government due to the introduction of considerable new spending commitments (notably on defence and housing), and the expectation of higher interest payments on its debt. The reality that spending is only set to rise under the Carney government stands in stark contrast to the prime minister’s rhetoric regarding “austerity” and the “ambitious savings” found by the government’s so-called spending review.

Higher spending and larger deficits will help grow the mountain of federal debt. By 2028/29, the Trudeau government had originally projected that total government debt would reach $2.6 trillion—which, based on the budget forecasts, would represent 72.2 per cent of the overall economy. The Carney government’s fiscal plan now puts total federal debt at $2.8 trillion by 2028/29, or 78.6 per cent of the overall economy. For perspective, the last time total federal debt pushed 80 per cent of the economy was during the 1990s when Canada teetered on the brink of a fiscal crisis.

Finally, the government’s approach to spending and the deficit doesn’t seem to be in line with what Canadians wanted to see from this budget. A poll conducted prior to the budget showed that 69 per cent of respondents felt it’s important for the government to balance the budget, compared to just 27 per cent who supported continued deficit spending. In fact, three out of five respondents felt that too much government spending has contributed to the rising cost of living and inflation—the issue they’re most concerned about.

Like a certain Wizard, Prime Minister Carney has made grand promises to fix many of the serious problems facing Canada. At first glance, the Carney government’s first budget may appear to deliver a new plan that will get federal finances back in order. Just pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.