Federal Reserve Withdraws from Globalist ‘Climate Crisis’ Coalition
Meanwhile, a globalist climate-investment group shuts down after an exit by BlackRock.
As Americans celebrate the inauguration of President Donald J. Trump, there is evidence of a massive climate change occurring.
This political climate change proves the Trump Effect continues into the start of his presidency.
The Federal Reserve announced its withdrawal from the Network of Central Banks and Supervisors for Greening the Financial System (NGFS).
The Fed cited the broadening scope of the NGFS’s work as the primary reason for its withdrawal, stating that the network’s activities now cover issues outside the Fed’s statutory mandate.
The decision was approved by five members of the Federal Reserve’s Board of Governors, including Chair Jerome H. Powell, while two members abstained.
The NGFS, formed in 2017, is charged with helping central banks and bank supervisors with integrating risks stemming from climate change into their work steering monetary policy and policing the financial system. A spokesperson for the group did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
In recent years, the Fed had taken some steps to integrate climate change into its work via preliminary analysis and reports, but Chair Jerome Powell has repeatedly insisted the Fed has a limited role to play. Powell has maintained the Fed is not responsible for setting climate change policy, and the matter lies in the hands of Congress.
Republicans in Congress have been skeptical of any regulatory efforts to police climate risk in the banking sector, and Trump’s impending takeover in Washington has spurred similar exits in the private sector. Also on Friday, Bank of Montreal became the first Canadian bank to announce its exit from the Net-Zero Banking Alliance, a private-sector climate alliance.
Interestingly, Powell said during a 2022 congressional hearing that direct action on climate change could not come from the Fed but rather from Congress and legislation. This is the first direct action taken by that institution that aligns with this stance.
- In a notable speech in 2023, Powell said the Fed would not be a “climate change policymaker.”
- He warned that the Fed should not cross into issues that weren’t directly associated with the mandates assigned by Congress: price stability and full employment.
- Doing so, Powell said, would “undermine the case for our independence.”
The Federal Reserve just quit a global climate network it joined in late 2020.
Fed officials concluded the work of the Network of Central Banks and Supervisors for Greening the Financial System (NGFS) "has increasingly broadened in scope" beyond the Fed's mandate. pic.twitter.com/ynzsA4U70P
— Matt Egan (@MattEganCNN) January 17, 2025
This move continues the trend of financial institutions fleeing eco-activist inanity. I recently noted that six major U.S. banks have recently withdrawn from the United Nations-guided Net Zero Banking Alliance (NZBA), a UN-backed coalition of banks committed to aligning their financial activities with net-zero carbon emissions goals by 2050.
Interestingly, Adding to the wave of institutional departures, BlackRock, the world’s largest asset manager, recently withdrew from e international Net Zero Asset Managers (NZAM), which then collapsed.
This coalition aimed to align financial investments with the nebulous goal of achieving net-zero carbon emissions. Yet, BlackRock’s exit reflects a broader reality: these climate initiatives are not only politically fraught but also deeply misaligned with financial performance and client interests.
BlackRock faced mounting criticism, especially from Republican-led states in the U.S., for prioritizing environmental, social, and governance (ESG) initiatives over fiduciary responsibilities. Florida, Texas, and other states accused BlackRock of undermining traditional energy industries and pulling resources away from economically viable ventures. Tennessee recently pummelled BlackRock in court. These pressures have created a domino effect, with other institutions also reconsidering their commitments to net-zero coalitions.
One of the heroes in this fight has been Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton. Among other lawsuits he brought to protect Americans (e.g., his case against the Biden administration preventing resource development because of a lizard), he sued BlackRock alongside State Street Corporation and Vanguard Group for “conspiring to artificially constrict the market for coal through anticompetitive trade practices.”
This complaint was joined by the Attorney Generals of Alabama, Arkansas, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, West Virginia and Wyoming.
A press release from the Texas Attorney General’s Office says: “Blackrock, Vanguard, and State Street utilised the Climate Action 100 and the Net Zero Asset Managers Initiative to signal their mutual intent to reduce the output of thermal coal, which predictably increased the cost of electricity for Americans across the United States.”
The lawsuit says that the three asset managers collectively own significant portions of coal producers including Peabody Energy and Arch Resources.
Attorney General Paxton said: “Texas will not tolerate the illegal weaponisation of the financial industry in service of a destructive, politicised ‘environmental’ agenda. BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street formed a cartel to rig the coal market, artificially reduce the energy supply and raise prices.
“The news of BlackRock’s departure from NZAM should be music to the ears of every American consumer.” – Executive Director @WillHild
BlackRock, as part of NZAM, pushed harmful net-zero policies across the economy, raising prices on everyday Americans.https://t.co/0KNuA2eDyX
— Consumers' Research (@ConsumersFirst) January 13, 2025
Paxton must be grateful he can now work with an administration rather than fight it in court.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
The recent ruling by a federal judge in the lawsuit filed by American Airlines employees against the company, holding that AA’s decision to invest employee pension assets in Blackrock-directed “ESG” funds represented a violation of investment managers’ fiduciary duty/responsibility to the investors, is absolutely huge, and, could well be the long-overdue death knell for ESG.
^^^THIS^^^ is how we can ‘salt the earth’ where the noxious, poisonous ‘ESG’ weed grows. The people who did this need to be personally bankrupted. All of them. Every last one of them, paupers. Otherwise they’ll just come back again during the next Dim administration.
What’s funny is that now that “ESG” (like “DEI”) has become a deservedly and widely ridiculed, discredited and legally compromised term, leftists are attempting to contrive a new euphemism to replace it. These reprobates never quit.
Interesting that the Fed joined this effort during Trump I (the article mentions late 2020). We need more discipline on agencies going off the ranch.
The Fed is semi-autonomous.
The Federal Reserve Board is a fully autonomous organization within the federal government.
How dare you!
The definitive comment on the US Federal Reserve.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QeRv4IHoP70
By what percentage has our currency been devalued since the Federal Reserve was created?
Using the WolframAlpha app, it takes $3,165.20 in 2025 to buy what $100 bought in 1913. So that’s an increase in prices (based on CPI) of a factor of 31.65, so the currency has been devalued by 97%. Bear in mind that BLS has changed the method of calculating the CPI a number of times, providing ample opportunity to fiddle the numbers. The government has a tremendous incentive to understate inflation as many benefits are indexed by the CPI. I-bonds use the CPI. Thus I think the devaluation is greater than 97%. How much greater is hard to say as BLS methods are not too transparent without a lot of work. The website shadowstats presents alternative numbers which are disputed as being absurd.
Is the Federal Reserve private or government? They want it both ways to game the system to their advantage. If private then they owe property taxes on their DC headquarters building. Populist Texas Congressman Wright Patman went after them. The DC tax collector sent the Fed a bill which they refused to pay claiming they were an independent branch of the federal government. But the Board of Directors of the Fed purchased the land from the federal government for $750,000 in 1935, and the Treasury Department sighed over the deed. So if the Fed is government, then the government sold property to itself. A powerful argument for it being private. Eventually each if the Reserve Banks had to sign a quitclaim deed meaning they did not own the headquarters building.
Thus the Federal Reserve is neither fish nor fowl, and they exploit the ambiguity to avoid scrutiny. A corrupt organization that ahould be abolished.