Climate Retreat: Economic, Natural, Positive

“All of these E.S.G. funds are wrong. They weren’t going to generate better returns. They are not going to make the world a better place. E.S.G. as an investment thesis should be entirely shut down.”

– Terrence Keeley. Quoted in “How Wall Street Turned Its Back on Climate Change,” New York Times, January 18, 2026.

“Six years after the financial industry pledged to use trillions to fight climate change and reshape finance,” the New York Times front-page article began, “its efforts have largely collapsed.” The reality dcomented in “How Wall Street Turned Its Back on Climate Change“? Net Zero and decarbonization are unnatural, uneconomic modes of business and economic organization, and businesses are getting back to the basics of fiduciary duty and consumer service. [1]

“2025 may go down as the easiest year in history to retreat on climate pledges,” stated UK climate activist Chris Bowden on social media. “The political cover is there in abundance, and anything that echoes Trump’s dismissal of climate action can be dressed up as ‘pragmatism’, ‘realism’, or ‘responding to market conditions’.” Bowden continued and listed seven examples (verbatim).

For many organisations, that’s been enough to quietly lower the bar:

1️⃣ ExxonMobil: The US oil major cut planned low-carbon spending to $20bn over five years, down from $30bn, and paused a $7bn hydrogen plant in Texas, citing weak customer demand.

2️⃣ BlackRock: The world’s largest asset manager withdrew from the Net Zero Asset Managers Initiative, stepping back from high-profile climate commitments amid political pressure.

3️⃣ Equinor: Once pledging to invest more in renewables than fossil fuels by 2030, the Norwegian energy company dropped the target and reduced clean-energy investment, citing the “uneven pace” of the transition.

4️⃣ ENEOS Holdings: The Japanese refiner abandoned plans to supply up to 4m tonnes of hydrogen by 2040, with its CEO saying momentum towards a carbon-neutral society has slowed.

5️⃣ HSBC: The bank delayed its net-zero target from 2030 to 2050, pointing to changing economic conditions.

6️⃣ Royal Bank of Canada: After pledging C$500bn in sustainable finance by 2025, the bank shelved the goal, citing shifts in regulation and industry practice.

7️⃣ PepsiCo: The consumer goods giant pushed its net-zero target from 2040 to 2050 and weakened its plastic reduction pledge, blaming “external realities and business growth.”

He ends:

But here’s the opportunity. When so many companies are stepping back, those that hold tight onto climate pledges will stand out for the right* reasons.

Critical comment

First, his list is still very short. Where is BP? Shell? The U.S. car companies? All went big with “green” investments and got burned. Bad economics, coupled with lots of new entry (competition) in response to political correctness and government subsidies, violated financial requirements, if not fiduciary responsibility.

Bad ecology is also at work. Wind and solar are the epitome of little-from-much, as in low-capacity factors, land sprawl, and transmission sprawl. Local environmentalists (versus Big Green) are protesting more and more.

The climate/ESG movement is bad economics and, on close inspection, bad ecology. As one critic stated in the above New York Times article:

“All of these E.S.G. funds are wrong,” said [Terrence] Keeley, who left BlackRock in 2022 and now runs an impact investing firm. “They weren’t going to generate better returns. They are not going to make the world a better place. E.S.G. as an investment thesis should be entirely shut down.”

The post Climate Retreat: Economic, Natural, Positive appeared first on Master Resource.

Source: https://www.masterresource.org/climate-politics-retreat/climate-retreat-its-okay/