In a newly revealed document, the federally-created fiat money-printer of the Federal Reserve announced on September 29 that it has wrangled six major U.S.-based banks to create a key component in the government-crony push for “Environmental Social Governance” (ESG) – presaging a monitored, carbon-taxing, digital-currency-based economic system that rewards or punishes people depending on how well they conform to corporate-government policy edicts.
The initial boast could be front page news for any journalistic outlet that is aware of ESG:
“The Federal Reserve Board on Thursday announced that six of the nation's largest banks will participate in a pilot climate scenario analysis exercise designed to enhance the ability of supervisors and firms to measure and manage climate-related financial risks.”
The entire concept indicates just how strong are the ties between the central bank (which the U.S. government has unconstitutionally granted the power to create and control U.S. legal tender) and other banks, many of which the U.S. government has bailed out, and which, thanks to the Trump-backed CARES Act of 2020, the Fed now can bail out itself, without having any statutory obligation to tell us serfs.
And that opener drops a bigger payload, for the final phrase, “to measure and manage climate-related financial risks,” hints at more than just investment and loan liabilities from any natural disasters that these woke-shirts might errantly ascribe to the mythological monster of “man-made climate change.”
The six banks are Bank of America, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, and Wells Fargo, and, as readers will see by visiting any of those hyperlinks, every one of them is deeply involved in pushing the ESG agenda. And the document indicates that these banks will begin formulating the rules for what are “environmental liabilities” (you can bet simple energy use will be near the top of the list) and metrics by which they will arbitrarily establish how much those "environmental liabilities" cost.
It’s another manifestation of the top-down "Climate Credit" scheme we've seen with the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) - arbitrary "price attachments" placed on “carbon-based fuels” that have nothing to do with the market, enforced by political entities or by entities tied to the national banking system (and the international banking system and multi-national political-regulatory system they've been setting up to fearmonger about climate).
The modus operandi runs along typical lines, wherein national politicians, bureaucrats, Fed-connected U.S. banks, and corporate cronies will “partner” with each other and “partner” with INTERnational politicians, bureaucrats, crony banks, and corporations to toss around terms such as “stakeholder” as they decide who will get to contribute plans to their centrally-planned fascist political economy. Following the “rent-seeking” pattern that economists James Buchanan and Gordon Tullock pointedly dissected in their prolific careers, and as we recently saw with the International Organization for Standardization establishing a “sales code” for major credit card corporations to apply to purchases at gun shops, these politically favored “stakeholders” define terms, create exclusive barriers to entry, and engage in a feedback loop that favors the politicians, bureaucrats, ideologues, and banking interests that, in return, help them by forming official “policy.”
“Policy” being a euphemism for government commands that you defy at the risk of government, and, increasingly, government-corporate, retribution.
The Federal Reserve gushes about it in their press release:
“The pilot exercise will be launched in early 2023 and is expected to conclude around the end of the year. At the beginning of the exercise, the Board will publish details of the climate, economic, and financial variables that make up the climate scenario narratives.”
Strangely, they haven’t mentioned people who engage in “scenario narratives” all the time, every day, as part of their role in the market, and those would be insurance companies and reinsurance companies, which have a financial interest in calculating risks and transmitting that information to clients in the form of…
...higher charges for insurance against disaster.
Check the insurance policies for homes and property anywhere along a seaboard, but not just immediately beside the beach. Sure, at the beach, you can see if insurance costs have risen as a result of higher water tables, or bigger-badder cyclonic storms (there have been fewer of them since 1990), or if the rates have increased in concord with general inflation, and relative to the increasing values of in-demand properties, all of which play a role in repair costs should a storm hit hard.
You won’t see a “Climate Change” surcharge for risk, because it’s not a risk, and any insurance company that tries to apply such a surcharge would lose customers in a free market, because customers could see that it is NOT a risk to their property and would shop for insurance elsewhere.
But, even more to the point, check on free-market insurance (sans political ties) for homes farther inland, where, as the Climate Cultists cry, melted glacial water will see the oceans reach out to lap at us with their poison tongues.
Again, you will not see increases in flood insurance. And you can bet that investors in apartment complexes and condos wouldn’t bother building a few miles inland if they had any worry that the climate was going to wipe them out.
Likewise, you can bet the Obamas would not have purchased their home on Martha’s Vineyard, Massachusetts, if the Climate Cult predictions had been accurate, because it would have been flooded years ago.
As many folks have pointed out, and as successful investor, real estate mogul, and entrepreneur Dan Pena has said, if the Climate Cult is right, and the water on the planet will rise 10 feet over the next 40 to 50 years (one of the Cultists’ best scenario):
“That means England is gone, most of Europe is gone (…) If that’s the case, in the prospectus, when you invest, there should be in the footnotes: if Global Warming is for real – they won’t put it that way -- if Global Warming happens, and water rises ten feet, this investment is F—ck All. (…) Not one prospectus written this century has alluded to Global Warming (…) It’s the greatest fraud that’s been perpetrated on mankind this century.”
And, while it’s likely that Dan has not been able to see every prospectus, the gist of what he has said is correct.
In a natural, free market, Climate Change fears are not a risible factor -- at all. Only in an artificial, corporatist, top-down world where politicians and their cronies can create arbitrary “Carbon Taxes” and other “penalties” for not complying with their edicts does one see a fraudulent “political market” being created -- a system that is not really a market at all, but is a way for Neofeudal Lords to impose their wills, claim certain activities are sinful, then demand we (or our businesses) pay them indulgences to continue what in reality is an activity that isn’t harming anyone.
It's similar to what PayPal recently almost tried to push, with their idea of applying a $2,500 penalty to folks whom the PayPal purity police decided had spread “misinformation.” They backed off, but it’s all part of this craze for ESG: speech, financial, and thought control.
It's an imminent extortion racket. And the Federal Reserve celebrates its construction:
“Over the course of the pilot, participating firms will analyze the impact of the scenarios on specific portfolios and business strategies. The Board will then review firm analysis and engage with those firms to build capacity to manage climate-related financial risks. The Board anticipates publishing insights gained from the pilot at an aggregate level, reflecting what has been learned about climate risk management practices and how insights from scenario analysis will help identify potential risks and promote risk management practices. No firm-specific information will be released.”
Does anyone else see this as one more piece in the ESG puzzle? Does anyone else see the outlines of financial fences and banking credit scores, of electronic money and loans denied?
That puzzle becomes clearer and clearer the more we see groups like the boom-bust-inspiring Fed release documents.
The question is whether we can act fast enough to avoid becoming their victims