Blackrock CEO upset with Putin for ending globalization, slowing progress to net-zero
WEF, Blackrock CEO have an agenda and it has nothing to do with the climate.
In a letter to shareholders, Larry Fink, the CEO of Blackrock, the world’s largest assets manager with more than $10 trillion under management wrote, “. . . the Russian invasion of Ukraine has put an end to the globalization we have experienced over the last three decades. . . . In response to the energy shock caused by the war in Ukraine, many countries are looking for new sources of energy. In the US much of the focus is on increasing oil and gas supply, and in Europe and Asia, coal consumption may increase over the next year. This will inevitably slow the world’s progress toward net zero[1] in the near term.”
Larry Fink is the quintessential globalist. He is an agenda contributor to the World Economic Forum (WEF). The main agenda of the WEF is global governance. Global governance is a euphemism for technocracy, where “experts” decide what is best for the rest of us. Larry Fink, and WEF for that matter, are upset with Putin for gumming up the works, as it were.
The WEF advances the agenda of global governance by purporting to solve problems on a worldwide scale through “global cooperation”. Climate change, net-zero carbon footprint and renewable energy fit the bill. The only way to get to net-zero, according to the WEF, is through global governance.
In his 2020 letter to CEOSs, Fink forecast a “fundamental reshaping of finance”, i.e. green finance”. Never mind that people in Africa are suffering because of a lack of reliable energy sources, the main concern is the environment.
The WEF tweeted a short video of Fink talking about the transition to a net-zero world. According to Fink, "We're going to need $50 trillion in investing to get to a net-zero world. It's not a small price tag, but the opportunity is going to be large."
This number comes from a white paper published by the WEF, “Financing the Transition to a Net-Zero Future”. In the very first sentence of the executive summary, we are told that “Approximately $50 trillion in incremental investments is required by 2050 to transition the global economy to net-zero emissions and avert a climate catastrophe.”
The justification for the paper’s conclusions is the last four words of that sentence. We will do everything we possibly can to “avert a climate catastrophe”.
There is little doubt that the transition from fossil-based fuels to renewables will involve a lot of hardship, especially for the very segment of society that can least afford it. The people who are on the lowest rungs of the socio-economic ladder are the ones who will not be able to afford the higher prices that renewable energy will invariably cost.
It would seem wise, then, to be absolutely certain that the transition is critical and that the alternative is a “climate catastrophe”. For Fink and the WEF, though, it’s a given that there will be a catastrophe unless we do something.
Let’s see what climatologists have to say. In an article published in the National Library of Medicine, we find the following.
A letter signed by over 50 leading members of the American Meteorological Society warned about the policies promoted by environmental pressure groups. “The policy initiatives derive from highly uncertain scientific theories. They are based on the unsupported assumption that catastrophic global warming follows from the burning of fossil fuel and requires immediate action. We do not agree.” Those who have signed the letter represent the overwhelming majority of climate change scientists in the United States, of whom there are about 60.
Admittedly, this letter was written nearly 30 years ago. Have climatologists changed their minds since then?
Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) was revealed as fraudulent in the Climategate scandal of 2009.
Within the past few years, climatologists have had the courage to speak out.
All climatologists agree that climate change is real. Climatologists know that the climate is always changing. There are warm periods and cold periods. Humans came on to the climate scene very recently. Everyone agrees that before 1960, human activity could not have an any effect on the climate. Yet the planet has been experiencing warming since the mid-19th century.
Can we predict what the climate will be in the future? The answer to this last question is a resounding, no. There are too few facts. Computer modeling of climate is woefully inadequate to predict anything beyond a week with accuracy. Yet, in 2005, Al Gore confidently predicted that Manhattan Island would be under water by 2015 due to global warming. As a great writer once wrote, “There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact."[2]
So, this is the playbook of the WEF and Larry Fink. Build a straw man. In this case it is AGW. Devise a way of knocking it down. Unfailingly, this involves relinquishing individual liberties to further a global governance agenda.
