From The Daily Caller

Nick Pope
Contributor

Citigroup is warning that more than 40% of their energy sector clients are unprepared for the “net-zero” emissions transition, according to the financial institution’s latest climate report.

Forty-two percent of the bank’s energy clients do not have a substantive emissions reduction plan, and an additional 29% have a plan that they may or may not be able to actually carry out, according to the 2023 Citi Climate Report, released Thursday. Only 8% of the firm’s clients in the energy sector have major emissions reductions plans and also the clear ability to execute those plans.

Citi — the fourth-largest bank in the U.S. — issued its climate report signaling that most energy clients may not be prepared to execute emissions reduction plans just weeks after the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) approved a final rule requiring medium-sized and large public corporations to disclose climate change-related risks and data on the emissions created directly by their businesses in financial reports. (RELATED: John Podesta Cited A Major Investment Bank’s Solar Projections. There’s Just One Problem) 

Citi determined its clients’ preparedness ratings by assessing a wide variety of factors, such as executive oversight of transition plans, the strength of emissions data and the share of capital investments dedicated to “transition-related activities,” according to the report’s description of the bank’s Net Zero Review Template.

Lenders are beginning to realize that they will not be able to comply with the mounting green regulatory regime in the financial sector over the long-term unless they start to quickly drop large numbers of clients, a move that could upend national and regional economies that are heavily reliant on fossil fuel production or use, according to Bloomberg News. Accordingly, many financial institutions are quietly beginning to backpedal on ambitious climate-related commitments.

“This is good news, because it shows that the immense amount of pressure that financial service industry cartels have tried to exert on the energy industry has not been especially successful, which is fantastic news for the consumer,” Will Hild, the executive director of Consumers’ Research, told the Daily Caller News Foundation regarding the Citi climate report. “That Citi is even measuring this suggests that they have a long way to go to get back to their core business, which is to provide financing for American and global industry.”

Major asset managers, such as State Street and Vanguard, have pushed environmental, social and corporate governance (ESG) investment and corporate management strategies in part by participating in asset manager coalitions with a shared commitment to decarbonizing business. JP Morgan’s asset management arm and State Street withdrew from one of these groups, known as Climate Action 100+, in February amid a congressional probe into the coalition examining whether it has facilitated illegal collusive behavior.

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

From MasterResource

By Robert Bradley Jr

Editor Note: The House yesterday passed a concurrent resolution “expressing the sense of Congress that a carbon tax would be detrimental to the United States economy.” Ten Democrats joined all but one Republican (Brian Fitzpatrick, PA) in the 222–196 victory. A free-market, winning policy on climate is to not support any legislation that increases either taxes or energy prices, directly or indirectly.

Expressing the sense of Congress that a carbon tax would be detrimental to the United States economy.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

January 25, 2024

Mr. Zinke (for himself, Mr. Scalise, Mr. Bost, Mr. Clyde, Mr. Crenshaw, Mr. Perry, Mr. Ogles, Mr. Jackson of Texas, Mrs. Miller of Illinois, Mr. Lamborn, Mrs. Miller of West Virginia, Mr. Carey, Mr. Langworthy, and Mr. Pfluger) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of Congress that a carbon tax would be detrimental to the United States economy.

• Whereas a carbon tax is a Federal tax on carbon released from fossil fuels;
• Whereas a carbon tax will increase energy prices, including the price of gasoline, electricity, natural gas, and home heating oil;
• Whereas a carbon tax will mean that families and consumers will pay more for essentials like food, gasoline, and electricity;
• Whereas a carbon tax will fall hardest on the poor, the elderly, and those on fixed incomes;
• Whereas a carbon tax will lead to more jobs and businesses moving overseas;
• Whereas a carbon tax will lead to less economic growth;
• Whereas American families will be harmed the most from a carbon tax;
• Whereas, according to the Energy Information Administration, the share of energy consumption during 2023 in the United States that was derived from fossil fuels was approximately 80 percent;
• Whereas a carbon tax will increase the cost of every good manufactured in the United States;
• Whereas a carbon tax will impose disproportionate burdens on certain industries, jobs, States, and geographic regions and would further restrict the global competitiveness of the United States;
• Whereas American ingenuity has led to innovations in energy exploration and development and has increased production of domestic energy resources on private and State-owned land which has created significant job growth and private capital investment;
• Whereas the energy policy of the United States should encourage continued private sector innovation and development and not increase the existing tax burden on manufacturers;
• Whereas the production of American energy resources increases the ability of the United States to maintain a competitive advantage in today’s global economy;
• Whereas a carbon tax would reduce America’s global competitiveness and would encourage development abroad in countries that do not impose this exorbitant tax burden; and Whereas the Congress and the President should focus on pro-growth solutions that encourage increased development of domestic resources: Now therefore, be it

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that a carbon tax would be detrimental to American families and businesses, and is not in the best interest of the United States.