Alex Epstein Profile picture
Jan 18, 2022 12 tweets 5 min read Read on X
Breaking: A previously-unreleased pro-oil/gas letter sent by @BlackRock to Texas lawmakers and oil/gas executives reveals that the company is simultaneously 1) trying to gain status by supporting anti-oil/gas net zero goals, and 2) trying not to lose any pro-oil/gas investors.
🧵
BlackRock's Larry Fink is the #1 leader in the financial world for the economically baseless idea that the global economy should and will be net-zero by 2050. This idea would mean the rapid and total or near-total destruction of the oil and gas industry.
alexepstein.substack.com/p/the-esg-move…
In response to BlackRock and others advocating anti-oil-and-gas "net zero" policies, TX pension funds have started refusing to do business with anti-oil/gas institutions. BlackRock's response: a covert PR campaign to tell TX lawmakers and oil execs that it's very pro oil/gas!
Reading BlackRock's PR letter to TX lawmakers and oil execs, you would think that BlackRock has been a public champion of oil and gas--instead of the #1 advocate for "net zero" policies that necessitate the near-term destruction of oil and gas and have already slashed investment.
In his 2021 Letter to CEOs, Larry Fink said BlackRock is "committed to supporting the goal of net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 or sooner"--which means "emissions need to decline by 8-10% annually between 2020 and 2050."
This would obviously destroy the oil/gas industry.
The BlackRock-led "net zero" ESG movement is a major cause of oil/gas investment declining dramatically, leading to unnecessarily high prices. From 2011-2021, oil/gas exploration investments declined by 50%. Less investment = less supply = higher prices.
alexepstein.substack.com/p/the-esg-move…
BlackRock's TX letter repeatedly and validly praises oil and gas companies--e.g., "these companies play crucial roles in the economy" and warns against rapid elimination. But such thoughts and warnings were totally absent from Larry Fink's ultra-influential 2021 Letter to CEOs.
Larry Fink's 2021 Letter to CEOs was pure climate catastrophism and "net zero" fantasy--to the point that his only comment about China, which was and is rapidly increasing its fossil fuel use, was to praise China's "historic commitments to achieve net zero emissions"!
Larry Fink's 2022 Letter to CEOs should have
1) Explicitly acknowledged the immense value of oil/gas and the peril of rapid elimination and
2) Explicitly acknowledged and apologized for BlackRock's role in causing today's oil/gas underinvestment and shortages.

It does neither.
Instead of acknowledging oil/gas's immense value and apologizing for BlackRock's role in today's energy shortages, Larry Fink's 2022 letter makes a trivializing reference to their value and does not even mention today's energy crisis, let alone reflect on BlackRock's culpability.
Here is the full letter that BlackRock circulated among TX lawmakers and oil/gas executives.

While I am the first to release this letter, I am not breaking any laws/confidentiality in doing so.

Note: BlackRock mislabeled the year as 2021 instead of 2022.
industrialprogress.com/blackrock/
Texans and others shouldn't be fooled by BlackRock's PR campaign to pretend to be big supporters of oil and gas while leading the "net zero" policy push that will destroy oil and gas--and, as a result, the global economy and standard of living.
alexepstein.substack.com/p/the-esg-move…

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Alex Epstein

Alex Epstein Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @AlexEpstein

Oct 24
Myth: Fossil fuels have made the planet less livable.

Truth: Fossil fuels have made the planet incomparably more livable, by fueling an unprecedented increase in humanity’s productive ability.

(A summary of Fossil Future Ch 4, part 1 of 3)

🧵👇 Image
The Full Benefits of Continuing Fossil Fuel Use

To properly evaluate fossil fuels, we need to understand their full benefits and side-effects.

It's crucial to start with their benefits, since these can often be used to neutralize and overwhelm their negative side-effects.
Understanding the benefits of anything requires knowing 1) the state of human flourishing and 2) the role of that thing.

E.g., understanding antibiotics’ benefits requires knowing 1) we’re safer than ever from infectious disease and 2) antibiotics have an essential role.
Read 27 tweets
Oct 21
Myth: Elon Musk opposes all EV subsidies.

Truth: Elon, through Tesla, has been one of America's biggest advocates of direct and indirect EV subsidies—and of punishments for Tesla's competitors.

🧵👇 Image
Elon Musk likes to tell us that he is against all energy subsidies, including EV subsidies.

Yet the company he runs is one of America's biggest and most successful advocates of EV subsidies.

What gives? Image
Tesla under Elon Musk's leadership has consistently advocated for EV subsidies in various forms, including:

1) Biden's EV mandate (the most extreme form of subsidy)
2) Biden's EV subsidies (a direct EV subsidy)
3) Biden's heightened "CAFE" standards (an indirect EV subsidy)
Read 17 tweets
Oct 14
Why are leading institutions so biased against fossil fuels?

Because their operating “anti-impact framework” causes them to view fossil fuels, which are inherently high impact, as intrinsically immoral and inevitably self-destructive.

A summary of Fossil Future, Chapter 3 🧵👇
An Anti-Human Moral Goal and Standard

Our knowledge system’s opposition to fossil fuels while ignoring their enormous benefits can only be explained by it operating on an anti-human moral goal and standard of evaluation that regards benefits to human life as morally unimportant.
Outside the realm of energy, an example of an anti-human moral goal at work is the scientists who, operating on the anti-human moral goal of animal equality, oppose animal testing for medical research and disregard its life-saving benefits to humans.
Read 22 tweets
Oct 2
LCOE must die.

If you ever hear anyone favorably compare solar and wind to coal, gas, or nuclear by citing a low LCOE—"Levelized Cost of Energy"—you are being scammed.

LCOE explicitly ignores "reliability-related considerations" and is therefore a garbage metric. 🧵👇 Image
You've heard it over and over: "Solar and wind are now cheaper than fossil fuels."

You might suspect something is wrong here, because if solar/wind were so cheap their developers wouldn't always be asking for subsidies, or claim the sky is falling when subsidies are taken away. Image
The suspicious claim that "Solar and wind are now cheaper than fossil fuels" is usually justified using an intimidating-sounding metric called LCOE: "Levelized Cost of Energy."

LCOE is used all the time in prestigious publications and in government.
Read 18 tweets
Oct 1
Our “knowledge system”—the people and institutions we rely upon to research, synthesize, disseminate, and evaluate expert knowledge—consistently ignores the massive, life-or-death benefits of fossil fuels.

A summary of Fossil Future, Chapter 1 🧵👇 Image
Save the World With…Fossil Fuels?

I am going to try to persuade you of something that might seem impossible: that one of the best things you can do to make the world a better place is to fight for more fossil fuel use—more use of oil, coal, and natural gas.
Questioning the “Expert” Moral Case for Eliminating Fossil Fuels

We're told rapidly eliminating fossil fuels is the expert consensus, but consider: 1) sometimes the alleged “expert” view is wrong, and 2) eliminating fossil fuels is a radical and potentially disastrous change.
Read 32 tweets
Sep 20
Apple, Google, Meta and hundreds of other companies claim be "100% renewable" while using mostly fossil fuel electricity.

How is this possible?

Because an FTC rule called the "Green Guides" lets them buy so-called "credits" to count others' solar and wind use as their own. 🧵👇 Image
No significant US company is close to being "100% renewable," since all such companies rely on the mostly fossil fuel electricity grid.

But in 2012, the Obama FTC rewrote a guidance document called the "Green Guides" to let companies falsely claim to be "100% renewable" anyway.
The FTC has published the "Green Guides" since 1992 to specify what constitutes deceptive environmental marketing claims under The FTC Act.

In particular the Green Guides specify when it is misleading—and therefore illegal—to claim to use a given amount of "renewable" energy.
Read 20 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(