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.
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
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.
🧵👇
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?
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)
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.
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. 🧵👇
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.
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.
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 🧵👇
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.
The Senate bill *looks like* it has a 2027 "placed in service" cutoff for new solar/wind subsidies.
But one last-minute paragraph makes it worthless—because projects making a recoverable 5% investment in the next 12 months are exempt!
The idea of a 2027 "placed in service" cutoff was that new subsidies would actually end during the Trump administration.
But under the last-minute carveout, Big Green has 12 months to initiate as many subsidized projects as it wants using the insanely-easy-to-meet "construction" threshold. (All you need to do is commit 5% of expected project cost to buying re-sellable assets like solar panels.)
Once they declare "construction"—e.g., in July 2026—they'll have 4 years (e.g., July 2030) to "place in service." And then some of those projects, e.g., most wind projects, will get 10 years of subsidies.
So we'll still have wind subsidies on Donald Trump's 94th birthday!
Here's how much worse the Senate bill just got:
* Two days ago: "Placed in service" by 12-31-27—with new subsidized solar/wind projects stopping very quickly, and Trump being able to let subsidies truly end.
* Today: "Placed in service" by JULY 2030—with new subsidized solar/wind projects absolutely spamming the rid and ripping off taxpayers like never before, and Trump having no control over whether the subsidies end.
The current Senate bill is arguably worse than the original Senate Finance one. At least that bill decreased solar/wind subsidies starting in 2026 to 60%. The current bill just increased them to 100%.
The current bill is a solar/wind lobbyist's dream. It does not terminate the Green New Scam in any way, shape or form. It absolutely perpetuates it. And offensively so, I might add, by keeping the "placed in service" cutoff language so many people courageously fought for, then totally undoing it with a single last-minute paragraph that makes it worthless.
If the Senate wanted to extend the Green New Scam it should have said so, not insulted our intelligence by trying to bury the extension in one sneaky little paragraph.
PS Several Senators have already told me they didn't know about or understand this last-minute paragraph. If that's the case they should do whatever they can to fix the situation.
And just to be clear, NOTHING good will come out of extending the Green New Scam.
More on how a "construction" cutoff—e.g., the Senate's new "construction" by July 2026 "cutoff"—is not a cutoff but an extension.
Lobbyists love “construction” by a certain “cutoff” because they get 4 more bonus years of eligibility: a 4-year "safe harbor."
E.g., a solar/wind developer can just put a small amount of money down (5%, most of it recoverable) and it gets 4 more years to cash in the subsidy.
With the earlier Senate 2027 “placed in service” cutoff—no exceptions—new subsidized solar/wind projects would slow to a crawl by early 2026. And President Trump could ensure that subsidies would terminate during his term.
But under the final Senate bill's exemption for projects in "construction" by July 2026—which TOTALLY EXEMPTS PROJECTS FROM "PLACED IN SERVICE" BY 2027—these new unreliable projects will spam our grid at least through 2030 (4 years after the "construction" pseudo-cutoff).
Using the 10-year PTC (Production Tax Credit) subsidy, wind farms will still be collecting subsidies on President Trump’s 94th birthday in 2040!
This disaster for our grid and our budget is unfortunately the best-case scenario for the Senate bill.
Realistically, by extending eligibility for new subsidies well beyond President Trump’s term, the proposal makes it likely that future administrations and Congresses will extend solar and wind subsidies yet again—just as previous ones have done for over 30 years!