Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
Vanguard is quitting the Net-Zero alliance NZAM/GFANZ.
GFANZ (Global Financial Alliance for Net-Zero; 04/2021- ) includes 550 members with $150 trillion AUM. Mark Carney (BOE) has been the prime mover for GFANZ; Michael Bloomberg is Co-Chair. Within GFANZ, there are 7 sector specific alliances and NZAM is for asset-managers.
Vanguard said that in managing its index funds, it didn't want to be constrained by Net-Zero objectives; it also didn't want its investors to be confused by contradictions from its membership in NZAM/GFANZ. Some other US companies are also thinking of leaving GFANZ after a rush to join this new alliance.
Typical Vanguard tying to have your cake and eat it too.
And this one has so many additional angles -- some countries guilt tripping the G7 to wrangle money, NIMBY, etc..
If Miami sinks tomorrow sure the US might get serious and everybody knows without US involvement not much will happen. The other members of the G7 will be parasites on this item same as NATO and UN budgets.
When Miami sinks, DeSantis will demand all the other US taxpayers bail them out, although he voted against and railed against aid for Super Storm Sandy
That is pretty much the credo of some GOP politicians.
I got mine, screw the rest of you (but I'll come back for more when I need it)
A pretty sad state of affairs on the awareness of the electorate when so many red states are net takers from the federal money pot but still bash the blue states that are net contributors (and the voters still lap it up anyway)
As a result of past contention it was well established that the majority of MFO members are primarily interested in financial matters, and do not appreciate excursions into politically contentious arenas.
Those of us who have been very long-term MFO participants will recall that this tension resulted in such divisiveness among MFO posters that management decided to disallow virtually all non-financial commentary. It took a lot of persuasion to create the Off-Topic section as an arena for such discussions. The commentary in that section does not migrate to any of the other discussion sections, so as keep those sections primarily confined to purely financial matters, honoring the preferences of the majority of MFO posters.
It's in the best interests of all of us to keep this in mind as we post. I realize that sometimes it's hard to do that- occasionally I find myself compelled to go a bit over the line. The previous presidential administration certainly made it very difficult to insulate financial commentary from the stench of political reality.
Anyway, try to keep all of that in mind as we wade through life.
I hear the message, over and out on this topic.
Politics can be extremely divisive - I've witnessed major kerfuffles on other investment boards.
However, it is hard to have a discussion about "climate change" investing without acknowledging the immense attack by several GOP governors and legislatures on carbon transition investments, in some cases perhaps to protect their fossil fuel economy.
Texas at least, can claim their economic interests are at stake, although with the huge wind and solar arrays there, they will probably do pretty well with renewable energy.
It is not clear why FL continues to deny the origins of rapidly rising sea levels, caused by increasing global temperatures, caused by rapid CO2 rises since the beginning of the oil powered economy and even more rapidly since WW2. NEE, the old Florida Power and Light is probably the most innovative renewable energy utility in the world, but the state government seems intent on preventing investors from supporting it's innovations with directed investments.
To me them lumping "climate change" into the other social agenda items ("anti-woke" per DeSantis) ignores the real economic implications of "business as usual" and their citizens will pay a very heavy price, even if some of the companies in those states do very well.
A friend in Florida told me yesterday his home insurance costs have already doubled for next year, although he was not affected by any of the recent hurricanes. I do not see how either state can avoid rapidly increasing costs of summer cooling, drought, insurance, infrastructure and disaster relief
Are you implying Texas has huge solar & wind projects at this time or they could develop them ? I've traveled to & through Houston on my way to coastal Bend area for six years & have as yet to see a wind turbine or solar farm.
Perchance I'm not in the right area as TX is quite large
I did note one car being charged via plug in.
Wind 22% second only to natural gas 44%
Map of its distribution: https://windexchange.energy.gov/states/tx
TX is currently 2nd in installed solar (after CA, although TX was 1st in 2021); see
TX wind power
Thanks for the info, Derf
Sorry about formatting.
Rank: State: Electricity production from renewables: Largest renewable energy source: Largest non-renewable energy source:
1 Vermont 99.9% Hydroelectric Natural gas
2 Maine 78.6% Hydroelectric Natural gas
3 Idaho 76.3% Hydroelectric Natural gas
4 South Dakota 73.8% Hydroelectric Coal
5 Washington 69.8% Hydroelectric Natural gas
6 Oregon 62.2% Hydroelectric Natural gas
7 California 48.2% Hydroelectric Natural gas
8 Montana 44.7% Hydroelectric Coal
9 Iowa 43.6% Wind Coal
10 Kansas 41.7% Wind Coal
11 Oklahoma 39.1% Wind Natural gas
12 North Dakota 35.0% Wind Coal
13 Alaska 29.7% Hydroelectric Natural gas
14 New York 28.5% Hydroelectric Natural gas
15 Nevada 28.4% Solar Natural gas
16 Colorado 24.9% Wind Coal
17 Minnesota 24.3% Wind Coal
18 New Mexico 24.2% Wind Coal
19 Nebraska 23.2% Wind Coal
20 Texas 18.8% Wind Natural gas
Wind power will keep growing in TX and so will solar both due to the abundance of land.