Let's begin with three paragraphs I never thought I'd read, much less transcribe (emphasis, mine):
A British court last month issued extraordinarily harsh prison sentences to five climate activists convicted of helping to plan a series of road blockades in London. One of the activists, Roger Hallam, 58, a co-founder of the direct action groups Just Stop Oil and Extinction Rebellion, got five years. The others were each sentenced to four years.
Mr. Hallam’s crime wasn’t that he participated in the protest, which snarled London’s major beltway, the M25, during four days in November 2022. He merely gave a 20-minute talk on Zoom, a few days before the event, to explain the tactics of civil disobedience and emphasize its value as society’s failure to curb carbon emissions is increasing the chance of catastrophe within our lifetimes. He also stated during the Zoom call that he thought the action should go forward.
This is only the latest example of a wave of repressive government measures against climate protesters across Europe. The crackdown has come in response to a rise in demonstrations and disruptive tactics such as blocking roads and access to airports, defacing art in museums and interrupting sporting events.
Who'd a thunk it? In Europe, much less the UK, of all places.
Why, whatever will Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg (AKA: "Doom Pixie," per one of my RedState colleagues) do about this awful development? Besides scowl even more hatefully, I mean.
The above block quote is from an August 2024 op-ed in The New York Times titled "Europe’s Crackdown on Environmental Dissent Is Silencing Voices the World Needs to Hear," by Christopher Ketcham, who is currently writing a book about direct climate action and citizen rebellion in defense of nature. Needless to say, I'm sure Mr. Ketchum would disagree with everything you're about to read.
In one example of the crackdown on climate activists, in large part due to public frustration with their ridiculous tactics, former British Prime Minister Rishi Sunaj in 2023 endorsed a tougher approach after two climate protesters were sentenced to prison terms for "creating a public nuisance" by climbing the Queen Elizabeth bridge in Kent, which led to 40 hours of traffic gridlock. In a post to X (formerly Twitter) Sunak wrote:
Those who break the law should feel the full force of it. It's entirely right that selfish protestors intent on causing misery to the hard-working majority face tough sentences. It's what the public expects and it's what we've delivered.
Amen — and somewhat humorous. Climate loons often intentionally cause hardships for others; how appropriate that they should as a result be delivered hardship for doing so.
ALSO READ: Climate Science v. Climate Activism: Only One Is Fact-Based
Meanwhile, in the United States, if you haven't heard, there's a new sheriff moving into the White House in less than a month. This new sheriff isn't very fond of the subject of "climate change," much less anthropomorphic climate change.
President-elect Donald Trump has long called global warming a “scam,” and is likely to reverse many of President Joe "Climate Change Is the Existential Threat to Mankind" Biden’s extreme climate policies.
For starters, Trump is expected to withdraw from the Paris Agreement, which in my view is little more than one of the greatest hoaxes in history; a massive wealth-redistribution scheme in which Western nations ("developed" countries) agreed to sent billions — and ultimately trillions — of dollars to "undeveloped" countries.
Incidentally, if your country hasn't "developed" by now, chances are it's never going to happen.
Also in Washington, D.C., House Judiciary Chair Reps. Jim Jordan (R- OH) and Thomas Massie (R-KY) demanded on Friday that more than 60 U.S. companies, including BlackRock, State Street Global Advisors, and J.P. Morgan, preserve all documents related to their involvement with climate activist groups.
According to letters exclusively shared with Daily Wire, the lawmakers wrote:
The committee has uncovered evidence that financial institutions are colluding with climate activists through initiatives like the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero (GFANZ) and the Net Zero Asset Managers (NZAM) initiative to collectively adopt and impose left-wing environmental, social, and governance (ESG)-related goals, which may violate U.S. antitrust law.
The Committee has obtained evidence that members of GFANZ and NZAM attempt to impose a ‘net-zero’ climate agenda on U.S. companies in their investment portfolios.
Here's more on the two activist groups:
The Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero describes itself as “a global coalition of leading financial institutions committed to accelerating the decarbonization of the economy.” Net Zero Asset Managers, which says its signers have more than $57.5 trillion under management, is “an international group of asset managers committed, consistent with their fiduciary duty to their clients and beneficiaries, to supporting the goal of net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 or sooner.
Having been in the investment business for nearly 30 years, I know a bit about "fiduciary" responsibilities. My first reaction to the above reference was the legal duty an asset manager has to its clients to manage their money with respect to their goals and objectives, including varying degrees of risk tolerance — not to climate zealots' "net-zero" emissions goals.
In the committee's letter to J.P. Morgan and later shared with Daily Wire, the lawmakers asked if the company has “altered its ‘stewardship and engagement strategy’ with its portfolio companies and/or "taken any actions to push the companies it invests in toward net-zero."
The Committee has reason to believe that J.P. Morgan Asset Management may be in possession of documents and communications related to GFANZ and NZAM’s collusive activity that would inform potential legislative reforms,” the lawmakers wrote. “This letter serves as a formal request to preserve all existing and future records and materials relating to the topics addressed in this letter."
As RedState reported earlier in 2024, several states — West Virginia, Louisiana, and Texas — pulled assets from BlackRock over its involvement in the ESG (Environmental Social Governance) movement.
Texas nixed an $8.5 billion deal with BlackRock after an investigation found that the multi-trillion dollar asset manager was engaging in a boycott of energy companies, while Louisiana also pulled $794 million from the company because of its radical ESG policies.
READ MORE:
Texas Pulls $8.5B From BlackRock in Stunning Blow to ESG Movement
Louisiana Pulls $794 Million From BlackRock to Protest Its Radical Environmental Policies
And in West Virginia, the state treasurer added four more institutions to the state’s Restricted Financial Institution List; Citigroup, TD Bank, HSBC, and The Northern Trust Company, as part of a series of setbacks to climate activism and the ESG movement.
The Bottom Line
Oddly, I'm not clear on a bottom line, here. Will public pressure, and more importantly, financial pressure, help bring an end to radical climate activism? Or will the activists, particularly in the U.S — egged on by the all-too-eager lefttist media — prevail?
