Texas suit alleging anti-coal “cartel” of top Wall Street firms could reshape ESG

It’s a closely watched test of whether corporate alliances on climate efforts violate antitrust laws.

See full article...

 

[skyraker]

Lol at this entire argument. "They juiced their profits by having investments in coal companies and then reducing demand for it.". That's a pretty insane leap.

It's more the argument that they used the threat of taking their investment away to force the coal companies to reduce production. This could theoretically cause the stock of the company to decrease and thus lose value for regular investors which these companies could still weather.

It's a stupid argument, because business decisions of a corporation are ALWAYS affected by what the stockholders demand, especially if those stockholders hold a large share of stocks.

 

[fellow human]

I moved most of my retirement plan's money out of the US this year for obvious reasons, but what's left is in Blackrock and this makes me feel a bit better about it.

 

[raschumacher]

I can’t seem to find in the article what “ESG” actually stands for.

Journalism 101: Define all acronyms at first use.

 

[TheFooledGhost]

Even the original article didn't define ESG, so I guess it's a common term in those fields.

It has. Anyone who pays attention to the financial market knows of it. Most ESG investment is less about making money and more of trying to forward goals environmentally and socially.

 

[raschumacher]

In the Republican People's United States, money talks. If you have the option, speak by contracting with your electricity utility for non-fossil energy. And then vote Democrat for every office in every election.

 

[TheOldChevy]

Texas remains at the forefront of ruining the nation.

Let me correct you:

Texas remains at the forefront of ruining the world.

 

[chateauarusi]

Republicans: "We don't need regulation, the market will find a solution!"

Market: (develops a solution)

Republicans: "Not like that!"

 

[ItchyPoo]

Right, the figures seem to differ wildly depending on the site/source. Point being though, the carbon footprint of "USA-nians" (I'm hesitant to use the term "Americans", because, you know there are many Americas and countries within them) is absolutely massive compared to any other country.

According to Wikipedia, for 2023, USA per capita CO2 emissions were 16th largest. 17th for total GHG emissions. You could argue US imports a lot, thus exports their emissions, but so do others. Nit sure it is “massive compared to any other country” though.

 

[TheOldChevy]

Texas took the Wall of Pink Floyd too much to the letter:
"we don't need no education..."

 

[cfenton]

Are they mad that ESG funds exist? Or is it that they don't like that fund managers request ESG data? ESG funds aren't particularly popular, so it's not like they have a big effect on the market. For example VOO, an S&P 500 index fund, seems to be the largest by funds under management at about 738 billion dollars. In comparison, the largest ESG fund I can find is ESGU and it's only about 21 billion.

 

[stk5]

It's not even that consistent, it's purely ideological. They would never sue the fossil fuels industries for coming together to promote fossil fuels usage.

Yeah, it's yet another half-cocked culture war bludgeon in today's era of brain-rotted, grievance-based governance. What makes it clear to me is that methane is conspicuously absent from their whining, despite it making up for the brunt coal's decline.

 

[JerryLove]

I'd love for this to set precedent when corporations do something bad en masse, but in the John Roberts era, stare decsis is dead.

Only if it's unpopular with the republicans. Otherwise they cry "socialism" and call for a free market.

 

[JerryLove]

I'm not sure I or anyone really understands the argument the plaintiffs are trying to make. If anyone with sufficient capital can buy a firm and drive in into the ground on purpose, there's no reason several shareholders in the firm would be excluded from doing so, right? Unless they actually constitute an anti-trust violation, are shareholders supposed to be accountable to someone? It's their equity and their future returns in jeopardy. Maybe they're colluding with state actors to embezzle billions from carbon capture BS (some other statute might apply) or kneecap nuclear simultaneously in favor of solar/wind because they have a lot of photovoltaic raw material holdings..... That's the entire point of finance capitalism...

I think there are a few reasons for that.

The first is that the plaintiffs are "republican lawmakers" who are correctly seen as corrupt shills for Trump.

Secondly, it's correctly seen as hypocritical from a group of plaintiffs that are more than happy to pass laws requiring, for example, investment funds to invest in oil and not green energy regardless of whether it's in the financial best interest of the fund, as they have done before.

Thirdly, that appears to be a hypothetical extreme rather than the case with the actual defendants.

Fourth: the plantiffs have a long history of manipulating the market for personal gain and are complaining that an owner might manipulate a company for personal gain? Have they met Elon Musk or asked how AI purchases by Tesla are funneled to X?

And BTW: purchasing a company to shut it down was, at one point, pretty common (the 80s where companies were routinely work more dead than alive).

 

[Phone Sterilizer]

So, um, how are investment companies supposed to, you know actually make investments if they aren’t allowed to invest in where they think the growth is going to be?

 

[LeftCoastRusty]

Paxton is all hat and no cattle. They can’t show one single instance of communication between investment companies nor one instance of communication between an investment firm and a coal company telling them to reduce production. I fact a bunch of coal companies increased production during the stated time.

This suit is going no where. Just playing to the base.

 

[BCGeiger]

Wasn’t it Texas that was suing people for insulting beef a few years ago?

 

[numerobis]

Wasn’t it Texas that was suing people for insulting beef a few years ago?

I thought it was other southern states, but maybe Texas joined in.

 

[TheFooledGhost]

No, it’s about greenwashing. You make just as much money, but you feel better about it because it says on the tin that it’s better.

At the individual level, yes. On the scale of banks, no. ESG often loses large groups money, but is used for an investing group's social goals.

 

[timeline404]

If three index funds agreeing that flood maps matter is ‘conspiracy,’ wait till they see the Chamber of Commerce.

 

[tgeeks]

So the GOP is really the PCP or Pro-Cancer-Party since coal mining literally gives their constituents cancer. smh

https://archive.kftc.org/issues/health-impacts-coal-mining

Health Impacts of Coal Mining​

In eastern Kentucky our water, land and air are contaminated by mountaintop removal. Volumes of scientific studies illustrate the harm to human health from exposure to dust and numerous toxins released into the air and water by surface mining.

In recent years, several peer-reviewed studies have demonstrated that:

• people living near mountaintop mining have cancer rates of 14.4% compared to 9.4% for people elsewhere in Appalachia
• the rate of children born with birth defects was 42% higher in areas near mountaintop removal mining
• the public health costs of pollution from coal operations in Appalachia amount to a staggering $75 billion a year

Surface and ground water near mountaintop removal carries elevated levels of heavy metals and carcinogens that can persist for decades after mining ceases. Scientists have found evidence that soil has also been affected, most likely by the large amounts of diesel fuel used in blasting. And airborne particles near mining sites contain ammonium nitrate, silica and sulfur compounds, to name a few.

 

[numerobis]

At the individual level, yes. On the scale of banks, no. ESG often loses large groups money, but is used for an investing group's social goals.

Uh... you got a citation for that?

I've seen that there's basically no difference in returns. When the oil price drops, ESG funds are better; when it rises, ESG funds do worse, but that's basically just that they're not as exposed to oil prices.

 

[crepuscularbrolly]

Republicans literally want to burn the world.

 

[Steve Oakley]

the answer is simple : take this law suite and file it mostly verbatim with appropriate adjustments against some conservative PAC, megachurch, conservative investment co such as Thrivant that only invests in "companies aligned with Luthern values". exact same thing. fight fire with fire. let them win to hurt themselves. the only ones who benefit will the be the law firms, otherwise this is such a waste of time, literal energy, human life and effort for BS.

also Paxton isn't going to run for AG in 2026 so if they easily drag this out 2 years just in preliminary hearings, the next AG may well drop the suite. vote pandering 201.

 

[bebu]

As a Finn, I kinda wish we could just isolate the US from the rest of the world. Including the atmosphere.

I was going to add "and fumigate it" but those fossil fuel burners will do it to themselves with their emissions.

 

[the cave troll]

Right, the figures seem to differ wildly depending on the site/source. Point being though, the carbon footprint of "USA-nians" (I'm hesitant to use the term "Americans", because, you know there are many Americas and countries within them) is absolutely massive compared to any other country.

I am not sure why you are hesitant to use the word Americans to refer to people in the United States of America because it has been used this way in the English language for hundreds of years so there is no ambiguity. To the extent that it is less than ideal, well, the continents themselves were just named by some random mapmaker so it's all arbitrary all the way down.

 

[jdale]

Journalism 101: Define all acronyms at first use.

Only acronyms that the reader isn't expected to know. For example, you won't see many articles explaining what "USA" stands for, because it's reasonable to expect the reader to know.

This article comes from Inside Climate News. It might be reasonable to expect their readers are familiar with ESG, perhaps more than Ars readers.

That said, the first sentence concludes 'the Republican pushback against “environmental, social and governance” efforts such as corporate climate commitments.' (Emphasis added.) The astute reader might recognize that the three words in quotes, which Republicans are reportedly pushing back against, and which appear to be central to the point of the story, correspond to the three letters of the acronym.

 

[AusPeter]

Only acronyms that the reader isn't expected to know. For example, you won't see many articles explaining what "USA" stands for, because it's reasonable to expect the reader to know.

This article comes from Inside Climate News. It might be reasonable to expect their readers are familiar with ESG, perhaps more than Ars readers.

That said, the first sentence concludes 'the Republican pushback against “environmental, social and governance” efforts such as corporate climate commitments.' (Emphasis added.) The astute reader might recognize that the three words in quotes, which Republicans are reportedly pushing back against, and which appear to be central to the point of the story, correspond to the three letters of the acronym.

Yes the first sentence concludes that. But “ESG” isn’t mentioned until 2 paragraphs later. So there is a huge disconnect.

 

[forkspoon]

No doubt their absurdly ideological gymnastics would declare ESG to be a cartel, but also ISPs to somehow be free market darlings that should have public money shovelled at them forever.

Education would be the best antidote to their endless Orwellian BS. But it seems education is almost entirely vocational nowadays, so critical thinking does not have much critical mass.

 

[Tonkaman]

I think at least some of this is true. I know that banks deny credit for companies based on whatever criteria they like, instead of just financials. I think if you just looked at financials, and kept the "what do you do" (as long as what you are doing isn't illegal) out of it, then it would be a more equal system. Coal might not be the hill to stand on for this, but what if it is something else next (say natural gas)? You could argue natural gas will be the next most likely candidate for this sort of action. And power companies would love to hike the cost of energy, without it costing them anything, by decreasing the amount of power available. If they take down a coal or gas fired powerplant (and they have taken down many coal plants in TX), why aren't they replacing it with anything new? Well, that would be because they are making a ton more with less costs, which will lead to huge profits for the next few years. Yes, they will eventually put something in place, but they will drag their heels until then.

Except they ARE just looking at the financials. Coal usage has been in decline for literally the last 100 years (it began in the 1920s). Coal is currently the second most expensive form of electricity generation, second only to nuclear which requires massive state subsidies to be profitable. And that's not even looking at the potential liabilities from mining cleanup and the health impacts to workers that the industry may be on the hook for, reducing profitability even more. There's a long list of problems before climate change gets discussed.

 

[Spiders from Mars]

Let me correct you:

Texas remains at the forefront of ruining the world.

My brother in law has significant dealing with texas industrialists, and based on the stories he tell us, one could not make a believable satire about how extreme are their views about taxes, oil, and the desirability of the forced conversion of all democratic voters to the one true faith of oil today, oil tomorrow, and oil forever.

(Edit: god told them taxes were Satan's work, so I made that a bit more clear)

 

[AusPeter]

My brother in law has significant dealing with texas industrialists, and based on the stories he tell us, one could not make a believable satire about how extreme are their views about taxes, oil, and the desirability of the forced conversion of all democratic voters to the one true faith of oil today, oil tomorrow, and oil forever.

(Edit: god told them taxes were Satan's work, so I made that a bit more clear)

So none of the “render unto Caesar…” malarkey?

 

[numerobis]

So none of the “render unto Caesar…” malarkey?

US evangelicals reject the vast bulk of the New Testament. They're fond of Revelations but the rest is all woke nonsense.

 

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Luckily, it's a lot easier to refute allegations that your tinkering with the 'free market' is 'socialist' if you are quite overt about not even pretending that it is well intentioned.

 

[SportivoA]

And to break character for a second, what in the flying fuck is up with fighting tooth and nail for coal? It's what, 60,000 jobs? I do not intend to dehumanize the miners themselves, but it's the nastiest, some of the most dangerous work that exists, it's horrible for the planet, and yet waves hand this bullshit persists. I know the real, cynical but truthful reasons - it represents a call back to a time when coal was relevant, when strong manly (white) men would come home from a day in the mines coughing up blood and tissue, to own the libs and far-out green party eco nerds who like, uh, breathing and not having every toxin imaginable dusted up and burned into in the air, water, and land.

The sterile, perfect cleanroom of the semiconductor fab. The standard cleanroom manufacturing for the batteries. Lines of well-kept reflow ovens after the pick-and-place for inverters. Winders for every size of electrical motor (or generator). Soaring warehouses for winding football-field sized blades. If only the grit weren't so attractive to these people... And, you know, it's nice having clean air.

 

[redshadow]

Thank goodness those hard-working, free-market, small government Republicans are fighting to defend the market's intrinsic agency in finding optimized* solutions, rather than filing frivolous suits with reasoning that doesn't even qualify as specious as much "lying, plainly lying."

*Your optimized results may vary if you are poor, a person of color, or live in the wrong neighborhood/city/state.

And to break character for a second, what in the flying fuck is up with fighting tooth and nail for coal? It's what, 60,000 jobs? I do not intend to dehumanize the miners themselves, but it's the nastiest, some of the most dangerous work that exists, it's horrible for the planet, and yet waves hand this bullshit persists. I know the real, cynical but truthful reasons - it represents a call back to a time when coal was relevant, when strong manly (white) men would come home from a day in the mines coughing up blood and tissue, to own the libs and far-out green party eco nerds who like, uh, breathing and not having every toxin imaginable dusted up and burned into in the air, water, and land.

This fucking country.

Seriously the issues around coal are fucking insane. If you interview every single coal miner in this country if they want their kids mining coal, I bet 90%+ will say "Fuck no I do this so they don't have to.". Of course they then go on an support politicians and policies that cripple education and ensure their kids futures are limited to coal mining or dealing meth to coal miners.

 

[RunUpHill]

The pro-free-market editorial board of The Wall Street Journal in June called the Texas-led lawsuit “misconceived,” its logic “strained” and its theories “bizarre.”

My vote is for Bizarre.

 

[Wheels Of Confusion]

They fund GOP legislators, so that’s legal. The problem is companies that fund Democrats.

They don't even "fund Democrats." They're literally just trying to reduce risk on their investments from climate change and its contributors, reducing the number of stranded assets they're left with, etc.

Are they mad that ESG funds exist? Or is it that they don't like that fund managers request ESG data?

They don't want financial institutions to make climate change a priority.

Wasn’t it Texas that was suing people for insulting beef a few years ago?

Almost thirty?
https://www.britannica.com/story/a-brief-history-of-food-libel-laws

 

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Seriously the issues around coal are fucking insane. If you interview every single coal miner in this country if they want their kids mining coal, I bet 90%+ will say "Fuck no I do this so they don't have to.". Of course they then go on an support politicians and policies that cripple education and ensure their kids futures are limited to coal mining or dealing meth to coal miners.

It's even weirder in the places where mountaintop removal is the economically preferred model. That's both comparatively less labor intensive(more volume of material moved; but much easier to use heavy equipment on the surface rather than underground) and totally moonscapes the place for somewhere between 'centuries' and 'geologic time'; to a much greater extent than just tailings piles and acid mine drainage and stuff.

Hate liberal degeneracy all you want; but we aren't literally annihilating your entire ecosystem, FFS.