Recent setbacks in the fortunes of ESG (environmental, social, and governance) investing have not kept a bloc of deep-pocketed financial institutions from adopting policies fundamentally at odds with farmers’ ability to grow food, a coalition of state agricultural officials said in a Jan. 29 letter to six big banks.
The banks – Bank of America, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, and Wells Fargo – are part of the U.N.-sponsored Net-Zero Banking Alliance (NZBA). Agricultural officials from 11 states and one secretary of agriculture warned in their letter that “we hold serious concerns about the commitments made by your bank as part of the Net-Zero Banking Alliance (NZBA), and the potential impacts on the agricultural sector; specifically, food availability and price increases on consumers, credit access for our farmers and agriculture product producers, and overall negative economic consequences.”
“Due to the potential impacts on agriculture, we are seeking more information on what appear to be troubling environmental commitments by your banks that target our farmers, ranchers, and agriculture producers, with grave consequences for consumers and that undermine the security of our food supply,” the state officials wrote. “More specifically, we understand that you have joined the NZBA and committed to ‘transition[ing] all operational and attributable GHG emissions from [your] lending … portfolios to align with pathways to net zero by mid-century, or sooner.’ To accomplish this goal, NZBA banks must require their customers to measure and disclose the GHG emissions in specific sectors, including agriculture.”
“Implementing these commitments would have severe consequences for American farmers – including cutting America’s beef and livestock consumption in half, switching to inefficient electric farm equipment, and moving away from nitrogen fertilizer necessary for American agriculture to thrive,” the officials write. “We are deeply troubled that your banks have given the U.N. Environment Programme (ENEP) authority to ‘review’ and ‘monitor’ your banks’ climate targets for ‘consistency’ with U.N. criteria, especially given UNEP’s leading role to inciting Sri Lanka to adopt its disastrous fertilizer ban. The documents you have signed indicate that most of you will establish emissions targets for agriculture in 2024 or sooner. With this deadline upon us, we request information and documents relating to your commitments.”
The Perils of Net-Zero
“Achieving net-zero greenhouse gas emissions in agriculture requires a complete overhaul of on-farm infrastructure – one of the goals of the NZBA,” the letter goes on. “This would have a catastrophic impact on our farmers. Proposed net-zero roadmaps describe dramatic, impractical, and costly changes to American farming and ranching operations, such as switching to electric machinery and equipment, installing on-site solar panels and wind turbines, moving to organic fertilizer, altering rice-field irrigation systems, and slashing U.S. ruminant meat consumption in half, costing millions of livestock jobs.”
“To make matters worse, these changes will increase food costs and decrease food production at a time when global food demand is expected to rise dramatically. The ‘green premium’ from low emissions ammonia fertilizer alone is predicted to increase fertilizer costs by up to 60% and food prices by up to 26%, even according to net-zero proponents like the World Economic Forum,” the latter points out.
“As members of the NZBA,” the letter continues, “you have committed to setting ‘net-zero’ targets for your business using the UNEP Finance Initiative’s (UNEP FI) ‘Guidelines for Target Setting for Banks.’ Further, you have agreed to let UNEP review your climate targets, committing to publish [them] annually and share them with UNEP FI for review, to monitor their consistency with the U.N. Race to Zero criteria and evidence that action is being taken. The UNEP then assesses whether you are making ‘progress’ against the NZBA required emissions targets.”
Such a scheme spells disaster not just for U.S. farmers but for farmers around the world. The six banks reveal themselves as charter members of the global climate cartel, working hand in hand with an unaccountable and unelected international agency in a scheme destined to suppress global food production.
The state agricultural officials who, unlike the directors of the big banks and U.N. bureaucrats, know a thing or two about the rigors of farming represent Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, North Dakota, South Carolina, Texas, and West Virginia. Their letter comes amid widespread protests by farmers in France, Germany, Belgium, and elsewhere in Europe against an assortment of climate policies that threaten the livelihoods of food producers. The peasants are getting restless.