Pension Funds Being Told To Invest In Climate Friendly Stocks?


Why is our government working so hard to undermine free markets and propel a left-wing world socialist agenda? We all know that the UN group – an international panel of experts on climate change – contains factions convinced that capitalism is at the origin of global warming (a theory that CO2 emissions from Humanity is causing a catastrophic warming of our planet), as capitalism creates abundance and too much resources and is responsible for the current trend of global warming for 10,000 years. Incredible nonsense this group comes with.

Indeed, I would like to recommend reading an article from The Wall Street Journal; 19.11.2015 "Forcing a green policy on pension funds – the Labor Department of Obama wants pensioners' portfolios to dispose of their holdings of fossil fuels", by Mr Kessler. It turns out that the SEC is now forcing companies to predict potential losses from future global warming (remember that this is still only a theory).

The article explains how the Obama administration's labor department has asked pension funds to take into account the "climate" in all their investments. What is the problem with that? Well, these pensions invest $ 9 billion in the stock market. To tell them to invest in climate change-friendly actions to support alternative energy companies is nothing more than an attempt to maintain this nonperforming sector, while ROIs come back negative when subsidies, tax breaks and the financing of new alternative energy companies by the government are reduced. For me, it is a strong sign that the alternative energy bubble is about to go to the South Pole and enter a cold freeze. What you say? I think it is a criminal behavior of the regulators – they are trying to direct money.

The plan is therefore to force retirees to create green funds in their portfolios, no matter how poorly their return on investment is, and at the same time, the government is arguing for the pursuit of oil companies.

Sue fossil fuel companies to stop them?

Oh, so you want to pursue the energy companies? That's what the communists tried to do when they entered the fire of environmentalism, that's also what the eco-terrorists suggest, but when they do not win their case, they start blowing up stuff? If you pursue energy companies, which has been done in the past, utilities pass these costs on to the consumer, which increases the costs of energy. If the consumer is the so-called group with a% of cases of asthma, he loses twice.

When environmentalists pursue energy companies for developing their RREs, often to use clean energy technologies within these plants (eg AL, GA, PA, DE), they can not switch to less polluting systems. Of course, alternative energy companies think that they should be exempted; Wind turbines and ultrasounds, killing birds, bats, etc., or solar panels in the desert harming the habitats of desert turtles.

I guess the Obama administration wants to keep the fossil fuel sector (petroleum, coal and natural gas) in the dark, so alternative energy companies will be able to change their higher prices, generate more profits in a subsidized industry and protected by the government without hurting pensioners during their flights. the energy sector. Wow, what kind of bird brain thought this strategy – maybe this bird was hit in the head by a wind turbine – yeah, that would explain well.

Comments are closed.