Why the ESG vs. GOP war over energy and climate change is going nowhere

Published

3 years ago

October 5, 2022

admin

Wall Street is no stranger to culture wars, dating to William Jennings Bryan and the 19th-century free silver movement. Today’s version: The push by conservative states to make state pension funds stop doing business with money managers who use their power to press companies to cut carbon emissions.

There’s a list of reasons to suspect the pushback won’t much affect the movement toward investing that factors in environmental, social and corporate governance goals alongside shorter-term financial performance.

First, the blowback to ESG is confined to a few states so far, with Republican politicians in other states raising issues but taking only limited action. Even where states have acted, the steps seem likely to have little impact on investment firms that consider ESG in choosing stocks – which is nearly all major asset managers. And politicians are preparing for an assault on ESG based on antitrust claims – but institutional investors have framed their strategies to steer clear of legal theories Republican state attorneys general are pursuing, legal experts say.

“It’s not only vaporware, it’s ridiculous vaporware,” said David Nadig, an expert on exchange-traded funds and financial futurist at VettaFi, which owns ETFDatabase.com. Vaporware is software-industry slang for products that are announced but never reach store shelves. “They say they’re boycotting companies that are boycotting the energy industry, and then they find out BlackRock manages energy funds.”

The tussle between conservative states, with officials in Florida and Texas being the most vocal, and Wall Street is specifically about how investors should use their money to take sides in debates over energy policy and climate change. More broadly, it’s another front in America’s culture wars, with politicians positioning themselves as fighting back against what Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis calls “woke” corporations.

“Corporate power has increasingly been utilized to impose an ideological agenda on the American people through the perversion of financial investment priorities under the euphemistic banners of environmental, social, and corporate governance and diversity, inclusion, and equity,” DeSantis said in a July 28 statement announcing that the state would bar its pension funds from considering ESG criteria in making investments.

ESG is a branch of investing based on screening securities based on their issuers’ environmental, social and corporate governance practices. Companies with low carbon emissions, transparent governance and good labor relations, for example, may get high ESG scores from arbiters such as Sustainalytics and Standard & Poor’s. Companies that make tobacco, oil and weapons often do poorly.

Some ESG investments are separated from other stocks, held by mutual funds and exchange traded funds specializing in companies that either have high ESG scores or avoid certain industries, including fossil fuels. A much larger number of funds continue to hold stocks in industries criticized on ESG grounds, while portfolio managers pressure companies to improve governance practices and cut their pollution.

Members of the five-year-old Climate Action 100+ coalition, for example, control more than $68 trillion in assets, most of it held by traditional money managers rather than ESG funds, said Kirsten Snow Spalding, senior director of the Ceres Investor Network and a spokesperson for the Climate Action 100+.

Florida and Texas have taken different approaches, each of which highlights the uphill climb anti-“woke” politicians face in trying to derail ESG investment.

Florida’s Board of Administration adopted what amount to guidelines, without specific enforcement measures, even as DeSantis vowed to introduce follow-up legislation next year. (DeSantis’ office didn’t respond to written questions from CNBC.com). The resolution requires that Florida’s pension funds consider only the likely financial performance of prospective investments, putting no weight on politics.

Texas’ SB-13 bill, adopted last year, is more coercive, or appears to be. Drafted using a model from the conservative American Legislative Exchange Council, the Texas law requires state pension funds to divest from companies that “boycott” energy companies. But, in an important exception, it excludes any requirement to divest most investment funds managed by those companies.

And attorneys general in 19 states signed an Aug. 4 letter to New York-based asset management giant BlackRock, arguing that ESG investing damages energy companies by pushing for lower carbon emissions, raising the question of whether investor pressure violates antitrust laws.

“While couched in language about long-term value, BlackRock’s alignment of engagement priorities with environmental and social goals, such as the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals, suggests at a minimum a mixed motive,” the letter said. “BlackRock’s actions appear to intentionally restrain and harm the competitiveness of the energy markets.”

The Texas law has gotten off to a rocky start.

In its initial effort to identify companies that boycott energy businesses — a linchpin of Texas’ economy — the Texas State Comptroller’s office only identified one U.S-based firm, New York-based BlackRock, which manages $8.5 trillion in assets, and nine foreign firms including UBS and Credit Suisse.

Spokespeople for Texas’ Attorney General Ken Paxton and Comptroller of Public Accounts Glenn Hegar did not respond to requests for comment. Texas Teachers spokesman Rob Maxwell said the fund will divest stocks as the law requires.

BlackRock is a prime target: it is the world’s largest money manager by assets. But it denies that it boycotts energy investments at all. Its $2 billion U.S. Energy Fund, for example, has ExxonMobil, Chevron and ConocoPhillips as its three top holdings. The largest renewable-energy play in the fund, solar panel-maker First Solar, comprises less than 1 percent of its holdings. Other BlackRock funds hold energy stocks as part of broader stock indexes, and still others avoid fossil fuel investments.

“You can look up Exxon and Chevron and we’re among their top five holders,” BlackRock spokesman Ed Sweeney said. BlackRock indeed owns 6.2 percent of ExxonMobil, according to the company’s annual proxy disclosure in April.

BlackRock is feeling the pressure to make this case more vocally since the political backlash began, and its recent comments on energy investing and its softer touch at shareholder meetings has led to pushback from climate investors.

BlackRock’s ESG approach is based on pressing companies for change from the inside, Sweeney said. The company voted against re-electing three directors at Exxon in 2021, for example, which climate investors had hoped was a tipping point for the company in using its shareholder power to be more aggressive in proxy contests. But the company says it has actually gotten more supportive of incumbent management teams this year, voting for fewer shareholder resolutions than in 2021 because companies are becoming more aggressive about climate mitigation.

That’s how most ESG investing works, says Spalding.

The CA 100+ approach is based on having shareholders lobby corporate managers for lower emissions, earlier and more detailed disclosure of emission-reduction plans, and improved corporate governance, she said. Specific CA100+ members take the lead in tracking each of the 166 high-carbon-emitting companies the network follows, communicating their findings to the group through semi-annual surveys, and must remain shareholders in order to be the group’s emissary to that company, she said.

“It’s as far from a boycott as you can get,” said Spalding, who is both a former law professor and an Episcopal priest. “The bright line in our approach is that each institution makes its own decisions.”

The broader ESG community would have little problem with Florida’s approach, since ESG is based on the idea that mismanaged climate risk will eventually hurt companies’ bottom lines, Spalding said. “These are big institutions with a very clear sense of their fiduciary duty,” she said. They are clearly working on what they consider a systemic financial risk.”

Legal experts say that each institution’s independence in acting on climate goals is likely to insulate them from the antitrust claims that state attorneys general are investigating.

Antitrust law, which bars combinations in restraint of trade because they often raise prices and impede competition, can bar boycotts, especially if they’re launched to make a company change its prices, said Hill Wellford, a partner at Vinson & Elkins, who presented a paper on ESG and antitrust at this spring’s conference of the American Bar Association.

But a network like CA100+ that shares information, without dictating what each member should do about it, is unlikely to qualify unless the state AGs find facts about coordinated action that haven’t yet been disclosed, he said. That’s unlikely since big companies with on-staff lawyers understand how to stay out of trouble, because the law is well-settled, he said.

“If it’s not concerted action, it’s not a boycott,” said Michael Carrier, anti-trust expert at Rutgers Law School in Camden, N.J.

Where does ESG fit into your portfolio? Join us virtually on Thursday, October 6 for our 2nd annual ESG Impact where we’ll hear from business leaders from Amazon, Heart Aerospace, United Airlines Ventures, Engine No.1 and more on how they are turning ideas into action to ensure a more sustainable & equitable future. Visit cnbcevents.com to learn more and register now.

Environment

Daimler CEO just dropped some pretty WILD pro-hydrogen claims [update]

Published

2 hours ago

November 22, 2025

admin

Daimler CEO just dropped some pretty WILD pro-hydrogen claims [update]

Hydrogen propaganda from Daimler Trucks CEO

Daimler Truck AG CEO Karin Rådström hopped on LinkedIn today and dropped some absolutely wild pro-hydrogen talking points, using words like “emotional” and “inspiring” while making some pretty heady claims about the viability and economics of hydrogen. The rant is doubly embarrassing for another reason: the company’s hydrogen trucks are more than 100 million miles behind Volvo’s electric semis.

UPDATE 22NOV2025: Daimler just delivered five new hydrogen semis for trials.

While it might be hard to imagine why a company as seemingly smart as Daimler Truck AG continues to invest in hydrogen when study after study has shut down its viability as a transport fuel, it makes sense when you consider that the Kuwait Investment Authority (KIA) holds approximately 5% of Daimler and parent company Mercedes’ shares.

That’s not a trivial stake. Indeed, 5% is enough to make KIA one of the few actors with both the access and the motivation to shape conversations about Daimler’s long-term technology bets, and as a major oil-producing country whose economy would undoubtedly take a hit if oil demand plummeted, any future fuel that’s measured molecules instead of electrons isn’t just a concept for the Kuwaiti economy: it’s a lifeline.

Advertisement – scroll for more content

What’s more, Kuwait’s “Oil Strategy 2040” includes plans to nearly double crude oil production and invest billions of dollars in new oil extraction projects and downstream refining facilities, even as the rest of the world rushes to decarbonize.

In that context, the push to make hydrogen seem like an attractive decarbonization option makes more sense. So, instead of giving Daimler’s hydrogen propaganda team yet another platform to try and convince people that hydrogen might make for a viable transport fuel eventually by giving five Mercedes-Benz GenH2 semi trucks to its customers at Hornbach, Reber Logistik, Teva Germany with its brand ratiopharm, Rhenus, and DHL Supply Chain, I’m just going to re-post Daimler CEO Karin Rådström’s comments from Hydrogen Week.

You let me know if they sound any more credible now that there are five (5!) whole trucks on the road.

Earlier this month, Daimler Truck AG issued a press release entitled, “Five and a Half Times Around the World: Daimler Truck Fuel Cell Trucks Successfully Complete More Than 225,000 km (~139,000 miles) in Real-World Customer Operations.” Don’t bother looking for it on Electrek, though. I didn’t run it. And I didn’t run it because, frankly, a fleet of over-the-road semi trucks managing to cover a little over half the number of miles that David Blenkle put on his single Ford Mustang Mach-E isn’t particularly impressive.

In the meantime, Daimler competitors like Volvo, Renault, and even tiny Motiv are racking up millions and millions of all-electric miles and MAN Truck CEO Alexander Vlaskamp is saying that it’s impossible for hydrogen to compete with batteries. Heck, even Daimler’s own eActros BEV semi trucks are putting up better numbers than those hydrogen deals.

So, why then is Rådström pouring on the hydrogen love over at LinkedIn?

For some reason – posts about hydrogen always stir up emotions. I think hydrogen (not “instead of” but “in parallel to” electric) plays a role in the decarbonization of heavy duty transport in Europe for three reasons:

If we would go “electric only” we need to get the electric grid to a level where we can build enough charging stations for the 6 million trucks in Europe. It will take many years and be incredibly expensive. A hydrogen infrastructure in parallel will be less expensive and you don’t need a grid connection to build it, putting 2000 H2 stations in Europe is relatively easy.

Europe will rely on import of energy, and it could be transported into Europe from North Africa and Middle East as liquid hydrogen. Better to use that directly as fuel than to make electricity out of it.

Some use cases of our customers are better suited for fuel cells than electric trucks – the fuel cell truck will allow higher payload and longer ranges.

At European Hydrogen Week, I saw firsthand the energy and ambition behind Europe’s net-zero goals. It’s inspiring—but also a wake-up call. We’re not moving fast enough.

What we need:

Large-scale hydrogen production and transport to Europe

A robust refueling network that goes beyond AFIR

And real political support to make it happen – we need smart, efficient regulation that clears the path instead of adding hurdles.

To show what’s possible, we brought our Mercedes-Benz GenH2 to Brussels. From the end of 2026, we’ll deploy a small series of 100 fuel cell trucks to customers.

Let’s build the infrastructure, the momentum, and the partnerships to make zero-emission transport a reality. 🚛 and let’s try to avoid some of the mistakes that we see now while scaling up electric. And let’s stop the debate about “either or”. We need both.

KARIN RÅDSTRÖM

Commenters were quick to point out that Daimler recently received €226M in grants from German federal and state governments to build 100 fuel cell trucks – but, while Daimler for sure doesn’t want to give back the money, it’s also pretty difficult to believe that Rådström’s pro-hydrogen posturing is sincere.

Especially since most of it seems like nonsense.

We’re not doing any of that

Daimler CEO at European Hydrogen Week; via LinkedIn.

At the risk of sounding “emotional,” Rådström’s claims that building a hydrogen infrastructure in parallel will be less expensive than building an electrical infrastructure, and that “you don’t need a grid connection to build it,” are objectively false.

Further, if her claim that “putting 2,000 H2 stations in Europe is relatively easy” isn’t outright laughable, it’s worth noting that Europe had just 265 hydrogen filling stations in operation in 2024 (and only 40% of those, or about 100, were capable of serving HD trucks). At the same time, the IEA reported that there are nearly five million public charging ports already in service on the continent.

Next, the claim that, “Europe will rely on import of energy, and it could be transported into Europe from North Africa and Middle East as liquid hydrogen” (emphasis mine), is similarly dubious – especially when faced with the fact that, in 2023, wind and solar already supplied about 27–30% of EU electricity.

I will agree, however, with one of Rådström’s claims. She notes that, “some use cases of our customers are better suited for fuel cells than electric trucks – the fuel cell truck will allow higher payload and longer ranges.” That’s debatable, but widely accepted as true … for now. Daimler’s own research into lighter, more energy-dense, and lower-cost solid-state battery technology, however, may mean that it won’t be true for long, however.

Unless, of course, Mercedes’ solid-state batteries don’t work (and she would know more about that than I would, as a mere blogger).

Electrek’s Take

Mahle CEO: "We will fail if we don't use blue hydrogen" — Via Mahle.

As you can imagine, the Karin Rådström post generated quite a few comments at the Electrek watercooler. “Insane to claim that building hydrogen stations would be cheaper than building chargers,” said one fellow writer. “I’m fine with hydrogen for long haul heavy duty, but lying to get us there is idiotic.”

Another comment I liked said, “(Rådström) says that chargers need to be on the grid – you already have a grid, and it’s everywhere!”

At the end of the day, I have to echo the words of one of Mercedes’ storied engineering partners and OEM suppliers, Mahle, whose Chairman, Arnd Franz, who that building out a hydrogen infrastructure won’t be possible without “blue” H made from fossil fuels as recently as last April, and maybe that’s what this is all about: fossil fuel vehicles are where Daimler makes its biggest profits (for now), and muddying the waters and playing up this idea that we’re in some sort of “messy middle” transition makes it just easy enough for a reluctant fleet manager to say, “maybe next time” when it comes to EVs.

We, and the planet, will suffer for such cowardice – but maybe that’s too much malicious intent to ascribe to Ms. Rådström. Maybe this is just a simple “Hanlon’s razor” scenario and there’s nothing much else to read into it.

Let us know what you think of Rådström’s pro-hydrogen comments, and whether or not Daimler’s shareholders should be concerned about the quality of the research behind their CEO’s public posts, in the comments section at the bottom of the page.

SOURCE | IMAGES: Karin Rådström, via LinkedIn.

If you drive an electric vehicle, make charging at home fast, safe, and convenient with a Level 2 charger installed by Qmerit. As the nation’s most trusted EV charger installation network, Qmerit connects you with licensed, background-checked electricians who specialize in EV charging. You’ll get a quick online estimate, upfront pricing, and installation backed by Qmerit’s nationwide quality guarantee. Their pros follow the highest safety standards so you can plug in at home with total peace of mind.

Ready to charge smarter? Get started today with Qmerit. (trusted affiliate link)

Add Electrek as a preferred source on Google

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.

Environment

New electric AUDI E SUV concept promises 670 hp, 435 mile range

Published

2 hours ago

November 22, 2025

admin

New electric AUDI E SUV concept promises 670 hp, 435 mile range

Audi embraced its future in China with the launch of a new Chinese market electric sub-brand called AUDI that ditched the iconic “four rings” logo in favor of four capital letters – but one thing this latest concept hasn’t ditched is the brand’s traditionally teutonic long-roof design language.

Co-developed with Audi’s Chinese production partner, SAIC, the all-new AUDI E SUV concept is based on the PPE (Premium Platform Electric) skateboard, and is only the second model introduced by the company’s domestic sub-brand — which was all-new itself just one year ago.

“The AUDI E SUV concept celebrates the new AUDI brand’s first anniversary following the E concept’s debut in Guangzhou (2024),” said Fermín Soneira, CEO of the Audi and SAIC cooperation, at the E SUV’s unveiling. “It showcases an unmistakable AUDI design language that gives the SUV a prestigious, progressive stance — with no compromise between sporty aesthetics and interior roominess or versatility. This concept embodies our vision for premium electric mobility by fusing Audi’s engineering heritage with digital innovation to fulfill our commitment in China.”

As a vehicle, the AUDI E SUV concept promises to handle “like an Audi,” and is powered by a pair of electric motors good for a combined 500 kW (~670 hp), good enough to get the big crossover from 0-100 km/h (62 mph) in about five seconds. Those efficient motors are fed electrons by a 109 kWh battery riding on AUDI’s 800V Advanced Digital Platform system architecture, and can allegedly add 320 km (~200 miles) of range in under 10 minutes at a high-powered DC fast charging station.

Advertisement – scroll for more content

If you’re a fan of self-driving tech, the AUDI 360 Driving Assist System is the AUDI E SUV concept is for you, with features that, “enable a relaxed and safe driving experience – on highways, in dense city traffic, and during assisted parking.”

No word yet on pricing, but it likely won’t matter. As successful as the AUDI sub-brand has been, it’s still a long shot that we’ll ever get these Stateside, no matter what Canada does.

AUDI E SUV concept

SOURCE | IMAGES: Audi.

If you’re considering going solar, it’s always a good idea to get quotes from a few installers. To make sure you find a trusted, reliable solar installer near you that offers competitive pricing, check out EnergySage, a free service that makes it easy for you to go solar. It has hundreds of pre-vetted solar installers competing for your business, ensuring you get high-quality solutions and save 20-30% compared to going it alone. Plus, it’s free to use, and you won’t get sales calls until you select an installer and share your phone number with them.

Your personalized solar quotes are easy to compare online and you’ll get access to unbiased Energy Advisors to help you every step of the way. Get started here.

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.

Environment

New Renault electric van SHOULD be coming to America — as a Nissan

Published

3 hours ago

November 22, 2025

admin

New Renault electric van SHOULD be coming to America — as a Nissan

Renault’s New Electric Van Probably Looks Better Than Your Car

Unless they have vivid memories of guys like Nigel Mansell, Fernando Alonso, and Sebastian Vettel driving the wheels off a screaming, Renault-powered Formula 1 car, it’s tough to get an American to care about a new Renault — but Nissan’s renewed willingness to work with its old partners means we may yet get the new Trafic E-Tech here. (!)

First shown as thinly-veiled concepts co-developed with Volvo back in February, the Renault Trafic E-Tech shown here made its official debut in full production spec and trim at this week’s Solutrans 2025 logistics show. The best part: it arrived looking nearly identical to the radical and well-received concept.

And, in case you’re thinking Renault just got lucky with the styling, you can stop thinking that. The official press release rambles on and on (and on) about the Trafic E-Tech’s styling, going in depth into such apparently mundane topics as the quality of the grain on the new Trafic E-Tech van’s black plastic bumpers:

The front bumper comprises a large section with a black grained finish. Each constituent part was the focus of extensive design work, in order to showcase the overall appearance while avoiding a bulky look. The black grained plastic of the lower bumper section features a laser pattern, similar to Scenic E-Tech electric. This attention to finish is a signature of the new Renault design language.

RENAULT

Nearly every paragraph of the release is like this. Here’s a section about the shape of the van’s windshield that reads, “the futuristic style of Trafic can also be seen in its visor-like windscreen, made up of the windscreen itself and the two side windows.”

Advertisement – scroll for more content

The van’s designers care, in other words — they care so freakin’ much about this niche product that they probably doodle it, idly, in the margins of their notebooks when they’re supposed to be listening in whatever staff meeting they just got dragged into. And that level of caring made me think of a once-and-future Renault partner who could use that level of caring in its North American product line.

Enter: Nissan

Back in March, I wrote that the key thing that Nissan had to do in order to stage a successful comeback was care about its products — and, in that article, I used the lowly Nissan Cube to highlight just how much Nissan used to care about its products.

Nissan used to care so much about its product, in fact, that it once did something that seems unthinkable in today’s modular-construction, Ultium electric-skateboard-platform EV age. And what made that “something” all the more astonishing was that they didn’t do this for the six-figure GT-R or some 370Z halo car – they did it for the Cube.

That decision speaks to an absolutely massive commitment. A commitment to build two sets of stampings, two sets of expensive window shapes, two sets of stuff I probably haven’t even considered, and it was all done for what? To eliminate a blind spot?

Can you imagine the amount of sheer, epic, truckloads of f*cks you would have to give in order to sit in a boardroom and argue that your company should spend millions of dollars in tooling and certification and assembly line re-jiggering because someone, somewhere else, might have a bit of a blind spot when they look over their right shoulder? (!)

The mere suggestion of such a thing would be a career-ender at most brands, and Nissan didn’t just listen to that unnamed engineer, they did it. They built an entire mirror-image of their home market Cube, and they did it so quietly that I bet more than a few of you reading these words never even realized they’d done it at all.

Today, Nissan’s best-effort at caring is launching an “all-new Rogue PHEV” that’s actually a rebadged Mitsibishi Outlander PHEV that was all-new itself way back in 2013. And that decade-plus-old car? It’s a significant upgrade to the last heap that wore the Rogue badge … largely because Mitsubishi, you know, still cares about the quality of its new products.

Renault cares enough for everyone

Renault gives truckloads of f*cks. Van-loads, anyway, and now that Nissan seems more open to enter into JVs with its partners in China and Japan, it seems entirely possible that they’ll come crawling back to their old Renault alliance partner. And, when they do, Renault’s level of caring could do wonders for a next-generation, all-electric Nissan Quest based on the Trafic E-Tech.

Heck, they wouldn’t have to do much more than change the logo on the front and make the infotainment graphics red and white instead of gray and yellow and they’d be there.

And that new-age Nissan Quest based on the Renault Trafic? It would offer up to 280 miles of European cycle range and motivate itself around US roads with a ~200 hp (150 kW) electric motor pushing out 345 Nm (~255 lb-ft) of off-the line grunt — which isn’t too far off Nissan’s last V8-powered van offering!

Great styling, plenty of room, peppy performance, and zero emissions? I’d take a look at it, for sure — and, since there aren’t any other electric van options in the US*, I think a lot of other people would, too.

SOURCE | IMAGES: Renault.

NOTE: I know the Tesla Model X is basically an electric minivan, but a) the bros hate it when you call their Model X a minivan, and b) the doors are stupid.

Your personalized solar quotes are easy to compare online and you’ll get access to unbiased Energy Advisors to help you every step of the way. Get started here.

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.