Did Bill Gates admit last week that a factor in the West instigating a proxy war with Russia was to destroy the energy relationship between Europe and Russia?

It sure sounded like it.

Gates made some astounding statements in a CNBC interview about the Euro crisis, and a controversy at home involving ESG (ie. “socially responsible”) investments that have brought BlackRock’s CEO Larry Fink under scrutiny.

He also displayed a megalomania typical of mega billionaires who believe that they can throw around their rigged-system wealth in undemocratic power plays, to achieve pet ideological goals and grow even richer.

Those goals are often dressed up as benefiting wide swatches of underprivileged humanity, but almost always are actually designed to limit freedoms of average people, while enlarging the power of elites.

Pretending ESG Is Just “Good Capitalism” 

BlackRock CEO Larry Fink came under fire after his management of a huge portfolio of investments was downgraded and dropped in value, due to its focus on non-financial “ESG” (Environmental, Social and Governance) goals.

Fink may well have opened up a can of legal liability due to that usurpation of financial obligations to investors. So said the law firm DLA Piper, reacting to the story.   

But Gates stridently defended Fink in a CNBC interview.

“Blackrock and Larry in particular are a great example of private sector leadership. Anyone who says climate shouldn’t be a factor in how you evaluate the future of a company, that’s not capitalism. Because companies that have emissions, they are going to be subject to border adjustment tariffs or taxes.”  

Of course, there’s nothing particularly “free market” about governments imposing extra tariffs and tax penalties on oil and gas because they are deemed less environmentally friendly than other energy resources and technologies.

Gates went on to admit that gas and oil were vital to sustaining economies, but then veered into what sounded like an endorsement of war in Europe as somehow beneficial in “the long run” for a green energy future:

“The idea that we still need oil and natural gas is also, you know, fairly clear. We’re not going to drain all the money away from those sectors. That’s the way people get to work today, It’s how people avoid freezing to death in the winter. And, people did get a little optimistic about how quickly the transition can be done now, without the Russian natural gas being available in Europe. 

“You know, it’s a setback. We need to find non-russian hydrocarbon sources to substitute for those. So there’s coal plants running and a variety of things because keeping…people warm, keeping those economies in decent shape is a priority.  Now on the other hand, it’s good for the long run, because people won’t want to be dependent on Russian natural gas. So they’ll move to these new approaches more rapidly.”

Gates has poured untold amounts of money lobbying politicians and seeding “news” and non-profit orgs to propagandize for forcing societies to switch from efficient and plentiful oil and natural gas to expensive so-called green energy technologies.

As The Trends Journal has been pointing out, those technologies have their own significant environmental issues, and can’t provide energy needs at scale that the world currently needs to maintain productivity and growth.

But one advantage green technologies have, as far as Gates is concerned: he is invested heavily in the sector, via Breakthrough Energy and other initiatives and companies.

ESG Investing May Have Opened Banks And Investment Firms to Serious Legal Liabilities

In addition to pressuring government entities and even particular politicians to sway public policy, billionaire green energy vultures like Gates and Michael Blooberg have advocated for companies to adopt “socially responsible” ESG policies.

But, as recently reported by Bloomberg, when it comes to financial firms and banks, which have strict fiduciary responsibilities to investors, those ESG considerations may have created huge liabilities.

According to Bloomberg News, “banks may not have originally understood the full litigation risks tied to signing net-zero commitments. DLA Piper is among the law firms saying any company making a net-zero claim without

scientific underpinnings may be viewed as having misled consumers.”

In an article on the growing controversy surrounding Fink and ESG investments more generally, The Daily Caller noted that in the banking and finance world, terms like “full litigation risks” and “misled consumers,” as used by DLA Piper, indicate major potential legal liabilities.

Will class action lawsuits result from the ESG investing goals adopted by companies like Blackrock, and major banks?

The door certainly appears to be open.

And wouldn’t it be even more interesting if mega billionaire NGO (Non-Government Organization) like Bill Gates and Klaus Schwaab, who are behind so much of the ESG agenda, including its anti-democratic implementations, also face legal jeopardy? 

For further reading, see:

Skip to content