WTF — Is Freakonomics Owned By Big Oil Now Or Something? – CleanTechnica

Sign up for daily news updates from CleanTechnica on email. Or follow us on Google News!

Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) investing was the subject of the latest Freakonomics episode. I really enjoy economics, and was happy to see an economics podcast I respect do a show on the subject. My interest quickly turned to disappointment, however, as the show’s host seemed to be completely new to the subject, and interviewed just one economist, lobbing softball question after softball question and doing what appeared to be little or no critical thinking. He challenged few, if any, assumptions on the matter.

If I want that sort of thing, there are a LOT of news outlets out there that just plain suck at journalism that I could listen to.

If you’ve read Dark Money, you know that decades ago, a couple of fossil billionaires laid their tentacles throughout the “thought leadership” world in order to influence public opinion. This is sometimes referred to as the Kochtopus — named after brothers David and Charles Koch. Among other things, endowments to Ivy League and similar high-tier schools were given, with strings attached. The repercussions of this influence campaign will likely never be fully known, but the bottom line is that they found a way to insert their libertarian ideals into the institutions we trust (including, it seems, through handpicked researchers and professors).

So, flash forward a decade or two, and here we are, with an economist from Yale publishing a report that questions the efficacy of ESG investing. That’s totally fine — it is good to question things. However….

The number of head-smacking moments in the podcast overwhelmed me and I had to turn the show off. Just to cite one — the economist argues that polluting companies (the 20% most polluting, which she calls “brown” companies) will have a more expensive time getting financing as a result of ESG investing. It’ll simply be more expensive for them to borrow and use money. That much everyone can agree on, and most of us would say “yes, that’s kinda/sorta/exactly the point!” It’s a carrot we can dangle in front of them to clean up their act. But, instead, the economist argues that that will somehow prevent them from getting more green and/or investing in new tech that is good for the planet.

Huh?

Just as one example, Exxon made $55 billion (with a B) in profit last year — it can and has always been able to invest as much as it wants in climate tech. It has instead doubled down on oil production and spent countless millions, maybe even billions, to intentionally confuse the public about climate change and keep us dependent on the company’s lethal product.

So … we should invest in Exxon so that it gets cheaper financing and becomes … more profitable??? Maybe if Exxon turned a $70 billion profit, it would see the light and amend its wayward ways? Eh … I’m guessing not so much.

I’ve reached out to several experts in the space, along with the show’s host, to gather more information. I’ll report back. Any comments, resources, etc., you have, please post them in the comments!