The United Nations Wages a Green War Against Your 401(k)

Much of the U.N.’s influence in the corporate world can be traced to a 2004 document titled “Who Cares Wins,” authored by the U.N. and 22 financial firms, including Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, and State Street. The goal of this initiative — which introduced the concept of ESG (environmental, social, and governance) investing — was to use financial institutions to enforce policies favored by U.N. bureaucrats and progressive politicians, independent of voters’ preferences.

Then, in 2006, the U.N. launched its Principles of Responsible Investment (PRI). Signatories pledged to incorporate ESG into their investment analyses, decision-making processes, and ownership policies and practices. Among the signatories are 846 U.S. investment managers, including BlackRock and Vanguard, alongside Goldman Sachs and State Street.

These institutions have a fiduciary duty to get their clients the best possible financial return. The authors of “Who Cares Wins” claim that pursuing ESG can be consistent with maximizing financial returns. That may be true in some cases, but ESG and financial returns do not always align. If they did, the ESG concept and the PRI pledge would be wholly redundant. So, many of us may indirectly pay for the U.N.’s policy goals through lower financial returns.

Another U.N. strategy is to use banks to direct funds toward firms that comply with ESG diktats and away from firms that do not. To that end, the U.N. formed a banking consortium whose members have pledged to eliminate CO₂ emissions from their value chains by 2050 — which is akin to pledging not to lend to fossil fuel companies or companies that use fossil fuels. Bank of America, Citi, JPMorgan Chase, and Wells Fargo were consortium members but withdrew after President Donald Trump’s recent election. Yet these banks still claim publicly to be pursuing the net zero agenda. JPMorgan Chase, for example, has pledged to lend $2.5 trillion by 2030 to help advance “climate solutions.”

All of these banks are publicly traded companies. Their CEOs and directors have a fiduciary duty to get their clients the best possible financial return. Spending trillions in support of net zero is inconsistent with that duty. American taxpayers also subsidize these banks with deposit insurance. So, millions of shareholders and taxpayers who voted for Trump and, by extension, against the net zero agenda are supporting it through these banks.

In November 2024, the U.N. held its 29th climate change conference, in Baku, Azerbaijan. More than 50,000 attendees from around the world flew in to discuss how other people need to lower their CO₂ emissions. It was agreed that rich countries would send developing countries $300 billion annually by 2035 to combat climate change. The U.N. estimates that developing countries, excluding China, need $2.4 trillion annually by 2030 to meet its climate goals. It is unlikely, however, that sending our tax dollars to developing countries would reduce their CO₂ emissions. A recent study found that of 1,500 government policies worldwide aimed at reducing CO₂ emissions, only 63 were successful.

Each country has an equal voice at the U.N. General Assembly, yet the United States provides about a third of the U.N.’s funding, far more than any one of the other 192 member countries. Why should U.S. taxpayers fund an institution that promotes policies that most Americans do not favor?