In January 2025, even the world's largest financial group BlackRock left the net-zero climate alliance
following the six most important US banks who had already left.
Even the most powerful central bank, the Federal Reserve left the "Network for Greening the FInancial System".
At the same time, the new US President Trump announced that he would once again rely entirely on fossil fuels.
[Donald Trump: "We will drill, baby, drill".
Facing extreme weather phenomena, many young people are getting involved in climate movements
such as Fridays for Future or Extinction Rebellion.
Major investors withdrawing support must seem to them like a slap in the face.
In order to better understand the current events, let's first take a look at the origins of the climate protection movements.
1. Emergence of the Climate Movement
For the first time in 2006, the world was confronted with US politician and
entrepreneur Al Gore's film "An Inconvenient Truth".
This film depicts a doomsday scenario caused by man-made global warming.
Gore is a multimillionaire and was the 45th Vice President of the United States under President Bill Clinton.
Al Gore predicted in July 2008: "Our current course is not sustainable at all.
The leading experts predict that we have less than ten years to make dramatic changes in our global warming pollution lest we
lose our ability to ever recover from this environmental crisis
[...] the answer is to get to the root of the problem and end the reliance on carbon-based fuels."
From then on, the entire focus of politicians and media turned towards reducing CO2 emissions as the cause of all evil.
Gore's PR expenditure to win over the public for this is estimated at 300 million dollars for 2009 alone.
Al Gore founded organzations, among other things, that trained so-called "climate leaders".
This gave rise to movements such as Fridays for Future and Extinction Rebellion.
Idols such as Greta Thunberg, Luisa Neubauer and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez were specifically
promoted and a large climate network was established.
2. New Technologies as a Business Model of the Super-Rich
In the public perception, it was precisely these activists, such as Greta Thunberg, who put
pressure on politicians through media-effective protests.
But is this public perception correct?
Years before Greta Thunberg's first public appearance, the World Bank and the WEF were already
setting the course for a new "climate policy".
Also years before the climate protests began, financial giants began to invest hundreds of billions in future
investment funds in often worthless "climate companies" and to expand production capacities.
This gave them the position of market leader and made them ready for big deals.
Surprisingly, politicians began to take action shortly after Greta's first media-effective school strike in August 2018.
For example, the EU President at the time, Juncker signed a letter of intent with the "clean energy"
investment fund Breakthrough Energy Europe on October 17, 2018. The starting package was 100 million euros.
This was intended to give the super-rich member companies preferential access to EU funding.
The founder of the Breakthrough Energy investment fund is Bill Gates.
Its members include super-rich such as Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg, Julian Robertson from hedge fund giant
Tiger Management, David Rubenstein, the founder of Carlyle Group, George Soros, Alibaba's Jack Ma and others.
The market for "climate technology" has been constantly expanded by the EU.
In February 2019, Juncker proposed spending every fourth euro from the EU budget on renewable energies from 2021 to 2027.
This gives the impression that politicians have used their legislation to create a very profitable
market for the "climate technologies" of the big players.
They were given double profit opportunities. They were able to benefit from EU subsidies
and from the high demand for their products.
The EU is putting massive pressure on countries to fulfil this demand because technologies such as wind power,
solar energy and e-mobility are being aggressively promoted.
Terms such as "ecological footprint" or "carbon footprint" reflect the fact that CO2 has now become the measure of all things.
Put simply, "CO2" has become a kind of new currency on the stock markets.
From the very beginning, the focus has been entirely on reducing CO2 as the sole cause of almost all weather problems.
No storm without the same headlines:
"Climate change is to blame! We have to reduce CO2!".
However the fact that other causes are not even remotely considered for the
devastating floods and fires, raises questions.
Yes, even worse, voices from the field of science and from experts who question the public
narrative have no chance of being heard in the media.
For example, there are countless patents that reveal how effortlessly weather disasters can be created nowadays.
Environmental destruction, such as deforestation for the extraction of profitable raw materials or the
expansion of wind farms, is also hardly ever discussed.
A one-sided focus on "climate change" caused by CO2 alone almost completely ignores
serious environmental destruction and destroyers.
Climate change" and environmental destruction are equated.
Back to politics: Dr. Ottmar Edenhofer also confirms that from the outset climate policy is not about environmental
protection! It is all about hard-nosed economic interests.
He is the Director and Chief Economist of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research:
"...it must be clearly stated that we are de facto redistributing the world's wealth through climate policy.
[...] We must free ourselves from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy.
It has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental policy, with problems such as
deforestation or the hole in the ozone layer."
My interim conclusion:
while the mega-corporations and mega-billionaires are officially campaigning for more sustainability and "the
climate", they are simultaeously making huge profits from this.
3. Mass Exodus from the Climate Alliances
Now we come back to the very beginning - to the withdrawal of BlackRock and Co. from the climate alliance.
The question arises: WHY are the biggest investors now distancing themselves from "green
technologies" and are focussing on nuclear power?
And WHY does US President Trump want to rely fully on fossil fuels again?
Do they suddenly not care about the environment? Or have they always not cared?
Financial expert and analyst Ernst Wolff provides a very understandable reason.
"The new big agenda has to do with artificial intelligence.
And it's interesting that this year's WEF in Davos has the motto "The Intelligent Age: a time for
cooperation", so this is about artificial intelligence.
And artificial intelligence has been mentioned again and again recently, especially here in
Switzerland, in all the reports about the World Economic Forum.
And it is always described as not being a threat, but as something that will create new jobs, so we don't need to
worry about that at all. The exact opposite is the case."
[...] "The powerful have a great interest of course in driving this artificial intelligence forward, because there
is a lot of money to be made from it, among other things.
It's interesting that BlackRock has just pulled out of the UN net-zero initiative.
This is because they are no longer focussing on climate change, they are now focussing on nuclear power.
And since nuclear power plants cannot be built so quickly, it will take several years before they are ready for
use, you have to rely on fossil fuels for the time being.
And if you rely on them, you can't stick to the climate agenda.
It's interesting that none of them have ever said that the CO2 tax should be abolished.
So they will continue to enrich themselves without restraint and we will of course see that the WEF will
somehow give the whole thing some ideological backing."
4. Energy Consumption for Artificial Intelligence and its Sustainability
The sustainability of artificial intelligence is the subject of heated debate within AI companies.
On November 26, 2024, a paper was published on Al Gore's website summarising the discussion.
"According to one estimate, OpenAI's GPT-4 required 50 gigawatt hours (GWh) of electricity to train
- roughly the annual consumption of a small city.
[...] As AI models improve, they will require bigger and bigger data centres.
[...] Zuckerberg suggested an entire power plant might be needed to power a single data center.
[...] The International Energy Agency (IEA) thinks energy demand will almost double from 2022 to 2026.
There are, however, forecasts that are much more drastic. [...]"
The conclusion is also very enlightening:
"To be frank, we think it is highly unlikely that any cloud player would slow down its rollout
of data centres in order to meet climate targets.
After all, they believe they are in a race to invent a digital god - and so, for them, the risk of not building
fast enough vastly outweighs the risk of overbuilding."
The reason why the most powerful are changing course away from alternative energies is simply:
"Green energy" is not enough for the expansion of a global digital network and artificial intelligence.
Let's summarize again:
1. From the very beginning, people have been frightened by the one-sided CO2 climate alarm.
PR companies run by rich corporate lobbyists such as Al Gore promote media-effective idols like Greta Thunberg.
The climate movement serves as the people's mouthpiece to politicians.
2. Politicians enact laws to reduce CO2 emissions unusually quickly and create a huge
market for official "green technologies".
The winners are megacorporations that "accidentally" invested billions in precisely these technologies long beforehand.
They are even double winners: they earn money with their products and also receive subsidies from the tax coffers.
3. The alleged sustainability of the biggest players becomes clear when it comes to their
"favorite projects" such as artificial intelligence.
It doesn't matter that energy requirements and the often-mentioned CO2 emissions are increasing immeasurably.
Forget about other environmental destruction caused by land clearing, the poisoning
of water and soil by rare earth mines, etc.
To avoid jeopardizing a digital revolution, any means will do for them.
Climate alliances? Only as long as they serve the interests of the financial sharks.
4. So, it is obvious that the most influential circles were never really concerned with environmental protection.
The aim of the digital financial complex is to create a "digital god".
People are being directed towards side issues such as whether nuclear power and fossil fuels or
renewable energies are better for preserving the "climate".
However, the insatiable main consumers of the resources are simply left out of the debate.
Our conclusion: The "climate movement" is going nowhere and is only being misused by politicians and
the largest financial groups for their own interests.
As soon as people focus their attention on the real perpetrators of the over-exploitation of this earth, we will
take a decisive step towards true environmental protection.
To avoid being instrumentalized, inform yourself thoroughly!