In recent weeks, the climate policy landscape has shifted significantly, with institutions, governments, and corporations beginning to step back from the ambitious but economically questionable climate commitments they made over the last decade. Two major developments underscore this retreat: the U.S. Federal Reserve’s exit from the Network of Central Banks and Supervisors for Greening the Financial System (NGFS) and BlackRock’s withdrawal from the Net Zero Asset Managers initiative (NZAM) and it’s subsequent suspension of activities. These high-profile decisions, along with similar moves globally, suggest growing recognition of the economic damage wrought by costly, ineffective, and overreaching climate policies.

The Federal Reserve: Not a Climate Policeman

In a move that has sent shockwaves through climate advocacy circles, the U.S. Federal Reserve announced its withdrawal from the NGFS—a coalition of central banks established in 2017 to address climate-related risks in financial systems. Citing its limited statutory mandate, the Fed made clear that it was not responsible for shaping climate policy. Chair Jerome Powell has repeatedly emphasized this point, stating that climate matters belong to Congress, not the central bank​.

The NGFS, claimed lofty goals of integrating climate risks into monetary policy, and has grown increasingly politicized. Its shift toward broader mandates—essentially promoting green agendas over sound economic principles—clashes with the Fed’s responsibility to maintain monetary stability. The exit comes amidst broader U.S. skepticism of climate-focused regulations, particularly in the financial sector, where their potential to disrupt industries and inflate costs is well-documented.

BlackRock, the Financial Behemoth, Exits the Climate Stage

Adding to the wave of institutional departures, BlackRock, the world’s largest asset manager, recently withdrew from the NZAM, which then collapsed. This coalition aimed to align financial investments with the nebulous goal of achieving net-zero carbon emissions. Yet, BlackRock’s exit reflects a broader reality: these climate initiatives are not only politically fraught but also deeply misaligned with financial performance and client interests.

BlackRock faced mounting criticism, especially from Republican-led states in the U.S., for prioritizing environmental, social, and governance (ESG) initiatives over fiduciary responsibilities. Florida, Texas, and other states accused BlackRock of undermining traditional energy industries and pulling resources away from economically viable ventures. Tennessee recently pummelled BlackRock in court. These pressures have created a domino effect, with other institutions also reconsidering their commitments to net-zero coalitions​

Corporations Abandon Ambitious Climate Pledges

The retreat is not limited to financial institutions. In the corporate world, companies like BP and Shell have quietly scaled back their green initiatives, prioritizing short-term profitability over unrealistic carbon reduction goals. BP recently spun off its offshore wind projects, while Shell drastically cut back on renewable investments. Both companies have signaled a return to traditional energy sources as energy security and profitability take precedence over climate narratives, driven by a foundational flaw in climate policy: the failure to acknowledge economic realities. Renewable energy remains heavily reliant on subsidies, while oil and gas—despite decades of demonization—continue to drive global economies. Attempting to prematurely phase out fossil fuels without viable replacements has proven disastrous, with Europe’s energy crisis serving as a glaring example.

The Cost of Climate Ambition: A Reckoning for Governments

The global retreat from climate commitments signals a long-overdue recognition of the real costs of these policies. Nations that enthusiastically embraced net-zero goals are now grappling with rising energy prices, faltering economies, and public discontent. Germany, once hailed as a green energy pioneer, faces skyrocketing electricity costs and industrial flight, as energy-intensive industries relocate to more affordable regions. Similarly, the UK government’s climate policies have drawn ire from both businesses and households burdened by rising living costs.

The U.S. isn’t immune to these effects. A Congressional Budget Office report estimated that clean energy subsidies enacted under the Inflation Reduction Act will cost $825 billion over the next decade—a staggering price tag for policies that are unlikely to achieve meaningful reductions in global temperatures. These costs disproportionately impact working-class households, who bear the brunt of higher energy bills and inflation.

At the heart of this shift is a recognition that climate policies have devolved into a costly exercise in virtue signaling. They demand enormous economic sacrifices with little measurable impact on global temperatures. Worse, these policies often exacerbate existing challenges, such as energy insecurity, supply chain disruptions, and inflation.

Additionally, the politicization of climate science and policy has fueled resistance. Increasingly, institutions and governments are questioning the wisdom of aligning with initiatives that prioritize ideological goals over economic and practical considerations. As the Federal Reserve’s exit from the NGFS demonstrates, organizations tasked with specific mandates cannot afford to be sidetracked by climate-related ambitions outside their purview.

The Way Forward: A Pragmatic Approach to Energy and Policy

The unraveling of these grand climate coalitions provides an opportunity to reassess priorities. The global economy needs energy policies grounded in reality—not utopian ideals. Policymakers should abandon sweeping mandates and instead focus on ensuring energy reliability, affordability, and innovation.

Ultimately, the retreat from climate policies underscores an uncomfortable truth: these initiatives are costly, ineffective, and increasingly unsustainable. The financial and corporate worlds are waking up to this reality, and the broader public is not far behind. As more institutions step away from the climate bandwagon, one hopes this marks the beginning of a more rational, economically sound approach to energy and environmental challenges.

Related