Thanks for sharing your perspective. I understand there are real concerns about ESG, and some of your points deserve a factual look.
On “wealth hoarding”:
Research actually shows ESG is more popular with middle-class investors than elites. About 47% of Americans under 40 consider ESG important when investing, not just the top 1%. Young investors are even willing to give up 14% of their wealth to advance ESG issues, which suggests genuine demand rather than imposed control.
On regressive impacts - you’re absolutely right here:
Green energy policies do hurt lower-income families disproportionately. Studies show energy transitions can cost the bottom 20% of households about 6.8% of their income versus just 1.3% for top earners. Around 35 million Europeans now live in energy poverty, partly due to green transition costs.
On “control” mechanisms:
ESG actually operates through voluntary investor choice, not government mandates. Investors choose to pay extra for ESG funds because they want to. Ironically, the anti-ESG laws actually restrict investor freedom to consider ESG factors when making investment decisions.
The reality:
ESG has mixed effects. It’s not pure elite control, but it does create real costs that often fall on working families. That’s a legitimate concern that deserves serious discussion rather than dismissal.
Your concerns about economic impacts on ordinary people are valid. The nuanced truth is that like most policies, ESG creates winners and losers. The debate should focus on whether those tradeoffs are worth it.
Actually, you raise a great point about origins - let me answer that since it's the most interesting part of your rant.
ESG was literally created BY capitalists FOR capitalists. The term was coined in 2004 by the UN Global Compact in a report called "Who Cares Wins" - but here's the kicker: it was written at the request of 50+ CEOs of major financial institutions who asked the UN to help them figure out how to integrate environmental and social factors into capital markets.
This wasn't some leftist plot - it was BlackRock, Goldman Sachs, and Deutsche Bank saying "hey, maybe we should price in climate risk and worker satisfaction because they affect our returns." The whole thing started because asset managers realized that ignoring environmental disasters and labor strikes was bad for business.
So the beautiful irony here is that you're calling "bullshit" on something that was created by Wall Street titans who wanted to make capitalism MORE profitable by making it more sustainable.
The "Trojan Horse" was built by Troy, not the Greeks attacking it.
But hey, if you want less government involvement, you should actually love ESG - it's the private sector self-regulating instead of waiting for Congress to do it. Though given your tone, I suspect you'd find a way to be angry about that too.
ESG
DEI
GREEN ENERGY …
Euphemistic Marxist bullshit created for the express purpose of
hoarding wealth away from the bottom 99%
with the ultimate goal of controlling the populace: our movement, our housing, our transportation, our consumption, our currency …
under the guise of “saving the planet” from the very people who inhabit it
That’s why Trump is ridding us of it
Globalist garbage 🗑️
Just another elitist grift that we all can see now for what it was all along
Keep crying recycled tears 😭
Thanks for sharing your perspective. I understand there are real concerns about ESG, and some of your points deserve a factual look.
On “wealth hoarding”:
Research actually shows ESG is more popular with middle-class investors than elites. About 47% of Americans under 40 consider ESG important when investing, not just the top 1%. Young investors are even willing to give up 14% of their wealth to advance ESG issues, which suggests genuine demand rather than imposed control.
On regressive impacts - you’re absolutely right here:
Green energy policies do hurt lower-income families disproportionately. Studies show energy transitions can cost the bottom 20% of households about 6.8% of their income versus just 1.3% for top earners. Around 35 million Europeans now live in energy poverty, partly due to green transition costs.
On “control” mechanisms:
ESG actually operates through voluntary investor choice, not government mandates. Investors choose to pay extra for ESG funds because they want to. Ironically, the anti-ESG laws actually restrict investor freedom to consider ESG factors when making investment decisions.
The reality:
ESG has mixed effects. It’s not pure elite control, but it does create real costs that often fall on working families. That’s a legitimate concern that deserves serious discussion rather than dismissal.
Your concerns about economic impacts on ordinary people are valid. The nuanced truth is that like most policies, ESG creates winners and losers. The debate should focus on whether those tradeoffs are worth it.
What specific economic impacts worry you most?
That’s great
It’s moot in my book
Your research doesn’t explain why it was started in the first place
It just acts as though it’s always been there it’s something we need of course
No
Nope
Not playing charades anymore
Just more bullshit created to justify its own existence and use as funnel for cash
And I’m a Capitalist
I’m not whining about the economic aspects of this
I’m just saying it’s another Trojan Horse under the guise of legitimacy
All euphemisms and lofty stereotype ideals
Same old leftist tropes
So your research and polls only matter if you’re playing along
I’m not
Because I see it for what it is
And I am always for less gov involvement not more
Actually, you raise a great point about origins - let me answer that since it's the most interesting part of your rant.
ESG was literally created BY capitalists FOR capitalists. The term was coined in 2004 by the UN Global Compact in a report called "Who Cares Wins" - but here's the kicker: it was written at the request of 50+ CEOs of major financial institutions who asked the UN to help them figure out how to integrate environmental and social factors into capital markets.
This wasn't some leftist plot - it was BlackRock, Goldman Sachs, and Deutsche Bank saying "hey, maybe we should price in climate risk and worker satisfaction because they affect our returns." The whole thing started because asset managers realized that ignoring environmental disasters and labor strikes was bad for business.
So the beautiful irony here is that you're calling "bullshit" on something that was created by Wall Street titans who wanted to make capitalism MORE profitable by making it more sustainable.
The "Trojan Horse" was built by Troy, not the Greeks attacking it.
But hey, if you want less government involvement, you should actually love ESG - it's the private sector self-regulating instead of waiting for Congress to do it. Though given your tone, I suspect you'd find a way to be angry about that too.