This romantic song Cole Porter wrote in 1953 stands in sharp contrast to the current U.S. administrationās decision to withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement. This decision reflects the administration’s view that the potential “disease” of climate change is less painful than the “therapy” required to address itāsuch as preparing for climate impacts and phasing out fossil fuels.
The administration has also made its disdain for ESG (environmental, social, and governance) assessments in the corporate world abundantly clear. It has shown contempt for corporate commitments to reduce dependence on fossil fuels and is even exploring ways to label ESG initiatives or corporate decarbonization strategies as “anti-competitive collusion.” This includes threats to subpoena managers and board members of companies pursuing such strategies.
One might question how a government with libertarian leanings justifies interfering with corporate intentionsāunless, of course, those intentions are criminal. But the larger issue is whether such efforts benefit companies or society at large. We believe that ignoring the realities of ecological overshoot is not only counterproductive but also economically damaging. Companies that fail to prepareāparticularly in terms of their product offeringsāfor the inevitable challenges of climate change and resource constraints are undermining their own futures.
In essence, the U.S. is spending public resources to blind itself to an unavoidable reality, recklessly undermining its ability to respond and prepare effectively for a trend inaction makes even more likely, if not certain.