Ecological concerns over issues such as air quality or toxic radiation drive much progressive change, but as often as not, money prompts change.  For example, early adopters installed rooftop solar mostly because it’s ecologically responsible, but it’s a dropping price point that attracts the average customer.  Or, electric utilities initially installed wind generators because of lawsuits or regulations over coal pollution, but anymore, wind power is booming because its cost has dropped below that of coal.

However, as sound as this principle is, and as likely as the profit motive will bring some ecological solutions, major money players can manipulate the market to their own ends. 

Nuclear Subsidies: Some outliers profess that nuclear electricity is carbon-free, and could be a key climate solution (ignoring the critical toxic waste costs for 10,000 years).  First of all, nukes do produce CO2, from the uranium mining and milling and the immense use of concrete containment buildings. 

Cargill and Archer Daniels Midland (ADM) are the main benefactors of increased Federal subsidies to agribusiness and tax credits to ethanol refiners

Climate campaigners have been targeting BlackRock for years, and their CEO, Larry Fink, had conferred with Pope Francis who urged leading corporations to shift to renewables.  But it was the $90 billion value destruction that brought BlackRock to its decision.  According to a report by the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA), “Out of BlackRock’s $90 billion in estimated losses, 75% are due to its investments in four companies alone – ExxonMobil, Chevron, Royal Dutch Shell and BP”.  Because of its sheer size, BlackRock is hugely influential in the financial sector.  Kingsmill Bond, an analyst who used to work at Citibank and Deutsche Bank, “I, for one, see this as the beginning of the end for the fossil-fuel system”.  Learn more at –