Net-Zero Nuttery v. Anti-Trust Laws

Well this is an interesting development -- 22 state attorneys general have signed on to a letter arguing that that the net-zero commitments of "leading financial firms" may "violate federal and state antitrust and consumer protection laws. Ari Blaff at National Review reports:

The Republican attorneys general sent the public letter to the Net Zero Financial Service Providers Alliance, or NZFSPA, a consortium of industry-leading financial firms, including Bloomberg, Deloitte, Ernst & Young, KPMG, Moody’s, PWC, Morningstar, and S&P Global, with the shared mission of limiting “the global temperature increase to 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial levels.”

To achieve the goal, the signatories have vowed to “align all relevant services and products to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions,” to “build internal capability to understand the risks and opportunities of the net-zero transition,” and to “consistently raise with our key stakeholders the importance and implications of setting net-zero targets and strategies,” according to the alliance.

Of course they have. "Net-Zero" has become a phantasmagorical article of faith to the "climate change" cult, and no amount of empirical evidence to the contrary has thus far shaken their irrational commitment to an impossible goal. Not so fast, say the AGs; there's a little thing in this country called "anti-trust" laws:

Led by Tennessee attorney general Jonathan Skrmetti, the letter said that while the NZFSPA signatories “are direct competitors with each other, they nevertheless commit to using their market influence to enforce their collective climate agenda in the broader economy and to ‘work in coordination’ with other UN-convened ‘Net Zero’ groups.”

“Given the extraordinary market power of participants in the agreement, many companies may have no choice but to comply with your policy preferences, requiring them to restrict further the variety and output of goods and services that are not ‘aligned’ with your activist climate agenda,” the letter states. “Moreover, many of the companies you influence will be forced to stop dealing with other companies whose practices are inconsistent with your standards..."

“If financial service providers are colluding to limit consumer choices and manipulate market outcomes in support of international climate activists, that could violate our antitrust and consumer protection laws,” Skrmetti said.... “Decisions about energy policy should be made by our elected representatives, not by transnational corporate alliances.”

How very retro and, dare we say, constitutional. We shall see how the legal case develops, but on the face of it the basic claim is transparently true. These mega-corporations are colluding with the intent of depriving consumers of products  they desire and forcing them purchase products (by ensuring that they are the only ones available) they don't want. If one or two of these companies broke ranks, saying "actually, no, we're going to think about our customers first of all," the scheme would come crashing down.

Here's hoping that these AGs can throw a wrench into their plans.