On Tuesday, the Arizona Treasurer prohibited the use of Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) scoring when determining investments. ESG scoring is comparable to a social justice scoring, sometimes dubbed a “social credit score.”
Revisions to the Arizona Treasurer’s Investment Policy Statement (IPS) declared that ESG factors were non-pecuniary and therefore had no material effect on the financial risk or return of an investment.
Arizona Treasurer Kimberly Yee and the members of the Board of Investment approved a new Investment Policy Statement. The adopted policy ensures that ESG ratings have no place in Arizona's investment making decisions.
Treasurer Kimberly Yee declared that ESG scoring enables malicious government manipulation of the private sector.
“Biden’s Administration uses big government overreach to manipulate the private sector in picking winners and losers based on radical ESG policies,” wrote Yee. “We must protect American free market principles and not allow environmental or social goals to dictate how taxpayer monies are managed.”
Biden's Administration uses big government overreach to manipulate the private sector in picking winners and losers based on radical ESG policies. We must protect American free market principles & not allow environmental or social goals to dictate how taxpayer monies are managed. https://t.co/Zqj25nDHoS
This wasn’t the first time this month that Yee took action to counter the effects of ESG scoring. Last week, the treasurer gave a major global financial firm, Morningstar, 30 days to prove that they weren’t complicit in its subsidiary company’s alleged boycott of Israel due to ESG policies. Without sufficient proof, Yee will place Morningstar on the state’s list of prohibited investments.
Yee’s opponent in the upcoming November election, Arizona State Senate Minority Whip Martín Quezada (D-Glendale), responded that he supports ESG scoring.
The Arizona state legislature attempted to outlaw ESG scoring discrimination through HB2656 during this past legislative session. However, State Representatives Joel John (R-Buckeye) and Michelle Udall killed the bill. John declared that he voted against the bill in accordance with his belief that such discriminations don’t exist.
However, firearms industry business owners testified earlier in the legislative session about the need for another bill, HB2473, because banks refused to do business with them because they deal with firearms. One testimony came from Ruger Firearms VPO Tim Powney, who shared that Bank of America cut short their decades-long relationship due to his being in the firearms industry. That decision was likely based on ESG criteria.
The concept of ESG dates back to 2004 when former United Nations (UN) Secretary General Kofi Annan gathered just over 50 of the world’s top financial institution CEOs to discuss influencing markets via ideological criteria. Early prototypes of ESG scoring occurred through the New York Stock Exchange’s Principles for Responsible Investment (PRI) in 2006, then the Sustainable Stock Exchange Initiative (SSEI) in 2007.
Almost all major companies rely on ESG criteria. Many model their ESG scoring systems after the Stakeholder Capitalism Metrics developed by the World Economic Forum (WEF), a globalist lobbying organization. “Stakeholder capitalism” is the attempt to modify corporations’ behaviors to benefit stakeholders instead of shareholders, necessitating corporate cooperation with government: something Yee claimed allows government overreach and free market subversion.
Leaders aspiring to ESG principles should expand their networks and get out of their comfort zones. @blackrock’s Pam Chan explains more on #MeetTheLeader W/@lindalacina
The WEF claims that ESG criteria are financially material. They argue that poor ESG scoring played a role in 15 out of 17 S&P 500 bankruptcies that occurred between 2005 and 2015.
This week, Democratic gubernatorial candidate Katie Hobbs launched a campaign ad featuring a sheriff who denied the existence of the border crisis. Yet, Hobbs characterized the border situation as a crisis in her proposed plan to improve the border.
Santa Cruz County Sheriff David Hathaway denied that there was a border crisis last April when he rejected Arizona National Guard assistance for his county. Hathaway said that the only crisis Arizona suffered from was an economic crisis, seeming to insinuate that border restrictions prevented Mexican workers from contributing to the U.S. economy.
“We don’t have a migrant crisis on the border. We do not need to militarize our counties and have troops come to the border,” said Hathaway. “We have certain, very vocal sheriffs in this state who are trying to fan the flames on a supposed crisis.”
We need less talk and more action when it comes to securing the border. My highest priority is keeping Arizona communities safe which is why law enforcement like Sheriff Hathaway and Sheriff Nanos are backing my campaign. Watch here👇 pic.twitter.com/4IpFuUJgND
In the video, Hathaway said he was “tired of the talk” of other politicians and declared that Hobbs was the candidate who would take action.
Hobbs’ campaign video also featured Sheriff Chris Nanos. His remarks alluded to Hathaway’s past sentiments: that characterizations of the border as a crisis were overblown.
“She’s not here to politicize our border,” said Nanos.
Sheriff David Hathaway giving Governor candidate Katie Hobbs a tour of the beautiful ranchlands of Santa Cruz County. pic.twitter.com/LVBPpmxck4
— Sheriff David Hathaway, Santa Cruz County, AZ (@JamesDavidHath1) August 30, 2022
Hobbs’ views on the border have resulted in mixed messaging. In May, Hobbs said it was “ridiculous” that the border was a core issue for the governor’s race. In the preceding months, Hobbs flipped on her support for ending Title 42. Hobbs initially supported an immediate end to Title 42 before adopting her current perspective that Title 42’s demise would be a “rash decision” and a “disaster.”
Hobbs’ border plan pledged a “tough but fair immigration process” that would disincentivize illegal entry. She promised increased funding for border sheriffs and law enforcement, increased funding for border community centers and hospitals, increased funding for ports of entry, an increase and reallocation of work visas to address the labor shortage, a short-term plan to phase out Title 42, and citizenship for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrival (DACA) recipients.
By comparison, Republican gubernatorial candidate Kari Lake’s border plan issued a lengthier plan. Lake proposed the establishment of an interstate compact in which a commission would oversee border operations. States in the compact would declare an invasion; create a border security force that would arrest, detain, and deport illegal immigrants; and buck federal restrictions and regulations from federal border enforcement agencies.
Additionally, Lake promised to veto any budget that didn’t fully fund border wall completion, derive border construction funds from seized cartel assets, request border construction reimbursement from the federal government, expand the Arizona Rangers, destroy smuggler and cartel tunnels using Israeli military expertise, shoot down Mexican drones in Arizona airspace, increase the National Guards’ border presence and grant detainment authority, put a carveout in HB2810 to allow for civil asset forfeiture of cartel and trafficking assets, allow law enforcement to arrest illegal immigrants under trespassing laws, create a special “border court” within the superior court to adjudicate illegal immigrant trespassing crimes, allow the Arizona Guard and National Guard to deport illegal immigrants, expand Governor Doug Ducey’s Border Strike Force Bureau, creation of a border task force for the tribal communities, institute a “Refuse and Lose” law that divests state funding from counties or municipalities that employ sanctuary policies, creation of a publicly-available illegal alien database, lobby Congress to remove Arizona from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals jurisdiction, have cartels designated as terrorist organizations, and require stricter screening for illegal immigrant minor placement.
Arizona Treasurer Kimberly Yee divested $143 million from Unilever because its subsidiary, Ben & Jerry’s, boycotted Israel — inspiring multiple other states to follow suit. Arizona law prohibits state funds from going to entities that boycott Israel.
In the weeks after Yee’s decision, Texas, New Jersey, New York, and Florida pulled their investments from Unilever. Altogether, their divestments totaled well over $500 million. Yee said the series of events were a testament to Arizona’s leadership in an interview with AZ Free News.
“It was truly a movement,” said Yee.
These divestments all occurred last fall, but it wasn’t until late June that Unilever decided to sell Ben & Jerry’s in the Israel area, effectively ending boycott. Yee recounted how Unilever informed her immediately that they sold their Ben & Jerry’s business in the West Bank to an Israeli-owned manufacturing company. However, Yee explained that she was hesitant to reinvest in Unilever because of their delay in complying. Yee issued the ultimatum last September.
“My response to them was, ‘What took you so long?’” said Yee.
I am pleased that Unilever overturned the decision made by Ben & Jerry's and changed their course of action to boycott Israel as I had requested in September of 2021. I continue to be concerned about the woke decisions of Ben & Jerry's Board of Directors. See full statement: pic.twitter.com/GSoJWdR6uF
Yee observed that Unilever ultimately realized the great financial risk that came with supporting Ben & Jerry’s political activism.
“The response by Unilever was such that they thought there are dollars to be lost by partnering with a company, Ben & Jerry’s, that doesn’t stand with American values,” said Yee.
Yee added that her hesitation was vindicated when Ben & Jerry’s decided to sue Unilever. The ice cream giant requested an injunction, arguing that Unilever’s move to resume Ben & Jerry’s ice cream sales throughout Israel violated its core values. Ben & Jerry’s lost their case last Monday.
That means the ice cream giant doesn’t own and won’t profit from its brand in Israel.
Unilever's arrangement means Ben & Jerry's in Israel will be owned and operated by AQP. Our company will no longer profit from Ben & Jerry's in Israel.
Ben & Jerry’s announced its boycott last July. The company asserted that Israel was occupying the West Bank and Gaza illegally, which it recognized as the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT). The company’s plan was to end its partnership with the licensee that manufactured and distributed its ice cream in Israel. The license agreement would’ve expired at the end of this year.
At the time, Ben & Jerry’s denied that their boycott was part of the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement. They claimed that they would stay in Israel through a different business arrangement, which they haven’t clarified.
The company pledged to disclose this new arrangement before the end of this year, according to what Unilever toldReuters in February. It appears that the arrangement either never came to fruition, or a satisfactory one wasn’t produced by the end of June, when Unilever announced it would sell Ben & Jerry’s in Israel.
Unilever may not be the only company that Arizona won’t invest in due to Israel boycotts. This past week, Yee announced that Morningstar, a major global financial services company, may be placed on the state’s list of prohibited investments if it doesn’t prove that its subsidiary, Sustainalytics, isn’t boycotting Israel. Although Arizona doesn’t have public funds invested in Morningstar currently, it would prevent future investments.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
Last Tuesday, hundreds of concerned Gilbert citizens enlivened a town council study session with vocal opposition to funding any rail project — not even a survey.
Most of the council expressed confusion about the citizens’ discontent, denying intent on establishing a commuter rail in the town. Councilwoman Kathy Tilque stated repeatedly that there were no plans to bring a commuter rail to Gilbert, and that it probably wouldn’t ever happen. Mayor Brigette Peterson and councilmembers Scott Anderson, Yung Koprowski, and Scott September echoed Tilque’s sentiment throughout the study session, which neared two hours.
“I’m just trying to figure out why we have so many upset people thinking we’re spending taxpayer dollars to bring a commuter rail here,” said Tilque.
Earlier this year, the council proposed a $289,000 consulting contract for a feasibility study on establishing a commuter rail. Council discussion on the subject revealed similar divisions that persisted in last week’s discussions.
When Peterson repeated that Gilbert hasn’t issued plans to build a commuter rail, the citizens shouted “Lies!” Peterson insisted she was telling the truth, further claiming that Gilbert wouldn’t have any say over the establishment of a commuter rail on existing rail lines. Vice Mayor Aimee Yentes rebutted that the town’s actions over the years conflicted Peterson’s claim.
Yentes told AZ Free News that the council’s denial of commuter rail planning was “semantics,” pointing out a February 2018 development agreement, Resolution No. 3955, that Peterson signed onto while a councilwoman. That development agreement described the possibility of a light rail as well as a commuter rail, further conflicting with another one of Peterson’s claims in a July statement that the term “light rail” was used by outside groups and individuals, and that “there are no plans, discussions, or any considerations to construct or extend a light rail” to Gilbert.
The development agreement further noted that the town of Gilbert would be responsible for the cost of future development of a transit station at Cooley Station Village Center. According to a 2018 study on commuter rails conducted by the Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG), nearly all commuter rails require a dedicated local sales tax to operate.
During the study session, Yentes asserted that the community’s discontent stems from the council’s unwillingness to take a definitive stance for or against a commuter rail, not a misunderstanding over the town’s role as one of several decision makers on establishing a commuter rail.
“Clearly they’ve been planning for it. They’ve done studies. They’ve dedicated transit stations. They’ve entered into a development agreement that tried to bind us to it. There’s lots of things that Gilbert can do to either plan to do it or be a thorn in their side,” said Yentes.
Yentes proposed an ordinance to prohibit the use of town resources for the furtherance of commuter and light rail development. That would also prohibit additional taxes and application of funds to carry out related studies. It will be voted on during next Tuesday’s town council meeting.
Yentes warned that the city of Phoenix’s commuter and light rails “cannibalized” their transportation budget to the extent that the city couldn’t fix potholes, prompting citizens to pass an additional sales tax in 2017 to cover those expenses.
Tilque called Yentes’ proposed ordinance “dishonest representation” since future councils may overturn it. However, that’s something that new leadership may do at any given time with any ordinance, which Yentes pointed out.
One citizen, Brandon Ryff, told AZ Free News that Tilque’s opposition to the ordinance came across as doubting citizens’ intelligence. Ryff expressed frustration over the conflict between Peterson’s remarks and actions concerning a commuter rail, citing the 2018 development agreement.
Ryff also criticized commuter rails as outdated, “19th-century” technology, pointing out the consistent drop in ridership throughout major cities in Arizona and other states. He contrasted the decline in ridership with the consistent uptick in crime. In Phoenix, crime rates have nearly doubled since 2016; a majority of those crimes were aggravated assault and drug offenses.
“We laugh at it and say that [a commuter rail] looks like a solution looking for a problem,” said Ryff. “For whatever reason and whatever motivation, our town council is defying all logic concerning crime statistics and progress. I can’t help but feel this is related to money from somewhere. Someone is influencing these people to behave this way. It just doesn’t make sense.”
Another citizen, Tyler Farnsworth, remarked to AZ Free News that their opposition was a positive example of engaged citizenry, yet most of the council portrayed it as a negative. Farnsworth commended Yentes’ proposed resolution barring their tax money from funding town rail projects.
“The Mayor and several members of the Council were visibly and vocally annoyed that citizens chose to show up and speak their mind,” said Farnsworth. “We just want to be heard. We want our tax money to be spent wisely. I hope the meeting was a wake up call to this Council. We are watching. Welcome to democracy in action.”
Watch the study session below:
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
Last Tuesday, the Tucson City Council mandated new multifamily residential, office, and commercial buildings increase their costs by requiring them to be outfitted with electric vehicle charging stations. The new requirement, Ordinance No. 11953, takes effect on December 1 (the council agreed to that date during last Tuesday’s meeting, not the one written into the ordinance linked).
The council also allowed builders to reduce regular parking by up to 30 percent in order to incentivize electric vehicle usage.
Tucson #August wins! 🙌 1. Passed amendments to require EV readiness in new multifamily/office/retail spaces. 2. Received $12.1M grant to double our EV bus fleet 3. Received a $1 Million dollar Brownfields grant to remediate and redevelop in historically underserved communities
This latest mandate is an expansion of an ongoing initiative by the council to make all of Tucson electric vehicle-friendly. Last summer, the council mandated that all new single and duplex homes have electric vehicle charging. As part of that mandate, the council launched planning efforts to draft this latest requirement.
Mayor Regina Romero insisted during last Tuesday’s council meeting that the city needed to keep up with the federal government’s climate change initiatives. Romero alluded that electric vehicles were the answer to the historically high gas prices, which she acknowledged was hurting people.
The resounding sentiment of the council was that climate change necessitated immediate action in the form of electric vehicle infrastructure expansion.
However, some researchers report that the mining and production of electric vehicle batteries negate the environmental benefits of driving electric through carbon emissions and water depletion. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rejects those observations, along with concerns that the electricity generated for charging creates other negative environmental impacts.
Yang Shao-Horn, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) engineering professor, indicated that battery production processes aren’t environmentally friendly.
“If we don’t change how we make materials, how we make chemicals, how we manufacture, everything will essentially stay the same,” stated Shao-Horn.
Electric cars require lithium for rechargeable batteries. Atop salt flats of northern Chile, lithium evaporation ponds stretch across the Atacama Desert. Charlotte, N.C.-based Albermarle Corp. mines lithium there from underground brine. #gettyimages#gettyimagesnews#lithiumpic.twitter.com/md6Ux1GE9s
There’s also concern over the toxic waste of expired electric vehicle batteries. Apart from that issue, crashes or manufacturing mishaps may result in batteries emitting toxic fumes at best or fires and explosions at worst.
Only 64 members of the public reportedly offered input to the city council; about 50 (80 percent) expressed support for the requirement, with 26 (40 percent) insisting that the requirement should go further.
Tucson’s electric vehicle initiative aligns with state goals. In June, the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) announced the development of a statewide network of electric vehicle charging stations using over $76 million in federal funds. At present, ADOT is gathering public input.
ADOT laying groundwork to develop statewide network of electric vehicle charging stations. More than $76 million in federal dollars on the way to state. More: https://t.co/bYdirQMSFHpic.twitter.com/Nt4StF3nsP
