{"id":409416,"date":"2025-10-21T11:48:43","date_gmt":"2025-10-21T09:48:43","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=409416"},"modified":"2025-10-21T11:48:45","modified_gmt":"2025-10-21T09:48:45","slug":"u-s-out-of-un-principles-for-climate-related-financial-risk-management","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=409416","title":{"rendered":"U.S. Out of UN \u2018Principles for Climate-Related Financial Risk Management\u2019"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"Dramatic<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

From Master Resource<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

By Robert Bradley Jr.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cThe federal bank regulatory agencies today announced the withdrawal of interagency Principles for Climate-Related Financial Risk Management for Large Financial Institutions.\u201d (- Federal Reserve Board, October 16, 2025) [1]<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThe private sector can fend for itself versus global government and the pretense of climate knowledge. The United Nations should not have indirect regulatory authority over the United States. The United States comes first.\u201d (below)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Climate activist Laurie Schoeman<\/a>, \u201cworking at crossroads of climate risk, housing, and capital markets,\u201d posted<\/a> on social media:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

The Federal Reserve Board has announced that U.S. federal finance agencies who regulate our banking and financial sector [Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation; Federal Reserve Board; Office of the Comptroller of the Currency] are withdrawing from the Interagency Principles for Climate-Related Financial Risk Management \u2014 a framework designed to help large financial institutions manage exposure to climate risk. This is not an America First move \u2014 it\u2019s an America unprepared move.

At a time when communities across the country are already battling floods, fires, and billion-dollar weather events, pulling back on climate risk management isn\u2019t a show of strength \u2014 it\u2019s a bet against resilience.

These principles weren\u2019t political; they were pragmatic. Every financial institution, regardless of size, is expected to manage material financial risks \u2014 and climate risk is undeniably one of them.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

She closed<\/a>:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

This moment demands leadership from markets, municipalities, and local innovators who understand that ignoring climate risk doesn\u2019t make it disappear \u2014 it just compounds the cost. The future rewards those who manage risk, not those who deny it.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

COMMENT<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

This above lament is wrong on all counts. As I commented<\/a>:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

This is good news. Takes politics out. If private parties (banks) really believe this stuff, they can act outside of politics, right?<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Schoeman doubled down<\/a> in response to another comment:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

It surprises me because it\u2019s such a shortsighted action for an administration that portends [Sic<\/em>. \u201cpretends\u201d?] to care a lot about needs of the private sector.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Wrong! The private sector can fend for itself versus global government and the pretense of climate knowledge. The United Nations should not have indirect regulatory authority over the United States. The United States comes first.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

[1]<\/strong> Agencies announce withdrawal of principles for climate-related financial risk management<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n