First off, I have to give props to Larry Fink of BlackRock for style points. Any letter not addressed to a family member that starts “Dear….” is bound to be a fun read and in this case, “Dear CEO” is a strong opener. Unlike the letters that I start with “Dear PDC”, when the writer has $6.3 trillion in assets under management (AUM), the reader is going to listen and so this week, Mr. Fink had a lot of CEOs searching their gigantic offices for a change of pants.

If you don’t know BlackRock, it is a huge U.S. fund manager through which some of your retirement accounts are likely invested through the family of iShares exchange trade funds. ETFs like these are passive funds that mirror the market index. The fund has no choice in what they buy, if or when they sell and historically, managers haven’t exerted influence on the strategic direction of the companies they own through their proxy votes or nicely worded letters. As a result, companies love them! A quiet shareholder that just signs off on everything I do?? Sign me up! And passive ETFs are big business, having surpassed $4.3 trillion in value because investors like you and me keep putting our money into them.

But in signaling a change of course, Mr. Fink served notice that BlackRock sees for itself a bigger roll in holding management teams and boards accountable for their actions. Now, if the question you are asking is: who put BlackRock in charge of judging what’s in the best interest of stakeholders when it’s actually OUR money they are investing, I would agree with you, that IS a very good question but not the topic of today’s blog.

The letter was a served on a climate change platform that was heavy on words but light on content. What is undeniable is that BlackRock will increase it’s focus on governance and in that regard, the easiest target is executive compensation. This a good thing and long overdue. “We believe that when a company is not effectively addressing a material issue, its directors should be held accountable.” Mr. Fink is as good as anyone to judge when a board is misaligned on the subject of executive compensation.

But what about the part of the letter regarding climate change? You may have noticed that in this deeply polarized world, it is objectionable to speak out against “the climate change movement”. Do so and you may find yourself targeted on social media, called all sorts of names and feel a level of intense hatred usually reserved for ex’s. Fortunately, I get called a lot of names so I’m going to dive right into the middle of this debate.

The CONVENIENT discussion on climate change revolves around whether CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions are raising the temperature of the planet and having adverse impacts on weather patterns that will lead to changes in sea level, agricultural performance and urban planning. The REAL discussion should be: are legislators willing to tell their voters what “the green economy” and Paris Accord means for economic growth, prosperity and the big one…. consumption.

In spite of huge strides in improved efficiency, in the U.S., we consume roughly the same energy annually as we did in 2000. Why? More financial prosperity has lead to more TVs, computers, streaming videos, data stored in a in a cloud, social media and driving. How many people have less stuff than they had in 2000? Exactly.

And where does that stuff come from? Unless you have been living under a (black) rock, you will have noticed that we are in a large trade dispute with China because of a “trade imbalance”. Translation: we buy a lot of consumer goods that are produced with power (and emissions) that we have off-shored to other countries. Here’s a data point: 73% of the world’s coal fired electricity generation is in Asia. Our consumption habits are driving the growth of coal power generation.

And oil? In the world, we consume 100 mmbbls per day. In the U.S alone, we consume 20 and 70% of that is used in transportation. As for the rest of our domestic energy production? Look at the chart.

What about CO2 emissions from the food chain? 14.5% of global carbon emissions are from livestock. Is everyone planning on becoming vegetarian? Although, if that were the case, 9 billion chickens a year would feel more secure in their greener pastures.

I could go on, but I will stop on this point: life expectancy in 1850 was 38. Today, it is 78. We eat artichokes and mandarin oranges anytime we want (and we want). We have access to more data on our phone than on any other device at any point in human history. Life is good.

The solution to emissions is de-growth. Less meat. Less travel. Less life expectancy. Less pets. Less kids. And all that will lead to less happiness and less votes for politicians which is the real reason we aren’t having this conversation in the media.

The real question is: does everyone know what “less” means? Mr. Fink knows it. That’s why BlackRock is more focused on the “G” than the “ES” in ESG to make sure that they continue to grow AUM.