By Robert Bradley Jr. — October 20, 2025
“The federal bank regulatory agencies today announced the withdrawal of interagency Principles for Climate-Related Financial Risk Management for Large Financial Institutions.” (- Federal Reserve Board, October 16, 2025) [1]
“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.” (below)
Climate activist Laurie Schoeman, “working at crossroads of climate risk, housing, and capital markets,” posted on social media:
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 — a framework designed to help large financial institutions manage exposure to climate risk. This is not an America First move — it’s 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’t a show of strength — it’s a bet against resilience.
These principles weren’t political; they were pragmatic. Every financial institution, regardless of size, is expected to manage material financial risks — and climate risk is undeniably one of them.
She closed:
This moment demands leadership from markets, municipalities, and local innovators who understand that ignoring climate risk doesn’t make it disappear — it just compounds the cost. The future rewards those who manage risk, not those who deny it.
COMMENT
This above lament is wrong on all counts. As I commented:
This is good news. Takes politics out. If private parties (banks) really believe this stuff, they can act outside of politics, right?
Schoeman doubled down in response to another comment:
It surprises me because it’s such a shortsighted action for an administration that portends [Sic. “pretends”?] to care a lot about needs of the private sector.
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.
[1] Agencies announce withdrawal of principles for climate-related financial risk management
- Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
- Federal Reserve Board
- Office of the Comptroller of the Currency
“The federal bank regulatory agencies today announced the withdrawal of interagency Principles for Climate-Related Financial Risk Management for Large Financial Institutions.
The agencies do not believe principles for managing climate-related financial risk are necessary because the agencies’ existing safety and soundness standards require all supervised institutions to have effective risk management commensurate with their size, complexity, and activities. In addition, all supervised institutions are expected to consider and appropriately address all material financial risks and should be resilient to a range of risks, including emerging risks.
The interagency principles were previously issued jointly by the agencies in October 2023. The notice, which will be issued in the Federal Register, rescinds these principles effective immediately. The OCC withdrew its participation in the principles earlier this year.”
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I have read that the Supreme Court has declared that treaties cannot change the Constitution; that they have no force until implementing laws have been duly passed, and those laws are subject to all the usual court overview. IANAL and have no references.
I would hope the courts would have treated this and the IMO tax and other back door amendments similarly.
Correct, however, a treaty ratified by 2/3 of the Senate must be adhered to by all of the states. I doubt this has happened.
I read that Clinton when asked why did he sign the Kyoto Treaty responded that he knew Congress would never ratify it.
Technically, the Senate does not ratify treaties. The Senate approves treaties for ratification by the President. Without the Senate involved, the treaties cannot be considered ratified.
As pointed out, the treaty itself does not supersede the Constitution. Congress has the pass legislation to incorporate the treaty into US law.
A ratified treaty will not change the US Constitution. The individual states must abide by it despite their individual state constitutions (probably why it takes 2/3 of the Senate) but only the Amendment process can change the US Constitution itself. That’s an intentionally hard process.
(Of course, the Left tries to get around that by having the courts rude from the bench.)
An issue is that such UN agreements are not even proper treaties, debated and ratified by the US Senate.
They get around that by saying the US signed and ratified the UN treaty, therefore the US has to follow all UN regulations. That is an interesting point. If you sign up with Book-of-the-Month club, and they change their terms of service, are you still bound by that membership contract? What if all they change is the mailing address for paying bills? Plenty of room for lawyers to quibble.
Article 19 of the Vienna Convention on the law of Treaties in 1969.
“a party cannot add a reservation after it has already joined a treaty”
“a formal amendment requires State parties to the treaty to go through the ratification process all over again”
so it cuts both ways a party can’t change their interpretation and another party can’t change the treaty.
So if the UN changes the treaty it breaks the treaty which is why things like the human rights treaty has numbers. Many countries are not members of the later treaties.
For example Australia is only a member of 7 of the 9 core human rights the current UN document lists. The 7 are listed of the attorney general site
https://www.ag.gov.au/rights-and-protections/human-rights-and-anti-discrimination/international-human-rights-system
That’s fascinating. I had no idea there was a treaty on treaties.
Interesting. Wikipedia says the US has not ratified it.
Basically it is advantageous to NOT ratify treaties. Then you can live by them while they are advantageous and ignore them when they are not.
Former President Obama and his advisers worked very hard to make the Paris Agreement an agreement, not a treaty, so that he didn’t have to submit it to the Senate. It is not now, nor has it ever been a treaty. It is not binding.
Correct.
One could ask analogous questions re. the obligation of the peoples of the States when the Federal government basically ignores its limitations under the Constitution.
Pitchforks and torches.
The Constitutions was assembled with provisions that allow overthrow of a tyranny to be replaced with a Constitutional government.
If the President signed it without Senate concurrence, it is not ratified.
Somebody tell the bond ratings agencies they can drop the climate charade in ratings criteria.
The only climate management risk is the management picking winners-
SA government hopes selling generators can recoup costs of scrapped hydrogen plant
Um… yeah. Inflation outruns depriation? Who would be the buyer?
It’s worse than that the generator hasn’t been built they have a contract to supply. Honestly given the generator hasn’t been built you would negotiate an out with manufacturer which would generally be the profit they would make so somewhere between 15-30% of cost of contract.
“Climate risk” is as real as spooks, hobgoblins, and space aliens. Ignoring them won’t make them disappear either.
A spooky graph divulging where they all are-
Majority Of Earth’s Land At Risk, Study Warns | Watch
Save yourself and get thee to COP30
Says “Potsdam Institute” at the top….should be a dead giveaway that it is somewhere below dubious in the science ratings…
Are you saying extra-terrestrial spooks and hobgoblins are not real?
Well, the spooky action from a distance (some lightspeed and seemingly cause&effect ignoring stuff) is real.
Hobgoblin – ever seen Ruth Vader Ginsberg?
Space Aliens – 99% of them crash in the USA(after flying quadrillion of miles at hyperlightspeed without any problems) , the Bermuda triangle of the Universe.
As an American you should respect them a bit more for this.Especially for the fact that 90% of them speak English.
Actually “Climate risk” is very real but it has to do with politics and consequences and nothing to do with innocent molecules.
Laurie is unhappy that, as a former Biden senior policy advisor, her climate grifting is coming to an end.
I see some confusion in the terms and meanings ascribed to those terms.
‘Climate risk’ does not mean the same as ‘risks associated with climate change’.
The climate will always pose a risk, as it has since Adam was a boy.
Climate change risk is predicated on every weather event being caused by CO2 and we should all wear sackcloth and ashes
Incorrect- Adam as a boy lived in Paradise = no climate risk at all.
Only risks were snakes and apples
and a hungry bored chick – but that’s the quality you get out of a rib.
What a strange situation – US is UN’s biggest contributor but chooses not to participate.
US is doing a lot of harm by funding this awful institution. We can only hope Trump withdraws the funds and makers life hard for those at the UN headquarters.
Nothing strange, but typical.
You are also the biggest contributer in Ukraine (starting with the 5 billion Nuland bragged about a decade ago), yet you don’t participate.
You are and will also be the greatest contributer Taiwan.
You’ve also been the greatest contributer in several “revolutions” , either directly via the NED or indirectly by giving billions to the NGO’s of Soros and friends.
Bugs me that you’re mostly right. My government borrowed the money so technically it’s my potential grandkids who will pay for those things, not me. I’m still paying to keep the USSR out of Afganistan?
There’s a danger to the tomorrow’s-taxes-for-yesterday’s-projects system USA and others have adopted. Same danger would exist for a UN with a globalized tax base. As spending gets farther abstracted from revenue collection people stop being able to know what they’ve funded.
The term “climate-related risks” should be changed to:
“weather-related risks”. There is no such phenomena as climate change or crisis because most of the earth’s climate is water, rocks, sand, ice and snow. Activities of humans can no effect on the vast Pacific ocean, the Andes mountains or the Sahara desert.
Activities of humans in an urban area can change local climate due to the UHI effect. In some countries, the stripping of plants for food and feed for animals can lead to desertification.
As others already stated on this site:
USA out of UN
and
UN out of USA
And further I would add
US government (and all the others) out of our very lifes
There, the solution that faces the lack of will of being realized. With it all eco, left and other tards face what they deserve: a life of utter insignificance and without bread and butter.
They can all join Greta’s next flotilla to nowhere.
https://babylonbee.com/news/sad-greta-thunberg-asks-if-anyone-else-needs-a-flotilla
Yes, that recent, paltry +0.15 C/decade is a massive climate risk. Well have to set our air conditioners down an extra… wait… Can you even adjust your thermostat by less than 1 ⁰C or 1 ⁰F? You certainly can’t feel it. But sea level rise. That’s where we’re really feeling the heat so to speak at around 2 to 3mm per year. I mean, it’ll take only two to three HUNDRED years to rise the 0.63 meters that the ludicrous RCP8.5 projection predicts. That’s as long as the United States has existed. That’s 7 to 10 generations of humans. Your great great great great great great great great grandkids are in dire trouble from rising seas. Of course if you’re a leftist your won’t have any because you don’t have kids. Just pets.
Laurie Schoeman lives in a fantasy world. I guarantee you that she has no idea about basic atmospheric facts, such as: what is the atmospheric composition today and how much of each constituent in ppm.
Managing risk is one thing. Being coerced to manage it in a one size fits all imposed method is simply overreach and wrong and the unintended consequences will be stark.