“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
“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.”
The near religious fervor that characterizes proselytizers of the evidence deficient “Catastrophic/dangerous, CO2-driven anthropogenic global warming/climate change” CONJECTURE always amazes me. It’s so obvious that they have never actually examined the woefully flimsy underpinnings of their hysteria.
Many fighting industrial chaos, wind and solar, non performing, useless, costly, are fully aware of the UN: catastrophic, dangerous, climate agenda. Would love to see a data scrape on the costs. Thanks for this post, Mr. Bradley.