Tag Archives: Righteous Risks

Righteous Risks Part 2: Foundations of Virtue

From The Risk-Monger Blog

Posted by RISKMONGER

In the introduction to this series, righteous risks were defined as the threat to societal well-being when value-based motives influence decision-making more than facts and evidence. Policies should be determined according to the best pragmatic solutions to complex problems with conflicting interests being addressed through a consensus approach. More and more though, regulators are being led by moral dogma and ethical exclusion techniques dictated by influential stakeholders.

Policymaking is often framed now in a virtue context rather than policy management.

  • Fighting climate change is the morally responsible thing to do and takes an overarching precedent.
  • Good leaders can only protect public health by banning synthetic chemicals and pesticides (associated with evil corporations peddling poisons).
  • Plastic waste has caused moral outrage, from straws up a turtle’s nostril to the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, so it is a righteous imperative that all plastics should be removed from the market.
  • Industry has been profiting for decades at the expense of the poor, working class so the benign regulator must act to restrict company involvement in any policy process.
  • The distinction is clear: industry lobbies (deceptive, bad) while NGOs advocate (supportive, good).Capitalism is inherently wasteful and unjust; we must transition to a degrowth, human economy.
  • Sustainability is a virtue and pollution and waste are the key vices.

The problem though is that such moral dogma is usually framed in clear black and white (good v evil) distinctions while the reality of policymaking is usually more grey. Most plastic applications are more sustainable than the alternatives; a large proportion of proposed climate measures will damage the environment; industry is the key driver of sustainable innovations; agroecology and organic farming will lead to greater degradation and food loss… but any leaders who accept such realities are dismissed with a wave of righteous indignation.

Aren’t all Facts Value-Driven?

There has always been a normative influence to any decision-making process, often framed as “the right thing to do”. The values driving decisions may be socialist, Christian, liberal, conservative – such is the nature of politics. But these values were tones while the facts, the data, the scientific evidence, were always the anchors for their decisions. Such decisions had always been considered as objective or at the very least, respectful to the evidence.Post-modernists though want us to believe that scientific data is value-driven as well (by cherry-pickers with political interests). In reality, those who are funding the research are value-driven … and the scientists seeking such funding might be forced to pony up to the trough aware that they need to add those values or fit the research results to the funders’ interests. Today if a scientist wants funding or wants to get an article published, they need to exaggerate the link of their data to climate change, synthetic chemical risks, potential for biodiversity destruction… (reminiscent of debates on how many angels can dance on a pin). This creates a belief that there is morally correct data – a righteous risk.This mindset though raises a serious question for research integrity as seen with the recent debate after Patrick Brown admitted he had to over-emphasize climate effects to get his paper published. But it in no way means that scientific data is value-based as post-modernists portend.Much of the moralization of the environmental health policy process is driven by activist NGOs who are using their social media and mass media networks to define a narrative that funnels any decision into an ethical choice (our way or the bad way). Their simplistic solutions (organic food, renewable energy, zero-waste, carbon-neutral transportation…) are ethically framed as good things to do. Industry lobbies are bad but we are the good guys protecting you. Any industry that does not fit within their righteous framework is being systematically “tobacconised”: delegitimized and deformalized as evil scourges on the heart of humanity.But how did these activist groups become the key influencers in these ethically-driven regulatory chambers? How did policymaking shift from the pragmatic balancing of the best possible choices among the myriad of interests and stakeholders (Realpolitik) to pure virtue politics – leading by a sort of Divine Rite of Virtue? As always with any lobbying success, we need to follow the money.

Foundations: Virtue Capitalism

Time was that NGOs would raise money through membership dues, coin drums and the clipboard brigades on street corners. As the non-profit sector expanded in size and influence, around the beginning of the millennium, they grew in staff and campaigns, some becoming global powerhouses. Greenpeace had a fleet of pirate ships that needed funding, Friends of the Earth needed to hire the best lobbyists, Pesticide Action Network needed to pay for scientists … loose change just didn’t cut it.At the same time, the world of foundations and charitable trusts was changing.Time was that foundations and family trusts funded research into deadly diseases, humanitarian missions, scholarships and the fine arts. But their coffers increased and their boards became more ambitious (not to mention an influx of dot-com and Web 2.0 billionaires all taking the “Pledge”). In a recent Firebreak article, I examined this evolution in the non-government sphere.The policy arena is changing rapidly as certain righteous-driven foundations (from Bloomberg Philanthropies to the Rockefeller Brothers to Soros’ Open Society Foundations) are donating to NGOs who are driven to advance a fundamentalist narrative, put their values at the core of policy campaigns and lobby policymakers relentlessly to put their virtue policies above evidence and other stakeholder interests. In the last decade, foundations have become the key funding source for most environmental-health NGOs, and the number of these groups have grown impressively (while memberships and internal dialogue have declined to insignificance). Some of the more abrasive and less scrupulous NGOs, like US Right to Know and Corporate Europe Observatory, are entirely funded by the same group of, often, militant foundations or non-transparent donor-advised funds.Donor-advised funds allow interest groups like tort law firms and the organic food industry lobby to anonymously support activist groups without disclosing their support or their conflicts of interest. It allows NGOs to operate non-transparently while condemning other groups for, well, the same thing. I recently showed how Jennifer Baichwal, director of the film Into the Weeds, was funded via dark sources to produce a film saluting the tort law industry for taking on Monsanto and their non-transparent practices. As they travel the world promoting their film as part of the anti-glyphosate campaign, do these activists not see their hypocrisy? And Baichwal is excessively righteous.

From my Foundations for Activism series in The Firebreak

As social media campaigns can deliver more efficient lobbying returns, as research studies can be more economically financed and poor findings more easily published, and as media groups can be more easily manipulated (by the same foundation funding), these foundations have grown more successful in advancing their ethical values onto policy measures. The public policy landscape has changed as these soft lobbyists are able to instal activists to represent their moral objectives.

For ambitious young people today, I would recommend working your way up a foundation’s management structure. The directors of large foundations carry more influence and (moral) power than many global leaders. The president of George Soros’ Open Society Foundations, Mark Malloch-Brown, for example, was the former Deputy Secretary-General of the United Nations. But what you gain in influence you will likely have to pay for with cynicism.

Uncompromising Promises

Ethics may speak of good v evil in some absolute virtue theatre, but there are grey scales … or should I say: “white lies”. These are ethical compromises for the greater good. A white lie is pragmatic and removes the uncompromising sanctimony that rigid, righteousness demands. Politics is the art of compromise but moral zealots would refuse any compromises to their level of virtue excellence. If you hold yourself to a higher noble standard, and you identify others as pure evil, then any compromise to the interests of the heathens (ie, industry, researchers or consumers) is inconceivable.

People do not compromise if they don’t have to. If activists, or their NGOs, are handsomely paid by ethically-driven foundations to pursue some policy outcome that is deemed morally pure, then they will fight it out to the bitter end. Some examples:

  • Earlier this year, The Risk-Monger leaked an internal document from a group of German anti-biotech campaigners who had admitted the evidence on plant breeding was against them. Their solution was to reframe their campaign as a social justice struggle of good v evil. As the organic retail chain, Bioland, is still funding their admitted lost cause, it is inconceivable for them to sit down with policymakers and find a compromise with industry.
  • If foundations like Bloomberg Philanthropies pay activists to campaign to stop the use of nicotine alternatives like vaping, and they have identified the companies promoting e-cigarettes as evil, then it will be very unlikely that they would be open to a compromise. They are accountable to their funders and no one else.

Ironically, in order to hold to their higher moral identity, these activists are lying to the public and spreading baseless fears. But as they see themselves as crusaders, I’m sure they don’t see it that way. As long as these foundations keep the NGOs well-funded and ready to fight over the long haul, then compromises are not on the table. Their righteous virtue is not for sale.

Spreading their Wings of Influence

Each foundation has, by definition, a set of moral objectives that earmark their philanthropy. Bloomberg Philanthropies‘ objectives, for example, “guide initiatives that tackle a wide range of issues to save and improve lives around the world”. This cause includes funding campaigns on public health and the environment, promoting NGOs taking a strong position against sugary drinks, snacks and vaping. The David and Lucile Packard Foundation aims to create “enduring solutions for just societies and a healthy, resilient natural world”. In seeking justice on issues concerning human health and the environment, it is not surprising that much of their money goes to moralising, militant NGOs.But these foundations are not just funding NGOs to do their bidding; they are also buying ink in the mainstream media, paying tort law firms to pursue public nuisance lawsuits and using their donations to UN agencies as free microphones for their activism (COP28 in Dubai seemed to have a special hall dedicated to speeches from philanthropists who have donated to UN activities).As media organisations go through a painful economic transition with the shift to digital news, foundations have discovered the benefits of funding news organisations like The Guardian or creating new ones like the The Examination. But we would be naive to think their funding was not tied to issues and values that are central to the foundations. These foundations are effectively buying off struggling journalists to articulate their shameless sanctimony.

Tens of millions of foundation money donated to The Guardian earmarked for specific “news” stories

Through their well-funded, multi-pronged programmes and a diverse army of NGO activists, media groups and public figures, these foundations are able to manipulate public perception on food diets, energy sources, new nicotine products, packaging materials, livestock and farming practices… They don’t need to be scientific or evidence-driven, just forceful and ethically-postured.

Yes, Michael Bloomberg actually said this

I have referred to this trend as eco-prohibition or greenhibition. This can be seen as NGOs start to impose their righteous restrictions on consumers who may enjoy snacks, alcohol, meat, vaping, fashion or travel. Not everyone can or wants to pay more for elitist organic food they are told is morally better. Affordable energy supplies should be a right in the West and not a privilege for the wealthy. In fact very few consumers welcome or share the green ideals, appreciate how they are being imposed and share their values. But when foundations have billions to spend, control the media and have convinced themselves they are in the moral mainstream, the democratic process is just a minor detail.There is, of course, a poison pill to protect these foundations. Should any group attack how the foundations are undemocratically imposing their values, they would be seen as “shooting Bambi” and come across even more despicably. The Risk-Monger has shot Bambi on several occasions when the campaign sanctimony had fermented with too much hypocrisy (and has paid heavily for it).And then, just when we thought it could not get any worse, in the last five years, the nature of foundations and activist philanthropy evolved to a worrying state: virtue on steroids.

Effective Altruism and Earn to Give

The FTX-Sam Bankman-Fried and Sam Altman episodes of the past year reflect another type of righteous risk to be considered, when foundations start to interfere with capitalism and democracy for all the wrong reasons. The “foundation consortium”, Effective Ventures, ties together a series of donor-advised funds targeting high-income individuals (particularly in the tech and crypto sector).

These types of next-gen foundations are more like well-funded cults … secretive, abusive and subject to their own moral standards

In cult-like fashion (including multiple cases of sexual abuse of young women pulled into the organisation’s opportunistic appeal), the Effective Altruism (EA) philosophy is that you should try to earn more to be able to give more in order to more effectively save the world. It started out as a methodology to determine the most efficient way for busy, high-net worth individuals to donate to charities making a difference (like malaria nets, vaccines…), but the algorithms (and the key influencers) shifted to promoting more existential risk projects like preventing nuclear meltdowns, climate collapse or runaway AI bots taking over the world. It morphed into a type of algorithmic philanthropy and their solutions could only justify the argument why bots should not have money.

And while the Effective Ventures organizations did well with third-party donor-advised commissions, conference fees and a rapidly expanding following of young worshippers flocking to San Francisco, some young billionaires got a little too caught up in the idea of having the power to save the world. Sam Bankman-Fried, an outspoken advocate and board member of the Effective Ventures group, took the “earn more to give more” righteous philosophy to a higher level by stealing billions from his Alameda Research hedge fund investors, using their money to save the world.

This morality stuff is hard for millennials to get right.

Effective Altruists in the Silicon Valley are forming an influential network for pushing (their conception of) ethical policies forward with large donations aimed at advancing their interests. This network was made evident when two EA-connected OpenAI board members tried to remove Sam Altman as its CEO (for pushing forward the commercial interests of AI over the group’s philanthropic objectives). See my assessment of how aggressive these EA philanthropists have become.

Having thousands of little Robin Hoods running around feeling better about their questionable business practices is a righteous risk in itself. Today billions of dollars of unaccountable donations are flowing through these shell foundations to activist groups and zealot lobbyists who are aggressively running communications campaigns to raise their dogmatic ideologies to the centre of public dialogue, shaping a particular value-driven narrative. From these anti-capitalist campaigns, there has been a marked increase of vilification of practices from conventional farming to vaping to using fossil fuels. The American donor-advised fund structure, where investors can advance their interests non-transparently by donating dark money to activist groups through these third party laundering foundations, should be made illegal.US Right to Know was exposed for accepting USD 360,000 in stolen Alameda Research investors funds in 2022. Until this day, they have refused to give these illegitimate funds back. Their righteous sanctimony must never be used against themselves.

Controlling Righteous Funding

Righteous risks are like any other risk management situation. In order to reduce exposure to righteous risks, the methods in which foundations are operating needs to be addressed. As they are becoming larger and more influential, their role in the influence game must be controlled.

  • Foundations should not be funding news organisations directly or through media foundations.
  • The dark money, non-transparent, donor-advised funds should be made illegal (or at least not tax deductible).
  • Without a representative population (outside of some billionaire), foundations should not be actively involved in policy debates

While foundations present themselves as virtuous, philanthropic endeavors to improve the world (along their objectives and goals), they are effectively undermining democratic institutions by enabling a small group of activists to impose their elitist value system on the greater population with little dialogue or consultation. With seemingly unlimited funding, their influence is expected to expand.

We will not be able to manage righteous risks until we manage the fuel that is powering the key drivers.

The Righteous Risks series will now look at some case studies where policymakers got a bit carried away with their sanctimony.

Enjoyed this read (free with no ads)? Support The Risk-Monger via Patreon. Become a Gold-Monger patron for 5 € / $ per month and get David’s newsletter.

Righteous Risks: Introduction

From Watts Up With That?

Reposted with permission from the Risk-Monger

Posted by RISKMONGER

David Zaruk

  • Synthetic pesticides are under constant regulatory pressure, but not organic pesticides
  • “Green” renewables and EVs have very little regulatory scrutiny
  • Food additives need to meet tight authorisation controls, but not more toxic natural foods
  • Tobacco cessation products (like e-cigarettes) are being restricted on the basis of poor evidence
  • Certain seed breeding innovations are banned even when changes are imperceptible
  • Billions are funnelled into the war on climate, dwarfing aid for education, health and infrastructure

    These are some results from poor righteous risk management.

A righteous risk is a threat of harm to societal well-being that arises when decisions are based solely on widely-shared moral perceptions, social virtues and ethical ideals. This value-based policy approach does not consider facts or data in a consistent manner with certain actors, reinforced by social media tribes, imposing their ideals upon others. Righteous zealots (particularly environmental activists, naturopaths and food puritans) are more intensively forcing their moral dogma upon the policy process. Such value-based regulations are righteous risks that have become a growing threat to entrepreneurs and researchers whose innovations may challenge their traditional ethical norms. In attacking agricultural practices, food choices, energy use, nicotine alternatives and transportation choices, when the righteous feel they have virtue on their side, their reasoning and decision-making become hazardous to others.
This is the introduction to a series on how to manage righteous risks.

Investors struggle today to safely measure financial and economic risks, reduce exposures and identify opportunities. Governments must invest to limit exposures to infrastructure risks. Corporate leaders have to manage trade, market and production risks, often environmental-health risks and, perhaps most importantly, potential regulatory risks. But is anyone managing the threat from righteous risks?

Righteous Risks

A righteous risk arises when a decision is taken on the grounds that it is perceived as the right thing, the virtuous answer, what a good leader would do… But the righteous action is not necessarily the best thing to do. Making decisions solely on some ethical dogma, an unwavering virtuous self-appreciation or a fear of some stakeholder moral condemnation can tie policymakers into irrational regulations that do little but harm. The values that guide decision-makers, or the widely expressed social values that decision-makers feel they need to reflect, do not take into account the complexities of policymaking or the compromises that must be made. Politics is a pragmatic profession, but today we seem to have lost the art of Realpolitik, replaced by a “governance by moral aspiration” approach.

Certain cases of “moral reactivism” have had decision-makers assume the virtue position. Be it forest fires, floods and heatwaves, a tragic publicly-viewed murder or a disaster flowing from industrial negligence, leaders who react to public moral outrage with righteous responses may survive a political backlash but risk making bad decisions if they put some moral idealism before pragmatic problem solving. And if issues are too complex or problematic, policymakers can seek the solace of the precautionary principle, claiming to be a caring, concerned leader.

When moral convictions are cleverly used to justify policy actions, who would possibly be concerned about any contradictions or hypocrisy arising from the policies. Leaders who cloak themselves in virtue, from Ottawa to Wellington to Brussels, pretend to be immune to criticism, put economic or social consequences into a larger, moral crusader context and play the progressive card. Those who highlight their failures are moral delinquents, attacking Bambi.

But Bambi is getting pretty smug and their failures are starting to hurt.

The Virtue of Environmentalism

I had lunch recently with a Brussels insider and we were evaluating the achievements of the von der Leyen Commission. Her tenure was seen as basically a failure (even if we factored out the Timmermans effect). The main weakness was that her policies and postures were more virtue-driven than rational, more ethically-postured aspirations at a time when Europe, faced with pandemics, wars, energy and food inflation and economic crises, needed a more pragmatic Realpolitik approach.

The signature policy of the von der Leyen Commission has been the Green Deal. It was touted as the most important moral and political responsibility of our time to do whatever it takes to combat climate change. There was a war on climate, and thanks to the pontifical architect of this policy, Frans Timmermans, it was also framed as a war against evil: against capitalism and industry.

The word “transition” started to be repeated in any official EU Green Deal speech. When we make a transition, we turn away from the bad and toward the good. The need for an energy transition, mobility transition or a food system transition became synonymous with fighting climate change. But this “transition towards…” strategy, as a righteous crusade, became curious as the Green Deal strategies were presented as virtuous solutions. Renewables, organic food, EVs, non-synthetic chemicals … were promoted within a moral framework, under the virtue of sustainability. Whoever would suggest advancing innovations in carbon capture and storage of fossil fuel emissions instead of more subsidies for renewables had crossed over to the dark side and would soon be ostracised by the community of influencers. When you speak in terms of good v evil in the moral imperative to stop climate change (to right the evils of past generations of unenlightened polluters), the Green Deal becomes a mission of the noble and the virtuous.

The EU Farm2Fork strategy, for example, is built on the perception that organic farming practices are morally superior (not industrial, not chemical-based, more environmentally sustainable). Organic advocates perceive themselves as virtuous (conscious) consumers and, right or wrong, the food companies market into this perception, reinforcing this belief. So who would dare question a major EU policy shift toward organic farming, even if it radically disrupted European food supplies or aggravated global food security? Evil chemical companies lobby for destructive, conventional agricultural practices, pesticides and GMOs while the good small farmers who nourish the land organically are concerned for our well-being. And we are not even talking about vegan sanctimony.

This perception though is myopic and as long as the EU’s food and agriculture strategy favours this righteous approach, the consequences will be more dire for farmers, the environment and consumers. After almost three years of consultation, the European Commission has refused to budge on its pro-organic moral crusade, despite the warnings from its own scientists in the JRC. This perception of a war against evil is a righteous risk that will be very hard to manage if the architects continue to remain doggedly dogmatic. Then again, the vote last week in the European Parliament rejecting the Sustainable Use of Plant Protection Products Regulation (SUR) is a sign that idealistic moral convictions alone might not get the votes in next year’s European elections.

Righteous individuals (zealots) are unable to listen to opposing ideas or to compromise. I once was so disgusted by the self-righteousness of activist campaigns that I came out and admitted that, as a human, I pollute. If we don’t start from that admission, if we assume that the problem is with how others pollute, then we will never be able to achieve any reasonable goal (not of zero pollution but of polluting less). Like most other cults, environmentalism is rife with moral sanctimony.

Zealot ethics: whatever it takes to win is ethical

It is not just the moral rectitude these activists are demanding that is questionable, but also the type of values they are putting forward. Zealots will do whatever it takes to win a campaign (so lying, scaring or misleading the public is acceptable for them). The activists’ commitment to social justice creates a bias against industry, globalisation and capitalism so any potential innovative achievements or system improvements are rejected outright. The values these moral crusaders put forward are framed by their anti-establishment dogma, such as diversity, equity and sustainability. We don’t hear much about honesty, accountability, fair-play or respect for evidence in their campaigns (perhaps these are not Machiavellian values). And if we ever dare suggest they be more transparent on who is funding them, then … well … I paid a price for that heresy.

A Redefinition of Leadership

This injection of ethical rectitude into policy strategies is redefining Western leadership. Policies are cloaked in values and expressed with hyperbole and categorically. Moral conviction defines today’s bold leaders, standing up for the ideals and beliefs that ought to define our futures and relentlessly fighting against those infidels who dare to oppose “our common values”.

The use of the prefix “zero” is an indicator of a virtue-driven leader prone to moral hyperbole and putting aspiration over achievement. Zero waste, zero emissions, zero plastics, net zero… all of these aspirations are unachievable nonsense that wastes political energy. We should be directing policy toward improving operations and aiming for the best that can be achieved. But the media expects leaders to be about superlatives, absolutes and great moral confrontations on the evils that have been tolerated for too long. Better is not good enough – we must right the wrongs and eradicate the evil to zero.

Leaders used to be able to stand up and make hard decisions, solve problems and inspire populations. This often involved compromises and an embrace of Realpolitik. Leaders would identify themselves via past achievements (battle-hardened generals, business titans, great negotiators…). Today’s virtue leaders aren’t cut from the same cloth, are often clever consensus-builders and need to identify themselves according to public expectations of propriety. They make decisions based on prescribed values rather than insight or intelligence.

Virtue-driven decisions can have serious consequences in the real world. The world is not divided into clear paths between good and evil. Different interest groups have legitimate claims and often hard choices means that the world of rainbows and butterflies may have to wait. But leaders who grasp onto their defining moral character, vision and high self-esteem will likely make bad decisions while claiming, stubbornly, to stand on principle.

Outrage Optics

Policymaking has always been about optics. In the last two decades (since the EU White Paper on Governance), European policy has been about engagement, stakeholder dialogue and participation. In recent years it has become a cynical process of “steam control” (to borrow on Tom Wolfe) where moral outrage is controlled via little compromises. But social media has brought high-volume ethical disgust into the policy optics game with very little tolerance for compromise. Social media is an insult arena where angry activists can morally emasculate public leaders who don’t do exactly what they tell them to. Leaders need to harden up. Just because some former Reuters journalist in Kansas calls a regulator names for standing by the scientific evidence on, say, glyphosate, does not mean he or she should abandon basic facts and science to be better judged by this little storm in a teacup.

The zealot influencer is the most dangerous lobbyist in the field, excelling at generating outrage optics within a small tribe of loud activists. They use a sociopathic preacher zeal to push policymakers into a moral quagmire. Support this legislation and you are supporting industry, wilfully spreading cancer on innocent children and destroying the environment. The argument is not about evidence or scientific advice, but on whether you, as a leader, are a good person. Outrage optics campaigns work on the idea that people will forget a policy choice in weeks but will never forget an irresponsible leader in the pocket of evil industry. When this emotional quagmire is too difficult and the moral outrage too insufferable, the precautionary principle is introduced as a mea culpa.

Precaution is a righteous risk. When a policymaker is being stabbed with hot moral pokers, they can reverse the tables and play the caring, concerned card. By declaring precaution, cowardly leaders can not only avoid the outrage optics, they can come across as benevolent regulators with a conscience, wanting nothing more than public safety. This little game buys them time since innovators will have to go back to prove with certainty that something is 100% safe (a near impossible task). By then these civil servants should have been promoted to some other position.

Some people are sickened by the smug pontifications of moral zealots and the costs of precautionary restrictions on their lives. There seems to have been a recent increase in extremist party electoral wins, the rise of inexperienced populists and the rejection of traditional, mainstream political parties. Foul language, racist declarations, lawbreaking and radical solutions are becoming more attractive to voters fed up with their virtue-driven leaders. There are many factors, of course, to explain this rise but I can understand the appeal of someone who tears up the political virtue manual and says things his or her electorate wants to hear (however outrageous) rather than the moralisms some out-of-touch leader feels the public ought to hear.

Developing a Righteous Risk Management Strategy

This series will look at case studies where righteous risks were (or were not) managed, the consequences and the lessons learnt. I will break righteous risks down and apply the normal risk management process and consider whether there are idiosyncratic exposures that defy typical responses or a policy trend that needs addressing. One article will look at the policy arena to determine the relationship of righteous risks within a larger regulatory risk management context. Of course we need to follow the money and the rise of new types of philanthropic foundations, led by virtue-seekers, has had an important influence on the rise of value-driven policies. The series will also consider how companies should react? After Corporate Social Responsibility and Sustainable Development, will the Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) value hoops be enough to meet the moral approval of the sanctimonious?

Is it wrong to be critical of stronger moral values guiding public officials? Not at all. But when all policies are driven merely by ethical values and unbending zealots; when activists frame every policy debate in simplistic, good v evil poles; when policymakers are inconsistent in their regulatory implementations according to perceived normative interests; and when the public is persuaded to consider capitalism, innovation and entrepreneurship as moral deficiencies; then righteous risks become a threat to rational policies, democracies and the public. I’m afraid that’s where we are today but it is where we go tomorrow that interests me.

Enjoyed this read (free with no ads)? Support The Risk-Monger via Patreon. Become a Gold-Monger patron for 5 € / $ per month and get David’s newsletter.