Zero is the most dangerous word in government.

Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Detroit, offered a reminder of its danger this week at a House Financial Services Committee hearing on the oversight of U.S. banks.

To reach international climate goals by 2050, Tlaib said, banks will need to shift their financing work in the energy sector away from oil and gas production. Tlaib’s timeline was stark and immediate.

“Do you know what the International Energy Agency has said is necessary to reach our goals?” Tlaib asked bank officials.

It was a rhetorical question. It was not yet their turn to talk.

“No new fossil fuel production, starting today,” Tlaib said, answering her own query. “So that’s, like, zero.”

Then Tlaib asked the bankers if their banks had policies against financing new oil and gas projects. 

Jamie Dimon, CEO of JPMorgan Chase, answered first.

“Absolutely not,” Dimon said. “That would be the road to hell for America.”

Jason Hayes, director of environmental policy at the Mackinac Center, said the green energy sources Tlaib prefers are not ready to take over from fossil fuels. An immediate transition would be premature, and dangerous.

“She (Tlaib) is pontificating about the potential impacts of climate change on dispossessed or disenfranchised groups,” Hayes told CapCon. “But she completely ignores the fact that stopping the use of fossil fuels would leave those same people (and a whole lot more) starving and freezing across the state and country. On that matter Dimon is absolutely correct.”

Per the Midcontinent Independent System Operator, the grid operator for the Midwest, wind (10%), solar (2.5%) and “other” (1.5%) account for only 14% of regional energy generation. The remaining 86% comes from coal (38%), natural gas (32%) and nuclear (16%). That’s an 86-14 split. 

One of two things is true: Tlaib knows this and is pushing for zero oil and gas anyway, which is irresponsible. Or she doesn’t know this and is pushing for zero anyway, which is irresponsible. 

“We are living through a climate crisis today,” Tlaib said at the hearing. “And a commitment to net zero requires a commitment to ending fossil fuel financing.”

Banking is a highly regulated field, even on its best day. Nobody wants any trouble with the government. It’s not easy to say that the emperor has no clothes, or that the government has no plan. Not with Tlaib encouraging Chase members to pull their funds, as she did, or threatening bankers who are unwilling with regulation, as she did.

“If your financial institutions aren't going to follow through on their net zero commitments, regulators, including the Federal Reserve and Congress, must step in and make them,” Tlaib warned.

Most of the bankers at the hearing were the retiring sort. They wanted Tlaib out of their hair, and they wasted no time telling her what she wanted to hear: Yes, we are transitioning from fossil fuels. 

Dimon spoke an inconvenient truth: Green energy sources aren’t ready. 

“We aren’t getting this one right,” Dimon told the committee, as reported by Fox Business. “The world needs 100 million barrels effectively of oil and gas every day. And we need it for 10 years.”

Dimon added: “To do that, we need proper investing in the oil and gas complex. Investing in the oil and gas complex is good for reducing CO2. We’ve all seen, because of the high price of oil and gas — particularly for the rest of the world — you’ve seen everyone going back to coal.”

Whether or not you agree with Tlaib's position — and Michigan Capitol Confidential does not — she is at least fighting the battle in a transparent way. She’s making her case at the committee table, with cameras rolling. 

What’s happening behind the scenes is more worrying. ESG investing is a backdoor attempt, within the banking world, at forcing the green energy transition. Among other goals, such as diversity and equity requirements.

Regardless of Dimon’s public protestations, Chase partakes in ESG, just like its counterparts. This they do at the behest of government, fearing regulations that are worse. So while Tlaib and Dimon argue publicly over the timeline of the transition, Chase is ultimately moving in the direction Tlaib prefers.

Dimon had more to lose than gain by speaking up. 

So why did he? With every reason not to?

For the same reason the Mackinac Center does: Winter is coming. And it’s important that the energy we rely on be reliable.

James David Dickson is managing editor of Michigan Capitol Confidential. Email him at dickson@mackinac.org.

Intellectual and political fads come and go. The latest fad, on both the right and left, involves diversity, equity and inclusion, or DEI; critical race theory, or CRT; and wokeness.

These overlapping terms once had specific meanings, but their definitions have expanded, as often happens with hot-button issues. In the interest of simplicity, I’ll just use the term DEI. My point today is to explain why the right — largely populated by white Americans — should not, in its rush to condemn all things related to DEI, neglect to take the problems of Black Americans seriously.

DEI deals with more than Black Americans, of course, but I will focus on them for now. DEI advocates would say they wish to improve life for this population, and they’re not wrong to do so. Compared with white Americans, Black Americans have shorter and less healthy lives. They have less income and wealth; they do less well in school and spend more time in prison. Americans of all stripes, including those on the right, have long espoused the idea of upward mobility — the American Dream. It’s something too few Black Americans participate in.

So if Black Americans, on average, lag white Americans, shouldn’t we take these disparities seriously? We don’t need strict numerical equality across racial or ethnic groups, but we can do much better than we have.

Any mention of racial issues, including DEI, raises many complaints and objections. I’ll address a few here. In later columns, I will discuss how we got here and where to go next.

“I’m not a racist. It doesn’t matter to me if someone is white, Black, purple, or green.”

Great. Shouldn’t you be concerned, anyway?

“Stop trying to guilt me. Nobody in my family owned slaves.”

Guilt need not have anything to do with this. If you broke something, yes, you should fix it. But if the pipes in your next-door neighbor’s house burst and flooded the house, it doesn’t matter why they broke. Your neighbor needs help; you should provide it if you count yourself a moral person and you can help.

“Racists will be racists; it’s a matter of the heart, and it’s on the decline.”

Yes, racist hearts are problematic, and it’s good that bigotry has been in retreat. Interracial marriage continues to grow, and few people are willing to admit to racist attitudes in public opinion surveys. But that’s not the end of the story. DEI talks about “systemic racism.” I think there’s something there.

“Systemic racism? Slavery is gone and so is Jim Crow.”

What would you call a law that prohibits integrated schools if not an example of systemic racism? Many other government practices actively put Black Americans at a disadvantage, too. Many of them, like segregation, have been dismantled. It’s arguable that at least some of their effects continue, and that would happen even if nobody had a racist thought today. How long the effects last, or how important they are, we can debate.

“DEI teaches people to hate each other, based on skin color.”

If that’s true – and I’m not convinced it is — the response shouldn’t be to shout it down or ignore it altogether. Take a page from the 1960s Civil Rights movement, which did not return evil for evil. Instead, do some good. If that doesn’t appeal, consider the stopped clock. DEI advocates are not wrong in everything they say.

“DEI is anti-American.”

Sorry, can you be more specific?

“DEI teaches people to hate America.”

Perhaps some DEI advocates do; if that’s so, they should be grateful they live in a time and place that allows for dissent. It’s not the usual condition in human history for critics. But to the point. Is it hateful to acknowledge someone’s shortcomings? If you acknowledge your mother’s faults, does that mean you hate her? We can love America and acknowledge where we have gone wrong.

“DEI teaches Marxism. That’s why we should oppose it.”

Which flavor of Marxism are you talking about? The one that says people with wealth and income tend to have more political power — and are not afraid to use it to preserve what they have? Can we be honest and say that this is as true as the day is long? It’s called self-interest, something not in short supply.

“DEI says that capitalism is evil and racist.”

Here, DEI is wrong. A fully functioning free-market society (my preferred term) with a rule of just laws has done more to lift masses of people out of poverty than any economic system ever known. Certainly, societies that might be called capitalist — including the United States — have acted badly at times by denying the benefits of the market and just laws to some people. We should acknowledge that and look for ways to eliminate any government-imposed barriers people have — including Black Americans who may be dealing with the after-effects of laws and practices once implemented with a racist intent.

“DEI promotes the idea of ‘White Privilege.’ I may be white but I didn’t have any privilege. I came from nothing and busted my butt to get to where I am today.”

I can sympathize. My family wasn’t on welfare, but I grew up in a single-parent household and lacked many of the benefits that some contemporaries had. In college (I was the first in my family to attend), I felt disadvantaged compared to my classmates from Birmingham and other wealthy cities in Michigan.

But enough of me. Imagine that your life will suddenly be changed and you will be reborn as a 2-year old. Depending on a flip of the coin, you will either be a white person, in a white family, or a Black person, in a Black family. Think of the statistics about wealth, income, health and so forth. Which situation would give you an advantage in life?

I do not advocate that anyone wholeheartedly embrace DEI or CRT. But these ideas would not exist if there were not some unfortunate realities in American life. Those who care about the future of the republic ought to listen before they rush to attack — or panic.

John LaPlante is contributing editor and a senior fellow at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy.