'Snowflakes' in Hell?

Ministers of Australia, Canada and New Zealand collectively opine that the "climate crisis is this century's biggest threat". They're not, of course, wrong. The surprising thing, is that they had to say it (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/commentisfree/2023/jun/22/the-climate-crisis-is-this-centurys-biggest-threat-we-need-a-global-finance-pact-that-reflects-the-task-ahead). These ministers suggest that all International financial institutions (banks, pension funds, investment bodies etc) need come together to solve this existional threat. Such a move might well be helpful. There are, however, a number of problems with this idea. The first is, that virtually all financial institutions operate to maximise profits (this is one reason why major banks lavishly invest in petrochemicals). A second difficulty is, that these 'three amigos' all represent rich, developed, 'westernised', English-speaking democracies. Many countries don't follow this model. The ministers are right, that the climate crisis can't be solved by any single government (no matter how altruistic). Getting, however, world-wide integrated and effective action appears unlikely (everyone wants to be a 'winner', so we might all lose?). A final difficulty is, that it's not only bank portfolios needing to change. 'Solving' the climate crisis also requires major changes in individual behaviour. We need to alter how we feed, how we travel, how we perform agriculture, how we share resources etc, etc. If that's going to happen, some very effective convincing is required. Not everyone has the choices, available to folk in the developed nations. It's a bit sad that the ministers claim it's still possible to meet the goals of the Paris agreement. That particular horse seems to have bolted sometime ago!