Tag: climate pledges

Thank US voters: Australian pension funds are backing away from climate pledges too

The money is leaving the room. Australian pension funds manage assets of around $4.1 trillion, and until last week, many of them had Net Zero Targets. Certainly, there were none that tried to appeal to climate skeptics even though 70% of Australians didn’t want to even spend $1 a week on “Net Zero” plans.

From JoNova

By Jo Nova

We’ve reached the flipping point downunder

The money is leaving the room. Australian pension funds manage assets of around $4.1 trillion, and until last week, many of them had Net Zero Targets. Certainly, there were none that tried to appeal to climate skeptics even though 70% of Australians didn’t want to even spend $1 a week on “Net Zero” plans.

This week, many of them are backing away slowly, speaking about a corporate and political backlash, like it’s a force of nature.

They won’t say the subsidies have dried up, they made the wrong bet, wasted billions of your dollars and hope they don’t get sued for a lack of fiduciary duty. They won’t say that pension funds are supposed to make money for their clients, not change rainfall patterns.

Last year, they were saying “Climate change poses a grave risk to the health, wellbeing and finances of all Australians, including retirees”. Three years ago, the The Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia (ASFA) was campaigning for national net-zero policies saying “, the superannuation industry stands to lose billions of dollars in investment returns on behalf of their members,”. Pension funds were even supposed to hassle green businesses to “support them” on their journey of mitigation — like climate cops paid to hassle companies to follow laws laid out by global bankers, instead of elected governments.

Look how soft the headline is:

Super funds preparing to walk back their commitment to climate targets

By Cliona O’Dowd, The Australian

Australia’s most powerful super funds appear to be laying the groundwork to potentially walk back their climate targets amid a growing political and corporate backlash against ESG.

As funds come to terms with the shift in sentiment and a four-year term of the Trump presidency, the industry is now voicing its concerns on meeting climate pledges made at a time when pushback against an environmental, social and governance focus was on the fringes.

Speaking to The Australian on Tuesday, Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia chief executive Mary Delahunty said funds’ climate goals could be hampered by the anti-ESG movement, with engagement potentially less effective as corporates backtrack on the green agenda.

Get out of HESTA:

HESTA CEO Debby Blakey appeared to be the outlier, saying the healthcare industry super fund was committed to its climate targets. These include a 50 per cent reduction in portfolio emissions by 2030 and for the fund’s portfolio to be net zero by 2050.

US elections make more difference to Australian policy than Australian elections do.

Ben Marlow’s Green Energy Dream

Did Ben Marlow never study economics?
I would suggest to Ben Marlow that he goes back to school to study A-Level Economics!

From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

Did Ben Marlow never study economics?

First BP, now Shell. One by one, the oil giants are returning to what they know best – doubling down on fossil fuels and prioritising shareholder returns – in u-turns that inevitably have to come at the expense of climate pledges.


Worse, it comes at a time of record profits – a double snub to government and eco-campaigners, who want to see green investment ramped up, and at the same time a capitulation to investors frustrated at seeing the big US energy producers generating far higher returns than their European counterparts.


Total shareholder returns for Exxon and Chevron over the last five years far exceed those of BP and Shell, a phenomenon that some fund managers have put down at least partly to them having embraced the renewables charge even more reluctantly.


The latest setback is a wake-up call to the political classes. If the Government thinks it is driving the green agenda it is very much mistaken.


On the contrary, if this is a return to the old set-up then it has as good as lost control of the energy transition completely, something that it must accept a sizeable share of the blame for.


No 10 may have established a new department for Energy Security and Net Zero in a bid to bring greater clarity to energy policy but its messaging remains more confused than ever.


The “highlights”, if indeed they can be called that, of Shell’s capital markets day are a harsh reminder that when it comes to the future of the energy system, the oil industry is firmly calling the shots.


The argument from environmentalists is a fairly simplistic, yet not unfair one.


Their central case is that with the sector essentially feasting on the spoils of the Kremlin’s indiscriminate war in Ukraine – while many families struggle to pay rocketing energy bills – Shell and others have an even greater duty to seriously step up their commitment to big green energy projects.


Shell, it is probably fair to say, doesn’t see it like that.


It is more concerned with appeasing shareholders than it is with bending to critics who accuse the Anglo-Dutch company of abdicating its responsibilities on leading the climate change fight, never mind simply being a willing part of it.
Armed with annual profits of $40bn (£31.5bn) for 2022 – double the previous year’s – Shell has served up a plan that is unashamedly pro-Wall Street.


There’s a planned 15pc dividend increase in the second half of the year; a promise to return another $5bn to investors through share buybacks, having lavished $12bn on shareholders in the same way during the first half; and a clear pledge to focus on the most profitable areas of the business, which unsurprisingly does not include clean energy.


With commitments to “grow” its sprawling gas operations, “maintain leadership” in the liquefied natural gas (LNG) market and “extend its advantaged position” in both oil and gas exploration, it is patently obvious where Shell’s priorities lie.


But combined with a fairly unambitious and somewhat fuzzy promise to spend between $10bn and $15bn by 2025 on “low carbon energy solutions” there can be no doubts.


Even Shell privately concedes that biofuels, hydrogen, electric vehicle charging and carbon capture storage – the four areas it has earmarked for investment – are at the more speculative and unproven end of the renewables spectrum.
The absence of any plans to invest in other, far more established clean energy sources such as wind and solar – which are attracting record investment around the world – is glaring.


Full post

He complains that BP and Shell are doubling down on fossil fuels! Well yes, that’s what companies do – invest in products that make a profit, not carry out the government’s agenda. Indeed they have a duty to look after shareholders’ interests first and foremost.

And quite why this is the government’s fault is a mystery to me. The government has been doing its best to destroy the UK’s fossil fuel industry.

He accuses Shell and BP of feasting on the spoils of the Kremlin’s indiscriminate war in Ukraine, but even a 6th Form student would tell him that the only way to bring prices back down is to increase the world’s supply of oil and gas. It’s called Supply & Demand, Mr Marlow!

In fact, while the Ukraine war did cause gas prices to spike, the biggest factor has been the pressure put on fossil fuel companies across western nations in recent years to divest from oil and gas. This has cut the development of new fields, thus reducing supply while demand has continued to increase.

He finishes by saying the absence of any plans to invest in other, far more established clean energy sources such as wind and solar – which are attracting record investment around the world – is glaring.

If wind and solar really were so attractive, companies like BP and Shell would need no urging to invest. The reality is that they are only viable because of the obscene subsidies thrown at them.

I would suggest to Ben Marlow that he goes back to school to study A-Level Economics!