Source: The White House’s New Climate Strategy: Let Businesses Solve It | The New Republic
November 4 Thursday…Optimism was in the canned air of the Scottish Events Center. It was “Finance Day,” one of several themed days spotlighting efforts in different sectors to reduce emissions. Bank of England head turned green banking guru Mark Carney had just announced that $130 trillion worth of assets were now signed on to something called the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero, or Gfanz. Practically speaking, that means private sector financial institutions that control that much money said they would at some point write a plan to eventually transition their considerable portfolios to net-zero, whatever that means.
That did not include commitments from those same banks, insurance companies, or asset managers to stop financing coal, oil, or gas, as many Gfanz companies are. A report from the nonprofit Rainforest Action Network in March found that JP Morgan Chase—which joined the alliance yesterday—has furnished $317 billion to fossil fuel companies since 2016. As of yesterday, all of the top 10 fossil fuel financiers RAN identified are now Gfanz members. Last year alone, they collectively contributed $303 billion to coal, oil, and gas projects. As members of Gfanz, they might opt to disclose those investments or also to finance more climate-friendly things. Grand pledges, from those made by financiers to the multination methane-reduction pledge, have been a theme at this year’s COP. None of these pledges contain tools to turn those pledges into reality or enforce them in any way—much like the Paris Agreement that this conference is ostensibly meant to help implement….
…The argument the U.S. and other wealthy countries have been making this week is that the primary goal of public climate investments should be to transform desperately needed climate projects into profitable investments, shouldering the risk corporations are unwilling to take to save the world. There is now genuine money to be made in green sectors like renewables, for instance. But it’s difficult to imagine that the trillions needed to clean up from climate disasters—known as loss-and-damage funds—will ever generate the kinds of yields investors are hungry for
…With understandably waning confidence in their own ability to govern, the most climate-conscious public figures in the administration have doubled down on making climate infrastructure a good deal for private investors with deep pockets. That’s probably not such a good deal, though, for the planet and its less wealthy inhabitants.
Leave a Reply