The Guardian noted yesterday that:
Britain's biggest companies, investors and pension funds must come clean to investors on the financial risks they face due to the climate crisis, MPs have said.
The environmental audit committee (EAC) has called for the City of London to face mandatory climate reporting within the next three years to avoid jeopardising hundreds of billions of pounds worth of pension savings.
The cross-party committee of MPs criticised ministers for failing to take specific steps to drive forward climate disclosure plans, despite publicly supporting international recommendations.
The MPs urged the government “to clarify in law” that pension funds have a duty to take into account long-term environmental risks to protect their savers.
The report comes just weeks after the Treasury outlined plans to force firms and funds to show how the climate emergency could jeopardise their finances.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
These are difficult calculations and we have been ignoring them since time immemorial because we have regarded the natural world as an infinite resource to be pillaged by anyone with a spade (and a pointed stick, gun or military organisation to ‘legitimise’ ownership).
“Treasury outlined plans to force firms and funds to show how the climate emergency could jeopardise their finances.”
If this is truly what concerns the Treasury it is a very long way from taking the issue of resource management (in its widest sense) seriously. I suppose it may indicate a baby step, but I’m not impressed.
Apologies for the second post on this – one thing under consideration within the European Commission is:
IS36: Impairment of Assets: If there is an indication of an asset being impaired in any way then the asset value must be impaired (written down).
“Under consideration” in this sense means – enforcement – so that companies will be forced (how?) to take a credible approach to the impairment of assets with respect to the climate emergency. I undertand that once the new Commissioners are at their desks this will be sitting waiting for one of them – not sure which one.
I agree with Andy that writing down of assets is something of a negative step – it only looks at the downside/impacts – not what needs to be doen with respect to CO2 reduction & mitigation. That said, it finally offers the chance to sort out the oil n gas mafia & their fan boys.
I build on this idea….
And take it a lot further
Ace 🙂
Please do write that letter Richard.
I’m reading Jonathan Aldred’s ‘License to be Bad’ at the moment.
Even the ideas of Hayek, von Neumann et al had trouble getting traction at one point but they got there eventually (much to our dismay).
There is no reason that the same can’t happen to SCA, MMT, PQD, GND.
🙂