Big businesses' shallow faith in ethical capitalism and the need to challenge climate change became more apparent yesterday. As the Guardian reported:
HSBC has become the first UK bank to leave the global banking industry's net zero target-setting group, as campaigners warned it was a “troubling” sign over the lender's commitment to tackling the climate crisis.
The move risks triggering further departures from the Net Zero Banking Alliance (NZBA) by UK banks, in a fresh blow to international climate coordination efforts.
That HSBC was the first to go does not surprise me. I have long questioned its ethics. But, the move is more significant than a decision made by a single bank. What is clear is that Trump's endorsement of the elite's agenda that nothing matters but profit is enabling those who believe they are the world's wealth creators to pursue their activities by destroying everything of value, which is how they have always actually accumulated their economic power.
The question is, will our government sit aside and watch this happen?
And, will we?
I have no sanction I can impose on HSBC. I have never banked there. If you do, might you think again?
You could, of course, also write to your MP about this.
Taking further action
If you want to write a letter to your MP on the issues raised in this blog post, there is a ChatGPT prompt to assist you in doing so, with full instructions, here. One word of warning, though: please do make sure you have got the correct MP. ChatGPT can get it wrong.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
I don’t think we disagree in substance, but I’ll take slight issue with your framing here in order to elucidate an additional angle. You say they want to destroy everything of value. I don’t think that’s so. I think they are favoring short term value over long term value. That is, the survival of humanity is not something they really care about one way or another. They are focused on whether they can profit in the short run. My suspicion is that they’ve figured out that the collapse of civilization is highly profitable.
Markets thrive on scarcity, and there will be scarcity galore. They are surely cornering things like water and other essentials as if it were the new oil. They’re still focused on selling oil, etc. because they’ve got lots of it and can easily monetize it and don’t really care that it’s causing a long-term problem. They regard all this shift to green as working against all of these opportunities. So when you say “value”, you have to be careful. They value money and money can be had in any situation. You want to be clear that you mean something different than money, which is where the real problem is. Until we learn to either put a value on things like happiness, safety, sustainability, health, environment, peace, and so on, then the problem is that the conversations about value in the world will include none of this.
Another way of saying what I’m saying is that even within the capitalism framework, a shift to stakeholder theory from shareholder theory would be a serious improvement. Although there are some things that should not be left to markets.
As I recall, it was Adam Smith’s belief that morality had to be encoded in law because markets would not discover it and would exploit its absence, resulting in tyranny. Anyway, that’s what has happened. And I think it’s a lot around this issue of what we “value” and how “value” is codified in our market systems that are supposed to act as optimization engines for value. Without representing the things we care about, they crank out optimizations that serve individuals, but not society.
But back to my original point, it’s on vague words like “value” that the elusive game is played where we’re sold a system that should work for “us”. Even “us” and “our” have nebulous meaning here because they’re entirely OK with losing vast swaths of the human population. They do not think the “us” they talk about is “all of us”. It’s just the “worthy” of “us”. And again, going back to value, the “worth”-y among us are the ones who have “value” (a.k.a. money) which represents only a thin slice of what many of us think is “value” in the world. This sloppiness in language hides a ton of sins, and not accidentally.
Appreciated, and I think I was drawing out and comparing money (i.e. bankers) and value (= reality) in my comment but my shorthand was obviously not clear enough. And you are right about “us”.
Your analysis is good.
I am reminded, not for the first time by this blog, of Ruskin’s coinage of the term ‘illth’ in ‘Unto this Last’ to denote the harmful effects of the possession of capital and opposed to his definition of real wealth which he gives as ‘the possession of the valuable by the valiant ‘.
I will be using that word in the videos
As I have mentioned on this blog before, it is noteworthy that banks refer to their favourite customers as high net worth individuals – they are in reality, of course, high net wealth individuals; an entirely different category.
I’m not sure whether the reason for their choice of the word “worth” is because their view of the world is based on the conflation of the two words’ meanings or as a subtle massaging of the egos of the individuals concerned. Perhaps both.
I like that…
Henwis, for short
HSBC is the same bank whose shitty money laundering controls led to a huge fine in the U.S. and where of all people – the toss pot of toss pots George Osbourne – who ripped the country apart with his cruel austerity measures (Labour please note) – ended up sticking up for them and preventing criminal prosecution.
In other words, Chancellor of the Exchequer Osbourne worked harder for a British criminal institution than he did for the British people.
When you have that sort of protection, org’s like HSBC can do what they like.
If you do bank with HSBC write to their CEO and CFO and register your objection, suggesting you are considering changing banks. You could also write to your MP asking them to pass on your letter to the Chancellor and Energy & Net zero secretary asking them to press HsBC to reverse their decision
Agreed
I lost trust in HSBC a long time ago. I was a customer. Their business practices made me feel like an inconvenience. It was a real privilege that they took my money. HSBC may not have broken UK banking law but it did break US law. The US DoJ investigated them concerning money laundering for mexican cartels. All they got was a fine. All fine then.
Perhaps it’s an advance that HSBC are now being honest about their (anti)global heating agenda. I don’t think their policies have changed, but at least they are now more transparent. Possibly even more accountable, though that’s unlikely
Here’s a note about what HSBC does for some leading UK brands, in case anyone’s interested
Marks & Spencer (M&S) HSBC runs M&S Bank, which offers M&S-branded credit cards, savings accounts, loans, and insurance. It helps M&S customers manage their money and shop more easily.
Superdry HSBC has lent money to Superdry to help it buy stock and keep the business running smoothly.
John Lewis HSBC helps provide credit cards and finance options to John Lewis customers so they can spread out the cost of purchases.
Currys & PC World Similar to John Lewis, HSBC offers finance plans to help customers buy electronics and pay in instalments.
First Direct First Direct is a popular online and telephone bank that’s part of HSBC. Many people use it for everyday banking.
Hope that’s helpful.
Thanks
The net zero banking alliance was promoting offsetting schemes that actually increase emissions compared to the alternative. That could have been tree plantings on farmland, biofuels for petrol, carbon capture projects and Drax.
HSBC have seen the light here. And the crony capitalists dependent on green subsidies should be running scared.
HSBC is not the government. And the best way most cost effective way to tackle climate change was mentioned in the first Green New Deal paper back in 2008. It’s two words long, the second of which is your personal favourite. But it needs government to impose it.
I am aware of all that nonsense.
But, the issue is bigger than that.
I opened an account with the Midland Bank when I left school in 1972 and started work. My father and grandfather both banked there.
Eventually Midland Bank became HSBC and they lost interest in their customers, so I lost interest in them.
A shabby organisation.