THE NEXT GIGANTIC ISSUE.

[rookiepilot]

This transition, which I believe will happen, has been BRUTALLY managed.

[pelmet]

This transition, which I believe will happen, has been BRUTALLY managed.

Yet the foolish people keep voting for it.....because the world is coming to an end.

The world is waking up to the fact that the climate policy goal of achieving “net-zero” CO2 emissions brings crippling economic pain. Fossil fuel prices shot up by 26 per cent across industrialized economies last year and will rise globally by another 50 per cent this year. Politicians blame Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, but the long-term trend stems mostly from governments demonizing fossil fuels while their societies remain dependent on them. Since the 2015 Paris climate agreement, global investment in fossil fuels has halved, inevitably driving up prices.

As fossil fuel prices climb, activists believe people will shift painlessly to renewable energy sources. But they’ve made a major miscalculation: renewables are far from ready to power the world. Solar and wind can only work with massive amounts of backup power, mostly fossil fuels, to keep the world running when the wind dies down, the sky clouds over, or night falls. Moreover, renewables mostly generate electricity, which is just one-fifth of our total energy use — the vast majority is non-electric like transport, industrial processes and heat.

That’s why the world still gets 80 per cent of its energy from fossil fuels, and renewables deliver just 15 per cent. There won’t be change any time soon — even the Biden administration expects the world in 2050 to be dependent on fossil fuels for 70 per cent of its energy.

But most “net-zero” policies try to force much greater reductions in fossil fuels, driving down investments and making them extremely expensive before alternatives can take over. That leads to worldwide pain, like the Northern Hemisphere winter we’re entering where Europe prepares for brownouts and two-thirds of the U.K. population is predicted to enter energy poverty.

Rich countries are showcasing the policies to avoid. Germany is on track to spend more than half a trillion dollars on climate policies by 2025, yet has only managed to reduce fossil fuel dependency from 84 per cent in 2000 to 77 per cent today. McKinsey estimates that getting to net-zero will cost Europe 5.3 per cent of its GDP in low-emission assets every year, or more than US$200 billion annually just for Germany. That is more than it spends annually on education and police, courts and prisons combined.

The United States has gone all-in on its own net-zero ambition with the most expensive climate change policy in its history. With the Inflation Reduction Act, the Biden administration plans to spend $369 billion promoting low-carbon energy and electric vehicles. This vast expenditure will have a negligible impact on climate change: the money spent will reduce the global temperature rise unmeasurably, possibly by as little as 0.0005°C.

Little wonder that emerging economies are balking at the expectation they emulate these terrible policies. How they tackle climate change is vitally important because about three-quarters of all emissions in the rest of the 21st century will come from today’s developing countries — India and China and nations across Africa and Asia.

India has realized that trying to achieve net-zero carbon emissions “would entail astronomical costs” and would in fact require a “complete transformation” of its economy. In a scathing rejection, the environment ministry notes that doing so “could derail our development plans.”

In fact, India found that this policy would be so costly for the country that to even make a start on the process, New Delhi would need the West to pay one trillion dollars. India and other developing countries have also banded together to jointly demand another $1.3 trillion in “climate financing” every year by 2030, over and above what rich countries have already promised.

Emerging economies will not sacrifice poverty eradication and economic development to follow a net-zero policy approach that brings so much pain for so little climate reward.

In the absence of affordable, effective fossil fuel replacements, the climate policy espoused by advanced economies just means costlier power bills and lower growth rates, to achieve tiny changes in temperature rises.

Fortunately, there are far smarter alternative approaches. The best long-term strategy would be to dramatically increase investment in green energy research and development. This approach would be much more effective while likely being 10 times cheaper than the approach taken by North America and Europe. This also makes it much more plausible to be implemented by governments around the world.

Consider how the computer went from being incredibly rare and expensive to commonplace and cheap. Governments didn’t achieve this revolution by subsidizing every Western home in the 1960s or 1970s to install a massive, relatively inefficient computer in their basement. Breakthroughs were achieved by public and private expenditure on R&D leading to multiple innovations, which led to evermore technologies becoming commercially viable, driving even more research and production in a virtuous circle. That’s the example we need to emulate when it comes to green energy.

In rich countries today, energy policies that were designed to make fossil fuels expensive are now doing exactly what they were supposed to do. Sadly, this means great pain and a very bleak winter ahead. Other countries are wise to pay heed to this lesson, and we should all instead take the pathway of innovation.

National Post

Bjorn Lomborg is President of the Copenhagen Consensus and Visiting Fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution. His latest book is False Alarm: How Climate Change Panic Costs Us Trillions, Hurts the Poor, and Fails to Fix the Planet.

[goingmissed]

Pelmet, your posts are starting to look more and more like John Swallow's hysteria.

[rookiepilot]

India must change.

In Delhi, the air is so bad it kills a lot of people. Its so bad — pollution closed the airport on multiple occasions, they went below minimums. From pollution.

I’ve been to China, same story, not quite as bad. Yellow looking air. Ugh.

China is investing a ton in solar. But all takes time.

[pelmet]

Pelmet, your posts are starting to look more and more like John Swallow's hysteria.

Is this hysteria or just examples of the complete stupidity of the greens.....They are desperate for more oil to be pumped but only from our enemies. How do people become so incredibly foolish? Oh, by the way, is copy and paste articles from mainstream media hysteria on my part. No, just shallow responses from those exposed as unable to think critically. They enrich our enemies which are an alliance of countries like Iram, Venezuala, and Russia and then say that I am hysterical.

Biden wants oil, but not drilling or pipelines


President Joe Biden campaigned on ending the Keystone XL Pipeline, and on his first day, he delivered. Biden also campaigned on “no more drilling on federal lands, period. Period, period, period.” He has mostly lived by that promise, only opening up (limited) exploration after a court ruling forced his hand.

He has been consistently against drilling for oil or building the pipelines that would transport it.

But now that Biden desperately wants more oil in America, this anti-drilling position leaves him in a bind. How to get oil when you insist on leaving our oil in the ground?

Biden has a three-part plan for oil without drilling, and all three parts are bad.

First, Biden is repeatedly tapping the strategic oil reserve, announcing another 10 million barrels on Thursday. This puts the reserve at its lowest level in nearly 40 years, according to Sen. . Grassley (R-IA).

This is an act of desperation and a short-term fix, obviously timed to bring down gasoline prices the month before the midterm elections.

Second, Biden tried to lobby OPEC to increase oil production. Lacking any real leverage, OPEC said no.

And so enter Act Three in this oily play for drill-less oil. This act is set in Venezuela. Biden is reportedly lifting sanctions on Venezuela’s corrupt and oppressive government so as to allow Chevron (a company to which he has very interesting connections) to drill there.

It’s all deeply embarrassing for the Biden administration. Captive to an environmental movement that wants to end drilling in the U.S. based on a dream of a zero-carbon future, Biden is now reaping what he sowed.

The irony is that Biden knows (or used to know) better than to listen to his party’s extreme ideological base. Biden has often given in to this base, though, and the result now is him sucking up to Saudi Arabia and Nicolas Maduro, begging them to do what he’s afraid to: Drill, baby, drill.

[rookiepilot]

Oil is really on the move.......

[goingmissed]

Pelmet, your posts are starting to look more and more like John Swallow's hysteria.

Is this hysteria or just examples of the complete stupidity of the greens.....They are desperate for more oil to be pumped but only from our enemies. How do people become so incredibly foolish? Oh, by the way, is copy and paste articles from mainstream media hysteria on my part. No, just shallow responses from those exposed as unable to think critically. They enrich our enemies which are an alliance of countries like Iram, Venezuala, and Russia and then say that I am hysterical.

Did you just assume my political leaning? Pfft.

[pelmet]

If I were PM, I would implement an emergency reliable energy program to be implemented the way programs were implemented for WWII.

Legislation would use the Notwithstanding Clause to emergency build pipelines and whatever other infrastructure is required to get the energy to Europe over the next 5 years.

We have already been warned with the explosions on the Nordstream pipeline of what we can anticipate in the future. The forces of darkness are aligning against us. Forces that have implemented torture states in Europe, possible local nuclear weapon use, destruction of modern cities, etc.

Now, some people call the reality of the destruction of Mariupol with weapons financed with money that could have gone to Canada as hysteria. They certainly would have said that a year ago if I predicted it, and they still do.

But their personal pride(inability to admit they were wrong) overrides their ability to acknowledge their faulty thinking.

We need to do what our previous government was doing, encouraging more oil and gas production.

[pelmet]

India must change.

In Delhi, the air is so bad it kills a lot of people. Its so bad — pollution closed the airport on multiple occasions, they went below minimums. From pollution.

I’ve been to China, same story, not quite as bad. Yellow looking air. Ugh.

China is investing a ton in solar. But all takes time.

Simple actions like pollution control devices on cars can make a big difference.

China plays ys for fools using the greens and the left. They do the minimum required to be able to say they are doing something and people believe and say how we have to do what the rest of the world is doing. They still build plenty of coal-fired plants.

But people are gullible and think that they are doing changing over when China’s goals are nefarious……..help to weaken the west by letting the westerners do it themselves. You can see it working right now. They buy cheap Russian oil while we pay huge premiums on energy.

These things are obvious if you do a proper analysis.

[pelmet]

What is frightening is the huge nimber of grown adults that latch onto the green ideas......

Derek H. Burney: The frightening reality about energy security
Opinion by Derek H. Burney - 6h ago

Shortly after sabotage operations blew ruptures in the Nord Stream pipelines from Russia to Germany, OPEC announced plans to reduce oil production by two million barrels per day. Both actions increased pressure around energy shortages, notably in Europe, where prices are already substantially higher than last year and are likely to get worse as winter nears. However, the threat is global and immediate.

Fossil fuels will be a vital source of energy for decades to come, yet the Canadian and U.S. governments remain mesmerized by climate-change evangelism and continue to stifle production of oil and gas for domestic markets, never mind for increasingly desperate allies.

The fixation on the threat from climate change lacks both balance and perspective. The technology simply does not yet exist for a rapid transition to a world without fossil fuel. In the wake of Russia’s war on Ukraine, Germany and France are desperately reopening coal-fired power plants and reactivating dormant nuclear reactors in order to meet energy shortfalls. At the same time, China and India are importing more coal from Russia .

As Amin Nasser, the CEO of Saudi Aramco recently observed , plans for a transformation to renewables have been “sandcastles that waves of reality have washed away.”

Without the responsible development of fossil fuels, our societies face economic and social crises more imminent than those stemming from climate change. Yet, dubious prophecies from climate activists go largely unchallenged while evidence of global resilience to climate change over centuries is widely ignored, as are notable efforts by industry to reduce carbon emissions. U.S. and Canadian emission reductions in recent decades are largely due to the expansion of natural gas production that climate lobbyists want to shut down.

Many of the dire predictions spouted 20 years ago have been thoroughly debunked. The polar bears are not a vanishing breed. Their population has increased from between 5,000 and 10,000 in the 1960s to roughly 26,000 today . Ten years ago, environmentalists warned sternly that the Great Barrier Reef was nearly dead as a result of bleaching caused by climate change. This year, according to Bjorn Lomborg, “two-thirds of the Great Barrier Reef shows the highest coral cover since records began in 1985.”

The dark night of global warming has not emerged, but terrifying doom and gloom predictions cause many people, especially the young, to believe that the end is near.

As a Wall Street Journal editorial opined , climate religion is “easier to preach with a seaside view from a bluff in Martha’s Vineyard than it is from a village with unreliable electricity in the Congo.” Little attention is paid to the threat of “net zero” on the welfare of the poor. Without fossil fuels or their equivalent, food production would collapse in the developing world.

India and other developing countries are jointly demanding $1.3 trillion in “climate financing” every year by 2030, over and above what developed countries have already promised, if they are to introduce climate-change measures. Emerging economies will not sacrifice poverty eradication and economic development to follow a “net zero” approach that brings so much pain for such little climate reward.

The world still gets 80 per cent of its energy from fossil fuels. As part of its recently approved Inflation Reduction Act, the Biden administration unveiled a plan to spend US$369 billion on climate measures, including the production of wind turbines, solar panels and electric vehicles. Yet Bjorn Lomborg indicates this expenditure “will have a negligible impact on climate change, reducing the global temperature rise unmeasurably, possibly by 0.0009 degrees Farenheit.”

Increased reliance on weather-dependent renewables and electric vehicles — the singular salvation for climate activists — ironically helps China, which dominates the global market on many renewable components . Of the 136 electric vehicle battery factories expected to be operational by 2029, a total of 101 will be in China. China has one quarter of the global supply of lithium, an essential EV material.

The U.S. has one large-scale lithium mine, in Nevada. Two more were proposed nearby but ironically, environmentalists (those advocating a full conversion to EVs) are blocking both mines in the courts. Plans by Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway to extract lithium from California’s Salton Sea, with funding from the U.S. Department of Energy, have stalled over a contract dispute that led the government to rescind its grant.

Keep in mind that two-thirds of solar panels are also made in China. The more dependent the West becomes, the more China will, like Russia, weaponize energy policy to its advantage.

Climate change is an elitist obsession, one that ignores the pace, cost and unreliability of a full transition to renewables. Government regulations and corporate and financial market ESG (Environmental, Social and Governance) demands are contributing to a shortage of supply from U.S. refineries , which in turn is exacerbating the shortage stemming from Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. U.S. Gulf Coast refineries are operating at 97 per cent of capacity but, as Joseph Toomey quipped in RealClear Energy, “There isn’t any more blood to be squeezed from this turnip.” Mexico has quickly grasped the opportunity and is building a $12-billion refinery that will start producing next year.

Yet, U.S. and Canadian leaders persist in suppressing responsible energy production and prattle on about the “existential threat” of climate change. Having failed to sway OPEC, the U.S. is turning to regimes like Venezuela’s rather than liberating energy resources at home.

Few western leaders and opinion-shapers actually understand how the energy world works, nor do they acknowledge the catastrophic consequences of their vainglorious climate change posturing. A strong dose of reality on energy security is sorely needed.

The United States, Canada and Mexico have abundant energy resources that others envy. With a collaborative commitment to approve LNG pipeline projects and export terminals, North America could be a superpower economically and geopolitically; more effective on the global stage than all the misguided affectations about climate change could ever achieve.

It is time to confront the miasma of climate zealots and recognize that energy security is the handmaiden of economic and national security. Common sense and self-interest should dictate greater emphasis on innovation, rational regulations and investments that support fossil fuel development, and a measured approach to green energy.

[rookiepilot]

Didn’t you vote for these guys in power with these policies?

[pelmet]

The price of listening to the green fools(and that is aside from loss of security in a dangerous world). And remember this when you hear the greenies whine about provoding a bailout for the oil companies. They cost you a lot more money. Friends of The Earth are really just inadvertent freinds of Russia/Iran/Venezuela/etc.


THE DEMOCRATS' OIL FOLLY. President Joe Biden has just announced his plan to release even more oil, 15 million barrels, from the nation's Strategic Petroleum Reserve. That is the last portion of the 180 million barrels he authorized for release in March, which was the biggest withdrawal ever from the reserve that is supposed to ensure a supply of oil in case of a national emergency.

In this case, the national emergency is most likely the midterm elections, in which the president's party is likely to lose seats in Congress, in large part because of runaway inflation that is powered, in significant part, by an increase in gas prices. Biden's release reduces the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, or SPR, to its lowest level in nearly 40 years.

Given that, Biden has also authorized the government to begin purchasing oil to replenish the reserve. But he wants to wait until the price of oil goes down. It is about $90 a barrel now, and Biden has ordered the replenishment of new oil when the price falls below $72 a barrel, which may or may not happen in the near or mid-future.

Therein lies a story. Way, way back, in March 2020, then-President Donald Trump proposed to fill the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to its maximum capacity with U.S.-produced crude oil. That would have involved the purchase of 77 million barrels of oil. Trump wanted to act because oil was cheap, about $24 a barrel, and the United States could effectively top off the tank for a very good price.

At Trump's behest, Republicans put money for the oil purchase in a big spending bill that was then under consideration on Capitol Hill. That's when their efforts were stopped cold by Democrats, who labeled Trump's plan a "$3 billion bailout for big oil." This is from Roll Call on March 25, 2020: "The Trump administration's plan to top off the Strategic Petroleum Reserve ran into a blockade ... after lawmakers excluded $3 billion in funding for oil purchases from the massive stimulus package before Congress. Senate Democrats took credit for stripping out that money from the Senate bill ... calling it a 'bailout' for the oil industry." In particular, then-Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-NY) took personal credit for killing the measure.

It was, to say the least, a shortsighted, politically motivated move. "If you believe in the purpose of the SPR, now is the perfect time to make sure it's full," the energy secretary at the time, Dan Brouillette, said. "We're expecting that Congress is going to be supportive of this."

They weren't. At least Democrats weren't. And the effects of Schumer's move are still being felt today. The Democratic blockade "effectively cost the U.S. billions in potential profits and meant Biden had tens of millions fewer barrels at his disposal with which to counter price surges," wrote Bloomberg's Steven T. Dennis last month. On Twitter, Dennis noted that environmental groups cheered Schumer's blockade. "VICTORY!" tweeted Friends of the Earth on April 3, 2020. "The Energy Department dropped its plan for a $3 billion Big Oil bailout! Thank you @SenSchumer and Senate Democrats for stopping this administration from exploiting a global pandemic to help polluters profit."

So there it is. If at some point the price of oil does fall below $72 a barrel and Biden moves to replenish the reserve, he will probably tell the country, with Schumer cheering him on, that he's getting a great deal for the U.S. Then, just remember what happened, and didn't happen, in 2020.

[EPR]

I'm with Pelmet, he's onto something that we should be rallying around! https://www.icsc-canada.com/our-plan

[rookiepilot]

I'm with Pelmet, he's onto something that we should be rallying around! https://www.icsc-canada.com/our-plan

Stop voting for the hairdo who hates the West and lies to his own people.

Ain’t complicated.

[EPR]

I'm with Pelmet, he's onto something that we should be rallying around! https://www.icsc-canada.com/our-plan

Stop voting for the hairdo who hates the West and lies to his own people.

Ain’t complicated.

I think you're confused, I vote for Pierre, all the way!

[pelmet]

I'm with Pelmet, he's onto something that we should be rallying around! https://www.icsc-canada.com/our-plan

Stop voting for the hairdo who hates the West and lies to his own people.

Ain’t complicated.

I have never voted for him, and I have only voted liberal once in my life. That was a few years back when I lived in a riding where the only two candidates with a realistic chance of winning were liberal and NDP. That wasn't a vote for a liberal, that was a vote to keep the NDP out.

That being said, I used to have some respect for them back in the Jean Chretien days.

I don't like Polievre much but he is the best worst in my opinion.

[rookiepilot]

You’re missing the point, though.

I’m in the energy transformation not because Greta told me to, but the numbers are compelling, are so is the security for users in this world.

Its a LT no brainer.

In the long run Oil stocks will look like Coal stocks. Dead.

[pelmet]

You’re missing the point, though.

I’m in the energy transformation not because Greta told me to, but the numbers are compelling, are so is the security for users in this world.

Its a LT no brainer.

In the long run Oil stocks will look like Coal stocks. Dead.

Medium term is fine for me.

By the way, you might want to check coal stock performance in the last year.

I have had BHP for a long time. Great dividends every year. Year after year. Yield of 14%. Stock price goes up and down but dividends roll on in.

Benefiting from loss of Russian coal.

[rookiepilot]

You’re missing the point, though.

I’m in the energy transformation not because Greta told me to, but the numbers are compelling, are so is the security for users in this world.

Its a LT no brainer.

In the long run Oil stocks will look like Coal stocks. Dead.

Medium term is fine for me.

By the way, you might want to check coal stock performance in the last year.

I have had BHP for a long time. Great dividends every year. Year after year. Yield of 14%. Stock price goes up and down but dividends roll on in.

Benefiting from loss of Russian coal.

BHP is not primarily a coal stock. But thats fine. Well run co. Buffett agrees with you, bought huge in OXY. I see why and still have some exposure.

To each his own, but the energy transformation is in its infancy, and its the technology, not governments, where the breakthroughs are happening, and it will be huge.

[pelmet]

You’re missing the point, though.

I’m in the energy transformation not because Greta told me to, but the numbers are compelling, are so is the security for users in this world.

Its a LT no brainer.

In the long run Oil stocks will look like Coal stocks. Dead.

Medium term is fine for me.

By the way, you might want to check coal stock performance in the last year.

I have had BHP for a long time. Great dividends every year. Year after year. Yield of 14%. Stock price goes up and down but dividends roll on in.

Benefiting from loss of Russian coal.

BHP is not primarily a coal stock. But thats fine. Well run co. Buffett agrees with you, bought huge in OXY. I see why and still have some exposure.

To each his own, but the energy transformation is in its infancy, and its the technology, not governments, where the breakthroughs are happening, and it will be huge.

I won’t claim it was my decision for BHP. But it is a large weighting in the portfolio.

I’m sure there will be a huge transition but it should be allowed to happen naturally without the government involvement unless there are real issues like coal pollution. Instead, governments are creating worldwide poverty which will lead to upheaval.

[EPR]

The transition won't happen in our lifetime.

[pelmet]

I personally have not sought out the ESG stuff. I think a bunch feel-good funds(such as pension funds) have been doing this. I prefer to read Eric Nuttal's Twitter feed. For those asking recently in this forum.......Imperial Oil +41% YTD(plus dividends).


Why investors aren't going green

ESG investing — evaluating companies using environmental, social and governance factors — was one of the most-cited phrases in earnings calls during the first half of the year. But a looming recession, tanking stock markets and the race to US midterm elections have put those sustainability efforts on the chopping block.

What’s happening: The rapid pandemic-era uptick in ESG fund investing has now stopped completely, according to Refinitiv analysis provided exclusively to CNN Business. ESG funds in September saw their largest outflow of investor cash since the March 2020 recession.

These ESG and responsible investing funds saw assets under management peak above $8.5 trillion in late 2021. Now, they stand under $7 trillion, according to new data from Refinitiv Lipper provided exclusively to Before the Bell.

The ESG world has been ravaged by ongoing debates about the merits of sustainable investing, the challenge of determining what counts as an ESG-friendly company and the evolution of global regulations. These headwinds, combined with a gloomy economic outlook, have created a less-than-appealing environment for ESG-related funds.

Pushback from all sides: US politicians on both sides of the aisle and business leaders have accused companies of “greenwashing” their financial statements to make themselves look more environmentally friendly than they really are. Firms like asset manager DWS and Goldman Sachs have been accused recently of using the ESG label undeservedly.

In May, Elon Musk called ESG a “Scam” on Twitter after Tesla was removed from an S&P ESG index while Exxon, which has a long history of causing environmental damage, remained. That’s because ESG ratings agencies tend to rate companies against others within their industry, so oil and gas companies are rated separately from automotive companies. They might rate an oil driller very highly relative to peers, but a renewable energy company may rate poorly compared to its own.

These counterintuitive results have added to a growing movement on the political right in the United States to divest entirely from asset management firms that invest and vote with ESG values in mind. Elected officials in red states have objected to the “values” they claim these funds promote, claiming that they’re not necessarily representative of their constituents.

A large number of Republican-led states, 20 and counting, have said they will remove ESG-focused firms like BlackRock from managing assets in their state retirement plans. BlackRock has so far lost more than a billion dollars in commitments because of these changes, according to Robert Jenkins, head of Lipper Research at Refinitiv.

A debate over how to regulate ESG funds is also adding to the noisy picture. Standardizing ESG criteria will reduce investor confusion, say experts, but the current fight to do so is actually making things more confusing. More than 1,000 ESG-related regulations have been issued for the global investment industry alone, according to an analysis by Principles for Responsible Investment, a United Nations-supported group that promotes ESG issues.

The US Securities and Exchange Commission most recently required funds labeled as ESG to invest at least 80% of assets in accordance with the funds stated ESG objectives, which is a step in the right direction, according to Jenkins.

Executives at a red light: The future doesn’t look great. US companies are preparing for recession by reconsidering their approach, according to a new KPMG poll. A third of CEOs in the US said they’ve already paused or reconsidered ESG initiatives, while another 59% say they’ll reconsider their efforts soon, the annual survey found. Even so, 70% of respondents said they’ve seen ESG programs improve the financial performance of their companies.

What it means: Climate change could cost the US $2 trillion a year by 2100, according to the White House, and corporations and governments will have to make drastic changes to prevent even higher monetary and human costs. But the hurdles facing ESG investing show that doing so is easier said than done.

[mkelly]

I personally have not sought out the ESG stuff. I think a bunch feel-good funds(such as pension funds) have been doing this. I prefer to read Eric Nuttal's Twitter feed. For those asking recently in this forum.......Imperial Oil +41% YTD(plus dividends).


Why investors aren't going green

ESG investing — evaluating companies using environmental, social and governance factors — was one of the most-cited phrases in earnings calls during the first half of the year. But a looming recession, tanking stock markets and the race to US midterm elections have put those sustainability efforts on the chopping block.

What’s happening: The rapid pandemic-era uptick in ESG fund investing has now stopped completely, according to Refinitiv analysis provided exclusively to CNN Business. ESG funds in September saw their largest outflow of investor cash since the March 2020 recession.

These ESG and responsible investing funds saw assets under management peak above $8.5 trillion in late 2021. Now, they stand under $7 trillion, according to new data from Refinitiv Lipper provided exclusively to Before the Bell.

The ESG world has been ravaged by ongoing debates about the merits of sustainable investing, the challenge of determining what counts as an ESG-friendly company and the evolution of global regulations. These headwinds, combined with a gloomy economic outlook, have created a less-than-appealing environment for ESG-related funds.

Pushback from all sides: US politicians on both sides of the aisle and business leaders have accused companies of “greenwashing” their financial statements to make themselves look more environmentally friendly than they really are. Firms like asset manager DWS and Goldman Sachs have been accused recently of using the ESG label undeservedly.

In May, Elon Musk called ESG a “Scam” on Twitter after Tesla was removed from an S&P ESG index while Exxon, which has a long history of causing environmental damage, remained. That’s because ESG ratings agencies tend to rate companies against others within their industry, so oil and gas companies are rated separately from automotive companies. They might rate an oil driller very highly relative to peers, but a renewable energy company may rate poorly compared to its own.

These counterintuitive results have added to a growing movement on the political right in the United States to divest entirely from asset management firms that invest and vote with ESG values in mind. Elected officials in red states have objected to the “values” they claim these funds promote, claiming that they’re not necessarily representative of their constituents.

A large number of Republican-led states, 20 and counting, have said they will remove ESG-focused firms like BlackRock from managing assets in their state retirement plans. BlackRock has so far lost more than a billion dollars in commitments because of these changes, according to Robert Jenkins, head of Lipper Research at Refinitiv.

A debate over how to regulate ESG funds is also adding to the noisy picture. Standardizing ESG criteria will reduce investor confusion, say experts, but the current fight to do so is actually making things more confusing. More than 1,000 ESG-related regulations have been issued for the global investment industry alone, according to an analysis by Principles for Responsible Investment, a United Nations-supported group that promotes ESG issues.

The US Securities and Exchange Commission most recently required funds labeled as ESG to invest at least 80% of assets in accordance with the funds stated ESG objectives, which is a step in the right direction, according to Jenkins.

Executives at a red light: The future doesn’t look great. US companies are preparing for recession by reconsidering their approach, according to a new KPMG poll. A third of CEOs in the US said they’ve already paused or reconsidered ESG initiatives, while another 59% say they’ll reconsider their efforts soon, the annual survey found. Even so, 70% of respondents said they’ve seen ESG programs improve the financial performance of their companies.

What it means: Climate change could cost the US $2 trillion a year by 2100, according to the White House, and corporations and governments will have to make drastic changes to prevent even higher monetary and human costs. But the hurdles facing ESG investing show that doing so is easier said than done.

I knew this sounded familiar...yes I get my news from CNN and FOX!

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2022/10/24/inve ... index.html

[pelmet]

I knew this sounded familiar...yes I get my news from CNN and FOX!

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2022/10/24/inve ... index.html

Correct on the source for the article. I just realized now that I made it appear that the source was a person with a well known Twitter feed. My sloppiness for adding the news report at the end without a link.

[rookiepilot]

Pelmet still ranting his life away on avcanada to deaf ears... nothing's changed on here

Missed you Onesie and you are absolutely correct. Deaf ears, even in the face of the obvious.

Today's quote of the day to those riding the wave........

"“When you shame oil and gas investors, dismantle oil and coal-fired power plants, fail to diversify energy supplies (especially gas), oppose LNG receiving terminals, and reject nuclear power, your transition plan had better be right,” Saudi Arabian Oil Co. chief executive Amin Nasser said.

“Instead, as this crisis has shown, the plan was just a chain of sandcastles that waves of reality have washed away. And billions around the world now face the energy access and cost of living consequences that are likely to be severe and prolonged.”

Well, Pelmet, you and I have had our disagreements, but its proper to disagree in public on a public thread.

This winner Onesie sent me a vile PM. Apparently thats cool now.

You’re not worth it.