If investors needed proof of the financial value from sustainability -- it's here.
Researchers at the Harvard Business School reviewed 18 years of data on more than 700 companies. Their findings were remarkable. "High sustainability" companies have not only been more profitable than their less responsible peers, their shares have performed significantly better.
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
Sunday, January 15, 2012
A Slowly Boiling Frog... Investor Summit on Climate Risk
On January 12, 2012, Boardwalk Capital joined nearly 500 of the world’s investors and most powerful financial players at the United Nations.
Collectively, more than $20 trillion in assets were present, united by a desire to catalyze the large-scale investment needed to reduce carbon emissions and mitigate potentially catastrophic climate impacts. This was the fourth Investor Summit on Climate Risk and Energy Solutions.
Particularly interesting were the opportunities presented in financing energy infrastructure and low carbon equity management that were supported by some of the world's largest pension plans -- CalPERS, British Telecom and California Teachers along with State Treasurers from North Carolina, Connecticut, Pennsylvania and Maryland.
Perhaps the most poinient moment was when Rob McCord, Pennsylvania State Treasurer likened investors to a frog in a pot of hot water. A slow change is difficult to detect, until it is too late.
The investors in the room are choosing not to wait for governments to act. They are pressuring companies and political actors to move swiftly to combat this growing threat, repositioning portfolios away from high risk enterprises and seeking investment opportunities in emerging industries and from mitigation beneficiaries. The reason is clear: Literally trillions will be spent on clean energy solutions and on amending old ones.
Read more at Ceres.org
Collectively, more than $20 trillion in assets were present, united by a desire to catalyze the large-scale investment needed to reduce carbon emissions and mitigate potentially catastrophic climate impacts. This was the fourth Investor Summit on Climate Risk and Energy Solutions.
Particularly interesting were the opportunities presented in financing energy infrastructure and low carbon equity management that were supported by some of the world's largest pension plans -- CalPERS, British Telecom and California Teachers along with State Treasurers from North Carolina, Connecticut, Pennsylvania and Maryland.
Perhaps the most poinient moment was when Rob McCord, Pennsylvania State Treasurer likened investors to a frog in a pot of hot water. A slow change is difficult to detect, until it is too late.
The investors in the room are choosing not to wait for governments to act. They are pressuring companies and political actors to move swiftly to combat this growing threat, repositioning portfolios away from high risk enterprises and seeking investment opportunities in emerging industries and from mitigation beneficiaries. The reason is clear: Literally trillions will be spent on clean energy solutions and on amending old ones.
Read more at Ceres.org
Solar surge drives record clean energy investment in 2011
Global investment in clean energy reached a new record of $260bn in 2011, up 5% on 2010 and almost five times the total of $53.6bn in 2004. The largest single type of investment was the asset finance of utility-scale renewable energy projects.
Investment in solar far outstripped that in wind, and perhaps of most note, US clean energy investment moved back ahead of China for the first time since 2008, according to the latest authoritative data from analysis company Bloomberg New Energy Finance.
Last year also saw the one trillionth dollar invested in clean energy globally since the company started compiling data in 2004.
Read more at Bloomberg New Energy Finance
Investment in solar far outstripped that in wind, and perhaps of most note, US clean energy investment moved back ahead of China for the first time since 2008, according to the latest authoritative data from analysis company Bloomberg New Energy Finance.
Last year also saw the one trillionth dollar invested in clean energy globally since the company started compiling data in 2004.
Read more at Bloomberg New Energy Finance
Leveling the (Carbon) Playing Field
The International Energy Agency’s annual World Energy Outlook, released in November, sent a stark message to the participants at the climate negotiations in Durban: "The world is locking itself into an insecure, inefficient and high-carbon energy system. And time is running out to take action before changes become irreversible".
While such talk of "irreversible changes" may be subject to debate, no one is questioning whether or not a lower carbon future is preferable. All things equal, clean energy sources lack the emission, national security and trade balance challenges of higher carbon alternatives.
Europe has blazed the lower carbon trail, but China and Brazil are both working to contain CO2 emissions. And last year, Australia became one of the first countries to enact a carbon tax on its largest emitters, with the proceeds being used for tax cuts and pension enhancements for the population at large.
The concept of "polluter pays" is well established in solid waste (ask any construction company about the cost of landfill access). Now it is merely being applied to gaseous pollutants.
In the United States, The Save Our Climate Act (H.R, 3242) was introduced last year to place a revenue-neutral tax on carbon at the source (with these funds then returned to each citizen in the form of a "dividend".) The affect of such legislation would be to provide businesses and consumers with a predictable carbon cost on which to base decisions. Lower carbon choices become relatively less expensive to investors and consumers, and carbon dioxide levels would eventually decline from the inevitable behavioral shift.
The benefits to the USA of such legislation are potentially numerous. The American Solar Energy Association estimates that carbon legislation of this type would add 4.2 million new jobs to the US economy over ten years. Technological leadership would more easily follow from clear and transparent policies. And any reduction in the $200 billion spent annually on imported oil would improve our national security and trade deficits.
While the likelihood of such legislation being enacted in an election year is quite modest, the direction is clear: A lower carbon future awaits.
While such talk of "irreversible changes" may be subject to debate, no one is questioning whether or not a lower carbon future is preferable. All things equal, clean energy sources lack the emission, national security and trade balance challenges of higher carbon alternatives.
Europe has blazed the lower carbon trail, but China and Brazil are both working to contain CO2 emissions. And last year, Australia became one of the first countries to enact a carbon tax on its largest emitters, with the proceeds being used for tax cuts and pension enhancements for the population at large.
The concept of "polluter pays" is well established in solid waste (ask any construction company about the cost of landfill access). Now it is merely being applied to gaseous pollutants.
In the United States, The Save Our Climate Act (H.R, 3242) was introduced last year to place a revenue-neutral tax on carbon at the source (with these funds then returned to each citizen in the form of a "dividend".) The affect of such legislation would be to provide businesses and consumers with a predictable carbon cost on which to base decisions. Lower carbon choices become relatively less expensive to investors and consumers, and carbon dioxide levels would eventually decline from the inevitable behavioral shift.
The benefits to the USA of such legislation are potentially numerous. The American Solar Energy Association estimates that carbon legislation of this type would add 4.2 million new jobs to the US economy over ten years. Technological leadership would more easily follow from clear and transparent policies. And any reduction in the $200 billion spent annually on imported oil would improve our national security and trade deficits.
While the likelihood of such legislation being enacted in an election year is quite modest, the direction is clear: A lower carbon future awaits.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)