This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Yet the pace and scale of their reductions is in the realm of what every company and country must do by 2030 to keep the faith of the Paris Agreement. About two-thirds of the GHG reductions achieved by these companies were genuine from the planet’s perspective; much of it came courtesy of efficiency measures or retiring polluting assets.
BP has cut its oil and gas production reduction target from 40% to 25% by 2030, Shell dropped its goal to cut oil production by the same deadline, and TotalEnergies plans to increase both its oil and gas production by 2-3% per year until 2028. C pathway by 2050 would requires as much as 50% by 2030. Last year, Shell invested US$5.6
Those organisations that have not considered reducing these emission sources could be misunderstanding the double materiality risks they carry: the risks to their business, like strandedassets or reputational risks, and their contribution to making the Earth uninhabitable.
This could stem from campaigns which lobby for divestment from polluting companies or projects. “In our view, the risk to investors from ESG or climate litigation remains primarily indirect,” Mark Banks, Dispute Resolution Senior Associate at Baker McKenzie told ESG Investor.
Climate-focused investors welcomed the change from the coal-wielding Scott Morrison, calling for an “investment grade 2030 emissions target”, and accompanying policy changes, including a National Transition Authority. Even so, we were reminded how far the G20 nations are from meeting their COP26 commitment to keep 1.5°C
This could stem from campaigns which lobby for divestment from polluting companies or projects. “In our view, the risk to investors from ESG or climate litigation remains primarily indirect,” Mark Banks, Dispute Resolution Senior Associate at Baker McKenzie told ESG Investor.
Divest or wind down? Anglo American sold its thermal coal portfolio in 2021, while BHP announced in 2022 that it would close its last such mine in 2030. This leaves it heavily exposed to reputational, regulatory and stranded-asset risk, leading many investors to avoid it.
Rasmussen expects the scheme to meet its target – self-imposed, but in line with the protocol set by the Net Zero Asset Owner Alliance (NZAOA) – to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from its listed equities and corporate bonds by 45% by the end of 2024, from a 2018 base. Some managers might not cover Scope 3 emissions,” he notes.
Reasons are manifold but include better risk management, earlier identification of strandedassets, and the realisation that Paris Agreement goals are in jeopardy. It now aims to further halve its emissions by 2030 compared to 2020 levels – with the long-term goal of achieving net zero by 2040. “We
The report warns that fossil fuel demand will peak as government policies to cut emissions, asset owners’ net-zero commitments and the rapid growth of clean energy technologies combine to transition the economy towards renewables. Nothing could be more clear or present than the danger of fossil fuel expansion. C goal. .
The new initiative seeks to engage with companies in key sectors that are deemed to be systemically important in reversing nature and biodiversity loss by 2030.
Additionally, divestment campaigns and the fear of strandedassets have become each new year more pressing. It has been estimated by the Carbon Tracker Initiative that by 2030 the quasi totality will be more expensive to run than solar and wind. Renewables are also more resilient, cleaner and more popular among voters.
trillion across the region by 2030. The headline targets and goals enshrined in the new GBF include protection for 30% of the Earth’s surface by 2030, which may have implications for both existing and planned sites and facilities. The GBF is influencing policy through its goals and 2030 targets.
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 5,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content