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
I’m reminded of this debate amid the current turmoil over a greeninvestment label in Europe, a situation caused largely by the unwillingness of the sustainable investment sector to create its own industry standard. Until very recently, the initiative has been considered a success.
The European Union, China, the United Kingdom and about 20 other countries are developing such taxonomies as a way of discouraging greenwashing and channelling investment to the climate transition. The EU’s taxonomy has been particularly controversial because of its inclusion of natural gas and nuclear as “greeninvestments.”
BRUSSELS (AP) — The European Union on February 2 proposed including nuclear energy and natural gas in its plans for building a climate-friendly future, dividing member countries and drawing outcry from environmentalists as “greenwashing.” This anti-science plan represents the biggest greenwashing exercise of all time.
Environmental groups complain that the group is rife with conflicts of interest in setting greeninvestment standards for themselves, given their considerable reliance on oil and gas business. She says the inclusion of oil and gas projects in a transition framework would amount to greenwashing for an unsustainable source of energy.
Key jurisdictions, including the European Union, the United Kingdom, Australia, Japan and China, are moving forward with taxonomies that will guide greeninvestment decisions and help avoid greenwashing. For greenhouse gas reductions alone, the scale of capital required is enormous.
European regulators have ratcheted up efforts to eliminate greenwashing from the investment sector. End of an era I – The fight against greenwashing inched ahead with the release of final guidelines for naming ESG- or sustainability-related funds by the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA).
Last September, the UN marked the halfway point to their 2030 deadline with a special conference – which rallied support for a US$500 billion per annum stimulus plan – while world leaders also sought to identify and clear blockages in the international finance system in Paris. billion) greeninvestment pledge.
On climate, ministers also agreed to accelerate the renewable energy transition, collectively increasing offshore wind capacity by 150 GW by 2030 and solar by 1 TW. To quote a past contributor to ESG Investor , for fund managers, it’s still not easy being green.
BP recently announced that it will reduce its 2030 goal of cutting oil and gas production from 40% to 25%. That role will be played by the UK taxonomy, and hopefully we will hear more about next steps for this in the upcoming Green Finance Strategy ,” she added.
But within months, that optimism started to wither as leading members threatened to leave the alliance after learning they were expected to implement stringent emission cuts by 2030. By November, GFANZ organizers conceded that the 2030 emission-reductions targets would not be mandatory, acknowledging the one-year-old agreement had no teeth.
There have also been longstanding concerns on the human rights risks of investing in China – though foreign investors with exposure tell ESG Investor it is unfair to single out the country, pointing to human rights violations happening in the US and Europe too. trillion (US$3.57 trillion) growing from RMB 18.4 trillion in 2021.
The Egyptian Presidency put Adaptation and Africa front and centre of COP27 with the Sharm El Sheikh Adaptation Agenda , an ambitious plan to drive public and private investment toward achieving ?30 At least US$1 trillion of this needs to be annually invested in EMDEs.
Due to be approved in September, following passage through the House of Representatives earlier this month, Labor PM Anthony Albanese’s proposed legislation aims higher than Biden’s, seeking a 43% emissions cut below 2005 levels by 2030. Not if the SEC has its way.
There have been bad faith actors from the corporate world, greenwashing their activities, depleting the world’s resources, damaging the environment and wasting the planet’s and the climate movement’s time and energies. Many people are cautious about the intentions of companies that have committed to decarbonization and with some reason.
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