News discussion
Cameron fails to convince business and environmental groups with green energy speech
Shell believe that it does not ad up, i wonder if they would say the same after considering the long term effects of oil peak , climate change etc. i rather have expensive wind farms then have no energy at all.
1 week, 2 days ago | view thread
What is 'ESG' and how can companies profit from it?
Thanks Richard. We at Ecclesiastical Investment Management believe that an integrated approach is the only way to assess companies.
2 weeks, 5 days ago | view thread
What is 'ESG' and how can companies profit from it?
Ketan
Articles like this are important as they continue to show people that investing in an ethical manner is not necessarily a compromise they have to make.
To make real change we have to start realising that environmental and social sustainability means financial sustainability.
Richard
2 weeks, 5 days ago | view thread
Number of Electric Vehicles to increase despite Chevrolet Volt incident
This Bloomberg article highlights some key updates on this story:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-23/gm-faces-task-of-rebuilding-volt-image-after-nhtsa-probe-ends.html
The NHTSA have announced "electric vehicles are no more prone to fires than other autos", but the article explains that GM still have a way to go on rebuilding their image.
Toyota have also announced that they have developed an EV that runs without Rare Earth Metals, one of the worries around EV production, which is explained in this Reuters article: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/23/us-toyota-rare-earth-idUSTRE80M0JK20120123
3 months, 3 weeks ago | view thread
Ecotricity wins - but do investors?
The second Ecobond closed on the 16th December by which time more than 2000 applications had been received for a total of £16.2m, £6.2m over the £10m target. Thus the second bond launch saw more interest that the first which was 50% over subscribed.
4 months, 4 weeks ago | view thread
Climate Change pact reached in Durban
On Monday Canada pulled out of the Kyoto Protocol! No real surprises there though. The Canadians are on a mission to make as much money as possible from their Tar Sands which will increase Canada's CO2 emissions fast and is totally inconsistent with any pretence at a climate change, or environmental stance. With this move Canada has thrown off its cuddly image, but at least it is an honest approach. The only way the international community can make Canada live up to its international responsibility is to not buy their oil, by imposing a carbon test to the oil that is used. This might have an impact in local markets, but rather relies on the advance of technology and unity amongst the rest of the world to truly impact, which clearly is not there. It will be interesting to see how this develops. It is not a good day for the environment though.
5 months ago | view thread
Leaders Meet to Discuss Responses to Global Climate Change
Hi again Mark, I couldn’t resist looking at more of your efforts to persuade others to put their hard-earned money into “climate change” investments (no doubt you see a nice little earner there). Your comment about Jonathon Porritt’s Forum for the Future’s report “A framework for a sustainable economy” made me laugh “ .. The report makes some interesting observations - How is it in today's world that the government support for fossil fuels in 2008 could be as high as $557billion? Or that a society which recognises climate science and the problems we face can oversubscribe to Coal India's initial public offering by 15 times to raise $52billion.
The answer I think is that capital markets, despite all the evidence and noise, has chosen to ignore the evidence. .. ” (http://www.worldwiseinvestor.com/blogs/article/97/Why-wouldn't-you-invest-sustainably?).
Would you be good enough to advise what evidence you are talking about, but please don’t include anything produced by the “crystal ball” computer models – only real evidence please.
Talking of Forum for the Future, I was present at their 2009 “Masters in Sustainability” awards event and had to be held down in my seat when Sara Parkin said of CACC “ .. all the scientists tell us .. ” (or words to that effect).
My wife and daughter had threatened me with excommunication if I dared to get involved in the Q&A session.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
5 months, 2 weeks ago | view thread
Leaders Meet to Discuss Responses to Global Climate Change
Hi again Louise, sorry that I had to dash off then but she who must be obeyed was calling. I just wish to add a comment about the UK’s 45-strong delegation to COP17. I haven’t been able to identify among them a single scientist who is recognised as having expertise in the processes and drivers of the different global climates. We have:
- Chris Huhne, financial and economic journalist turned politician,
- Gregory Barker, graduated in History, Economic History & Politics, .. over ten years experience of working in the City of London. .. trained as smaller companies analyst .. an Associate Partner of the leading financial public relations firm .. head of International Investor Relations for Sibneft, .. director of Bartlett Scott Edgar .. recruitment advertising business, .. turned politician
- Duncan Brack, Editor (journalist/author?)
- John Ashton, Cambridge University .. read Natural Sciences specialising in theoretical physics. Graduated in 1977 .. spent a year as a research astronomer .. joined HM Diplomatic Service .. Deputy Political Adviser to Governor Chris Patten .. his interest in the environment drew him towards the diplomacy of global climate change.
then another 41 “hangers-on” who are responsible for ensuring as far as possible that the UK’s interests are protected at this international shindig. This would be a joke if it wasn’t for the damaging economic consequences that would ensue if the UN, UNEP, the WMO and their IPCC were allowed to have their way.
Despite estimated atmospheric CO2 content having continued increasing the estimated mean global temperatures having been at best static for the past 12 years. With the next several decades predicted to bring much colder conditions as a result of the Sun entering a quiet period as it did in the 1940 – 70 period (http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut3/diagnostics/HadCRUT3_bar.png from http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut3/diagnostics/comparison.html) by 2020 those who supported this CACC nonsense will be a laughing stock.
Please take this message back to your fellow students and your lecturers at the London School of Economics and Political Science.
Hi Mark, thanks for responding to my comment. I see that you studied History and became a Chartered Accountant. Have you studied science, particularly physics? I don’t disagree with your “ .. tackling climate change boosts the economy, increases national and energy security, promotes health and clean environment. .. ” (http://www.worldwiseinvestor.com/news/article/202/Carbon-Nation-produce-a-climate-change-solutions-movie) but that is totally different from trying to control the different global climates. That’s in the hands of Mother Nature, not humans’.
Life on earth has always had to adapt to climate change but cannot influence or control beyond very limited local areas. As for the claim that our use of fossil fuels is leading to Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change (CACC), there is no convincing evidence for that.
I can understand why you are so eager to support the CACC hypothesis, after all, are you not “ .. a keen advocate of climate change investment, producing Holden & Partners Guide to Climate Change Investment, which he believes offers investors the opportunity of superior equity returns over the next 5 years .. ” (http://www.climatechangeawards.org.uk/static/judges).
A wise old bird in Australia wisely encouraged me to “follow the money” whenever I was puzzled by someone’s arguments.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
5 months, 2 weeks ago | view thread
Leaders Meet to Discuss Responses to Global Climate Change
Dear Peter,
It is always good to get different views about climate change, what is causing it and how best to deal with it and its effects and if indeed it is happening. I have to admit I do not personally spend much time reading into the science to try and understand exactly what the issues are and necessarily rely on people more qualified than I to make those calls. I also did chuckle when you talked about 'shindigs' because just after you posted your comment I received an email inviting me to a drinks reception in Durban with Greg Barker.
I found the article by Kelvin Kemm that you posted a very level approach. And it raises some good points about how society has in the past made mistakes and gone down routes based on premises which later proved false. However, you do seem to be quite angry and one sided in your comments, the very bias that you accuse of the environmentalists and policiticians.
I went and googled CFACT to find out about them and imediately found that Exxon have been financial supporters since 1998 and they have taken a very pro President Bush, anti climate change stance for over ten years. You also seem to believe that world leaders (excepting George Bush of course) are motivated not from concern about the consequences of consensus science, but from a power hunger. I personally have not met any members of Greenpeace or Friends of the Earth who have been so motivated, nor is Polly Higgins on a power drive. I am sure if you had met her also you would not suggest that. However, I am not sure I could say the same for oil men, who have a somewhat tarnished reputation when it comes to acting in the public good either in relation to the environment, or in relation to human conflict.
I don't think anyone in the science community has ever said that there have not been periods of warming and cooling in the past. It is rather the potential speed of this process in geological terms which is sparking a huge amount of fear. As I understand it scientists consensually agree that it is highly likely that this change is being caused by human activity. It is thus not pseudo science as you call it. On the other hand as Kelvin points out it would not be the first time science has got it wrong. This does not mean though we should ignore science in the way that we direct industry to try and mitigate the impact this could have on future generations. The route the politicians in Durban are trying to take is commendable because the policies suggested actually go against business as normal and are the hard option to take not the easy option.
Society should of course continually review the science, but to ignore it as you seem to suggest, would be foolish indeed. I should also like to point out that the International Energy Agency (IEA) are not an environmental agency and happen to be quite a conservative and internationally respected body.
Best Regards, Mark Hoskin
5 months, 2 weeks ago | view thread
Leaders Meet to Discuss Responses to Global Climate Change
Hi Louise, thanks for posting my comment, even though it challenges you reasoning. I see that you hope to graduate next summer with a degree in Mathematics and Economics from London School of Economics and Political Science. I wish you success but may I also offer a little advice from someone who has been around for many decades, advice that I have given my children and am giving my grandchildren. Do not believe everything that others tell you.
You appear to have accepted the propaganda relentlessly pushed at us from the power hungry (e.g. Al Gore, Maurice Strong, George Soros), the politicians (globally), the environmental activist organisations (e.g. The Green Party, Greeenpeace, Friends of the Earth, etc.), tree-huggers (e.g. Polly Higgins - http://www.treehugger.com/corporate-responsibility/trees-have-rights-too-a-call-for-a-universal-declaration-of-planetary-rights.html) without spending any time looking at the pseudo-science they are using to justify their claims.
I appreciate that for the moment your time will be taken up with preparations for your chosen career but that really is no excuse for adopting the position that many otherwise intelligent people do that “The scientists tell us and they are experts”. No-one is expert in the processes and drivers of the different global climates and understanding of these is progressing slowly. CO2 is an essential life-supporting substance like water, not a pollutant that is causing catastrophic changes to our climates.
You say thag “Recent information from the IEA .. suggests that by (2020) it will already be too late to keep below the 2° target, which is often cited as the limit before catastrophic climate change”. Why believe that the IEA is correct and support action that is directly damaging to developed global economies and indirectly damaging to the underdeveloped ones? The paleo-record (e.g. http://www.climategeology.ethz.ch/education/climatehistory/2011_proxiesB_HS11_full.pdf) suggests that during the past 1M years the earth has swung between glacial and inter-glacial numerous times without hitting a tipping point leading to catastrophe.
Please start being more sceptical about what you are told about CACC.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
5 months, 2 weeks ago | view thread
Latest blogs comments 9 comments
What the shale oil counter-revolution means for clean energy
It is a shame how people pretend that there is not a CO2 problem, or that they do not have to do ...
dawid eugeniusz ptak | 1 week, 2 days ago | read more
Barkering mad solar cut shows lack of judgement
Government have lost the Appeal and tariff remains at 43.2p to 3rd March 2012 after which it will...
Mark Hoskin | 3 months, 3 weeks ago | read more
Germans show green investors and politicians how to build Solar
Today the government lost its Appeal against the 'unlawful' tariff cuts. The feed in tariff for...
Mark Hoskin | 3 months, 3 weeks ago | read more
Ecobond two is positive for renewables, but sparks a need for legal change
I have to add an addendum to my original comment. Ecotricity saw my post and very rapidly contacted...
James Wrighton | 5 months, 3 weeks ago | read more
Ecobond two is positive for renewables, but sparks a need for legal change
There was a massive demand for these bonds which probably explains the poor communication with...
John Ditchfield | 5 months, 3 weeks ago | read more
News by category
News by month
The value of ethical and green investments can go down in value as well as up, so you could get back less than you invest. It is therefore important that you understand the risks of investing. Our aim is to provide you with the best information we can to help you make decisions about ethical and green investments. It is not to advise you on the suitability of an investment to your personal circumstances. Nothing written on the site should be considered personal advice, nor do Holden & Partners accept liability for any inaccurate information on the site. If you are unsure about the suitability of an ethical and green investment please contact Holden & Partners or your financial adviser.