Discussion
Apparently we, or the West, or somebody, is going to beg, borrrow or print $130Tn to help poor countries cope with the effects of climate change.
How jolly nice of us. I don't recall getting a vote on that. But more importantly, seeing as we're also up to our eyeballs in Covid debt (which now looks like kid's pocket money), is that going to hit the economy and how will it affect us personally? For how long can we keep magicking stuff up out of thin air?
How jolly nice of us. I don't recall getting a vote on that. But more importantly, seeing as we're also up to our eyeballs in Covid debt (which now looks like kid's pocket money), is that going to hit the economy and how will it affect us personally? For how long can we keep magicking stuff up out of thin air?
That $130trn is needed because India won't stop their space missions or tax their highly profitable Tata's, Wipro's or anyone else to pay for clearing up all the coal powered s
t....
When it comes down to it, If India truly believe they're not going to be "Net Zero" by 2070, we're all fked anyway....
t....When it comes down to it, If India truly believe they're not going to be "Net Zero" by 2070, we're all f
ked anyway.... Simpo Two said:
Apparently we, or the West, or somebody, is going to beg, borrrow or print $130Tn to help poor countries cope with the effects of climate change.
How jolly nice of us. I don't recall getting a vote on that. But more importantly, seeing as we're also up to our eyeballs in Covid debt (which now looks like kid's pocket money), is that going to hit the economy and how will it affect us personally? For how long can we keep magicking stuff up out of thin air?
This is not what was said,How jolly nice of us. I don't recall getting a vote on that. But more importantly, seeing as we're also up to our eyeballs in Covid debt (which now looks like kid's pocket money), is that going to hit the economy and how will it affect us personally? For how long can we keep magicking stuff up out of thin air?
The fund managers of $130Tn have agreed to the 1.5c pledge, they are _not_ giving $130Tn
Massive difference.
JamieBeeston said:
Simpo Two said:
Apparently we, or the West, or somebody, is going to beg, borrrow or print $130Tn to help poor countries cope with the effects of climate change.
How jolly nice of us. I don't recall getting a vote on that. But more importantly, seeing as we're also up to our eyeballs in Covid debt (which now looks like kid's pocket money), is that going to hit the economy and how will it affect us personally? For how long can we keep magicking stuff up out of thin air?
This is not what was said,How jolly nice of us. I don't recall getting a vote on that. But more importantly, seeing as we're also up to our eyeballs in Covid debt (which now looks like kid's pocket money), is that going to hit the economy and how will it affect us personally? For how long can we keep magicking stuff up out of thin air?
The fund managers of $130Tn have agreed to the 1.5c pledge, they are _not_ giving $130Tn
Massive difference.
The $130tn already exists. It's there as the AUM of the funds.
Do you remember the whole Church and Sin Stocks stuff? As in the Church aims not to invest in evil companies like armaments, tobacco, gambling or FAANG (;)) etc?
What the agreement essentially is is the categorising as anything that can't be classed as ESG as being a sin stick to be avoided. Ie, not investing in ICE automotive, coal, oil etc but only into companies that meet the ESG requirements.
This was actually already underway as ESG has been the key criteria for many deals for the last couple of years but it's been formalised.
It's quite smart really as it will starve key businesses of vital capital unless they can show that they are investing in growing the right areas of their business.
This has been behind recent public deals such as JCB volountwering to test German hydrogen ICE, signing to take hydrogen from Fortesque. Ineos agreeing to invest in EU utility hydrogen projects. It'll steer capital towards things like gigafactories while inhibiting considerably developing market investment in coal and other dirty industries.
As investors, it probably is beneficial as most blue chip funds were already on this path and the u deleting assets will get inflated as more money has to flow in etc.
Do you remember the whole Church and Sin Stocks stuff? As in the Church aims not to invest in evil companies like armaments, tobacco, gambling or FAANG (;)) etc?
What the agreement essentially is is the categorising as anything that can't be classed as ESG as being a sin stick to be avoided. Ie, not investing in ICE automotive, coal, oil etc but only into companies that meet the ESG requirements.
This was actually already underway as ESG has been the key criteria for many deals for the last couple of years but it's been formalised.
It's quite smart really as it will starve key businesses of vital capital unless they can show that they are investing in growing the right areas of their business.
This has been behind recent public deals such as JCB volountwering to test German hydrogen ICE, signing to take hydrogen from Fortesque. Ineos agreeing to invest in EU utility hydrogen projects. It'll steer capital towards things like gigafactories while inhibiting considerably developing market investment in coal and other dirty industries.
As investors, it probably is beneficial as most blue chip funds were already on this path and the u deleting assets will get inflated as more money has to flow in etc.
DonkeyApple said:
The $130tn already exists. It's there as the AUM of the funds.
Do you remember the whole Church and Sin Stocks stuff? As in the Church aims not to invest in evil companies like armaments, tobacco, gambling or FAANG (;)) etc?
What the agreement essentially is is the categorising as anything that can't be classed as ESG as being a sin stick to be avoided. Ie, not investing in ICE automotive, coal, oil etc but only into companies that meet the ESG requirements.
This was actually already underway as ESG has been the key criteria for many deals for the last couple of years but it's been formalised.
It's quite smart really as it will starve key businesses of vital capital unless they can show that they are investing in growing the right areas of their business.
This has been behind recent public deals such as JCB volountwering to test German hydrogen ICE, signing to take hydrogen from Fortesque. Ineos agreeing to invest in EU utility hydrogen projects. It'll steer capital towards things like gigafactories while inhibiting considerably developing market investment in coal and other dirty industries.
Aha, I begin to see.Do you remember the whole Church and Sin Stocks stuff? As in the Church aims not to invest in evil companies like armaments, tobacco, gambling or FAANG (;)) etc?
What the agreement essentially is is the categorising as anything that can't be classed as ESG as being a sin stick to be avoided. Ie, not investing in ICE automotive, coal, oil etc but only into companies that meet the ESG requirements.
This was actually already underway as ESG has been the key criteria for many deals for the last couple of years but it's been formalised.
It's quite smart really as it will starve key businesses of vital capital unless they can show that they are investing in growing the right areas of their business.
This has been behind recent public deals such as JCB volountwering to test German hydrogen ICE, signing to take hydrogen from Fortesque. Ineos agreeing to invest in EU utility hydrogen projects. It'll steer capital towards things like gigafactories while inhibiting considerably developing market investment in coal and other dirty industries.
Is there any mileage in Joe Punter trying to invest a few bob in this brave new world? Is it the mother of all Opportunities funds?
I'm not sure you need to. It's not so much about new funds being set up but about starving polluting businesses of capital from major funds.
It's probably quite a sensible way to ensure all companies speed up their activities and ensure they tick the right boxes.
It strikes me as better than offering incentives, tax rebates, subsidies etc to just severely limit their access to the capital markets if they chose not to ci play and therefor make it their choice to be less competitive.
In reality I think we can assume the 130tn to be a figure to grab headlines more than anything else. I'd wager that this isn't equity investments that can be gently redeployed over time to invest in say third world renewable energy but rather to get a big number like that it's mostly debt and probably mostly mortgages.
As such one has to ask the question, if that money were all mortgage debt just what use is it at all? How do you use a Western mortgage book to decarbonise Africa while it's being asset stripped by China? Or to decarbonise China where we have outsourced all our pollution so as to look like the U.K. is decarbonising?
I suspect that it is largely just a load of PR on the whole but it will have a positive impact on the market as it will embolden ESG investment, make it more of a buzz criteria and as the vast majority of money managers, VCs and bankers purely follow whatever the trend is then you'll find every single normal and sub normal manager switching to ESG without even realising or understanding why just as they all naturally switch wardrobes or holiday destinations so as to remain aligned and not stand out. So the default settings are currently: must wear a zip front cardigan, suit for a smaller man, a bicycle, power stance, story about visiting Salcombe and now they've got to properly add ESG just as soon as they've overheard a conversation that mostly explains what that is and then off they go doing the RBS trick of just jumping onto deals that people you believe know what they are doing are in the midst of and over bidding or gambling on a deal being identical to a deal such a person has done.
I suspect the amount of money is just waffle but the result will actually be that all the sub managers who weren't in that power list will be rapidly adding ESG to their core activities like teenagers all have the same wardrobe out of fear of not fitting in.
As for the incentives re third world investment, that's not too hard to appreciate as the European peninsula is extremely energy hungry but lacks the land mass and resources to be easily energy self sufficient. We need to be bulldozing millions of peasant huts to make way for all the renewable energy production to power out eco hot taps, eco mowers, eco SUVs, eco Christmas lights, eco shopping trips, eco flights, eco holidays etc etc. just using these countries for cheap landfill isn't good enough if we want to continue our profligate eco shopping.
It's probably quite a sensible way to ensure all companies speed up their activities and ensure they tick the right boxes.
It strikes me as better than offering incentives, tax rebates, subsidies etc to just severely limit their access to the capital markets if they chose not to ci play and therefor make it their choice to be less competitive.
In reality I think we can assume the 130tn to be a figure to grab headlines more than anything else. I'd wager that this isn't equity investments that can be gently redeployed over time to invest in say third world renewable energy but rather to get a big number like that it's mostly debt and probably mostly mortgages.
As such one has to ask the question, if that money were all mortgage debt just what use is it at all? How do you use a Western mortgage book to decarbonise Africa while it's being asset stripped by China? Or to decarbonise China where we have outsourced all our pollution so as to look like the U.K. is decarbonising?
I suspect that it is largely just a load of PR on the whole but it will have a positive impact on the market as it will embolden ESG investment, make it more of a buzz criteria and as the vast majority of money managers, VCs and bankers purely follow whatever the trend is then you'll find every single normal and sub normal manager switching to ESG without even realising or understanding why just as they all naturally switch wardrobes or holiday destinations so as to remain aligned and not stand out. So the default settings are currently: must wear a zip front cardigan, suit for a smaller man, a bicycle, power stance, story about visiting Salcombe and now they've got to properly add ESG just as soon as they've overheard a conversation that mostly explains what that is and then off they go doing the RBS trick of just jumping onto deals that people you believe know what they are doing are in the midst of and over bidding or gambling on a deal being identical to a deal such a person has done.
I suspect the amount of money is just waffle but the result will actually be that all the sub managers who weren't in that power list will be rapidly adding ESG to their core activities like teenagers all have the same wardrobe out of fear of not fitting in.
As for the incentives re third world investment, that's not too hard to appreciate as the European peninsula is extremely energy hungry but lacks the land mass and resources to be easily energy self sufficient. We need to be bulldozing millions of peasant huts to make way for all the renewable energy production to power out eco hot taps, eco mowers, eco SUVs, eco Christmas lights, eco shopping trips, eco flights, eco holidays etc etc. just using these countries for cheap landfill isn't good enough if we want to continue our profligate eco shopping.
Gassing Station | Finance | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff