CofE Green

[Rival]

'Church of England Targets a New Group of Emitters
Just months after announcing plans to sell its oil and gas holdings, its pensions board is going after automakers, utilities, steel companies—and banks.

Just months after announcing plans to sell its oil and gas holdings, the Church of England Pensions Board is now going after the biggest consumers of fossil fuels.

Those include automakers, utilities, steel companies—and also banks. The focus is on “the key blockers of climate policy,” said Laura Hillis, the board’s director of climate and environment, while speaking last week at an event...'

The rest is behind a paywall, but this in itself sounds commendable.

Church of England Targets a New Group of Emitters

Just months after announcing plans to sell its oil and gas holdings, its pensions board is going after automakers, utilities, steel companies—and banks.

www.bloomberg.com

 

[Rival]

I've found the rest here,

'Among investors, the Church of England stands out for its aggressive stance against the world’s largest polluters. Many asset managers say they’re serious about climate change, but far fewer actually do anything concrete to back up their words.

The church, which manages roughly £3.2 billion ($4.1 billion), said in June that it will sell its stake in Shell Plc as part of a total exit from the oil-and-gas sector. The decision followed years of unsuccessful attempts to get the industry to “decarbonize in line with the aims of the Paris Agreement.”

Next up for the church are companies such as Volkswagen AG, Renault SA, National Grid Plc, BMW AG, Toyota Motor Corp. and Mercedes-Benz Group AG. The church has said it also continues to concentrate on the mining industry.'

Church of England Targets a New Group of Emitters

(Bloomberg) -- Just months after announcing plans to sell its oil and gas holdings, the Church of England Pensions Board is now going after the biggest consumers of fossil fuels.Most Read from BloombergMusk Fails to Convince Tesla Investors to Overlook SlowdownBoeing Growth Plans Set Back as...

news.yahoo.com

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I've found the rest here,

'Among investors, the Church of England stands out for its aggressive stance against the world’s largest polluters. Many asset managers say they’re serious about climate change, but far fewer actually do anything concrete to back up their words.

The church, which manages roughly £3.2 billion ($4.1 billion), said in June that it will sell its stake in Shell Plc as part of a total exit from the oil-and-gas sector. The decision followed years of unsuccessful attempts to get the industry to “decarbonize in line with the aims of the Paris Agreement.”

Next up for the church are companies such as Volkswagen AG, Renault SA, National Grid Plc, BMW AG, Toyota Motor Corp. and Mercedes-Benz Group AG. The church has said it also continues to concentrate on the mining industry.'

Church of England Targets a New Group of Emitters

(Bloomberg) -- Just months after announcing plans to sell its oil and gas holdings, the Church of England Pensions Board is now going after the biggest consumers of fossil fuels.Most Read from BloombergMusk Fails to Convince Tesla Investors to Overlook SlowdownBoeing Growth Plans Set Back as...

news.yahoo.com

I have mixed feelings about divestment like this. In and of itself, selling off shares does nothing to correct any wrongs and doesn't affect the companies' bottom line at all.

OTOH, what it does do is take away the CoE pension fund's ability to vote and introduce motions at shareholder meetings and potentially effect change that way.

If they're doing this to free up cash to go and invest in, say, IPOs for clean energy startups, that would have an impact, but the article doesn't say they're doing that.

So I'm not sure what the message of this is except "we object to what these companies are doing, but we aren't going to stop them; we'll just let someone else profit off those objectionable things instead of us."

... which I get. I mean, not wanting to profit off of bad things is okay, but I think that distancing themselves from wrong behaviour is not as useful as actually doing something about the wrong behaviour.

 

[Rival]

I have mixed feelings about divestment like this. In and of itself, selling off shares does nothing to correct any wrongs and doesn't affect the companies' bottom line at all.

OTOH, what it does do is take away the CoE pension fund's ability to vote and introduce motions at shareholder meetings and potentially effect change that way.

If they're doing this to free up cash to go and invest in, say, IPOs for clean energy startups, that would have an impact, but the article doesn't say they're doing that.

So I'm not sure what the message of this is except "we object to what these companies are doing, but we aren't going to stop them; we'll just let someone else profit off those objectionable things instead of us."

... which I get. I mean, not wanting to profit off of bad things is okay, but I think that distancing themselves from wrong behaviour is not as useful as actually doing something about the wrong behaviour.

It's a difficult one.

I'm glad they're not making money off pollution, is really my bottom line.

It would be good if they had more of a voice, but I do think there are strong initiatives for businesses these days, especially in Europe.

I'm glad they're trying to do anything at all.

 

[rocala]

I agree with Rival that it is difficult. From a PR point alone it is difficult to see how the Cof E could be taken seriously in environmental circles while remaining an owner of such culprits. So yes I agree with her bottom line.

I was pleased to see that the Church does have a clear policy and plan of action.

Church of England Environment Programme | The Church of England

We are here to help you take action on the environment, including net zero carbon, in your church, school, or community.

www.churchofengland.org

This statement by Archbishop Justin Welby sends a clear and powerful message.
"Reducing the causes of climate change is essential to the life of faith. It is a way to love our neighbour and to steward the gift of creation."

 

[Heyo]

If they're doing this to free up cash to go and invest in, say, IPOs for clean energy startups, that would have an impact, but the article doesn't say they're doing that.

I don't think they are planning to put the money under their pillows.

 

[exchemist]

I have mixed feelings about divestment like this. In and of itself, selling off shares does nothing to correct any wrongs and doesn't affect the companies' bottom line at all.

OTOH, what it does do is take away the CoE pension fund's ability to vote and introduce motions at shareholder meetings and potentially effect change that way.

If they're doing this to free up cash to go and invest in, say, IPOs for clean energy startups, that would have an impact, but the article doesn't say they're doing that.

So I'm not sure what the message of this is except "we object to what these companies are doing, but we aren't going to stop them; we'll just let someone else profit off those objectionable things instead of us."

... which I get. I mean, not wanting to profit off of bad things is okay, but I think that distancing themselves from wrong behaviour is not as useful as actually doing something about the wrong behaviour.

I suspect it's mainly a PR type defensive action, as it would be embarrassing for the church to be talking about stewardship of the earth while earning dividends from fossil fuel companies. In fact, many of the same fossil fuel companies are, for obvious reasons, some of the biggest investors in the energy transition (Shell is massively into wind farms, electric charging systems and hydrogen for instance), so the true "morals" of it are something of a complicated picture, but the "optics" of hanging onto these shares would undoubtedly not look good.

And it's good to keep up the drip, drip of more and more organisations putting climate change into public view by the actions they take. I was heartened to read in the gardening section of the Financial Times weekend edition, a detailed account of how a botanical garden in Florida is adapting its facilities to be carbon neutral, and how Kew Gardens is approaching the issue (Victorian era hothouses posing particular problems). Encouraging to see that, regardless of the tripe uttered by De Santis (and if we are unlucky, Trump), organisations in Florida are just getting on with it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don't think they are planning to put the money under their pillows.

The vast majority of ways a pension fund can invest its money don't really do anything to help further environmental stewardship.

 

[Debater Slayer]

'Church of England Targets a New Group of Emitters
Just months after announcing plans to sell its oil and gas holdings, its pensions board is going after automakers, utilities, steel companies—and banks.

Just months after announcing plans to sell its oil and gas holdings, the Church of England Pensions Board is now going after the biggest consumers of fossil fuels.

Those include automakers, utilities, steel companies—and also banks. The focus is on “the key blockers of climate policy,” said Laura Hillis, the board’s director of climate and environment, while speaking last week at an event...'

The rest is behind a paywall, but this in itself sounds commendable.

Church of England Targets a New Group of Emitters

Just months after announcing plans to sell its oil and gas holdings, its pensions board is going after automakers, utilities, steel companies—and banks.

www.bloomberg.com

More power to them. At least they're using the influence they have for a positive cause.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I suspect it's mainly a PR type defensive action, as it would be embarrassing for the church to be talking about stewardship of the earth while earning dividends from fossil fuel companies. In fact, many of the same fossil fuel companies are, for obvious reasons, some of the biggest investors in the energy transition (Shell is massively into wind farms, electric charging systems and hydrogen for instance), so the true "morals" of it are something of a complicated picture, but the "optics" of hanging onto these shares would undoubtedly not look good.

Seeing how much hay people have made about the fact that, at one point, the C of E was one of the largest slave owners in the Caribbean, it makes sense that they would be sensitive to the optics of ownership.

 

[exchemist]

Seeing how much hay people have made about the fact that, at one point, the C of E was one of the largest slave owners in the Caribbean, it makes sense that they would be sensitive to the optics of ownership.

Yes, as with the Catholic church's blunder over the Galileo affair, these things can be used for point-scoring, centuries later.

 

[Rival]

Yes, as with the Catholic church's blunder over the Galileo affair, these things can be used for point-scoring, centuries later.

And even that was half Galileo's fault

 

[exchemist]

And even that was half Galileo's fault

Shh, you and I know that, but it will be a red rag to a bull to repeat that here.

 

[Debater Slayer]

And even that was half Galileo's fault

In fairness, I'd be mad too if someone told me the universe didn't revolve around me!