Environmentalists and investors speak different languages. Interpreters wanted

It is worth pausing over one of Labour’s policy commitments, which Ed Miliband reiterated last week: decarbonising the UK power sector by 2030. Think about that. That is just over 15 years away – within many of our working lives. And Labour has already set out plans to capitalise on the economic opportunities the transition could bring. The media rarely talk about it but it is one of the most radical and ambitious policies going.

At the same time as domestic environmental policy was being overshadowed in the United Kingdom, the UN secretary general’s pre-summit in New York (in advance of major climate change talks in Paris next year) was being overshadowed by an escalation of events in Iraq and Syria.

Although the general consensus appears to be that very little apart from some extra funding was announced, the summit was preceded by an enormous amount of important research, further clarifying the situation we face: the opportunities as well as the challenges. For me there were two key findings.

The first remains the need for faster progress. PwC’s Low Carbon Economy Index now tells us that the annual average rate of emissions reduction per unit of economic growth (carbon intensity) needs to quintuple from 1.2 per cent to 6.2 per cent between now and 2100 if we are to avoid the disaster scenario of a four degree average temperature rise, let alone the hoped-for cap at two degrees.

The second, less obvious, priority is that we need to find better ways of marshalling capital into sustainable investment. Only seven per cent of investors say they currently receive sustainability information from companies that impacts on their investment decisions, according to the UN Principles of Responsible Investment and Accenture. That is no good.

Put simply, yes, we need regulation to ensure that investors ‘go short’ on environmentally unsustainable securities but we also need to find ways to help them ‘go long’ on sustainable securities. After all, investments do need to generate a return. And it’s no good browbeating investors if they do not have the tools to assess the opportunities.

The problem appears to be one of language (or common metrics). Investors are used to assessing companies on their price/earnings ratios, profit margins etc. But unless you happen to have a working knowledge of the physical sciences (and have taken the trouble to read long sustainability reports) you are unlikely to recognise, say, a 30 per cent fuel efficiency saving as anything more than just a reduction in variable costs. You will probably miss the innovative supply-chain or technical fixes that represent long-term improvements in outlook for that company against its peers. Remember, it does not make any more financial sense than environmental sense to back a company whose use of natural resources is profligate (against competitors) or whose pollution levels expose it to risk.

The good news is that the capital does appear to be there. The massive report from Nicholas Stern, the OECD and others at the New Climate Economy (‘Stern 2.0’) argues that adapting to a sustainable economy would add only $240bn to the $90tn of investment spending needed anyway, in the next 15 years, to accommodate a larger, more urban and more affluent global population.

Meanwhile, Ronald Cohen’s Social Impact Investment Taskforce, says a full $1tn of global capital is already earmarked for social investment but is held back by ‘various legal or regulatory impediments’ like misunderstandings over the fiduciary duty of pension funds, stopping them from considering anything other than financial return when assessing an investment.

The ‘takeaway’ is this. As hard as it will be, securing a deal in Paris will not be enough. Hopefully a Labour government will lead the UK delegation. But as an aspirant centre-left government (with less money to spend) it makes total sense for Labour, and for the Socialists and Democrats in Europe, to be seeking practical ways to assist business in achieving our shared environmental goals. There is no time to lose.

———————————

Edward Robinson is an environmentalist and communications consultant. He was part of the team that helped launch the UN Principles of Responsible Investment and Accenture report. He is also Labour’s parliamentary candidate for Broxbourne. He tweets at @ejcrobinson

 

 

 

 

 

 

Progressive centre-ground Labour politics does not come for free.

It takes time, commitment and money to build a fight against the forces of conservatism. If you value the work Progress does, please support us by becoming a member, subscriber or donating.

Our work depends on you.

Print Friendly

, ,

Comments: 2...

  1. On October 24, 2014 at 11:35 am mikereardon responded with... #

    Very interesting. But there are also ‘limits to growth’ and wider issues of sustainability that need to be addressed. I have worked actively making the ‘good sense to invest’ ‘green economy’ case in practice and its the upside of what we can tell people ….the ‘you know it makes sense’ argument. But there are some much knottier issues around our economic model, what we mean and can deliver on growth without simply exporting emissions (which largely accounts for CO2 stabilisation in EU) and the real ‘price’ and ‘cost’ of what we consume that need leadership of the type that Naomi Klein has shown.Sadly I do not hear a clear Labour message ..if we accept the science we have to take the medicine. Where is that debate taking place within Labour? I’d be happy to be involved.(its certainly not taking place in my local party)

  2. On November 1, 2014 at 9:31 pm PeterBurgess responded with... #

    The good news is that the talk about moving to a sustainable economy has been accelerating for the past several years, but this is offset by meaningful action that is considerably less. There are many reasons for this, but I argue that there would be more progress is we had better metrics, metrics that measure all of the things that are important and do it in a relatively simple and coherent manner. Corporate profits, capital market values and GDP which dominate the conversation about economic performance only work for ‘owners’. Something better is needed. I am thinking through something I call Multi Dimension Impact Accounting (MDIA) and I am describing something I call seven dimension capitalism as the capitalism we need for success in the 21st century. I describe these in this short paper: http://www.truevaluemetrics.org/DBpdfs/MDIA/TVM-Short-Introduction-to-7D-Capitalism-and-MDIA-141008.pdf

Add your response to mikereardon