Essay by Eric Worrall
According to Renew Economy, Retirement funds are investing $5 into fossil fuel for every $1 invested in renewables. My question – why are they wasting $1 in $5 $1 in $6?
Super funds back fossil “climate wreckers” over clean energy
Marion Rae
May 28, 2024For every dollar invested in clean energy companies, superannuation funds have five dollars invested in the expansion of fossil fuels, an index has found.
Australia’s top 30 super funds have more than $39 billion invested in the global expansion of gas, coal and oil, according to a report released on Tuesday by shareholder organisation Market Forces.
Retirement savings allocated across the Climate Wreckers Index – a group of 190 coal, oil and gas companies – have more than doubled in the two years to December 2023 in the largest or default investment options, based on the latest available disclosures.
Simultaneously, the amount allocated to listed clean energy companies has declined by half a billion dollars to a mere $7.7 billion despite the funds’ climate pledges.
…
Read more: https://reneweconomy.com.au/super-funds-back-fossil-climate-wreckers-over-clean-energy/
It’s becoming painfully obvious by now that renewable energy is a bust. The skyrocketing energy demands of the AI age have likely smashed every green energy transition model which assumed energy efficiency measures would mitigate growth in demand.
Maybe I’m being a bit harsh with the retirement funds, they seem to be heading the right direction, gradually reducing their exposure to high risk green investments. Perhaps the slow drawdown is strategic, perhaps they are divesting green investments slowly to preserve member policy value, to avoid spooking the market with big selloffs. Or maybe they are selling simply because their green investments are failing to perform.
Correction (EW): h/t PariahDog – $1 in $6, not $1 in $5.
So the real $64B question is…
Is the $39B invested on Reliable Energy generating a greater return per $ invested…
Or…
Is the $7.7B invested in Ruinable Energy creating a greater return per $ invested?
I’d wager that not one Penny, Dollar or Euro being harvested from Renewable Subsidies is being paid to investors but simply going to line the pocketses of the Trixy Green Billionaires
As financial advisors and being in control of other people’s money, why aren’t they compelled to achieve the highest return.
If they have knowingly invested in green for virtue over profit then these people should be in jail.
I was under the impression that it’s their fiduciary responsibility to gain the highest earnings possible on their portfolios, regardless of where it needs to be invested to achieve that end.
Not all financial advisors are fiduciaries.
Others charge fixed rates regardless of how the investment performs.
No saying which is where in that mix.
For the deluded souls the ‘transition’ that will never happen to ruinables will waste trillions not billions.
“why are they wasting $1 in $5?”
Hedging.
Hedging is possible.
Virtue signaling is another.
Sometimes investors give direction one way or another. Think ESG here in the USA.
Shouldn’t that be $1 in $6?
Fair point 🙂
It’s maths….. Eric, are you green and not telling anyone
I’ve had my suspicions.
Eric has admitted to growing his own vegetables you know. 🙂
Yeah you got me. I worked for merchant banks for a few years, so how could anyone expect me to do simple math? 🙂
You only worked for a merchant bank?
Lucky you.
Mal Turnbull got owned by one.
The reasoning is simple: retirees want a steady income stream in their declining years, and have become fully aware that green investments won’t come close to guaranteeing it. They’re just as aware that green power sources and products are still nowhere near to becoming primary energy suppliers. So why back lame horses that currently have few chances of winning races but are currently a much better bet for draining savings and investment accounts.
‘Texas leads the country in combined wind, solar renewable energy’
“Now, Texans who are working to save the planet take pride that Texas leads the country in the generation of renewable energy according to a report issued by the United States Energy Information Administration. Not California. Texas.”
“Wind energy is the biggest reason that Texas leads in the creation of sustainable energy. And, it likely won’t be too long before this state overtakes California in solar power.”
https://www.kxan.com/weather-traffic-qas/texas-leads-the-country-in-combined-wind-solar-renewable-energy/
And they live to regret it every time they get an ice storm.
(which seems to happen with regular monotony as global warming roasts the whole planet 🙁 )
It’s not just the ice storms. Check out what a tornado does to the bird killers. Or hail to the solar panels. And wait until a real hurricane hits far south Texas. Lots of bird killers in range of a big blow.
A really big hurricane could wipe out billions of dollars of “green energy”.
So could an average one.
Try trillion
Yeah,but…
Much as I love’em, Texans still wear big funny hats, even when they have no cattle.
Indeed, Green energy is much like “all hat and no cattle.”
Very nice to hear except that solar and wind in that state account for only 21% of energy generation, while natural gas and coal continue to dominate with a total of 78%. So despite millions and more likely billions in renewable incentives, fossil fuels produce almost four times as much as highly-touted but inevitably overrated wind and solar. And this is the same story worldwide and also the key explanation for retirement funds putting the more sizeable amounts of energy investments into fossil fuel companies rather than the small, less-profitable renewable producers who are still a long way from generating the types of returns that retirees demand.
Wind is “sustainable?”
Sustainable
adjective
able to be maintained at a certain rate or level
Wind and solar cannot maintain electrical production at a certain rate or level.
Reliable
Adjective
Suitable or fit to be relied on; worthy of dependence or reliance; trustworthy
Wind and solar are definitely renewable.
When the sun comes up, energy output is renewed.
When the wind blows, energy output is renewed.
Nothing sustainable about wind.
Story tip – New study: Infrastructure needed to support a ‘zero emissions’ electric trucking fleet comes with a $1 trillion price tag – American Thinker
I read it. I have a strong ecological lean and appreciate what the Clean Freight Association is all about. Continuous improvement to the benefit of all. Other than a couple of snarky remarks by the author, it is a good read.
Retirement savings allocated across the Climate Wreckers Index – a group of 190 coal, oil and gas companies – have more than doubled in the two years……
Climate Wreckers Index? ROTFLMAO.
It really is the madness of crowds.
We live in a mad world.
Maybe the super funds board members heard what Warren Buffett had to say about wind and solar investments –
without all the taxpayer subsidies and tax breaks, they just don’t make sense
The only money spent on wind and solar should be for removing it from the grid.
Not likely with all that subsidy money on the table.
Not likely as the cost of removal will exceed the cost of installation.
Indeed superannuation funds are not constituted to ‘save the world’ they are merely trustees of members’ retirement savings, that’s their fiduciary duty, not to do so leaves the trustees liable for civil and possibly criminal charges.
Yeah, why are the pension funds wasting 20% on virtue signalling?
Why waste even 1% on virtue signaling?
Oh, and it’s actually a mere 16.5%.
Probably can’t find a buyer (/sarc)
Is the article talking about current account balances? The difference could be increases in value of the good investments vs declines in the bad green investments. Not new investment.
Absolutely this is possible – but they are also constrained by having to explain their decisions to investors, some of whom take a detailed interest in what is happening to their superannuation money, and a duty of care to ensure the best possible ROI. So I’m assuming someone would have noticed if they were pouring excessive amounts of incoming capital into loss making green investments.
It was reported on my nightly news that ConocoPhillips bought Marathon. Owed shares in both at one time or another, but it shows that the oil companies themselves still think there is value and money to be made in fossil fuel.
We will always need lots of fossil fuels for firetrucks, emergency vehicles and power generation, airplanes, cars and trucks, cargo ships, freight trains and trucks, etc.
What are these green wackos thinking?
Green extremists don’t think, they emote.
We will always need lots of fossil fuels for firetrucks
Probably much more if they get the EV market penetration they want 🙂
The holy trinity of energy production.
Big oil
Big coal
Big gas
Oh yes. Drill baby drill.
…..and Nuke.,
It makes almost no difference who owns the shares of the companies.
They are not making money from the trades in shares. In this case, if your fund sells shares and my fund buys them — I’m the one that will likely make money.
The Climate Wreckers Index comes from an advocacy group called Market Forces.
Enough said.
Market
ForcesFeces. Fixed it.Some Australians know that you can’t buck the market.
Everyone wants all this technology, and they want it clean, the only way is fossil fuels to bridge the gap to safe fission. Or you can keep going for hundreds of years and make natural gas, diesel and gasoline from coal, and you can scrub the exhaust. I do not see fossil fuels ending anytime soon by the developing world. The average person has no concept the difficulty in engineering an alternative to the capabilities of an internal combustion engine and a gallon of gasoline.
The true democracy of a free, supply & demand, market.
People vote with their dollars.