26/03/2021

(AU) ANZ Labelled ‘Worst In Australia’ On Climate Over Fossil Fuel Loans

Sydney Morning Herald - Charlotte Grieve

Environmental activists have attacked ANZ for financing fossil fuels despite recently launching an ambitious climate policy that prevents it from writing loans to new thermal coal plants.

A group of six green activist organisations including Rainforest Action Network (RAN), BankTrack and Reclaim Finance has trawled through Bloomberg terminals and open source data to determine which global banks are financing fossil fuels around the world.

The report found ANZ has written $15.2 billion in loans to 57 high-emitting companies over the past five years, including $2.9 billion last year alone to oil and gas producers such as Santos, Vitol, Thai Oil, United Petroleum and mining giants such as Glencore.

That compares to $6.5 billion worth of exposure to fossil fuels at Westpac, $6.2 billion at the Commonwealth Bank and $3.6 billion at the National Australia Bank over a five-year period, the report said.

Big banks are still funding billions of dollars in fossil fuel projects despite announcing net zero emissions targets. Credit: Rob Homer

The activists’ findings on the banks’ fossil fuel backing come as analysis by Climate Action 100+, a group of 545 investors managing a combined $70 trillion of assets, found Australian companies were not spending the money required to achieve net zero emissions targets.

ANZ pledged to stop funding new coal mines and power stations from last October, with plans to fully exit thermal coal by 2030. The policy was criticised at the time by senior Nationals politicians who said the bank was giving in to activist pressure, but chief executive Shayne Elliott has maintained the move was driven by financial risk.

DOWNLOAD THE FULL REPORT
However, the activists’ research revealed ANZ’s climate policy did not prevent it from providing loans to CLP Group last year, a Hong-Kong-based electricity company that makes 23 per cent of its revenue from coal and has stakes in coal mines in China, Taiwan and India.

ANZ’s policy also dictates it will only provide finance to “low carbon gas” and renewable energy projects by 2030. However, the bank loaned more than $1 billion last year to Inpex’s Western Australian Ichthys project, referred to as one of the world’s most significant oil and gas projects, the report says.

RAN member Alison Kirsch said ANZ was “ahead by a bullet when it comes to funding climate chaos”, compared to the other big banks. “When the policies are not replicated on the oil and gas side, this is what you see.”

An ANZ spokesman said the bank’s exposure to thermal coal had fallen significantly and would continue to “significantly reduce over time”.

“Since the Paris Agreement was reached in 2015, our exposure to thermal coal mining has reduced by about 70 per cent. Simultaneously, we have committed $50 billion to support companies in their transition to a low-carbon economy,” the spokesman said. “Our exposure to oil and gas businesses has remained relatively flat over the past five years.”

Dan Gocher, climate director at the Australasian Centre for Corporate Responsibility, said ANZ had told investors it was not “shopping around” for new fossil fuel clients, “but they’re not turning down the deals when they come either”.

The federal government has launched a review into corporate policies that exclude investments in fossil fuels, with submissions open to industry and the public closing next month. Mr Gocher said action on climate at ANZ and other banks would “absolutely” be slowed down by the government’s push-back against these exclusions.

“There are companies that won’t speak out on climate just because they’re concerned about the government attacking them in the press,” Mr Gocher said. “This is supposed to be a free market.”

'Sheer virtue signalling': ANZ carbon policy riles Nationals
Looking at fossil fuel loans provided by the other big banks, the climate activists found that last year CBA provided finance to Glencore and Ichthys, NAB financed Whitehaven Coal and Glencore, and Westpac also financed Whitehaven Coal and Indian oil and gas giant ONGC Videsh.

CBA said the bank’s progress on its climate commitments had been outlined in its annual report, showing loans to gas and thermal coal producers had both decreased by 6 per cent over the year while its financing of oil companies had increased by 7 per cent. “We are committed to playing our part in limiting climate change in line with the goals of the Paris Agreement and supporting the responsible global transition to net zero emissions.”

NAB said it was unable to discuss individual customers, but pointed to plans to achieve “effectively zero” thermal coal exposure by 2035 and said it would review oil and gas financing by September. “Our customers are also working towards lower emissions and we are supporting them in developing or improving their low carbon transition plans,” the spokeswoman said.

Westpac also said it could not discuss individual clients, but added the report included diversified entities with limited fossil fuel exposure and multiple countings due to the inclusion of refinancing and underwriting contracts. A spokesman pointed to Westpac’s recent sustainability report, where it reported a $3.3 billion exposure to coal, oil and gas mining.

Mr Gocher said the bank’s climate policies were often vague, and provided the example of NAB banning finance to companies involved in arctic drilling and tar sands mining – operations that don’t exist in Australia. “They’re signalling a bit, but not really delivering on cutting back lending to oil and gas,” he said.

Investors to turn up heat on Australia’s biggest emitters
Climate Action 100 global steering committee member Emma Herd said Australian banks had done “a lot of work” to examine the credit risks in the thermal coal sector, and now this would be extended to other fossil fuel industries following net zero emissions targets announced last year by major trading partners such as China, Korea and Japan.

“Australia’s banks are in between a rock and a hard place at the moment,” Ms Herd said. “Climate change is a very problematic debate in Australia and they face a lot of pressure to do what everybody else wants them to do as well.

“It’s a work in progress and while it’s not as fast as some would like, and not as fast as we need it to be, it’s definitely shifting quickly.”

Links
at No comments:

(AU) If 80% Of Australians Care About Climate Action, Why Don’t They Vote Like It?

The Conversation -  | 

Shutterstock

Authors
  •  is Senior lecturer, Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National University
  •  is Director, Centre for Climate and Energy Policy, Australian National University     
Poll after poll suggests a large majority of Australians cares about climate change. Yet in recent federal elections, this hasn’t translated into wins for parties with stronger policy platforms on climate change.

So what determines someone’s climate change attitude, and how does it translate into voting?

In research published today, we studied 2,033 Australian voters’ attitudes across the political spectrum in the context of the 2019 federal election. And we found over 80% said they think it’s important Australia reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This includes close to 70% of conservative voters (those voting for Coalition parties).

However, digging deeper reveals nuance to these attitudes. While most Australians support climate action, stark differences emerge along political party preferences in terms of how important voters think it is.

Our research suggests the question about social support for climate action in Australia is no longer: “does climate change matter to enough Australians?”. Instead, the critical question may well be: “does climate change matter enough to Australians to shift climate politics?”.

Why the ‘climate election’ didn’t pan out

We conducted our survey in July 2019, two months after the Coalition won the federal election. Its victory came as a surprise to many, as the election was sometimes billed the “climate election”, implying climate change was a bellwether issue.

The climate policies of the two major parties were night and day, with the Labor Party campaigning on ambitious mitigation targets and the incumbent Coalition maintaining the status quo of very limited climate policy.

Prime Minister Scott Morrison led the LNP to victory in 2019, defying the polls. AAP Image/Mick Tsikas

So what were the voters thinking?

We found about half of Australian voters (52%) said climate change was important when deciding their vote in the 2019 Australian federal election. However, climate was the most important issue for only 14% of voters.

Even among those who said they felt it was extremely important for Australia to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, most (58%) said climate change was important, but not the most important issue, when deciding their vote.

Climate change was stated as the most important issue for 21% of Labor voters and 39% of Greens voters, but for less than 5% of Liberal Party, National Party, and Queensland LNP voters.

This pattern was reversed for those who didn’t take climate change policy into account in their vote: 26% of Liberal, 21% of National, and 31% of Queensland LNP voters did not consider climate change when deciding their vote. Under 15% of Labor and Greens voters did the same.

And when we looked at how much voters cared about climate action, the differences become more potent. Three quarters (73%) of progressive voters (those voting for the ALP or the Greens) see Australian action to reduce emissions as “extremely important”. Only one quarter (26%) of conservative voters say the same thing.

Around four in five Australians (82%)
across the political spectrum want action on climate change.
Importance of action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, 2033 respondents, 2019, Australia.


Chart: The Conversation CC-BY Source: Rebecca Colvin, Frank Jotzo. Get the data

Who’s more willing to make sacrifices for the climate?

Our research also explored the extent voters were willing to accept a personal cost to support climate action. We asked about their willingness to accept a significant or small personal cost, but didn’t specify what we meant by small or significant, because a small cost to one person may be a significant cost to another.

Most voters (72%) said they’d be willing to incur some personal cost in return for emissions reductions. Across the political spectrum, the proportion of voters willing to accept a small personal cost is relatively similar: 60% of progressive voters, 55% of conservative voters.

Almost 30% of Australian voters
wouldn't make any personal sacrifices for the climate.
Willingness to accept a personal cost to support action
to reduce Australia's emissions, 2033 respondents, 2019, Australia.

Chart: The Conversation, CC-BY Source: Rebecca Colvin, Frank Jotzo, Get the data
Major differences emerge when it comes to “significant personal cost”.

While 26% of progressive voters are willing to incur a significant personal cost, only 5% of conservative voters feel similarly. At the other end of the spectrum, 40% of conservative voters are unwilling to incur any personal cost, but only 14% of progressive voters feel the same.

Support for strong climate policies may depend on whether the policies will, or are perceived to, personally impact voters. Given political leaders’ stances influence public support for climate policies (as 2018 research showed), our research highlights an opportunity for conservative political leaders to clarify their position on climate change.

Around one in four progressive voters
would accept significant personal cost for the climate.
Extent of willingness to accept a personal cost to support
climate action, 2033 respondents, 2019, Australia.

Chart: The Conversation, CC-BY Source: Rebecca Colvin, Frank Jotzo Get the data

Interestingly, age was a consistent predictor of responses. Younger people were more likely than older people to consider it important that Australia reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Younger people were more willing to incur a personal cost to support climate action, and to consider climate change when deciding their vote.

In fact, we found an Australian voter from the Baby Boomer generation is half as likely as a voter from Generation Z to consider it important to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Divisive politics have a limited shelf life

If future young people cared just as much about climate change as today’s young people, and if existing cohorts don’t change their views as they age, then the percentage of Australian voters who consider greenhouse gas emissions to be “extremely important” is likely to increase from 52% in our 2019 data, to 56% by 2030. By 2050, this figure could rise to 65%.

How might attitudes towards climate action change in future?
The projected percentage of voters who consider emissions reduction to be "extremely important"

Chart: The Conversation, CC-BY Source: Rebecca Colvin, Frank Jotzo Get the data

These projections are purely on the basis of more climate-aware cohorts coming into voting age and replacing older voters. It doesn’t consider any future changes in attitudes within cohorts (which may also make a big difference).

The key implication is simple. If Australian political leaders pursued stronger climate action, they could rest assured most of the voting population will broadly support them, along with most of their own voter base — regardless of which party is in power.

This will become only more pronounced with gradual generational change, and likely changes in attitudes within age groups. In any case, it’s clear divisive politics that result in climate delay have a limited shelf life.

Links

at No comments:

60 Largest Banks In The World Have Invested $3.8 Trillion In Fossil Fuels Since The Paris Agreement

CNBC - Catherine Clifford

Oil pumpjacks photographed in California, U.S. Gary Kavanagh | E+ | Getty Images

Major banks around the world are still financing fossil fuel companies to the tune of trillions of dollars.

A new report, published Wednesday from a collection of climate organizations and titled Banking on Climate Chaos 2021, finds 60 of the world’s largest commercial and investment banks have collectively put $3.8 trillion into fossil fuels from 2016 to 2020, the five after The Paris Agreement was signed.

DOWNLOAD THE FULL REPORT

“This report serves as a reality check for banks that think that vague ‘net-zero’ goals are enough to stop the climate crisis,” says Lorne Stockman, a Senior Research Analyst at Oil Change International, one of the organizations authoring the report, in a statement released with the report.

“Our future goes where the money flows, and in 2020 these banks have ploughed billions into locking us into further climate chaos.”

On an annual basis, total fossil fuel financing dropped 9% in 2020. But the report attributes that to Covid-19-related restrictions on demand.

The report also found that “fossil fuel financing ... from the world’s 60 largest commercial and investment banks was higher in 2020 than it was in 2016,” the first full year the Paris climate greement was in effect.

It is worth noting that President Donald Trump withdrew from the international agreement in 2017. President Joe Biden rejoined The Paris Agreement on his first day in office.

The three banks that did the most fossil fuel financing in 2020, according to the report, were JPMorgan Chase at $51.3 billion; Citi at $48.4 billion; and Bank of America with $42.1 billion.

A representative of JPMorgan Chase told CNBC Make It that the bank could not comment on a third party report. But the bank did direct CNBC Make It to its initiatives addressing climate change, including “adopting a financing commitment that is aligned to the goals of the Paris Agreement” and facilitating $200 billion in clean, sustainable financing by 2025.

Citi directed CNBC Make It to a blog post published Tuesday from Val Smith, the bank’s Chief Sustainability Officer. In the post, Citi said it will work with existing fossil fuel banking clients to transition first to a public reporting of greenhouse gas emissions and then to a gradual phase out of financing offered to companies that don’t comply in adhering to carbon reduction standards.

“As the world’s most global bank, we acknowledge that we are connected with many carbon-intensive sectors that have driven global economic development for decades,” Smith wrote. “Our work to achieve net zero emissions by 2050 therefore makes it imperative that we work with our clients, including our fossil fuel clients, to help them and the energy systems that we all rely on to transition to a net-zero economy.”

Bank of America did not immediately respond to CNBC Make It’s request for comment.

The Banking on Climate Chaos 2021 report comes as indicators show global economies are not currently on track to meet the emissions reductions established as part of The Paris Agreement in 2015.

The 2020 report is the 12th annual, though the scope of the report has expanded in that time. The report was a collaboration by seven non-profits: Rainforest Action Network, Bank Track, Indigenous Environmental Network, Oil Change International, Reclaim Finance, and Sierra Club.

The report authors aggregate bank lending and underwriting data using Bloomberg’s league credit methodology, meaning credit is divided between banks playing a leading role in a given transaction, and uses data from Bloomberg Finance L.P. and the Global Coal Exit List.

Also, banks are given the opportunity to weigh in on the findings. “Draft report findings are shared with banks in advance, and they are given an opportunity to comment on financing and policy assessments,” the report says.

Links
at No comments: