Investors blast EU’s omission of oil and gas from a definition of fossil fuels

Posted: May 3, 2020 by oldbrew in climate, Energy, ideology, Politics
Tags: , , , ,


Is this a COVID-19 effect? Economic recovery with oil and gas demonised might be even more difficult than necessary, but cries of ‘energy sources incompatible with Paris goals’ can be heard from climate fearmongers.

Investors, politicians and campaigners have hit out at EU regulators’ “ludicrous” exclusion of oil and gas from a definition of fossil fuels, arguing it will lead asset managers to understate their environmental risks, reports The Conservative Investor Daily.

Under draft proposals for the EU’s sustainable disclosure regime, the European authorities responsible for banking, insurance and securities markets define fossil fuels as only applying to “solid” energy sources such as coal and lignite.

This means asset managers and other financial groups would have to follow tougher disclosure requirements for holdings in coal producers than for oil and gas company exposure.

The huge rise in popularity of ESG investing over the past decade has prompted regulators to take measures to confront the risk of greenwashing.

The latest EU proposals represent a significant watering down of its ambitious sustainable disclosure rules, which aim to give end investors clear information on the environmental, social and governance risks of their funds.

But critics also argue they risk undermining the EU’s commitment to becoming a world leader in sustainable finance, a key priority for the bloc as it seeks to tie the coronavirus recovery to creating a greener economy.

The exclusion of oil and gas ‘could, at best, result in an underestimation of the true investment risk, and at worst, contribute to further support for energy sources incompatible with Paris goals’.

Sébastien Thevoux-Chabuel, ESG analyst at $37bn fund group Comgest, said making a distinction between liquid and solid fossil fuels was “quite ludicrous” and would “not reflect well” on the fund industry.

Paul Tang, one of the MEPs responsible for drafting the original law, said the proposals went against the rules’ aim to provide easy-to-understand information to investors.

He added: “Excluding oil from the definition of fossil fuels is everything but straightforward. It is set to confuse the market and open the door to greenwashing.”

Full report here.

Comments
  1. ivan says:

    Investors, politicians and campaigners have hit out at EU regulators’ “ludicrous” exclusion of oil and gas from a definition of fossil fuels, arguing it will lead asset managers to understate their environmental risks

    What environmental risks would they be talking about? Maybe they are thinking about more airborne plant food, you know the bit that helps plants to grow and provide food for the masses.

    Or are they blindly following some UN diktat that heads to a UN lead NWO?

  2. Chaswarnertoo says:

    Huh? Like Alice’s caterpillar.

  3. Stuart Brown says:

    Indeed. Or the Red Queen before breakfast!

  4. Phoenix44 says:

    I’m all for ESG! Keeps the price of some stocks lower than they should be and so means higher dividend yields from nice, cash-producing businesses. Thanks Greens, for making me richer.

  5. oldbrew says:

    Maybe they discovered the modern world wouldn’t exist without petroleum products and derivatives.
    https://www.britannica.com/science/petrochemical

    Asphalt road surfaces for example.
    https://www.britannica.com/science/asphalt-material

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s