Ed Conway:
Yes, I would probably qualify as one of the cynical respondents.
In large part because the $ 130 billion figure is so insignificant it is unnecessary. What does it mean?
Just that the group of asset managers who signed up to this new net zero commitment happen to have a lot of assets under management.
It is not a sum of money that will actually be used to mitigate climate change. That being said, it is good that the financial sector takes climate change seriously.
But, frankly, they have been for a few years now. We don’t need a big, exciting sounding number to tell us that. At least I don’t.
In terms of what the money will do … well, like I say, the $ 130 billion figure doesn’t make sense as it is mostly dominated by investments in things that literally don’t. nothing to do with climate change: government bonds, mortgages, etc.
Maybe some will not go to fossil fuel investments. But it’s a very small slice.
I think the larger point is more about messages than tangible investments: if the majority of financial companies report that they are committed to achieving net zero, it should make it easier to raise funds for green projects and more difficult for them. polluting projects.
But like I said, it’s already happening.
Oh and the deal could mean we’re getting better data and metrics on this stuff. And I love the data, so that’s good too.
See Rishi Sunak’s announcement at COP26 earlier today below.