I have zero interest in investments or the stock market. I don’t have enough money to invest anyway.
A while back I was toying with the idea of buying some land and putting solar panels on it, because I believe the evidence is clear that this is one of the most guaranteed, and it would be badass.
However that’s hard for me to do personally and there’s economies of scale here. But it occured to me that what I’m basically doing is investing in the construction of a solar farm. So is there a way for me to do basically the same thing through paperwork?
Also, I have a small pension through the university.
There’s an interesting angle with respect to “fiduciary duties”. the whole point of a pension plan is for you to live comfortably in retirement age, but that’s moot if the climate crisis adaptation costs so much that you can’t.
- can I convince the university to change how they invest, like the UCLA social cost of carbon?
so my provider has this “ESG” thing which sounds a bit like greenwashing, nothing I can see that I can actually change
okay, so it looks like it might be possible for me to transfer my DCPP to another financial institution. so the question is, is there a financial institution that invests directly in renewables?
you cannot move your DCPP funds anywhere while you’re employed.
oh, okay.
so within the bounds of sunlife, is there anything I can do. can I ask my pension provider?
https://www.mcgill.ca/business-law/article/do-canadian-pension-funds-have-duty-tackle-climate-change
this is an amazing article.
There is a broad consensus that both these forms of climate-related financial risks have a material effect on fund performance in the short-term and that these effects will continue to materialize in the long-term. They can no longer be considered ‘non-financial risks.’ According to Professor Janis Sarra of the University of British Columbia, a founding member of the Canadian Climate Law Initiative (CCLI), fund managers have a fiduciary duty to consider climate-related financial risks.
funds can adopt one or several strategies, all with their own benefits and risks. These strategies include embracing policies and processes for considering climate risks in investment decisions; funding the green transition
In Canada, these requirements are unsettled.
wow! this seems like a big lever that can be pulled.
A 2017 study by the Chartered Professional Accountants of Canada (CPA) of the S&P/TSX composite index showed that most climate-related disclosures lacked sufficient context to allow users to understand the implications of climate change for a company’s business model and financial results, while CSA Staff Notice 51-365 noted a recent increase in unsubstantiated or misleading ESG claims in continuous disclosures.
The same study found that 71% of engagements on climate issues were limited to an “acknowledgement of the concern” and that only 25% of respondents said the engagement was “successful.” In response to unsuccessful engagement, 40% of investors decided to take no further action.
In the same debate, Simon Archer disagreed (in part), arguing that changes in the materiality of climate risks and improvements in attribution science may very well lead to the establishment of a duty to divest.
https://www.mcgill.ca/business-law/article/climate-related-disclosure-where-are-we-and-where-should-we-be-heading