Fossil fuels run into some more headwinds, reports Sami Grover @ TreeHugger.com:
The latest to join the club is ANZ, one of Australia’s big four banks, which The Guardian reports is making a bold commitment to stop funding any new conventional coal-fired power plants that don’t deploy Carbon Capture and Storage and/or similar technologies that significantly reduce carbon emissions.
Additionally, ANZ is pledging $10 billion over the next 5 years to fund renewable energy, reforestation, energy efficiency and other low emission technologies.
This is a promising sign indeed. And it may be driven as much by economics as it is ethics. Indeed, ANZ acknowledged in a statement that its exposure to carbon intensive industries was considered by many to be an increasingly significant financial risk, and that the bank needed to play its part in helping to manage an “orderly transition” from fossil fuels: …
Banks are, supposedly, experts at evaluating risk. When the business evaluation of the situation calls for moving away from fossil fuels, I think we can expect faster and faster movement towards the renewable sources of energy.
Sami’s source is this the guardian article. It includes this statement:
But ANZ said it was committed to the internationally agreed target of limiting global warming to 2C above pre-industrial times. The bank said it would transparently report its progress on climate and set targets to reduce its own emissions.
Australia three other largest banks – Westpac, Commonwealth Bank and NAB – are all signed up to sustainability commitments for their lending. But environmental groups have pressed them to do more by ruling out investment in coal projects, as overseas banks have done with Adani’s huge Carmichael mine in Queensland.
I’ll be interested in knowing how ANZ defines “transparently.” Done properly and it can become an excellent example for other companies to follow, or not, depending on outcomes.
I wonder if the accession of Mr. Turnbull to the Prime Ministership pressured ANZ into making this commitment. the guardian article also notes this about Australia’s situation:
According to University College London, 90% of Australia’s known coal reserves must be left unburned to keep the world on track to avoid warming above 2C. Analysis released by AGL last year showed that 75% of Australia’s ageing coal-fired power stations were operating beyond their “useful life” but that it was too expensive to shut them down.
No clarification of “too expensive”. To replace? To make cleaner?
