Join daily news updates from CleanTechnica on e-mail. Or follow us on Google News!
Effectively, this was a shocker. I simply noticed phrase from Transport & Environment because of one among our information aggregators right here that three “polluting carmakers” have been among the many 10 firms to obtain essentially the most European Union “green funds” investments. However much more stunning than that, one other three of the highest 10 firms have been oil & fuel firms!
This information comes from a study from Voxeurop and European Investigative Collaborations. “Oil and gas companies, carmakers and textile manufacturers make up the biggest recipients of European green funds despite being some of the world’s biggest climate polluters,” Transport & Setting writes.
“Toyota, for example, has received €3 billion from European green funds despite having a zero-emissions vehicle (ZEV) share of just 2%.” Toyota — one of many greatest anti-EV footdraggers on the earth! €3 billion! As egregious as that’s, although, #1 was TotalEnergies and #2 was Shell. Two oil and fuel firms obtained extra “green funds” funding than anybody else — over $10 billion within the case of the previous and greater than $6 billion within the case of the latter!
In truth, total, the oil & fuel sector leads for essentially the most inexperienced funds investments. “The oil and gas sector is the most popular among these self-labelled green funds, with $33 billion invested, followed by the automotive ($22 billion) and fashion ($15 billion) sectors. The three sectors equate to 77% of all supposedly ‘green’ investments.”
Does anybody actually imagine these 10 firms are the businesses that deserved to obtain essentially the most inexperienced funds funding? Or any inexperienced funds investments?
“Through fake ‘Planet Saver’ funds in Europe, banks are investing in some of the world’s biggest carbon emitters, driving the man-made climate crisis. These investments account for more than half of global fossil fuel emissions. At least one in five are unfairly labelled as environmentally friendly,” Voxeurop writes.
For those who haven’t been pressured to show away in disgust but, listed here are some extra particulars from Transport & Environment:
“Investments promoted as ESG are required to categorise as being both an Article 8 or 9 fund, in accordance with the EU’s Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation. Article 8 funds are thought of ‘light green’ and are supposed to advertise environmental or social traits. Article 9 are funds which have sustainable funding as their fundamental goal.
“The researchers analysed over 4,000 ‘green’ funds (Articles 8 and 9) in Europe from nearly 800 financial institutions. They found that 200 of the world’s most polluting companies received a total of $85 billion in investments from Article 8 funds and $2 billion from Article 9 funds.”
However, hey, what if that cash is crucial to or not less than serving to these firms be extra inexperienced — that they wouldn’t be doing as a lot to chop emissions in the event that they didn’t obtain this cash? Effectively, the subsequent bit of excellent information from this investigation is that that’s not clearly the case.
“Stellantis has received €5 billion from European green funds with a ZEV share of just 7%, while Mercedes has received €4 billion with a ZEV share of 13%. This means the vast majority of supposedly sustainable investments in these carmakers is going towards highly carbon-intensive activities. Additionally, there is no evidence that the capital invested by asset managers covered under this investigation is guided to support these companies in their climate transition and decarbonisation.” (emphasis added)
Ah, sure, and we ignored the plane firm. “The inclusion of aircraft manufacturer Airbus in the top 10 recipients of green funds is also a surprise. Airbus delivered over 700 commercial aircraft in 2023. 99.4% of the fuel these planes run on today is fossil fuel.” What did Airbus do to earn this $3 billion? What has it executed to chop emissions? This can be a shambles. It’s a disgrace and a shame.
“As of October 2022, the Airbus A320-200 was the world’s second most popular aircraft. It accounts for 11.6 percent of aviation carbon emissionssecond only to the top-seller Boeing 737-800. So how is it that producing the Airbus aeroplanes which are flying you from Paris to Helsinki, or from Dublin to Izmir, is marketed as a ‘green’ business to investors?” Voxeurop asks. “The contradiction stems from flawed legal safeguards put in place by the European Union (EU) in a loophole that allows so-called ‘green funds’ to invest in activities causing climate damage, while officially vouching for the public good.”
“Europe’s biggest green portfolios are just the same dirty companies, repackaged as sustainable,” Xavier Sol, sustainable finance director at T&E, mentioned. “Today’s investments in Total, Toyota or Airbus cannot be considered green. We need private capital to accelerate the green transition rather than hinder it. Only investments earmarked for green activities, like zero-emission technologies, should be given a sustainable label.”
To conclude, the European group states: “T&E recommends that the European Commission, the EU’s executive body, swiftly revises its Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation to prevent greenwashing in the financial sector.”
The ten greatest “green” finance operators, based mostly on complete funding worth, are the next in accordance with the investigation:
- Deutsche Financial institution Asset & Wealth Administration (DWS)
- Black Rock Funding Administration and Advisors Divisions
- Credit score Agricole Amundi Asset Administration
- Intesa Sanpaolo Eurizon Capital
- Constancy Worldwide
- JP Morgan Asset Administration
- Northern Belief
- Templeton
- Allianz
- Storebrand Capital Administration.
There’s a complete of 4,342 such funds, although.
“We found that the top 10 asset managers (named above) are responsible for more than a quarter of all investments by EU-regulated “green funds” — that is €87 billion — within the 25 greatest GHG emitters in every of the eight most carbon-intensive financial sectors — 200 firms in complete (1). These sectors embody fossil gas extraction and refining (oil, fuel and coal), agribusiness (deforestation, crop plantations, pasture, fertilisers, manure), transportation (highway, aviation or delivery), metal manufacturing and trend (2), and account for 60–70% of world carbon emissions, according to the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and different sources (3).
“Our analysis shows that these 200 top GHG emitters are, on average, responsible for 77% of the emissions of all listed companies in their respective sectors.”
So, effectively, that’s going effectively. Local weather funding and inexperienced funds to avoid wasting the day! Yay. /s
Attempting to be productive, is there an answer? Right here’s the core level: “To combat greenwashing, it’s essential to align green finance laws such as the Corporate Sustainability Disclosure Directive and those under reviewand ensure financial institutions provide accurate information to investors,” mentioned Mathilde Nonnon, Sustainable Finance Coverage Officer at WWF in Brussels. “We also need a clear, strict categorisation of funds with minimum criteria to ensure that investments are truly aligned with stakeholders’ desire to invest sustainably.”
Have a tip for CleanTechnica? Need to promote? Need to counsel a visitor for our CleanTech Discuss podcast? Contact us here.
Newest CleanTechnica.TV Movies
CleanTechnica makes use of affiliate hyperlinks. See our coverage here.
