Net Zero Dreams in ruins.
By Jo Nova
We’ve reached the flipping point downunder
The money is leaving the room. Australian pension funds manage assets of around $4.1 trillion, and until last week, many of them had Net Zero Targets. Certainly, there were none that tried to appeal to climate skeptics even though 70% of Australians didn’t want to even spend $1 a week on “Net Zero” plans.
This week, many of them are backing away slowly, speaking about a corporate and political backlash, like it’s a force of nature.
They won’t say the subsidies have dried up, they made the wrong bet, wasted billions of your dollars and hope they don’t get sued for a lack of fiduciary duty. They won’t say that pension funds are supposed to make money for their clients, not change rainfall patterns.
Last year, they were saying “Climate change poses a grave risk to the health, wellbeing and finances of all Australians, including retirees”. Three years ago the The Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia (ASFA) was campaigning for national net-zero policies saying “, the superannuation industry stands to lose billions of dollars in investment returns on behalf of their members,”. Pension funds were even supposed to hassle green businesses to “support them” on their journey of mitigation — like climate cops paid to hassle companies to follow laws laid out by global bankers, instead of elected governments.
Look how soft the headline is:
Super funds preparing to walk back their commitment to climate targets
By Cliona O’Dowd, The Australian
Australia’s most powerful super funds appear to be laying the groundwork to potentially walk back their climate targets amid a growing political and corporate backlash against ESG.
As funds come to terms with the shift in sentiment and a four-year term of the Trump presidency, the industry is now voicing its concerns on meeting climate pledges made at a time when pushback against an environmental, social and governance focus was on the fringes.
Speaking to The Australian on Tuesday, Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia chief executive Mary Delahunty said funds’ climate goals could be hampered by the anti-ESG movement, with engagement potentially less effective as corporates backtrack on the green agenda.
Get out of HESTA:
HESTA CEO Debby Blakey appeared to be the outlier, saying the healthcare industry super fund was committed to its climate targets. These include a 50 per cent reduction in portfolio emissions by 2030 and for the fund’s portfolio to be net zero by 2050.
US elections make more difference to Australian policy than Australian elections do.
Managers of these funds need to be prosecuted for investing in “get rich quick (with investors’ money) climate scams.
No excuse is acceptable.
Any “investment” that relies on taxpayer funds or illegal subsidies from consumers cannot be viable long term. They had and have a fiduciary duty to invest the money wisely.
Apart from that, it has always been obvious and well documented in blogs like this that the whole idea of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming was highly questionable.
In addition, that was even obvious from the types of highly questionable and immoral people promoting AGW. The promotion by those people alone, should have been a warning sign.
561
I gather the present manager of AFSA has an interesting past. I really fear for workers entitlements with union dominated fund holdings in control. Unfortunately politicians and public serpents entitlements seem to be more secure and rewarding.
191
Incidentally, the CEO of the AFSA, Tim Beresford, has a salary A$483,010 but a total package of A$522,715.
https://www.transparency.gov.au/publications/attorney-general-s/australian-financial-security-authority/australian-financial-security-authority-annual-report-2022-23/6.-appendixes/appendix-d%3A-executive-remuneration
111
Those employer super contributions seem low – isn’t it supposed to be 11.5%?
10
My error. It was ASFA and I think that Mary Delahunty, ex ABC and Victorian politician was the person I was trying to refer to. Don’t you just hate acronyms.
40
Future Fund sovereign wealth fund was established by the Howard Government to create a growth savings fund and revenue from investments to fully pay for the retirement benefits/pensions of public service employees including politicians, the Future Fund removed this yearly liability from Federal budgets.
Future Fund commenced with about $60 billion of funds invested and after meeting pension expenses has increased to more than $200 billion.
The first Federal Government to benefit from not needing to make budget provision for pensions was Rudd Labor from November 2007.
00
Albo_Tross needs to be prosecuted for investing (subsidising) in a black-‘hole’ range of get rich schemes for his mates in alternative solar/wind energy. Albanese paid $4.3 million for his new house in Copacabana on the New South Wales Central Coast. Then funded a new road to connect it to tar seal!
111
Not a bad house for the money. And since his salary isn’t that high, how did he afford this and his portfolio of investment properties?
A good old fashioned tax audit should be heading his way. If he can’t account for the earnings, then git his with tax evasion.
I’d be surprised if some of his earnings were supplied in brown paper bags, maybe I’m a cynic, prove me wrong.
100
There could be a son somewhere who heads up a foreign energy company.
70
Well played Albo. Simultaneously raise the market value of your property whilst also pork barreling your neighbours
100
Actually, the road upgrade was approved first in June 2024 I believe. Then the house was purchased. Nice.
Politicians seem to be able to accumulate a lot of wealth. The Clintons, the Obamas and Nancy Pelosi as some examples.
60
Funded a NSW State Road.
00
I’ll see your “Albo-Tross” and raise you an Albotrocity”.
Inspired by track from an album from Australian jazz-fusion band, Crossfire”; 1974 to 1991
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-vlmR2vGqE
00
There are methods for counting the Greenium.
10
In a related article from The Australian.
I am moderately impressed that some Coalition (fake conservative) MPs seem to understand the problem.
But as usual, Australian stubbornness and lack of leadership means there’ll be a “wait and see” attitude or just sitting on the fence.
200
The banks need to be reminded that they exist at the behest of parliament, i.e. the people. If the banks are not serving the people then they do not deserve a licence to operate. They still have the $250000 government guarantee which could be withdrawn. The biggest problem is that their major shareholders are the union dominated super funds. Dutton’s idea to allow up to $50000 to be withdrawn from one’s super to purchase a home must be sending shock waves through the funds. It may be better to make contributions voluntary and really clip their wings. Alternatively contribute to something like the Future Fund which is performing extremely well so long as Grim Jim stays well away.
191
In some countries they allow you to use your super as part of your asset base, giving you increased borrowing power. Your super isn’t at risk unless you default. While I don’t think its a great idea in terms of upgrading to next level of McMansion and greater debt slavery, properly managed it may help some get over the deposit hurdle easier and at least get a foothold.
40
The aforementioned NZ First minister, Shane Jones, of Dalmatian Welsh Maori ancestry, is in a spat with a Greens gay ‘member’ originally from Mexico who’s wetting their pants in parliament, calling Mr Jones ‘xenophobic’ amongst other childish names, as they’ve yet to come to grips with our antipodean humour and Mr Jones’ eloquent word-play.
These would-be saviours really are a bore.
61
I have posted the criticism of Prime Minister Morrison for refusing to sign a net zero emissions agreement while at the Glasgow COP26.
I have heard comments from the Coalition MPs who oppose net zero emissions agenda and who would like to abandon the earlier Paris Agreement however both leaders, Liberal and National, have cautioned against moving too fast warning that Australia would be vulnerable to trade sanctions against agriculture, mining and other exports until more countries join the US exit.
On the other hand, and SBS like ABC is no friend of the Coalition …
https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/why-peter-duttons-plan-to-ditch-the-paris-agreement-is-being-labelled-a-disaster/iyeb4l19f
00
The Australian pension funds will probably make a few moves and the right noises until after our federal election and then wait out another 4 years to see what happens in the US and the EU.
I wouldn’t trust these funds or our banks at all and a waiting game for another 4 years is probably their best strategy.
160
I don’t agree.
Australia doesn’t have another four years.
The economy is already the worst ever and rapidly declining.
We have over $2 trillion government debt, federal, state and local.
What little industry we have left is shutting down, except for those exporting rocks, and food from the few farmers that can survive, plus “education” in which dumbed-down degrees are handed out to rich fee paying foreign students.
It’s not going to end well.
Look at Venezuela and pre-Milei Argentina for examples.
331
I totally agree David. We do not have four years, we don’t have one year. We have a potential war on our doorsteps and no supporting industry. The Allies won the 2nd world war because they out produced the enemy. While Germany could build one Tiger tank the US was building 20 Shermans. The next war will be brief but extremely expensive in machines whether they are drones or missiles. Either way they must be produced in readiness. We are hopelessly unprepared and we have no way of making munitions at scale and even if the factories existed we do not have the electricity to power them.
231
A German Tiger tank commander, reportedly stated, ‘I blew up the first Sherman, then a second, and a third, all told I destroyed 8 Shermans, then we ran out of ammo, and 20 Shermans appeared over the horizon, I knew then it was over.’
120
Our industries were destroyed and our skilled workers captured without a shot being fired!
140
There will be gnashing of teeth and heads will exploded.
November 5 will be celebrated as DT-Day.
140
Same date as the UK’s Bonfire Night. Cool.
10
Pension Fund Net Zero targets pose a grave risk to the health, wellbeing and finances of all present or prospective pensioners, including Australian retirees.
Demand Net Zero PESGI (Portfolio Environmental, Social, and Governance Ideology) in 2025.
180
Today is brought to you by the f-words:
Flipping… Fringes… Fiduciary… Focus…
or as my mum would say: Fiddle-sticks!
A timely well-written piece Jo as NZers sharpen their hay gathering implements to rebuff their overlord Australian banksters who demand Climate Compliance Control or ©️©️©️ even as the rest of the world slowly awakens from its Gang Green Slumber Daze.
Some may claim we are ‘world leaders’ while in other matters we are still trying to catch up with the 21st century. Run, Forrest, run!
200
I couldn’t help but notice that Mary from the Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia, and Debby, the CEO of HESTA, are both women (if I’m allowed to say that these days) and seemingly woke enough to believe the Climate Cr*p. Maybe it is time to ditch the DEI hires and put someone in charge who takes the time to study real science and find the truth as opposed to the Women’s Weekly version of it.
411
Yes.
If I see a woman or certain others as CEO my first thought is, is she/he/it there on merit or are they a DEI hire?
It usually becomes obvious very quickly.
Back in the day, women were far less likely to become CEOs because they wanted to get married and raise children. And that was perfectly fine and honourable. Not so common now, at least among white people.
232
Quite so David. That is the natural consequence of systematically promoting a class of people. It cannot do anything but cast doubt on capable people who made it on merit.
121
If the woman (or certain others) as CEO proves incompetent then they could follow previous CEOs who flopped.
If the woman (or certain others) is entrenched in the bureaucracy and proves incompetent then they could follow previous bureaucrats who flopped and sit back and continue collecting their pay and “entitlements” and causing problems, disillusionment etc. until the country collapses.
WE need a way of weeding out the hopeless. Perhaps we might copy the recent American idea?
121
That isn’t how it works in unionized Australia. Just because someone is incompetent is no reason to fire them.
10
I have worked with many smart and competent women, but sadly I have the same reaction as you these days. Its sad that women have their achievements clouded in this way.
The rot started for me with Carly Fiorina and what she did to HP, a company I once admired and respected.
50
Mary Delahunty was once an ABC reporter and Labor schill from Victoria. I’d bet it’s the same person.
60
Ok, my bad. Totally different Mary Delahunty. Same name, different person. The MD I was referring to, probably well retired now. (74yo)
50
Yep, I boo booed as well.
10
Spending real money for imaginary benefits is a pretty clear violation of fiduciary duty, I would say.
And if someone claims that climate change poses a clear risk, and pension funds must respond, please show us where that risk has been mitigated, and by how much, per $100 Million spent.
Climate change messaging is a great example of ‘no matter how much you spend, it won’t be enough, but spend more anyway’.
220
I can’t understand what the so called Scientists really BELIEVE and what their motive is for urging the OECD countries to rapidly adopt their so called net zero.
Obviously the NON OECD countries couldn’t care less and won’t waste TRILLIONs of $ for ZERO change to co2 levels for THOUSANDs of years.
Again here’s the quote from the Royal Society about the thousands of years lag even if we reduced all Human co2 emissions today.
So what was so wonderful about the very short and brutal life expectancy Humans experienced during the LIA? And who would want to waste trillions of $ forever for nothing? If this isn’t barking mad then what is it?
Here’s their quote and the link.
“20. If emissions of greenhouse gases were stopped, would the climate return to the conditions of 200 years ago?”
“No. Even if emissions of greenhouse gases were to suddenly stop, Earth’s surface temperature would require thousands of years to cool and return to the level in the pre-industrial era”.
https://royalsociety.org/news-resources/projects/climate-change-evidence-causes/question-20/
51
BTW “the Conversation” also copied the Royal Society message in 2017 and promised a possible return to the LIA after WASTING TRILLIONs of $ FOREVER. Does anyone really think these so called Scientists can convince China, India and the NON OECD countries to stop building any more base-load coal plants? What a sick joke.
If we stopped emitting greenhouse gases right now, would we stop climate change?
“Slam on the climate brakes.”
“What would happen to the climate if we were to stop emitting carbon dioxide today, right now? Would we return to the climate of our elders”?
“The simple answer is no. Once we release the carbon dioxide stored in the fossil fuels we burn, it accumulates in and moves among the atmosphere, the oceans, the land and the plants and animals of the biosphere. The released carbon dioxide will remain in the atmosphere for thousands of years. Only after many millennia will it return to rocks, for example, through the formation of calcium carbonate – limestone – as marine organisms’ shells settle to the bottom of the ocean. But on time spans relevant to humans, once released the carbon dioxide is in our environment essentially forever. It does not go away, unless we, ourselves, remove it”.
30
Indeed, but, I believe, much of the CO2 in the air will be absorbed into the oceans in line with Henry’s Law, so although we will have more CO2 in the overall carbon cycle, not all of it will remain in the terrestrial and atmospheric environment.
Correct me if I am wrong – no u,bridge taken.
20
Good. Maybe I can be less vitriolic now when they ask for feedback.
30
“Climate change poses a grave risk to the health, wellbeing and finances of all Australians, including retirees”.
Wow! I had no idea that medical progress was expected to be that fast. Let’s see … a retiree is typically 65+ years old. Climate change is supposedly going to increase temperatures by 2100(AD). A typical retiree will then be 140+ years old. I think I’ll ignore the risk, because if medical advances are expected to keep me going to 140 then I reckon they will cope with a little extra warmth too.
100
A couple or three years ago I told my Vanguard finance person to keep me in broad-based index funds. If the company had any Green funds he was to keep me out of them. I suspect others sent a similar message because (my account isn’t that big) and the Company was one of the first of the asset managers to bail on the Climate-Groups.
If HESTA CEO Debby Blakey likes climate target funds she should use her own cash and not other people’s money.
140
Vanguard is one of The Big Three probably partly responsible for the booms and busts. If they get out, it’s because they know what’s coming.
161
I tried to have similar conversation with my then Superannuation Fund and they played all kinds of silly games at first pretending not to understand the question , then being puzzled why I would want to do that, then claiming its was all to hard to identify even though they targeted the sector. They did a good job of driving 80% elsewhere, go them!
50
Earthshot are refocusing their efforts: https://uk.yahoo.com/style/prince-wales-asks-scientist-she-154016365.html
Can’t wait to see Nessie properly!
10