It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
ING, the biggest bank in the Netherlands, has joined a list of companies and other organizations that have been sued for not doing enough to tackle climate change in Europe and the U.K. This is in contrast to the situation in the U.S., where banks and asset managers have been taken to court for being too intensely focused on making green investments and environmental nonprofits have been thrust into expensive legal battles.
This month, the U.S. fossil-fuel industry secured a victory over environmental charity Greenpeace, which was ordered to pay hundreds of millions of dollars to an oil pipeline company after a jury found the charity liable for defamation and trespassing. Greenpeace has said it will appeal the decision. In December, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said BlackRock and other asset managers were avoiding their fiduciary duty to shareholders by making climate-focused investments instead of investing in markets such as coal in their search for profitable returns.
In the U.S. regulatory sphere, the Securities and Exchange Commission paused its defense of proposed climate-disclosure rules under which large companies would report on their emissions, similar to regulations adopted in Europe and California.
With lawsuits under way on both sides of the Atlantic, companies and charities that operate in both jurisdictions are being put in a bind. In the U.S., being sued for taking action on climate is becoming more likely, especially amid a Trump presidency. In Europe, litigation working in the opposite way is equally likely.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said in December that asset managers are avoiding their fiduciary duty to shareholders by making climate-focused investments.
Greenpeace said the litigation it faced recently could set a precedent for further action. “Every step of the way, we’ve emphasized that these types of lawsuits — intended to silence and shut down critics—are part of a growing national attack on our First Amendment rights,” the nonprofit said after the jury decision last week.
A trial last year in Switzerland may have set a precedent. The European Court of Human Rights ruled in favor of a group of elderly Swiss women who argued that their government wasn’t doing enough to fight climate change, putting them at risk of death from heat waves. In effect, it ruled that governments have a responsibility to protect citizens against the effects of climate change.
© 2015 Mutual Fund Observer. All rights reserved.
© 2015 Mutual Fund Observer. All rights reserved. Powered by Vanilla
Comments
Snips: Of course anyone paying the least bit of attention to the multiple climate disasters of recent years would know this.
Yes, the issue absolutely affects economy and investment.
@AndyJ- I know you didn't mean it this way, but some might interpret that as saying that Trump and his financial dwarves have absolutely no clue about the CLIMATE CHANGE HOAX. I don't think that we're supposed to say things like that any more because it might hurt FD1000's feelings.
You can't hurt my feelings because your comments are so much weaker than my war experience.
Yes Joe, it's another thread you started not related to investing.
It's not about policing the site, it's about following simple rules.
Many posters are interested in investing exchange because this site in one, while you continually post about your political outrage.
If you have any investments in energy you might just want to know what the potential effects of global climate change are likely to be on your investments.
If you have any investments in agriculture you might just want to know what the potential effects of global climate change are likely to be on your investments.
If you have any investments in the food supply chain you might just want to know what the potential effects of global climate change are likely to be on your investments.
If you are Trump or @FD1000 you have no clue as to how any of these things might be of interest to investors.