- JoNova - https://joannenova.com.au -

Worlds “Largest Shadow Bank” wants Australia to shut coal plants faster

 Because Big Bankers really want to save the Earth, right?

Carbon credit, climate-change, carbon market, 2016.
BlackRock, the 10 trillion dollar “global investment fund” is urging the Australian company AGL to shut Bayswater and Loy B Yang Coal Plants much sooner than planned. BlackRock is a NY based  and as wikipedia says “Due to its power, and the sheer size and scope of its financial assets and activities, BlackRock has been called the world’s largest shadow bank.”

The move only got 20% support from investors. Australian investors largely said “no thanks”. Where are The Greens in exposing multinational powers that want to influence Australia — they’re part of the Big Banker Promotion Team.

BlackRock turns up the heat on AGL’s coal exit plans

Nick Toscano, Sydney Morning Herald

AGL faced an investor revolt on Wednesday, as more than 20 per cent of the company’s shareholders backed a resolution for the board to align the retirement of the Loy Yang A power plant in Victoria and its Bayswater station in New South Wales with a strategy to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees.

This would mean shutting Loy Yang A, the largest brown coal fired power plant in Victoria, at least 12 years before AGL’s planned 2048 closure.

While prominent local superannuation funds including Aware Super declined to support the motion, the $10 trillion BlackRock, which ranks as one of AGL’s top shareholders, voted in favour of it.

 AGL is responsible for 8% of Australia’s emissions (an extraordinary thing in itself — why was one company allowed to own so many generation assets that it could become a predatory capitalist at the expense of Australian electricity consumers?).

It’s all about “embarrassing” people into following the Paris 1.5C accord. The resolution was lodged by a group called Australasian Centre for Corporate Responsibility (ACCR). That in turn gets about a million dollars a year from a bunch of foundations and community groups (which in turn get various millions and also promote “climate action”). There is obviously plenty of money for people to work in full time paid jobs to “embarrass” boards and write press releases promoting the same aims as “The largest Shadow Bank ” in the world. Coincidence?

Banks love to save the world

Banks are very very keen to get “climate action”:  Goldman Sachs pledged $750 billion on climate change. Bank of America spent $50 billion to save the world. Citigroup committed $100 billion to “climate change”. A Spanish Bank spent €100 b on Earth’s weather, cos they are nice people. Deutsche Bank write 50 page scientific reports on climate change. They don’t do that to save whales. There’s something different about “climate action”.

Banks, financial institutions, carbon trading.

Banks with “carbon trading desks”

There are a few big profit making reasons Big Banks want “carbon action”. Many of their other investments in Renewables Corporations are completely dependent on Big Government artificial anti-market rules. Ultimately Big Bankers also want a Global Carbon Trading Scheme — potentially the largest “commodity” market in the world which banker-brokers would cream instant profit from, if only anyone wanted to buy the product (worthless paper certificates) which they don’t — unless Big Government forces them to. Carbon credits are just another corrupt currency, but one that would, in theory, not be “controlled” by any democratic government. Once it starts, how would it ever by unwound?

But there is another benefit here for Big Bankers, who depend on Big Government to protect their monopolies and existence. Coal mines and coal generators are in theory, highly competitive profit-making machines that have no need of Big Government protector or subsidy. As such, if they were independent voices in Australia they would have enormous power to speak up and criticize Big Government (coal is our largest export item, and coal fired power is our cheapest electricity generator). Renewables, on the other hand, are utterly dependent on Big Government to protect them and become part of the Big Government cheer squad.

Hence, it’s in the interest of Big Parasites to buy up, subsume and control the independent voices that don’t benefit from Big Government. As Malcolm Roberts and Alan Moran showed, right now the parasites get about $1,300 per household in Australia thanks to Big Government rules that force consumers to buy a product which will never be delivered, and can’t be measured. How many consumers would voluntarily spend $1,300 a year to get “nice weather” in 2100?

BlackRock backs AGL coal closure bid, against Aus investors

 Sarah Simpkins, Investor Daily

Dan Gocher, director of climate and environment at the ACCR said BlackRock’s support “embarrasses Australian super funds and asset managers who voted against the resolution”.

“It demonstrates an increasing trend that European and US investors are more prepared to take critical action to address climate risk,” Mr Gocher said.

“Lead investor for engagement with AGL in the Climate Action 100+ initiative, Aware Super [formerly known as First State Super] has previously said that ‘climate change clearly poses the most significant risk to investment portfolios over the long term’. Yet Aware Super justified voting against the resolution, claiming it was not commercial to close coal-fired power stations by the mid-2030s.

ACCR funders include: Graeme Wood the Wotif founder, who gave $1.6m to the Greens in 2010. LUCRF Super Fund,  The Sunrise Project, which gets $9m a year from unnamed donors, is largely about “climate change” but also openly supports all the classic Social Justice Warrier causes — BLM, LGBTIQ, etc. And the amorphous Australian Communities Foundation. It’s not easy to say where some of these large groups get their funding from. Only 45% of the ACCR income is listed as donations. The rest is “Other revenues” whatever that is. Their 2019 Annual Report is so blurry on the Australian Charities site it’s nearly unreadable.

There is some AGL shareholder conflict afoot. At the same meeting 46% of shareholders voted against a plan to give CEO long term incentive rights. This is called a “first strike” against the board, and if it gets a “second strike” next year, that will trigger a spill motion to dump the entire board.

Related stories on Bankers in Climate Change

h/t Chris Dawson, David B and Andrew & Marion.

9.9 out of 10 based on 55 ratings