Trump effect spreads: The first Australian bank abandons the Climate Banker Club sending “shockwaves”

Banker rats jump ship. Net Zero.sinks.

By Jo Nova

If it was the end of a Big Green Bubble, it would look a lot like this…

Australia is still launching itself to Net Zero Land at the top of the Magic Faraway Tree. There was no election in Australia, and no change to the green policies. Yet, a month after the US banks quietly peeled themselves away from the Globalist Banker Blob, the first Australian bank starts backing away slowly too. They don’t explain why in any convincing fashion. Have they just lost the faith that renewables are going to work, or is this just the end of the subsidy train?

Banks must hold firm on net zero

Kyle Robertson, Senior banking analyst, Australian Financial Review

This decision by Macquarie makes little sense, prioritising political expediency and short-term financial interests over the longer-term viability of its business and the economy.

Macquarie Bank has sent shockwaves around the world by quietly announcing it has quit the Net Zero Banking Alliance (NZBA) this week, taking the dubious honour of being the first major Australian financial institution to pull out of a global climate initiative.

The senior banking analyst is baffled after Macquarie spent years pumping up renewables:

It is hard to understand this sudden backslide after Macquarie spent years building up its reputation as a green bank. Macquarie chief executive Shemara Wikramanayake has been a feature of global climate conferences for years, promoting the need for large-scale public and private sector investment into renewable energy and climate adaptation initiatives.

The CEO was even recognized as “Time’s 100 Most Influential Climate Leaders in Business for 2023” ferrgoodnesssake!

Yet look at the power of bully bankers…

Robertson speaks in approving tones about the Australian bankers that are hobbling law abiding companies from providing a service consenting adults want to pay for.

ANZ and Westpac are still using corporate finance and bonds to finance companies expanding oil and gas. In contrast, the country’s largest bank, Commonwealth Bank, has ended finance for oil and gas producers without a credible Paris-aligned transition plan. At its 2024 AGM, NAB chairman Philip Chronican indicated that by October this year, the bank would end finance for companies pursuing oil and gas field expansion.

Who voted for the bankers to set Australian energy policy anyway?

If fossil fuels are so awful Robertson (or the bankers) could always try persuading people not to use them. Until then Australians allow the bankers to hold banking licences and make squillions of dollars in profits. But in a free market, a new banker could turn up and offer loans to all the unfashionable fossil fuel companies that the precious banker club eschew. Instead, citizens pay for regulatory watchdogs and police that protect these smug banker bullies against newcomers and competition.

Shh — it’s just a moment of backsliding

The announcement was made in muted tones, probably printed in grey ink, and filled with soothing words about how boring and normal it was to adjust the settings. Since Macquarie is still a significant investor in renewables projects — it probably doesn’t want to crash renewable share prices, and the CEO and the board don’t want to actually rub salt into the wounds of Labor Party policies either. So unlike the fanfare when the bankers united, the dissolution of the same banker club will be dressed up to look as boring as possible.

Does anyone believe this rot? Net Zero is all sorted now so they can step back “like many others” have?

“The NZBA helped develop global frameworks and assisted member banks as they established their initial decarbonisation plans. With those building blocks now in place, like many peers Macquarie will no longer be a member of NZBA, as we focus on updating and delivering our plans and reporting in line with regulatory requirements,” Macquarie said in a statement. — The Australian

Only the occasional “shock” from a die hard believer giving away what a radical change in direction this is.

Macquarie said it would provide a further update on its net zero ambitions in May (probably right after the election).

PS:  Yet again we see how The US Government de facto sets the policies of so many other nations all around the world.

 

 

 

9.9 out of 10 based on 43 ratings

37 comments to Trump effect spreads: The first Australian bank abandons the Climate Banker Club sending “shockwaves”

  • #
    David Maddison

    I am pleasantly surprised by this.

    I thought Macquarie was a fully woke bank and irredeemable.

    Nevertheless Macquarie and the other woke banks have still done tremendous damage to the Australian economy by not funding real energy and other useful projects.

    410

  • #
    David Maddison

    Those responsible for woke corporate policies like DEI, ESG and refusing to fund real energy projects which harm both the individuals they are supposedly meant to help (DEI) and companies, their shareholders and the economy at large, must not be allowed to go unpunished.

    They should all be sacked (fired) and removed and, if possible, prosecuted if they haven’t shown due diligence as directors, CEOs etc.

    The Left have got away with too much for too long. Make them squirm.

    370

  • #
    Tony Dique

    party, party, party

    101

  • #
    michael hammer

    Charles Mackay ‘men it as been well said, think in herds; it will be seen they go mad in herds while they only recover their senses slowly and one by one. Never a truer word said.

    220

  • #
    Ross

    The best aspect of this announcement is that it’s Macquarie. 2 reasons. Our SMSF bought shares in Macquarie a year ago. 2nd reason- wasn’t it the bank Malcolm Turnbull was employed at?

    130

  • #
    Graeme No.3

    Macquarrie has a reputation for being faster than other banks about potential profits.
    Obviously they see a chance for better times after Labor loses (and the incoming Govt. “realises the problems covered up” and ditches NetZero.

    180

  • #
    David Maddison

    I find it remarkable that Australia’s political “leadership”, including the alternative Prime Minister, Dutton, remain fanatically committed to Net Zero and the Paris Accords. Dutton even reaffirmed his commitment to Paris after TRUMP withdrew.

    If Dutton was the leader we needed to prevent Australia collapsing to Second World or even Third World country status, he would say he will withdraw from Paris upfront and return Australia to its staus before fake conservative Howard started Australia on this disaster. Plus allow nuclear power if it’s an economical solution in a particular set of circumstances but let the free market decide whether it’s coal, gas, nuclear, real hydro or even Unicorn flatulence. No more subsidies.

    290

    • #
      David Maddison

      And if you’re wondering how fast a country can go from First World to Second or Third World status, look at Zimbabwe and South Africa.

      50

    • #
      Lawrie

      I’m guessing Dutton wants to fight a limited number of wars. He is all in on Nuclear and providing cheap, reliable energy. You and I know that could lead to new coal plants because the ALP will not allow nuclear. There are still many people who would vote for nuclear but are allergic to “carbon” so want a Net Zero future. These uneducated but brainwashed folk do believe that we must limit emissions but want cheap electricity. The next phase after the election, if he wins, is to educate the masses so that CO2 is seen as a beneficial gas. Trump’s actions in the US will be helpful.

      30

  • #
    Old Goat

    The banks don’t want to give up on “carbon credits” . It a potential goldmine for them . When government policy dumps them the wind will change and they will decide to fund fossil fuels again. One glaring inconsistency I have noticed recently is the new service stations being built – I wonder who is financing them ?

    170

    • #
      David Maddison

      Aren’t new service stations (US = gas stations) being built because, at least in NSW it’s the law that they have to now sell taxpayer subsidised ethanol blended fuels and many don’t have room for extra tanks and thus go out of business?

      It’s called the ethanol mandate. Not sure if it applies in other states.

      https://www.ipart.nsw.gov.au/Home/Industries/Transport/Ethanol

      60

      • #
      • #
        Yarpos

        Seems silly to shut. The general public is always attracted to cheap (TCL and Chiq appliances, MG cars, Kogan, Temu etc) you would think they would just replace 91 with E10 and run with it, unless the ethanol content impacts on sorage and pumps.

        Mmmm a good car forum topic, like oil, tyres and spark plugs.

        21

        • #
          engineer1

          I will always stick to ULP91 with no ethanol.
          E10 ethanol blend is around 1% cheaper but has 5% less energy, so you use more of it to cover the same distance.
          In addition it absorbs moisture so can lead to accumulation of water in the tank – not good!
          Ethanol is also harmful to some rubber seals and pipes so should be avoided for that alone.

          90

        • #
          Mike Borgelt

          Ethanol in petrol is one of the more stupid ideas to come out of government although it is competing with thousands of other dumb ideas.
          Years ago in Wollongong a certain starch manufacturer had large amounts of ethanol as waste product of the starch manufacture. Got the bright idea to sell it for adding to petrol in Wollongong (remember it cost to store and was waste). Worked OK until some servos got up to 20% which was twice the permitted amount.
          The whole thing stopped. Someone asked the manufacturer why not sell it in Sydney just 100km up the road? Not worth the expense to ship was the answer. Some time later the starch manufacturer had an unfortunate fire which burned all the waste ethanol.

          90

  • #
    Serge Wright

    Their move is all about monetary sustainability and it’s probably partly due to Dutton’s nuclear plan, which will have a big impact on the viability of RE projects. If a nuclear plant goes into service it would be classed as clean energy and it would therefore be able to bid 24/7, forcing wind and solar to dump more excess energy at midday and also reducing the huge price spikes at peak periods that RE relies on to make profits. Just this policy being on the table is enough to scare away RE investment and it’s probably no coincidence that all of the offshore wind and green hydrogen projects have evaporated since the nuclear plan was put forward. The decision by Macquarie is interesting because it’s happened before the election which is probably our most significant from a RE and CC perspective. A Dutton win would obviously be bad for RE, but a minority Labor win would be a disaster in the opposite direction with the Greens and Teals possibly legislating complete bans on all FF projects and energy sources. In the latter scenario there would be a huge short term influx of borrowed taxpayer money being pumped into the RE industry but followed by a collapse in the economy as the energy system and energy exports collapsed. I would expect the banks to pull out of the Net Zero alliance only after a Dutton win because there is some short term opportunity here in a minority Labor government. But perhaps Macquarie has realised that with Trump in office, Net Zero is dead anyway and a Dutton win would open up more FF export and gas projects as well as funding for the nuclear plants if they get legs.

    150

    • #
      David Maddison

      Yes, a minority Labor Government that’s forced to form a coalition with Greens and Teals would be far, far worse than a Labor majority Government because as hard as it is to believe, Greens and Teals are even more extreme lunatic Left than Labor.

      A minority Labor Government with Greens/Teals would rapidly complete the final destruction of Australia. At least a fake conservative Liberal Government would buy a bit of time.

      190

    • #
      wal1957

      If a nuclear plant goes into service it would be classed as clean energy and it would therefore be able to bid 24/7, forcing wind and solar to dump more excess energy at midday and also reducing the huge price spikes at peak periods that RE relies on to make profits.

      Would the government change rules again to the benefit of wind/solar?
      Something like giving them first preference so that nuclear just takes up the slack?
      The only thing I trust governments to do is to stuff up anything they get involved in.

      90

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      Not just for Australia but many places also where Net Zero policies are being shelved or abandoned by companies (& governments) who were previously keen on them, largely because the monies aren’t flowing (despite gullibles like Millibrain in the UK and Blackout here). The election of Trump has dried up any money for off-shore wind in the Gulf of America and along the North East Coast. There may be some crazy Democrats in power on the West Coast but they have run their States into bankruptcy, so no moolah for the developers.

      70

      • #
        Serge Wright

        I agree, net zero is officially dead under Trump and it’s only a matter of time before all banks pull out of that alliance. But Trump is only the last last straw. Net Zero was always going to die because almost all of the developing world have chosen FF as their primary energy source for future expansion as the RE solutions are neither technically nor economically viable. Ironically, it’s actually the climate alarmist community themselves that killed off net zero by mandating RE. If they went with nuclear it probably would have worked and the developing world would be rolling out SMRs instead of building hundreds of coal plants each year.

        80

  • #
    Yarpos

    “The senior banking analyst is baffled after Macquarie spent years pumping up renewables”

    Maybe they are just showing the ability to learn and adapt. Or maybe they are just reading the room as so called “renewables” are staggering around the world, are dead in the US and have failed after decades and billions to deliver a “renewably” powered 1st world economy.

    130

  • #
    david

    So if the Democrats were to win the next election how do you stop them from overturning Trumps energy and climate mandates?

    10

  • #
    Honk R Smith

    So if it’s all been a cynical money/power play, I certainly have come to believe that, then the coming of Trump spells the failure of the power play.
    And the money just follows.
    The sad and truly vicious thing is the manipulation of the true believers (from childhood) left without the religion in which they were so thoroughly indoctrinated.
    The money and the propaganda machine just moves on without reconciliation and a large swath of the population is left confused.
    The financial loss of this decades long scheme (which we get the pleasure of paying for in going as we payed in the coming) is one thing … the loss of faith and bond with leadership is another.

    50

  • #
    Mike Borgelt

    Ethanol in petrol is one of the more stupid ideas to come out of government although it is competing with thousands of other dumb ideas.
    Years ago in Wollongong a certain starch manufacturer had large amounts of ethanol as waste product of the starch manufacture. Got the bright idea to sell it for adding to petrol in Wollongong (remember it cost to store and was waste). Worked OK until some servos got up to 20% which was twice the permitted amount.
    The whole thing stopped. Someone asked the manufacturer why not sell it in Sydney just 100km up the road? Not worth the expense to ship was the answer. Some time later the starch manufacturer had an unfortunate fire which burned all the waste ethanol.
    It is all a scam.

    80

  • #
    TdeF

    To be fair, this is the predatorial class. They could care less about rationale, morals, science, religion, motives. If Net Zero is where the money needs to be, that’s where they are. Weapons in war, taxes in peace, windmills when they are popular. Park your riches with them and they will be safe. Swiss Banks are infamous.

    And they LOVE credits, certificates, tradeable tokens on which they can take a percentage for doing nothing but shuffling.

    All the talk about right and wrong and moral rectitude and debt to society or humanity is silly. Behind every ruthless tyrant is a banking system. And behind every defender of the faith. They don’t have to laugh all the way to the bank. They are the bank, rulers of the universe and by the way, do no work at all. Risk? Heads up, they win. Tails up, you lose.

    We need them. They need us. And they try to stay ahead of the next wave.

    100

    • #

      Yes Tdef very well said

      “Behind every ruthless tyrant is a banking system. And behind every defender of the faith. They don’t have to laugh all the way to the bank. They are the bank ………”

      60

  • #
    Jaye

    After four years of Biden, Guetterres, the WEF, the EU, Climate Activists and this government, EVERYONE, much to the NZBA’s chagrin, has learned to speak Weasel.

    50

  • #
    David Maddison

    Again, the world has been blessed with the Second Coming of TRUMP.

    80

    • #
      John Galt III

      As an American I can tell you that had Trump not won, it wouldn’t have been just America that had a problem. Economically we have huge issues to deal with especially our debt.

      God Bless Trump and his cohorts

      00

  • #
    melbourne+resident

    We sold a house recently and put the residue into a fund for my wife (it was her house) my financial advisor was planning to use a Macquarie vehicle for the investment and I questioned that because of their NZ policies – however, as they are only managing the fund and we chose the actual investments – we went ahead with it. So happy to see this turn around. now if only NAB would do the same I will be even happier.

    70

Leave a Reply

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>