British fund industry warns companies on climate risk

[webfact]

British fund industry warns companies on climate risk

 

FILE PHOTO: Pedestrians walk over the Millennium Bridge in view of skyscrapers in the financial district in London, Britain February 17, 2020. REUTERS/Simon Dawson/File Photo

 

LONDON (Reuters) - Britain's investment industry trade body has warned companies ahead of their 2020 annual general meetings that they must disclose more about how they are handling climate change risk.

 

It wants companies to explain in their annual report the impact climate change will have on their business model and how these risks are being measured and managed, echoing comments from United Nations climate envoy Mark Carney.

 

"Climate change could result in a significant loss of value in companies if risks are not effectively measured and managed, ultimately hitting savers’ pockets," the Investment Association's Director for Stewardship and Corporate Governance Andrew Ninian said in a statement.

 

The Investment Association, whose members manage 7.7 trillion pounds ($9.88 trillion) and own around a third of British companies, said insight was needed to better understand the steps taken to preserve businesses over the long-term.

 

Carney, formerly governor at the Bank of England, is leading efforts to accelerate the corporate and political response ahead of climate talks in Glasgow in November.

 

Ninian said the IA's members wanted to see climate change was being taken seriously in boardrooms.

 

"Companies need to be looking at the impact of climate change on their business, products and strategy and set out to investors how they are responding to these risks," he said.

 

The IA's voting advisory service IVIS, which helps members decide how to vote at each company's annual general meeting, the bulk of which will be held in the next few months, would track each company's progress.

 

IA members wanted to see "significant" movement towards reporting in line with the Task Force for Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) recommendations by 2022, it said.

 

"This will see companies reporting on climate-related risks in a consistent, clear and comparable manner, enabling investment managers to make better informed investment decisions."

 

The TCFD, championed by Carney, is a risk-assessment framework launched by the Financial Stability Board in 2015 to develop recommendations on climate-related disclosures.

 

(Reporting by Simon Jessop; Editing by Alexander Smith)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2020-03-05

Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking Thailand news and visa info

[VincentRJ]

It wants companies to explain in their annual report the impact climate change will have on their business model and how these risks are being measured and managed, echoing comments from United Nations climate envoy Mark Carney.

 

What's more important is 'how the governments in the world' are going to protect citizens from the impacts of climate change. Are they going to ignore the real problem by pretending that CO2 emissions are the cause? Or, are they going to take the necessary steps to protect the citizens from the effects of extreme weather events which have occurred since the dawn of civilization, and have wiped out many civilizations?

 

Climate change is real and natural, regardless of mankind's influence, which is probably minor or even insignificant.

[Logosone]

How can you argue in the same sentence that extreme weather events have happened since the dawn of civilization and that 'climate change is real'?

 

[VincentRJ]

1 minute ago, Logosone said:

How can you argue in the same sentence that extreme weather events have happened since the dawn of civilization and that 'climate change is real'?

 

Do you understand the definition of 'climate'? It's a calculated average of weather events.

[Logosone]

Let's see, when did this calculation begin. Around 1850. So since we have had extreme weather events since not just the dawn of civilization but since much earlier than that how can you be so sure that 'climate change', meaning global warming in particular, is 'real'?

 

 

[VincentRJ]

1 hour ago, Logosone said:

Let's see, when did this calculation begin. Around 1850. So since we have had extreme weather events since not just the dawn of civilization but since much earlier than that how can you be so sure that 'climate change', meaning global warming in particular, is 'real'?

We have 'proxy' records from tree rings, sediment analysis, ice cores, and so on, that provide a reasonably accurate picture of past climates in many areas, going back thousands of years, even millions. We know that climate has always been changing in the past, sometimes with beneficial outcomes for the residents of a particular area, and sometimes with bad outcomes for the residents in another area, such as the collapse of the Khmer civilization (around Angkor Wat) in Cambodia.

 

However, such records based on 'proxy' records are not totally reliable in all their detail, which is why both the 'alarmists' and the 'skeptics' can contest the interpretations that don't meet their agenda, or don't meet the requirements of the 'methodology of science', in the case of the skeptics.

 

Ultimately, you must use your nous to determine which agenda is more truthful. If you are lacking in 'nous', then I guess you have no option but to go with the media flow which tends to represent alarmism to a biased extent, with just a few exceptions.

[Logosone]

Actually I agree with you, I think alarmism regarding climate change is misplaced. 

 

I live in Chiang Mai, which could be as close to heaven on earth as is possible. Unfortunately for a few months man-made fires cause unbearable air quality.

 

To me man-made effects on the environment are much more serious than supposed global warming. 

[VincentRJ]

5 minutes ago, Logosone said:

To me man-made effects on the environment are much more serious than supposed global warming. 

These are local effects during certain periods. The extreme bush fires in Australia recently caused terrible air pollution. Alarmists blame it on climate change (caused by CO2 emissions). 

 

However, an unbiased analysis reveals that most of the fires were started by humans, either deliberately (such as arson) or accidentally, such as sparks from machinery, discarded cigarette butts, fallen power lines, and so on.

 

Plastic pollution and toxic emissions to the environment due to human activities, need to be addressed. CO2 is not a pollutant, nor toxic. It's essential for all life.

[mrfill]

You can always trust scientific opinions when they claim that carbon dioxide is not toxic.

[VincentRJ]

2 hours ago, mrfill said:

You can always trust scientific opinions when they claim that carbon dioxide is not toxic.

Actually, many substances that are not normally considered to be toxic can become toxic when taken to excess. Even drinking too much pure, clean water can kill you.

 

Current levels of CO2 are around 402 parts per million. If levels were to rise to around 2,000 ppm you might begin to feel a bit drowsy. ????

[CGW]

10 hours ago, Logosone said:

How can you argue in the same sentence that extreme weather events have happened since the dawn of civilization and that 'climate change is real'?

 

Because people are gullible and sheep? 

[overherebc]

Put CO2 emissions ( and Greta) on the back burner and save the money to help sort out the latest Chinese import.

[brokenbone]

here i was thinking that because england can keep their sanity,

leaving EU is still a good thing despite the trade loss,

but this just goes to show now they lose on both ends.

morons.

 

here is temp & co2 reconstruction,

humor me, if co2 has any significance on temp or has any feedback at all,

why does temp & co2 go in inverse direction between 146 to 46 million years ago,

100 million years in a row with zilch feedback.

 

also note that both temp & co2 is now at rock bottom

over a 600 million year perspective of complex life on earth,

and now the imbeciles think even a tiny recovery is

going to be a negative ? cum off it already

Edited March 6, 2020 by brokenbone

[brokenbone]

On 3/5/2020 at 11:17 AM, VincentRJ said:

These are local effects during certain periods. The extreme bush fires in Australia recently caused terrible air pollution. Alarmists blame it on climate change (caused by CO2 emissions). 

 

However, an unbiased analysis reveals that most of the fires were started by humans, either deliberately (such as arson) or accidentally, such as sparks from machinery, discarded cigarette butts, fallen power lines, and so on.

 

Plastic pollution and toxic emissions to the environment due to human activities, need to be addressed. CO2 is not a pollutant, nor toxic. It's essential for all life.

go with the flow and blame all things perceived as negative

on middle age white males, its a long standing tradition

going back to at least 1846, when aborigines concluded 

the bad weather was down to, wait for it, white middle aged men !

 

"The aborigines say that

the climate has undergone this change since

white-man came in country."

https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/679787?searchTerm=the aborigines say that the climate has undergone this change since white-man came in country&searchLimits=

[brokenbone]

On 3/5/2020 at 7:33 PM, VincentRJ said:

Actually, many substances that are not normally considered to be toxic can become toxic when taken to excess. Even drinking too much pure, clean water can kill you.

 

Current levels of CO2 are around 402 parts per million. If levels were to rise to around 2,000 ppm you might begin to feel a bit drowsy. ????

nah...its the absence of oxygen that is the catch,

with co2 counting in parts per million, its never going to replace oxygen

[VincentRJ]

10 hours ago, brokenbone said:

nah...its the absence of oxygen that is the catch,

with co2 counting in parts per million, its never going to replace oxygen

Carbon dioxide is a waste product, from the human perspective, but an essential product from any plant's perspective, whether food-crop, grass or tree.

 

We breathe out about 100 times the amount of CO2 that we breathe in, which is why the CO2 levels in most enclosed areas such as homes, offices, auditoriums, underground mines, and so on, can rise way above the levels in the atmosphere outside. 

 

When there are significant numbers of people in such enclosed areas, and ventilation is less than ideal, as it often is, CO2 levels can rise to 'thousands of parts per million', compared to around 400 ppm outside.

 

It could be that the reason why so many climatologists seem to get the science wrong is because they are sitting all day in enclosed laboratories, breathing in too much CO2, which causes fuzzy thinking. ????

[RickBradford]

How the morally bankrupt media see the problem ....