Abstract
It is widely recognized that to limit the long-term extent of global warming and its socioecological consequences, the world must transition over future decades to a low- or zero-carbon economy. Among the many imponderables relating to this eventual transition is the role of the principal owners of the fossil fuel companies that are primarily responsible for global greenhouse gas emissions—namely, institutional financial investors. The investment behavior of these institutions will substantively shape not only the speed and nature of the economy and society’s transition to cleaner energy sources but also the speed and nature of the global financial system’s own parallel transition to a low- or zero-carbon world. In the wake of the global financial crisis of 2007 to 2009, governments and regulators around the world are increasingly concerned that the latter transition might represent a major potential source of future financial instability. These authorities are calling on institutional investors to effect an orderly and measured transition by fully recognizing the climate-related risks of investment in fossil fuel companies and pricing these risks appropriately. Yet they are doing so in the absence of informed, up-to-date, and meaningful knowledge of how the investment community actually thinks about climate change and fossil fuel risk. This article maps out the key lineaments of this thinking on the basis of an extensive program of interviews with global investment institutions. Contra government and regulator hopes and expectations, this thinking indicates that fossil fuel investment is set to be a long-term locus of excess, not minimal, financial market volatility: of environmental beta.
Highlights
It is widely recognized that to limit the long-term extent of global warming and its socioecological consequences, the world must transition over future decades to a low- or zero-carbon economy
The central and most important inference of the various ways in which the institutional investors I spoke to think about climate change and fossil fuel risk is, quite that they will remain invested in FFCs for as long as they believe it remains profitable, for them and their clients, to do so
This means that those individuals with the relevant decision-making power continue to believe that FFC investment remains profitable—using calculative devices that are currently far from being up to the task of “accurately” integrating climate risk into investment analysis and channeled by investment horizons that, for at least, are considerably shorter than the horizons over which investors generally anticipate the effects of climate change even beginning to be experienced
Summary
It is widely recognized that to limit the long-term extent of global warming and its socioecological consequences, the world must transition over future decades to a low- or zero-carbon economy. The article argues that institutional investor perspectives on climate change and fossil fuel risk can be usefully understood in terms of four key themes or tropes: subjectivity, economism, temporality, and convention.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
