We have seen a truly unbuilding fiscal behavior over the past couple of weeks, be it the owners of large football teams, politicians or senior figures.
But it is the story that I hope will send a positive cash message from an announcement of the Glasgow Financial Alliance Net Zero by former Bank of England Governor Mark Carney, a dry subject but money talks are a dry matter when it comes to dealing with climate emissions like anything.This new alliance was formed in Glasgow in November in conjunction with UN Climate Summit, COP26 which gathers 160 financial-sector companies with a combined asset value of USD 70 trillion. These include the HSBC, Lloyds, Barclays, Citi, Morgan Stanley and Bank of America and the Axa, Munich Re and Swiss Re insurance institutions.
The US Climate Envoy to COP26, on the online launch of John Carey, stated that it is clearly not possible for any government worldwide to call the finance on its own. No country’s budget is available to do what we need to do. This is a right because Covid-19 alone has not only a bearing on lives, but also on public funds and bank balance sheets for businesses and households.
He went on to say that money from private sector investments would be the only way to finance climate action at the scale necessary.There are some mind-bogglingly large figures being tossed around. The cost of addressing the climate change is expected to be about 1-2 trillion dollars per year for the next 30 years. The UK Committee on Climate Change estimates that the cost to the UK will be about 50 billion pounds a year by 2050, with a current annual spending deficit of 33 billion pounds. Oh, no.
But this method, as always, does not demonstrate or contextualize the investment needed on both sides of the equation. Firstly, there would nevertheless be a few expenditures required, but not climate-friendly items such as power stations with fossil fuels or substitutes for building heating systems without thinking to cut emissions. Building and generating new solar and wind power is now less expensive than conventional fossil energy technology, although some of the supply variability generated by this shift needs to be addressed.
Some of the global investment institutions will not only tear down the major infrastructure in the entire financial system by this commitment to moving capital into climatic actions. Only from the point of view of a small business or householder who considers the improvement of energy efficiency or the installation of renewable energies is it a big obstacle, and so is the way you are paying.
Many people want this stuff paid for by the government, with no need for personal contributions. I’ve worked on energy efficiency for longer than I care to admit, and there have been times when the upgrades were free but we couldn’t give it away. The message is clear: public funding alone, as well as making money available without convincing and justified reasons to promote adoption, as well as truly high-quality goods and people to do the job, is not the response.
That, I suppose, is the difference between understanding how much something costs and appreciating its worth. If we can find ways to fund energy conservation and zero-carbon initiatives in such a way that they are respected, provide a financial gain, and provide a positive consumer experience, it can only help to accelerate adoption.
Perhaps this year will be the year when large sums of money begin to flow towards Net Zero.
Source: Suffolk News